Yeah, and it's a mess for a host of reasons. It's a classic case of the US expanding the scope of a mission far beyond what's necessary. What should've been a quick operation to neutralize a terrorist threat became an occupation with the stated intent being "spread democracy" in a region where centralization really hasn't been a thing.

At no point was the goal ever to establish a colony or create a trading partner, the US just wanted one less place for terrorism to breed.

On the other hand, Iraq is doing a lot better now. It's hard to compare whether it's better than with Saddam Hussein, but the region is seeing a lot more stability and local investment. It's possible we'll look back and consider Iraq a messy success story. I'm still don't think invasion was justified, but things have more or less worked out. And then you look at Japan, Korea, and Europe, which are shining success stories of US interventionism. It's very much a mixed bag.

So I understand countries being nervous about working with the US and Europe, but at least they're more of a known quantity. China can be very unpredictable, but it's clear that they're trying to extend their influence. That alone should make them very hesitant to get involved. Just look at when the USSR did something similar; the main difference is that the US eventually left. If China gets a foothold, will they eventually leave or try to expand their control in the region? I think that remains to be seen, but the history with Tibet and reigning in autonomous regions isn't promising.