Commentary:

For the alternate history buffs...

...an interesting question arises.

Stephen Green, at The Vodka Pundit, attempts to puzzle out the true motives underpinning the joint military exercises to be held by Russia and China later in August.

In his musings (with much before and after the quoted passage below that is well worth reading in entirety), Green writes:

A quick look around the map shows that China and Russia don't share many goals in common. Taiwan? There's nothing to benefit Russia in reunification. Post-Soviet Central Asia? That's a place where the Chinese and Russian are in competition with one another (although we'll get back to this later). India? Just like China, India is a profitable export market for Russian weapons. Indochina? Trapped in oppression, poverty, and violence, there's little reason for either country to get involved in the region. The South Pacific? It's true that China would like the ability to project power there, to protect its oil imports. But Russia is a net oil exporter - China's oil worries have nothing to do with them. Eastern Europe? NATO and the EU will continue to gobble up all the choice bits of the old Soviet Empire, leaving Russia with nothing but their retarded step-sister, Belarus. Inasmuch that the EU is increasingly China's bitch (think military hardware sales), and that NATO is a mostly-paper tiger, Eastern Europe isn't any of China's concern.

The majority, if not all (I haven't checked each and every nation), NATO members offered more than simple moral support for the war in Afghanistan, to be brushed aside by the Bush administration as if completely irrelevant.

When viewed from the standpoint of the NATO nations, supposed "allies" who were rejected in the "go it alone" approach that the Bush administration chose in Afghanistan to avoid the troublesome complications that arise when troops of multiple nations are involved, is it any wonder that subsequent actions were regarded with great suspicion and doubt?

In an alternate history, what if the NATO allies were not brushed aside so brusquely? What if they were instead drawn into the Afghan War, both involving their troops directly in the conflict while simultaneously freeing up US troops?

As I have said before, you discard a helping hand offered at your peril, especially if that offered hand is from an old friend.

Did the "lone ranger" approach taken by the Bush administration ultimately undermine their designs for the (even then euphemistically-termed) regime-change in Iraq?

An interesting question.

Technorati Tags: alternate history, commentary