Afghanistan is in the past, analyst says a year after US troop withdrawal

Afghanistan is in America’s rearview mirror, according to Aaron David Miller, a former adviser to the US State Department.

A year after the chaotic withdrawal of Western troops from the country, the analyst argues that the exit, as problematic as it was, was a wise decision by the Joe Biden administration.

THE Sheet he argues that the rise of China and the domestic terrorism of white nationalists are a more immediate threat than jihadist groups and says the US retains the ability to carry out attacks from a distance, as shown by the operation that killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Qaida. Zawahiri in July.

A year ago the US and allies ended a 20-year occupation of Afghanistan. The exit ended with Americans dead, an attack on civilians misidentified as members of the Islamic State. The Taliban has taken over and now an Al Qaeda leader has been found living in Kabul. Was the troop withdrawal the right thing to do? In my view, yes. I left the government three months before we invaded Iraq, in March 2003. At the time, it already seemed clear to me that it would be a permanent US occupation, that it should be a counterterrorism mission to prevent another 9/11, to prevent terrorists from acting against American interests to settle in the region.

Then our goals, as a result of our presence, began to inflate. Despite the denials by the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations that we were carrying out a “nation-building” operation, the reality is that in order to eliminate insurgencies, an attempt was made to develop a minimally functional government that would control security and be able to develop the economy. and provide social benefits.

In my view, this was unforgivable. I cannot identify a single example since 1945 where the US, projecting a massive military force, occupied another country and had positive results. Germany and Japan [após a Segunda Guerra] were exceptions.

Did the US lose the war? The pattern of success in Afghanistan was never victory, but when we were going to leave. So when Biden — whose views on building a nation in Iraq and Afghanistan have always been skeptical rather than ideological — makes the decision shortly after taking office, it felt like the right thing to do. But if Republicans form a majority in the House, they should set up committees to investigate the withdrawal.

There is also an ethical problem. We made commitments, we created expectations. In fact, I think we’ve done a lot of good things, especially when it comes to securing rights for women and girls. But it is true that it was a failed mission. We have a bigger glass roof than ever before. Our domestic political system is under great stress, some would say it has already been destroyed.

In 20 years couldn’t you find a better way out? I don’t have that answer. Clearly the military was committed to trying to win, they didn’t want to admit that they lost. And the reality is that we could not and could not control the political and social forces that continued to operate in the country. You had corruption in the central government, ethnic divisions, you lacked any kind of national cohesion.

And one of the most important factors is that it was not possible to eliminate the sanctuary [de grupos jihadistas] in parts of Pakistan, which the Pakistani government could not control either. If the central government you support is seen as corrupt and incompetent and across the border you have activity [jihadista]the notion of a successful operation was a long way off.

I don’t think any great power would have been able to achieve anything. The entire Middle East is literally what’s left of great powers that believed they could impose their will on how people should organize and live. It is the story of great frustration.

I’m not sure there was any other way to sustain a functioning government that had the legitimacy and capacity to sustain the country. Despite its own divisions, the Taliban is the strongest and most legitimate political force in the country. I believe, however, that in order to fulfill our commitments to the Afghans who worked for the US we could have planned more, many of the scenes of chaos could have been different.

Hasn’t the withdrawal left the US more vulnerable to terrorism? The jihadist threat is no longer immediate and imminent. We built a counterterrorism structure, we didn’t have 9/11 anymore. I think maybe we are less likely to predict an attack from Afghanistan because we don’t have agents on the ground. And the terrorist threat has evolved a lot. Bin Laden might have been impressed to see how jihadist groups spread across Africa and Asia.

And what is the meaning of the attack on Zawahiri? The operation showed great confidence, ability to carry out operations at a distance. But it is not the same as demobilizing an entire cell that is planning an attack. In the war on terrorism, the attack was a symbol. But no more than that.

Does the exit, as it was, weaken the image of the US in the world? Many critics said the chaotic exit showed allies that the US could never lead the world again, that its rivals had popped champagne. But after leaving Vietnam, with those terrible images of the embassy withdrawal in 1975, in 15 years the US was already the only superpower in the world. The US has the ability to lead again. We are going through a very specific situation, with the rise of China, with Russia.

Could the Taliban be a threat to global peace? The Taliban will not mount an extensive campaign to ensure that al-Qaeda does not operate from the country. But the group is much more aggressive towards, for example, the Islamic State Khorasan, because it competes with them for money and recruits. Terrorism is not the main foreign policy problem facing the US today. Today the threat is internal, and I think it has changed — it’s the rise of extremely violent white nationalist groups.

What is Afghanistan’s place in US foreign policy today? It’s in the rearview mirror. To govern is to set priorities. I think we will continue to devote resources and attention to the humanitarian situation there, but it doesn’t hold the same place in the face of China’s rise.

x-ray | Aaron David Miller

Senior Specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he worked as a negotiator, analyst, and adviser to the US Department of State from 1978 to 2003, focusing primarily on the Middle East.