Afghanistan: a disaster made in America

With the allied defeat in Afghanistan, the world has become a much more dangerous place.

Tom Tugendhat holds Boris Johnson partly to blame and insists that it is the worst foreign policy error since Suez. It is easy to see why Boris has kept Tugendhat out of the government, for he is knowledgeable and honourable. He is also passionate, which in this instance may cloud his judgment. It is a worse decision than Suez, but – for once – the PM is not to blame. This disaster was made in America. President Biden’s decision was immoral, strategically naive and plain stupid.

It is also part of a long history of Western incompetence in the wider region. From the Romans onwards, the fall of empires has always been a hazardous business. Superpower rivalry and meddling, political vacuums, chronic instability, poverty, endemic violence: all have been bad enough, even before we factor in religious extremism.

Think of the Indian sub-continent. Britain did far too little for far too long and then scuttled. It may be that partition was inevitable, but there should have been attempts to prevent it. As it was, millions of people were slaughtered and Pakistan became a failed state.

For the past century, Western powers have regularly intervened in the broader Middle East, with remarkably little success. If we had left well alone, Iran could have become a constitutional monarchy, and Nasser might have become a second Ataturk rather than a Russian ally. Suez wrecked that, and also brought down the Iraqi Hashemites. The Baghdad Pact was drowned in the Suez Canal.

Without Suez, could the West have given the Egyptians the right assistance, so that “Egyptian economy” ceased to be an oxymoron? If Nasser had been on a different trajectory, there might have been no Six-Day War. Yet even if that War had taken place, there would still have been an opportunity to create a Palestinian state on the West Bank. The Americans did occasionally try to exert influence, and Camp David was a success. But in general, the US lacked persistence and consistency. A two-state solution is the only hope of a long-term modus vivendi in Israel/Palestine – and it is further away than ever.  

More recently, Gaddafi could have been allowed to die in his bed. As for Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam has done nothing to weaken Iran, or militant Islam. We will never know, but that invasion might have worked if the Americans had paid far more attention to nation-building. In that respect, Tony Blair could have been a force for good. If he had listened to sceptical experts while they explained Iraq’s complexities, he might have been able to persuade George W Bush to take a longer view, and some of George Bush Senior’s former advisors could have helped. Instead, Blair signed up to the ultra-idealist wing of neo-Conservatism. Open the tailgate of the jeep: candies for the kids, votes for their parents and all would be well. If only.

Untutored by realism, all the Americans were in a hurry. The generals acted as if they would have liked “The Hundred Hour War” as a title for their memoirs. In the case of the administrators, it was more like a hundred days, but the time-scales were not nearly long enough. 

That brings us to Afghanistan. George Bush proclaimed “Operation Enduring Freedom.” Barack Obama jettisoned that. Joe Biden now seems to have opted for “Operation Enduring Chaos.”

This is tragic, for there is no reason to believe that the West’s Afghan policy was failing. There were elements of stability. The Afghan government and its armed forces were sort of functioning, with the cooperation of local war-lords. There were signs of social progress, including female education. Although this was a long way from democracy and the rule of law, there was a rudimentary platform for development. We could have seen a gradual political evolution – and the Taliban would not have been able to use large tracts of the country as a terrorist training ground.

Given that there were only 10,000 allied troops in Afghanistan and the casualty rates had been declining, this was a price worth paying. It would have been foolish to place an end-date on all that. The deployment could only have worked if the Allies had given the impression that they would be there for as long as it took.

As it is, one is reminded of Kipling’s gallows humour. “When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains/And the women come out to cut up what remains/Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains/And go to your Gawd like a soldier.”

Today, a lot of Afghans would see the gallows, but not the humour. We are betraying people who trusted us. This is a breach of faith, and also of realpolitik. Why should anyone trust us again? A wise Arab ruler was once asked whether he would rather be America’s ally or its enemy. After a pause, he replied “Enemy. The Americans often bribe their enemies. They always betray their friends.” Who could now gainsay him?

There have been three attempts to explain Biden’s decision. First, that as Donald Trump first announced the withdrawal, the responsibility is shared. Second, the new president regards China as the main danger and wants to clear away any distraction. Third, that he is always out to woo the swing voters of middle America who are not interested in foreign adventures which cost lives and money for no obvious benefit. Even if these are true, they make no sense.

For a start, there is no reason to abandon Afghanistan in order to face down China. In the Western Pacific, the Americans have all the materiel they need. They also have staunch allies. There is only one possible deficiency: will-power. In that respect, everyone in the region will think less of the US than they did a few weeks ago. That includes China, which could have grave consequences. If the Chinese came to believe that this president makes Jimmy Carter seem like Theodore Roosevelt, they might be inclined to confront him.

As for Middle America, why not keep on reminding it about 9/11? The reasons which led America to conclude that Afghanistan could not be allowed to fester as a failed state are still valid. Finally, as Biden clearly despises his predecessor, why should he follow in his footsteps? Moreover, Trump might have changed his…mind, as it were.  

On the subject of Roosevelts, at his best, Joe Biden could come across as a poor man’s FDR. There was a jingle from that era, which may not have lost its potency. “Compassionate at home/Strong oversea/Good enough for Roosevelt/Good enough for me.” But we may not yet have measured the shallows of President Biden’s weakness.

Shallows: no-one could accuse Boris Johnson of deficiencies in that regard. But if the Americans were determined to withdraw, what could he have done? Nor is there any point in upsetting the relatives and friends of the British soldiers who died, or came home maimed. “They did not die in vain.” What did they die for, then? Even so, if Boris was simply trying to bring comfort, his insincerity was, for once, excusable.

There have been suggestions that China and Russian are now considering whether they should intervene. This seems improbable. Admittedly, the Chinese abhor a geopolitical vacuum and will no doubt meddle, but stopping short, surely, of boots on the ground. As for the Russians, they have been there, tried that and were then glad to get out. I once heard Gennady Gerasimov, then Gorbachev’s foreign affairs spokesman declare that the Brezhnev Doctrine – no-one allowed to leave the Warsaw pact – had been replaced by the Sinatra doctrine: “I’ll do it my way.” I asked him why the Russians had invaded Afghanistan. “Because we had not read our Kipling.”

We can safely predict that the Russians will not return. But what about another prediction: that al Qaeda/the Taliban, emboldened by victory, will turn Afghanistan into a safe haven for terrorists to plan further attacks on the West. That is all too likely, and it would be President Biden’s fault.