Postponing day of reckoning in Afghanistan would not change a thing

It was weeks after the world’s attention had been seized by al-Qa’ida’s attack on the US on Septem­ber 11, 2001. There was universal agreement that Afghan­istan was a breeding ground for terrorists and the object of the military exercise was to eradicate that capability. One should not forget that, in considerable measure, the mission succeeded. The Taliban was dislodged from power within months. Osama bin Laden and fellow jihadists were killed or captured. And there were no more terror attacks against the US.

However, subsequent overambitious US-led policy created a complicated legacy of consequences that the West was unable to cope with, and from which, in hapless disarray, it has now decided to retreat. What began as a means of countering a specific enemy – for the purpose of protecting the people and institutions of the Western democratic nations that had become the targets of Islamic terrorism – had turned into an ideological battle that the West lacks the means and the will to fight.

The debacle reaffirms the real­ist belief, enunciated by Australian conservative Owen Harries, that “democracy is not an export commodity”, especially to medieval and tribally divided societies. It is easier to topple an authoritarian regime than to build a liberal polity to replace it. Perhaps, after the other disaster of Iraq, we now will learn the difference between engaging in military action to win a war and to protect our interests, and engaging in nation building and international social work.

The West now finds itself blamed for the resurgence of the Taliban and all that entails: the creation of an Islamic emirate in Afghanistan and an international alert about the effects in particular on the country’s women that is being presented as a stain forming on the West’s conscience. But the idea that what is happening in Kabul is the equivalent of Dunkirk in 1940 is nonsense.

It is also tempting to indict Joe Biden for the unfolding chaos. Early last month he said no helicopter would be lifting American personnel off the embassy roof in Kabul; yet by the middle of this month images had flashed around the world showing exact­ly that happening. Biden, we are told, has sent a message of US weakness, indecision and blundering that will delight America’s enemies and horrify its friends.

But it was inevitable that this day of humiliation would come, as presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump made it clear that they, too, intended to get the US out of Afghanistan before they left office. Indeed, Trump set the train in motion when he negotiated a deal in February last year with the Taliban to leave by May 1 this year. Biden delayed Trump’s exit date. If Trump had been re-elected, it seems clear the US would have left earlier and the results would have been the same. A two-decade, multibillion-dollar effort to transform Afghanistan into a democracy was doomed.

The regime in Kabul was pitifully short of credible people to run the country. The Afghan military was an inept fighting force: uninspired, poorly led and predominantly illiterate. As the forthcoming Washington Post book The Afghanistan Papers: A Secret History of the War documents, US military officials harboured doubts that Afghan security forces could ever become competent or shed their dependency on US money and firepower. Once Trump cut a deal with the Taliban, which included the release of 5000 Taliban prisoners, defections to the Islamist group began happening. The Afghan army went from bad to worse. This was accelerated in April when Biden began pulling the remaining combat troops out. All the combat troops were out by last month. Trump and Biden together are responsible for the denouement, but we must never lose sight of the fact the idea was cast in the Bush years.

Nobody could offer a viable alternative to what has happened other than to try to postpone the day of reckoning. Could more Western blood and treasure really have helped ensure the Afghan army could put up a fight against the Taliban rather than retreat?

All this explains Biden’s cold calculation. “One more year, or five more years, of US military presence would not have made a difference if the Afghan military cannot or will not hold its own country,” he argues. “And an endless American presence in the middle of another country’s civil conflict was not acceptable to me.” According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last month, 70 per cent of Americans support the decision to withdraw.

The lesson of Afghanistan is that the US and its allies need to think carefully about the purpose of our interventions in other nations: we need to be honest about our seriousness and our capabilities; and to understand, when and if we do intervene abroad, exactly what our good intentions are.

But there is a silver lining: the withdrawal from Afghanistan, however humiliating, means Washington will continue to reorder its strategic priorities away from the “endless wars” of the Middle East and towards the Asia-Pacific where a rising China threatens the peace and order.

The reality is that Beijing’s ambitions are a threat to the US, which has no intention of allowing China become the most powerful state. It is Asia where Washington will now focus its strategic attention. And that is in Australia’s national interest.