Sign up for myFT Daily Digest and be the first to learn about Afghanistan news.
So it has reached a complete cycle. The original campaign to eradicate al-Qaeda ended two decades later when its Afghan promoters regained power. Rarely have so many lives and so much cash been spent in so few places. It’s nice to think that American politics will learn from this failure-and both sides are complicit. But the story is far from over. The United States may have withdrawn from this “eternal war”, but it will continue. As we begin to deal with the impact of the restarted Taliban, we will not have time for post-mortem analysis.
The default tendency of the United States is to look at the black and white of the rest of the world. This is the response to the 9/11 attacks on the continental United States 20 years ago. The world either supports the United States or opposes it. Related to this is the assumption that friends want to reinvent themselves in the image of the United States, but the enemy is helpless. This dualistic thinking is a powerful force in the face of deep threats such as fascism or communism. But most challenges are grayer than this. The Manichae worldview rarely produces a good foreign policy.
The recent history of Afghanistan has always been an objective lesson of how this instinct led the United States astray. After 9/11, all parties in the United States chose a country as the goal of nation-building. The Republicans chose Iraq. The Democratic Party chose Afghanistan. The split is resolved by domestic politics, not foreign conditions. Democrats see Afghanistan as a necessary war because Osama bin Laden is there, while Republicans turn to Iraq hastily. Republicans hope to resolve the unfinished business with Saddam Hussein. These two countries are not easily transformed into a cohesive country by foreign guns. These processes take more than two decades and must be led internally.
At every point after 9/11, major American decisions are based on local conditions—that is, Washington. George W Bush’s shift of focus to Iraq is part of the established agenda that has nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam Hussein has no contact with Al Qaeda. He also has no weapons of mass destruction.Nothing, including The fall of Kabul This week’s attack on the Taliban may be on par with the damage caused by Bush’s invasion of Iraq to the United States’ global reputation. Even Donald Trump ranked second. The 2003 Iraq War was the act of a reckless giant.
Obama’s addition of 110,000 troops to Afghanistan in 2009 did little damage to US power. But it is also driven by American politics. Since Obama won the presidency on the basis that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is a just war, he must fulfill his promise. But he lacks confidence in his policies. Even if he accumulates American boots on Afghan soil, Obama has vowed that his country-building goals will be achieved within three years. The timetable has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but has to do with improving his chances of re-election in 2012.
Countless White House briefings have introduced how many Afghan troops the United States is training and equipping. No one asked who was training the Taliban. The only advantage of Trump’s Afghanistan policy is that it is not hypocritical. He does not pretend to care about who rules Afghanistan, nor does he care about what happened to Afghan women. But his impact on Afghanistan’s morale was devastating.By hitting Direct transactions with the Taliban Excluding Kabul, Trump cut off any hope for a political settlement in Afghanistan.
Shouldn’t be surprising Joe Biden Adhere to Trump’s script, except for adding another four months to the U.S. withdrawal timetable. Biden is tHis lonely voice The White House opposed Obama’s 2009 plan to increase troops in Afghanistan. However, Biden’s worldview also has Manichean qualities. In the past few weeks, Biden has argued that there is no evidence that the continued existence of the United States will lead to peace in Afghanistan. Therefore, it does not mean that Afghanistan should be abandoned in the fate of theocracy. There are more gray scenes in the middle, and obviously none of them are worth considering.
The tragedy is that history will continue with or without the United States. The possibility of Afghanistan’s export of instability to Pakistan, which possesses nuclear weapons, the world’s largest potential failure country, is real. The same goes for the Taliban’s ability to revive Islamic groups in the region. Like his predecessor, Biden fulfilled his campaign promises. But there is no connection between the domestic political closure and the script that foreigners will follow.As Afghan refugees Start heading west again, and as troublemakers around the world find new lighthouses, the United States will inevitably be sucked back into the region. The President of the United States comes and goes. Geopolitics has its own ideas.