Article Author:
London — As Afghanistan The Taliban celebrated the first anniversary of their capture of Kabul. Supporters took to Twitter to pay tribute to the suicide bombers, posting dozens of videos of the attacks and explosions using the hashtag "martyrs."
"As much as you love your life, we love to be killed in the way of Allah," wrote pro-Taliban user Ajmal Mansur. increase. “Not only have we made sacrifices for the formation of (Islamic government), but we are always ready to sustain it.”
For nearly two decades, the United States , the United Kingdom, and their NATO allies have poured troops and over $1 trillion into Afghanistan, only to see the security structures they built collapse almost overnight. It is ordinary Afghans who pay the price, a country that has changed beyond recognition during its NATO presence, but now faces a very different future.
But the lessons of last year's defeat go beyond Afghanistan. Leaving aside the occasional awkward debate about "lessons learned," Washington and its allies' national security agencies have warned of Russia's Feb. 24 invasion of Ukraine and rising tensions over the autonomous Taiwan that China claims as its own. pushed back into focus.
At his June summit in Madrid, NATO leaders dramatically increased the number of troops along the borders with Russia and Belarus, and re-emphasized the defense of eastern members. Committed, US President Joe Biden proclaimed Article 5 of the alliance. The self-defense clause is a "sacred duty," but it makes little reference to the longest war that has just ended.
Events in Kabul last year had a unique impact on these larger and newer conflicts.
China has repeatedly warned Taiwan that the lesson of Afghanistan is that Afghanistan will also be abandoned. Russia launched a similar course before opposing Ukraine, U.S. intelligence issued eerily similar warnings of imminent collapse, and Western governments again rushed to evacuate their embassies. I got it.
Scenes like this gave the Chinese and Russian governments strong persuasive power. So what happened first in her more than two decades, and then again in Afghanistan last summer, points to a deep-seated and devastating weakness in Western democracies. A callous disregard for the facts when putting an ally in danger.
Fall of Afghanistan, Ukrainian Rebellion
Last Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin urged the United States to learn from its "failure" in Afghanistan. Russia pointed out. He welcomed the Afghan trade delegation to Moscow.
Neither China nor Russia recognizes this Islamist group as the true government of Afghanistan. But while they clearly enjoyed the defeat of the West, they did not emphasize commemoration as aggressively as they might have. Complicating effects are likely to be the culprit, which itself will be 6 months next week. It's hard to gauge how much the events in Kabul helped convince Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Ukrainian government would collapse just as quickly, but Ukraine's resilience poses a real threat. It has changed expectations of Western democracies' willingness to adapt, fight and innovate when exposed.
Former US defense official Anthony Cordesman, now director of strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said in a report this month that the US strategy for Afghanistan He argued that it was not properly thought out in the first place. The shift in sentiment since September 11, 2001 has never truly merged into what was possible.
Similar concerns were expressed and repeatedly ignored during the NATO intervention that halted major combat operations at the end of 2014. The training mission remained until last summer, but the alliance had already turned its attention to Russia again after Putin's military actions. First escalation of conflict with Ukraine in 2014.
Even at the height of NATO's combat operations from 2006 to 2013, Eastern European nations said that building friendly relations with their allies when the Russian threat returned would make their presence felt. The reasons were often relatively straightforward.
US drone attacks
At the start of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, NATO's eastern members warned that the US, UK, and allies alike could cut corners. expressed concern that it might Building a new "strategic concept" for NATO, in particular ensuring sufficient logistics, ammunition and command to fight Russian forces if necessary.
Of course, for Afghans battling drought, food shortages, financial crises, and a government not yet internationally recognized by Pakistan's closest allies, such a confession evokes feelings of betrayal and waste. Deepen. Meanwhile, both Moscow and Beijing have their own concerns about Afghanistan's new Taliban rulers.
Earlier this month, a US drone strike in Kabul killed al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. It is a reminder that the United States can reach its enemies without costly military intervention, but its original goal of chasing militants out of Afghanistan has failed.
In a comment marking the anniversary of the fall of Kabul, the Taliban foreign ministry reiterated its commitment to prevent attacks from being launched against any foreign country from its territory. promised. It intercepted and thwarted an attempted rocket launch into neighboring Uzbekistan.
However, Zawahiri's death and the fact that he appears to live in a Kabul suburb favored by Taliban leaders was described by even the relatively self-censoring Afghan media as a "disaster". and has been repeatedly described as ``puzzling.''
It reminds us of some troubling truths. Neither the United States and its allies nor the Taliban have figured out how to deal with the unexpected speed and reality of last summer. , all should be.
** Peter Apps is a writer on international affairs, globalization, conflict and other issues. He is the founder and executive director of the 21st Century Research Project. PS21, a non-state, non-partisan, non-ideological think tank. Paralyzed in a war zone car accident in 2006, he also blogs about his disability and other topics. He was previously a Reuters reporter and continues to be paid by Thomson Reuters. Since 2016 he is a member of the British Army Reserve and the British Labor Party. (edited by Nick McPhee)
