Entry 2147, on 2021-08-17 at 22:12:28 (Rating 2, News)
Well, the rather unfortunate situation in Afghanistan certainly escalated quickly, didn't it? I mean, it was no great surprise that as soon as the American (and other) forces left, that the official government would capitulate and the Taliban would get back into power, but I never thought it would happen this quickly.
Maybe the question at this stage should be: whose fault is it? Do we blame America and its allies, or the Taliban, or the Afghan government, or Western imperialism, or Islam? Which is it?
It's overly simplistic to pick one cause and one party to blame in a complex geopolitical situation like this; there are always multiple causes for any conflict, and multiple groups and individuals who can be reasonably held accountable. So, in the list above, I would say: blame them all!
But, in the end, the solution has to be a local one, lead by a majority of citizens. World powers don't tend to invade and occupy countries any more; they now have a specific objective and plan to leave once that is achieved. Sometimes those objectives are commendable and others not so much, but an exit strategy is important, and often overlooked.
The official American line here is that the Afghan forces which have been trained should have put up more resistance, and that the disaster there is their fault. Would things have been as bad if the American invasion had never happened? Well, it's always hard to evaluate those counterfactuals, but at least that gave the country a chance at a better outcome, although things are now back to where they were.
At the very least the American withdrawal from the country should have been better managed so that the government had some sort of chance. So Biden's decisions in this case are as much, or more, to blame as Trump's were for arranging the withdrawal in the first place. But, in the end, it is the Afghan people who have to take ultimate responsibility. Without that the American presence would have had to be permanent.
So this gets back to the old blame game which can be applied to many situations. For example, who is to blame for violence, famine, and poverty in some parts of the world, especially Africa? It is trendy to blame "imperial powers" or "global capitalism" or "Western oppression", but this really doesn't stand up to much scrutiny.
In the end, the people of those countries need to take most of the blame. Sure, they were all controlled by colonial powers in the past, but now they have independence and are they any better off? That is very much debatable, at least in practical terms.
There is a pattern in post-colonial African countries of corruption, violence, lawlessness, and poverty for the majority of people. Have a look at South Africa and Zimbabwe for recent examples. Were they better off as colonies of Britain (or other European powers)? That depends on what you value, but a case could be made to say yes.
Islamic countries, like Afghanistan, suffer from the same issues, but have the additional burden of repression from being theocracies, or at least being very close to theocratic rule, thanks to Islam being integrally involved with the political as well as religious lives of the citizens.
So the people who have demanded that the West should stop intefering with other country's politics should really think twice before blaming those same powers for no longer having that involvement. Sometimes it seems that whatever the US and its allies do, they will be blamed for these problems.
As I said above, ascribing a single cause to a complex political situation is naive. However, I do think we can safely say that a significant cause is the political, religious, and philosophical beliefs of the local people. If we are going to play the blame game, they need to be involved, if not as the primary problem, then at least as a significant one.
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-08-19 at 12:51:32:
Some experts say terrorism has got far worse in Afghanistan in the last 20 years. How does that fit in with your theory?
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-08-19 at 13:18:21:
Yes, I have seen that claim too. I guess we have to accept that it is possible, but I would point to the advantages in terms of democracy, freedom, and equality that a more modern, non-religious government has given the country.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2021-08-23 at 15:03:28:
I think America and other western powers could not be blamed for their intentions, but their naivety is another matter. When has Afghanistan ever had a stable national government and what made America think that propping up an installed, corrupt government would every end well? Once the money, equipment, and air support taps were turned off the whole house of cards, predictably, collapsed (certainly not as quickly as it has though, but that again speaks to western naivety). Who expected anything else?
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-08-24 at 08:44:24:
Yes, agreed. The lack of an exit strategy is a common issue with these invasions, even when the original intention is reasonable. And I also agree that given the history of Afghanistan, this should have been obvious. Maybe they were really arrogant and thought they would succeed where others failed, maybe they thought they would invade first and worry about the consequences later, or maybe they knew this would happen all along. Who really knows?
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
