How it started
„We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them“. These were the words President Bush used in his address to the nation after the terrible attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon 20 years ago. The U.S. President chose these words deliberately as National Security Chief Condoleezza Rice asked him if he really would use this phrase. Especially Vice-President Dick Cheney insisted on that sentence knowing and perhaps, wishing for all the consequences this message had caused. In this way, the long Afghanistan war started.
It is obvious that the attack on the US would have a military response. The perpetrators could not have expected that their deed would not receive a forceful answer. Also, those who gave the attackers the “guest status” would have to count with consequences. However, the Bush Administration which was run by many hawks did not concentrate on attacking the perpetrators but embedded the “war on terror” in a war against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. From the beginning on, it had in mind a regime change in this country. This regime change was expected to result in “democratization” of the society and for the Americans it would mean “westernization”. After the US’ and NATO forces withdrawal, it became clear for everybody that this strategy had failed. Possibly some positive effects of the intervention will last and maybe the Taliban of today is a different and hopefully, more moderate group than in 2001. But at what human and material costs has this – still uncertain – result been achieved!
Of course, the U.S. had to react to the attack on 9/11. But the size of the military intervention has not been proportional to the terrorist attack. In his recent piece in Foreign Affairs magazine titled ”How America Lets Its Enemies Hijack Its Foreign Policy” Ben Rhodes argued: “The scale of the U.S. response remade American government, foreign policy, politics, and society in ways that continue to generate aftershocks. Only by interrogating the excesses of that response can Americans understand what their country has become and where it needs to go.” If one sees and reads some reactions to the troop withdrawals and even if one listens to U.S. President Biden’s China policy, one must doubt that the message is understood. As Ben Rhodes writes also: ”Defining the United States’ purpose in the world and American identity through a new ‘us versus them’ construct risks repeating some of the worst mistakes of the war on terror.”
Would another result have been possible?
There is a vivid debate about whether the military intervention could have resulted in sustainable progress, if it would have been better planned and implemented. One such debate was published in the F.A.Z. Navid Kermani argued that a stronger reliance on development aid could have achieved progressive modernization. He deplored the mismanagement which led to strong disappointment by many “progressive” Afghans. On the other hand, Jochen Buchsteiner argued that there is no chance at all for a transformation when it is enforced on a people with a different cultural and religious heritage. There never will be a definite answer to this question. But it is clear that the objectives and aims of the Afghanistan intervention were contradictory and overblown. The fight against terrorism and the desire for regime change did not match.
Certainly, even if we take the framework of the intervention for granted a different outcome would have been possible - but not fundamentally. If you win the war against a centrally organized country, like Nazi Germany, which furthermore has many similar cultural characteristics, you can destroy the regime and reconstruct the country. But not so in countries like Afghanistan with many ethnic groups, a dominating “foreign” religion, very diverse influences from outside etc.
Strategic mistakes
The principal mistake was and is that the U.S. have had a very narrow-minded strategic policy. They strongly supported the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviet occupation forces, which created a fertile ground for the Taliban. They supported one of the worst Pakistani leaders – Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq – who carried out extreme Islamization of his country and exerted negative influences on Afghanistan. Now the U.S. are concentrated not so much on the Soviet threat but on the China threat. The withdrawal from Afghanistan, we are told, creates the possibility to focus on the Chinese threat.
Of course, the U.S. government has to define threats to economic and political influence. But the US - and the same is true for Europe - has to recognize that the balance of power has changed. China has all the time risen to new strength during which the US concentrated on the fight against terrorism and was engaged in a war in Afghanistan. This rise cannot be undone and is generally beneficial for world peace - if well managed by the international community. That does not mean the West should accept all economic, political and military actions with which China wants to gain regional and global influence.
The West must strengthen its defense and those of its allies. It must try to stay on the top concerning the economic and technological agenda or regain it where it lost it. But it must also try to engage China in solving major issues. Those could be global issues like climate change but also regional issues like Afghanistan. Instead of guessing if the Afghanistan debacle would be beneficial for China, the US and Europe should be involving China in bringing stability to the region and preventing that Afghanistan would again be a harbor for terrorists.
The author Moshin Hamid who grew up in Lahore but visited often Kabul, wrote recently in the Financial Times: “The end of a war ought not to be a time to adjust to the next war. The end of a war ought to be a time to focus on peace.......We must above all seek to de-escalate the growing conflict between the U.S. and China.”
Chances for cooperation
Not only the West but also China and Russia have had their terror attacks. All are interested in having a neighbor who is not giving a guest status to any terrorist group. In this respect helping a viable Afghanistan to evolve could also prevent Afghanistan being a “play ball” between Pakistan and India. Both countries should be invited to play a positive role in reconstructing an Afghanistan which should be a centre for peace instead of war. Also Turkey should be invited to play a helpful role in Afghanistan.
All neighbors of Afghanistan and beyond are interested in Afghanistan to develop a sustainable economy which is not relying on production of narcotics. This is another issue for which a fruitful regional and global cooperation could bring solutions. A sound economic development would probably stabilize the Taliban but it also creates a precondition for an active civil society which would fight for progress concerning human rights and especially women’s rights and chances.
With all the differences between Western on one hand and Russian or Chinese human rights policies on the other, both of these countries respect and implement policies where girls can go to schools and universities, people may enjoy music and films etc. So the international community like the UN and its different agencies could influence the Taliban to accept at least a minimum of these rights in order to be respected as a legitimate government.
All these issue would ask for regional and global cooperation in the interest of the Afghan people, especially those who expected and still expect help from the West. There are chances for cooperation even with countries whose ideology and orientation deviates from the Western style. The U.S. and the EU should not be naive. Cooperation does not mean the neglect of fundamental differences. The West must enhance democratic development amidst its own community and help others to adopt similar policies. But the West cannot impose its form of government on others from the outside. And it would be better to cooperate globally to guarantee some basic rights. At the same time, the West should be vigilant about developments which could challenge its security interests. Neither the U.S., nor the EU should choose between pragmatic cooperation to solve urgent issues and a long-term strategy of defending its values and enhancing economic strength and political security. We need both!
Dr. Hannes Swoboda, President of the International Institute for Peace (IP), started his career in urban politics in Vienna and was elected member of the European Parliament in 1996. He was Vice President of the Social Democrat Group until 2012 und then President until 2014. He was particularly engaged in foreign, enlargement, and neighborhood policies. Swoboda is also President of the Vienna Institute for International Economics, the Centre of Architecture, the University for Applied Science - Campus Vienna, and the Sir Peter Ustinov Institute.