New civil war in Afghanistan poses greater threat than 20 years ago | The situation has become more critical since the abandonment of American troops

The news from Afghanistan gets darker and darker with each passing day. Since President Joe Biden announced the withdrawal of the United States in April and declared the effective end of the 20-year mission last month, Taliban forces advance in key towns and border posts. The Taliban captured five provincial capitals in a week, their biggest achievement in two decades of war. It is not entirely clear to what extent the Afghan army, mainly trained in the West, is able or willing to stand up. Its initial performance was not promising.

Those with experience predict more bloodshed before anything gets better, if at all. David Petrée, appointed commander of international forces in Afghanistan by former President Barack Obama, warned that the country was disintegrating and that The United States has abandoned the Afghans in the face of “a brutal and bloody civil war”.

Former UK Development Secretary, Rory stewart, who traveled through Afghanistan in 2002, foresees a return to the caudillismo of the 90s with some of the same ruthless individuals in charge. The Chief of the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, General Nick carter, although more circumspect, was also unusually blunt for a duty officer, claiming that you can’t rule out falling into a civil war.

If the omens are not good, to put it mildly, it should also be noted that Biden’s decision, one of the first of his presidency, to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan for the iconic 9/11 date has intrigued many. Not only was he surprising because he broke with American politics when he was vice president, but he associated it with one of Donald Trump’s key decisions. The only difference between them was the withdrawal date: Trump had set May 1 of this year; Biden set September but made sure, as a cautious leader should, that most troops leave quietly, as they have for a long time.

It is perhaps no accident that some of the doom prophets are among those who opposed the retreat. Petraeus, for example, convinced an insecure Obama to leave US troops in Afghanistan. And although the former commander left office in the fog, he doesn’t miss the opportunity to defend his military record and the nation-building school of American foreign policy.

Among the dissidents are also many with direct experience in Afghanistan.: the soldiers who fought and who could now reasonably feel that their sacrifice was in vain; aid workers whose projects are now under threat; and journalists who feel a duty to those who have helped them. The feeling is of a good mission abandoned prematurely and obligations gravely betrayed.

If any conclusion can be drawn from the last twenty years of Western military intervention, it is undoubtedly that other countries must build their own futures.; that aid, however well-intentioned, only lasts for the duration of the support it receives in this country; and no government that depends on an outside force – call it an invader, an occupier, an interventionist, whatever you like – he will probably survive his departure. Conflicts that have been artificially interrupted are likely to continue where they were before.

Where they were before was, in this case, in 2001, after 9/11 and with attempts to defeat the Taliban. And sadly, it would appear that despite all the talk about social progress, Afghanistan is only slightly closer to stabilization than it was when talks on a new constitutional accord were convened near Bonn in December 2011. The exclusion of the Taliban from these talks can now be seen as a mistake, as can the disastrous US-led diversion into Iraq.

The pity is that not only are these mistakes not correctable, but the ramifications of the resumption of conflict in Afghanistan threaten to spread the disorder even further than then.

But the whole picture should be even more worrying. Twenty years ago, Afghanistan’s neighbors generally seemed more sedentary than today. Iran and Iraq were still in shock after nearly ten years of war. Iran was still consolidating its Islamic revolution; Iraq was under the control of Saddam Hussein. The former Soviet republics were still forging their way to independence and largely under Moscow’s orbit. Vladimir Putin had just inherited power and his priority was to maintain a rogue federation. China worried about its economy a decade after Tiananmen Square. What happened in Afghanistan was more serious in its impact on Pakistan by the millions of Afghan refugees. All other threats were limited by poor communications and geographic limitations.

The neighborhood looks very different now. Russia and China are stronger. So far, any competition between them for power and influence in the Central Asian republics has remained under the radar, but that does not mean that it cannot erupt, and the Central Asian republics are freer agents than before. Beijing’s crackdown on Uighurs in Xinjiang is a sign that it already has an eye on the security of the Northwest. Iran gained regional influence through the war in Syria and is now closer to being a nuclear power. The Islamic State (Isis) is seeking new havens. And while Afghan refugees tended to stay in Pakistan or Iran, many can now aspire to reach Europe..

For all these reasons, any new civil war in Afghanistan could pose a much greater threat to regional and international stability than 20 years ago, something the cataclysmic effect of 9/11 tried to cover up.

Corn all who blame Biden and have a guilty conscience for the West’s “betrayal” must look beyond their allies in Kabul. They have to wonder if the prolonged foreign presence, which surely could have ended with the capture of Osama bin Laden, has not served to delay a real deal in Afghanistan, fanning the flames of a conflict that could now be much. more difficult to contain.

Of The independent From Great Britain. Special for Page12.

Translation: Celita Doyhambéhère.