In the wake of 9/11 terrorist attacks, the West demanded that Osama Bin Laden be handed over to the Taliban. It was the beginning of one of America’s longest and most costly wars. The Taliban-led government in Afghanistan collapsed. Brown University has found that over the period of the war, $2.3 trillion was spent by the US in this theater.
Twenty years later, the United States is finally leaving Afghanistan. Taliban are back in power, having ruled the country before America arrived. Now the battlegrounds have been quietened and it is time to pick up the pieces.
But’s it’s a path strewn with obstacles. Afghanistan’s economy now finds it without an ongoing stream of international aid. It is on the brink of collapse. The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is the name of the Taliban’s government. It has never been recognized internationally.
Global community nations have put pressure on the Taliban leaders to teach Islamic fundamentalist culture. These demands range from Western ideas about human rights and universal concern about terrorists. This has made it as problematic for international acceptance of its current status as an asset during wartime.
That indoctrination into the Taliban version of “political correctness” now comes back to haunt the Emirate. On the basis of Islamic fundamentalism, the Taliban constructed an army. The reality that they fit in the international community now they have power conflicts with the way they came to be there.
The terrorist groups that have chosen to ignore international norms now vie for loyalty from the Taliban cadre. It is a tricky situation as it further fractures an already fragile coalition of internal governments, which are struggling to achieve international acceptance.
The harsh reality is that the Afghans have little to barter with, a lot of hard choices to make; and quite frankly, there aren’t a lot of people interested in helping them right now.
America’s Enduring National Interest
It is now up to the West allies and the United States that have invested in Afghanistan to contain the war on terror. To help me understand the complexity, I interviewed the one person I know who has eyes on the ground in Afghanistan, foreign correspondent Hollie McKay, who has been reporting diligently from Kabul since the US exit in the waning days of August of 2021.
Is ISIS K a real threat to international terrorists or is it a problem within Afghanistan’s internal factions? She responded,
“I think just based on ISIS-K ideology which is very different to the Taliban’s, both are obviously extreme in their Islamic views. However, the Taliban are very committed to nationalistic goals. They don’t really care about things beyond Afghanistan’s borders. The Taliban’s goal is to control Afghanistan and to ensure that no foreign footprint touches Afghanistan again.
ISIS-K is easily identifiable by its name. It’s an international name, it’s the Khorasan Group, which reflects that whole area of South Asia, and they have goals beyond the Afghan border.
Kuna was home to a Kuna-based fighter who said that Pakistan is their first target. According to him, anyone opposing Islam or their way of life would be considered an infidel. That certainly broadens the picture. ISIS K really is a threat to international security.
The Taliban have a major denial problem on this. They are trying to project the image that they have full control of the country, that it’s secure that it’s safe. But, on the ground, we are seeing attacks almost every day, and that certainly foils the Taliban’s narrative.
I think ISIS-K is something to be reckoned with, and I think until the Taliban comes out and acknowledges that it is a problem, it’s only going to get worse. It’s something to be concerned about.”
That begs the question: Is ISIS K a present and clear threat to US interests at this time? Interviewed fighter is now focusing his anger on Pakistan. Or is this more a Southwest Asian phenomenon? It is expected to grow beyond Southwest Asia.
“I don’t think ISIS-K has a huge amount of capability right now. They’re not at that point where they have the capabilities to go too far beyond the region. But that’s not to say that that can’t happen within the next six to twelve months, depending on where ISIS-K’s future funding and recruitment comes from.
The Taliban need to deal with the possibility of their younger foot soldiers defecting to ISIS-K because they’re looking for an even more stringent interpretation of Islam. Things may change drastically depending on the outcome. ISIS-K can offer its soldiers a salary, while the Taliban is not able. ISIS-K has many other reasons that people would join it than just ideologic ones. Although it’s unlikely that this will happen immediately, I believe things could occur. ISIS attracts foreign recruits from various places all around the globe.
I think it’s something to keep an eye on. It’s also problematic. It is not possible to stop the Taliban from using biometric systems. I think that there was a lot of hype, particularly from the western media, about the Taliban using biometric systems and access to all this weaponry and things; but they don’t have very good intelligence capabilities beyond what they are really great at, which is the human intelligence element. That’s pretty much solely how they rely on their intelligence. It’s through human sources. They can coerce one person into providing information or their neighbors will reveal the truth. This filtering is very important for human to human. And that’s how they foil attacks and do their intelligence, This can only go so far. It’s an important capability that the Taliban have really nailed, but without advanced capabilities to go beyond that it is going to be a real problem.”
My observation from Hollie’s response is that ISIS-K is not presently a direct threat to the United States. This movement is at the moment too small and narrow.
ISIS-K is a potential threat to regional stability in Southwest Asia. Afghanistan provides an excellent environment for ISIS to flourish. I am not convinced that ISIS-K will stop the Taliban from embracing ISIS. The government is being swept aside by the tides of internal culture war.
If the process continues to grow, eventually the world will need to make a decision about whether the international community should again visit the region in order to assist neighboring countries that will undoubtedly face the fury of ISIS-K’s fundamentalist Islam agenda.
The question is, “Is it in the national interest of the United States to prevent the Taliban from going on their sword to ISISK?” So, I asked McKay, “Is the West correct in demanding Afghanistan own up to human rights as a predicate to recognition even if it means the country might descend into a new civil war?” Her reply,
“My assessment at the end of the day is probably not the assessment that a lot of the US Republicans want to hear, and that is, what choice have we got here? They aren’t going anywhere. There is no one who will take the government over from them. And even if someone else was to take over control of the government, as happened in 2001, the Taliban are still going to be here with incredible force so I don’t think there are a lot of options right now. To some extent, therefore, the international community has to accept what is available.
It’s not an unfamiliar compromise on the world stage. I’ll note that the US has relations with countries that are severe human rights abusers. Picking is too hypocritical. I think there must be dialogue that’s worked out with conditions and those conditions do have to incorporate human rights aspects of it.
However, I feel that it is not fair to just turn your blind eyes and make this pariah nation. I say that because that’s what happened in the 1990s. Afghanistan was the most isolated country in the world when the Taliban ruled the country. What happened? They were able high-host al Qaeda which was then able attacked the United States.
There’s a powerful lesson in that. It was due to Afghanistan’s isolation from the rest of the world, I believe. So little was left on the ground. So little interaction. There is very little diplomacy or dialogue. They went full-on rogue.
That’s not a scenario that any of us want to see again. To repeat history isn’t learning. I feel there should be some dialog and perspective, even if the West insists on it.
From what I’m seeing on the ground, there are certainly human rights problems. But when I look at other countries that the US has relations with, I don’t necessarily see conditions in Afghanistan are worse than that.”
Pressing the question further, “Can the Taliban regime survive?”
“You know that that really comes down to the Taliban itself. This, in turn is down to the Taliban’s factions, who are trying for power. As far as the various factions go, they are relatively at bay. But who knows what will happen?
According to one Taliban commander, the Taliban can survive on little overhead. They don’t need copious amounts of foreign aid or the things that the previous government needed. The US had created an artificial economy.
The Taliban doesn’t need that. The Taliban can live on much less than was originally made available. It really boils down to how they resolve their power struggles.
When an order comes down from the high-ranking or someone else, the Taliban are very adept at hearing it. The Taliban are quite adept at following orders. The quality of leadership is what really matters. The Afghans haven’t seen their Supreme leader. They don’t know where he is; or frankly if he actually exists. It’s going to come down to when and if he decides to come out and take that leadership role.”
Can the United States really afford to overlook Afghanistan? Are the United States better off leaving the situation in Afghanistan to other countries, such as China, Iran, Russia, or the United Nations?
“The US is still the world superpower, and I would certainly think that it would be in the United States’ best interest to have some sort of involvement in Afghanistan.
These are the stories that China is taking over. Russians have taken over. I think that’s a little bit overblown. In the beginning, China, for one, offered a lot of aid money to Afghanistan, but it hasn’t received it. Therefore, it is misleading to claim that China has taken control of Afghanistan. It’s the same with Russia. Right now, I feel that the Taliban would be extremely careful with foreign relations.
It would be very disserviceful for America to abandon this country, particularly considering the US’s history, the loss of blood, and treasure. I think that it would be pivotal for the US, in some way, to have some form of dialogue or open channel of communication with the Taliban.”
What about the United Nations, international community and other organizations?
“Well, that’s really what the Taliban want. In the 1990s they never managed to secure a United Nations seat or acknowledgement. I feel that maybe the UN could have learned some lessons from those experiences and is more willing to talk to them. And, of course, many other countries are open to having another look.
There is also a concern about America. If the US were to make relations, or even open embassies between countries. I wonder what kind of backlash they would get from the US. I think a lot of Afghanistan’s future still points to Washington. Washington is the focus of many people who are trying to determine its future direction.
There have been three years of intense negotiations with the Taliban, so to kind of walk away from the table right now, doesn’t seem to make a lot of strategic sense.”
Our role is still crucial in this global society.
The war might be finished, but the United States is still the central nation for the fates of Afghanistan, Southwest Asia and global terrorism. The nation that can decide whether to send Afghanistan on an international path leading to ISIS-K’s rise and threat of the world, or facilitate the path with carefully measured demands which will allow Afghanistan into the global community of nations. It’s our choice to make and every other nation on earth awaits our decision.
At the very beginning of the war, many thinkers, myself included, expressed reservations about entering Afghanistan, also known as “The Graveyard of Empires,” because many of us did not believe that a young culture like America had the wisdom to take on a task that would take at least a century to do properly. We went regardless. We have now played our first hand in a worldwide poker tournament twenty years later. We lost. The question is, “What did we learn from it?”
In the timeline that began, there are still eighty years. The past could be repeated. We could start the cycle of death over again, as has been done many times before; not just by us, but by everyone else that’s tried. There are better ways. War didn’t work. This is almost impossible. It is necessary to find the long road to tranquility and peace in order for your legacy to last. It’s not an easy task. But not something we haven’t done.
The late 1790s were a time when America was just forming. Colonies around the globe looked up to America to lead them out of the colonial bonds. It was so fragile at that time. John Adams said that we were unable to do anything more than encourage others to imagine what it might be like. We reached a peak of power at the end of World War 2, but that was only a matter of time. That speaks volumes about America.
Today, the conflict isn’t colonial, it’s cultural. It is an ongoing battle between tolerance, fanaticism, and our national borders. We’ve learned a hard lesson that money and might don’t work to solve it.
That’s the lesson for America from Afghanistan.
About Post Author
