16
votes
The US military will fully leave Afghanistan on September 11, twenty years after the 9/11 attacks
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Biden says US to leave Afghanistan on September 11 | DW | 13.04.2021
- Authors
- Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com)
- Published
- Nov 7 2017
- Word count
- 438 words
Well, this is probably for the best, I think. Let's cut our losses and focus on the battles that we actually have a chance of winning.
But what happens after this? Is there any hope for a peaceful resolution (maybe with a power-sharing agreement, reserved seats for the Taliban in the parliament and government for example), or is there destined to be another bloody civil war, with the Taliban as the likely victor?
That's why this is a complicated issue. From a purely American point of view, it's clear: we're spending lives and money in the region for little to no gain.
But it's another thing entirely to the millions of lives in Afghanistan that you are dooming to more civil war, and likely, eventual Taliban rule. America did swoop in there, prop up this government, implicitly under the promise of making it work.
There was some talk about the US trying to hold a multinational discussion on the region with other countries, to hopefully broker out some longer lasting agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government (and by being multinational to involve the US less in keeping it upheld), but given the timelines looks pretty unlikely.
I don't think there's any possible resolution to this that doesn't involve pain somewhere or another.
When you say "we're leaving on the _____", essentially you've lost all bargaining power and all power to guarantee the results of any negotiations local parties agree to.
Even if you just say "We want to leave," that's essentially empowering those who want to fill the power vacuum after you leave without them giving up anything. They just have to do nothing and wait.
I hope Afghanistan and the results of interventions in the Middle East after the turn of the millenium serve yet again to remind people that you can't swoop in and enforce democracy on a society that isn't used to that way of governance and expect good results.
For a democracy to function, there needs to be a culture of democracy so you just don't get a tyranny of a small majority that eventually leads to dysfunction. Societies need to be build from the ground up, it's not about swooping in.
I find that people, even the well-educated, severely underestimate culture and lack imagination about just how very different and alien another society can be. Culture is more than food and language: it's all-encompassing and structures our morals, relationships, aspirations, aversions, information. Afghanis weren't little Americans who just need democracy and some money to become like us: they have a fundamentally different culture
I've read western journalists chalking honor killings up to ineffective law enforcement and extreme misogyny, but many didn't seem to contemplate that honor killings are not a bug but a feature (and morally sanctioned) within the society, perpetrated by both men and women and enabled by cultural mechanisms like clan honor that are alien to the western imagination.
Smartphones and TikTok and low-wage-manufacturing-driven mass urbanization—which will create new societal needs that traditional rural tribal-family political systems can't serve and will create organic impetus for new institutions and societal norms—will accomplish far more than what these past 20 years, $2 trillion, and tens of thousands of deaths ever will.
Which is why I expected Biden to take more of a "we'll leave when it's safe to leave" approach, but this is in direct opposition to that. So, while this gives the US military more time to dot their i's and cross their t's, it's fundamentally a continuation of Trump's original May date in spirit. That's not necessarily the wrong decision, I don't think there's any clear victories here, but it is a decision, with consequences for the people on the ground. It is almost certainly the most popular path in the US, so it makes sense from that angle.
That's why the "hope" was oriented around a multinational conference with the other major powers in the region - perhaps a peace brokered by countries that share a border will be more longlasting.
Additionally, I hope that the difference in the lives of many people in Afghanistan is not forgotten for the ultimate failure of the US intervention. To those who are do not subscribe to Taliban-esque orthodox, their lives are going to greatly decrease in quality.
The answer seems to be basically no - the taliban will eventually topple the current government and establish rule in Afghanistan. I don't see how the Afghan government, already struggling even with US aid, will survive.
So long, and "thanks" for all the dead men and war-trained right-wing militiamen. I wonder what @CALICO thinks of this.
And I still have to question if it's political posturing more than anything. There's been a lot of hollow promises and statements from the US government with respect to our human rights violations and other warmongering, especially since 2001.
I am well aware this is a biased source (LateStageCapitalism), but the sources from this post in particular highlight that grain of the truth in "new boss, same as the old boss."