For Neocons, US Withdrawal from Afghanistan Feels Like a Post-Opium Comedown

By Joshua Tartakovsky,  October 9 2021

Why was the US in Afghanistan in the first place? A US soldier, Laura Jedeed, testifies: It “has always been Team Taliban. It’s Team Taliban or Team Stay Forever.” The US could not stay forever (1). Earlier this year, US intelligence warned that if the US pulled out without an organized handover of power to a multi-tribal government, the Taliban would take over within two to three years (2). In June, the US believed that Afghanistan would be ruled by the Taliban in as little as six months (3). However, in recent months the Taliban have already been busy taking over vast pieces of land, and in recent weeks US forces—under instructions from the Biden administration—have been pulling out in a frenzy, leaving vast amounts of equipment behind and thereby carrying out the Trump–Taliban agreement for a US pull out. The Taliban is now in power since the middle of August, defeating a US plan that sought to wipe it off the map for 20 years. But why was the US there in the first place? Was it to defeat terrorism, build democracy, stop the opium production, or was it for another reason altogether?

The United States invaded Afghanistan following the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Initially, the goal was to crush the Taliban regime, a fundamentalist Sunni Islamic government that took control after the Soviet defeat and was accused of harboring Osama Bin Laden following the September 11 attacks. After removing the Taliban from power in 2001, the US’s goal gradually became nation-building. The idea was to build a strong Afghan government that would be able to govern throughout the country, and an Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) capable of standing on its own feet and operating independently. However, both the western-supported Afghan government and US and NATO forces in Afghanistan faced constant attacks by the Taliban, who worked tirelessly to liberate their country from foreign invaders and foreign-back governments. The occupation of Afghanistan gradually became the forever war that could not be resolved quickly.

Keen observers noted that the US had no resources to maintain the endless occupation of Afghanistan. But it was not only the case that the US could not afford to maintain its soldiers in the country. It went further than that.

The US in Afghanistan Developed a Disenfranchised and Weak Army 

The basic minimum of any invasion that does not follow in the footsteps of colonialism and imperialism—or at least claims not to—is that it provides enough support to the collaborating army for it to stand on its own feet. US soldiers sacrificed their lives for the mission entrusted to them by their government, but the US treasury did not deliver enough funds for the Afghan army. John Alley Gay writes in Responsible Statecraft that an increasing percentage of the Afghan air force equipment, such as helicopters, was assigned to foreign contractors to maintain and repair. However, these foreign contractors have been fleeing due to the Taliban’s onslaughts. He writes (4):

Similarly, the flight of the contractors is more than a threat to the usability of the Afghan Air Force. It is also a reminder that the ANSF has not generated enough of its own maintainers. Indeed, some aircraft are exclusively maintained by contractors. The Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) have actually seen their maintenance capacity decline ‘over the last two years,’ according to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction: ‘as of November 2018, the ANA was responsible for 51.1 percent of its vehicle maintenance and the ANP only 15.9 percent. As of December 2020, the ANA was completing just under 20 percent of maintenance work orders, and the ANP slightly more than 12 percent.’ And if Afghanistan’s helicopters go out of service, men on the ground may have no way out when wounded — a sure blow to morale.

This means not only that the US did not have enough money or willpower to continue to sponsor its forces in Afghanistan, but that by hiring contractors rather than developing an army that could take care of its own needs, it has created the conditions for an even speedier withdrawal of Afghan forces than would be the case if the entire force were composed of locals. It goes deeper than this. In two years, the Afghan National Army saw a drop of 30% in the number of vehicles it could maintain on its own. The Afghan National Police (ANP) was maintaining just 12% of all orders related to impaired vehicles. What this likely means is that the US sought to generate profit while undermining the sovereignty of the Afghan Army. It was all too easy, it appears, to take advantage of the Afghans’ vulnerability by making an opening to allow for foreign companies to maintain Afghan equipment, rather than entrusting the Afghans with the task. The fact that the capacity of the Afghan National Army to maintain its own equipment has declined significantly over a period of two years means that it was not that the Afghans were not up to the task—since they did successfully maintain the vehicles earlier—but that this capacity was taken away from them. Such a policy reveals a glowing disrespect for the existing structures of the Afghan state and an attempt to milk the Afghan cow while pretending to engage in state-building in Afghanistan.

A Bad Hangover for the Neo-Cons

 

For many Bush-era neo-cons, or those who believe that the US is engaged in an eternal war against terror and that it must occupy as many Arab and Muslim countries as possible since this is the only way peace can be achieved, the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is an embarrassment, a humiliation, and a non-sensical, if not suicidal, move. They conveniently brush over the fact that it was President Trump, a member of the Republican Party, who reached the deal with the Taliban on the withdrawal of the US forces due to his own view that the occupation of Afghanistan did not serve US interests and due to the objective limits to US power, finances, and ability to maintain an ongoing body count of slain young American soldiers. Memes spread by those who oppose the US withdrawal, such as the one attached, bitterly depicted the Afghans as winners. But it was a fact that the Taliban won against the US, just as it did against the Soviet Union (and was supported to that end by the United States). Moreover, to claim blithely that Russia and China are now rejoicing is to display a profound ignorance of history, considering that today in Russia many veterans who served in Afghanistan continue to receive medical treatment and that over a million Soviet soldiers were killed in the war.

Eric R. Mandell expressed deep frustration with the Biden Administration’s withdrawal. He quoted a source from Forbes, stating that (5)

America left behind 75,000 war vehicles… Humvees, mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles and armored personnel carriers… 1,000 mine-resistant vehicles cost up to $767,000 each – 208 airplanes and helicopters, including 20 A-29 Super Tucano attack aircraft. The A-29’s cost $21.3 million each. Black Hawk helicopters… costing up to $21m. Six hundred thousand rifles, machine guns…25,000 grenade launchers and 2,500 howitzers – the modern-day canon.

Mandell believed that the US left behind enough arms to create an army. The massive amounts of equipment left behind is not the only reason that Mandell is deeply concerned about the fact that the US left Afghanistan. Now that the Taliban is back in power, he wrote that it is free to plan new attacks against the United States, just as the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza resulted in Hamas attacks against Israel. Mandell writes: “Unless you are an isolationist, American security interests extend worldwide.” In other words, he would like to see US forces in all countries they deem as threats, since only by being there physically would it be possible to gather intelligence and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States. Mandell approvingly quotes Matthew Continetti, who wrote in the National Review that (6):

Afghanistan is just one front in a global conflict that the United States did not initiate and cannot wish away… When participants in the worldwide Salafist-jihadist movement look at the developments of the last week, they don’t see reasons to quit their mayhem. They see the chaos, panic, violence, disorder and American retreat as a vindication of their ideology and a spur to further action.

It is easy to fall into a notion that the US is engaged in an eternal war with Salafist-jihadist Muslim men. Mandell writes that: 

International terrorist organizations will continue to probe and poke at the lion to see just how far they can go. The terrorists are counting on the lack of America reacting to attacks on regional allies like India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Israel is the only player in the region that acts effectively and repeatedly against jihadists, whether in Syria, Iran or Lebanon. When Israel strikes Islamists, whether Sunni or Shi’ite, Hamas or Hezbollah, the moderate Sunni states quietly cheer (7).

It is similarly too easy to belittle liberals as downplaying the real and deep threat of Salafist-jihadist terrorism. What is unrealistic, and smacks of profound ignorance, is to disregard the fact that the US had actively supported the Taliban in its earlier incarnation as the mujhadeen against the Soviet Union, thereby enabling its formation. Ali Olomi, an historian of the Middle East at Penn State University, writes that:

At first, the United States funneled only limited funds and just gave symbolic gestures of support. But it ended up allying with an Islamist group that formed part of the growing resistance movement known as the mujahedeen, which was a loose coalition more than a unified group (8). 

Indeed, mujhadeen fighters came to the White House and met with none other but President Ronald Reagan, who termed them freedom fighters (9).

More recently, the fact that the US had plans to attack seven Arab and Muslim nations after September 11 (10) shows a strong Islamophobic and anti-Arab tendency that has little to do with facing actual terror threats. Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, a victim of a US invasion, had no real relationship of support for al Qaeda—the group that allegedly carried out the attacks against the World Trade Center—despite erroneous claims made by US Vice President Dick Cheney (11).

These meagre facts, however, are old news, and not many have the time to read or know the history. 

However, it is outright irresponsible to ignore the fact that since 2014, the Syrian Arab Republic has been defending the secular character of its state against attacks from al Qaeda (12) and other jihadist organizations, while simultaneously being heavily condemned by Washington (13). Washington claims that Syria is killing civilians; meanwhile, US drones have killed 10 civilians in Afghanistan in recent weeks (14), making their justification for the condemnation and outright sanctions placed against Syria seem irrelevant. Iran has been fighting the Islamic State’s terrorism both by lending support to the government of Syria and within Iraq, following a request for help by the government of Iraq (15). 

Israel, on the other hand, has been supporting al Qaeda in Syria through tacit and other means (16). It is on record saying that it is supporting Syrian rebels, while not denying that it is lending support to al Qaeda and its affiliates (17). Moreover, it is not entirely implausible to propose that it is the lack of peace negotiations and successful compromises with the Palestinian Authority by Israel that have led to the victory of Hamas in Gaza. To ignore all these developments, to pretend that the West and Israel are on the one side fighting against terrorism, while it is precisely they who are enabling and supporting radical Islamic terrorism in Syria, to place Iran as working hand in hand with Sunni jihadists while Iran has been actively fighting to protect Christianity in Syria, is to do a deep disservice to those who genuinely wish to see peace and co-existence take place in our world. 

Be it as it may, those who are engaged in the fantasies that the US and the West are opposing terrorism throughout the Middle East—while the opposite is the case—experience the US withdrawal from Afghanistan as a horrible comedown following an overdose of opium. To them, it is the end of American power, and now the US is vulnerable to attacks. The facts that the US does not meet the objective conditions to occupy and invade numerous Aran and Muslim countries, and that it was President Trump who agreed with the Taliban on the pullout, are both conveniently ignored by the depressed neo-Cons.

US Ignorance of Afghan Notions of Community on the Field: Its Betrayal of the Collaborators

The Chicago Tribune reported on the plight of Afghan contractors stranded in Afghanistan by illustrating the individual case of Amer, a former translator for the US occupation (18). Amer, an Afghan, has been helping US forces since a teen. He successfully got his extended family out of Afghanistan to the US. However, some of them got stuck in Afghanistan while visiting family members in the area precisely at a time of US withdrawal. According to current State Department regulations, Amer is allowed to bring his spouses and children to the US, but not his parents or siblings. He worked endlessly for 10 days to bring those members of the family who were already granted permission to enter the United States back into the US. However, his extended family, cousins, and other relatives—whose identity was not disclosed due to concerns about their safety—were not allowed to enter.

Amer felt a deep sense of bitterness and despair over the fate of his extended family, who could possibly face retributions by the Taliban. The US State Department Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) allows translators or others who worked for the US to enter the US. The numbers of recipients have expanded since the era of the Bush Administration, where migration from Afghanistan and Iraq was limited to only 50 individuals per country. However, while Canada allows relatives of collaborators under the age of 18 to migrate, the US State Department regulations allow only spouses and unmarried children to enter the country. This placed Amer in a severe crisis of confidence relative to the US, whose forces he had served. 

In Afghanistan, warm family relations exist not only between members of a wider family but also between entire clans. The notion of family extends beyond the strict notion of a nuclear family that is so prevalent in the West. Imagine the frustration of an interpreter who worked for the US forces, sacrificing his life in the process but also his community, to learn that the community that he gave up in Afghanistan cannot be reproduced in the United States. The US applied Western norms to its Afghan contractors, thereby revealing profound ignorance of the norms of the country that it invaded and cutting Afghan staff off from their wider communities and networks. “’You go to all those missions, and you come back with, you cannot bring your family because we have no such process?’ Amer said. ‘What do you mean you have no such process?’”(19)  The Chicago Tribune further stated that, “Although Biden has promised to continue to help at-risk people leave, no clear plan has emerged beyond existing channels to immigrate to the U.S., a system clogged with delays and no embassy presence remaining in the country.”(20) 

The messy US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the plight of Afghan contractors and their extended families illustrates the width of the cultural gulf between the traditional Afghan way of life and the US western cultural norms. When speaking about his relatives, Amer said that “They’ll [the Taliban] find them someday, they’ll kill them.”(21)  While several US senators were actively involved in trying to broaden the rules to allow more family members in, they were fighting the impossible battle of trying to expand the criteria in a manner that could allow for a massive influx of hundreds, if not thousands, of Afghans for each single member who served the US’s occupation. The plight of the contractors once again highlights the tragedy of the US occupation and invasion of a foreign country of whose culture it knows so little. 

What Next for the Opium?

To begin with, the US forces were faced with an impossible task in Afghanistan. On the one hand, they had to defeat the Taliban, whose regime heavily opposed the cultivation of opium—sold and smuggled to western countries, developed into heroin for western consumption—and on the other hand, it saw under its watch how farmers’ poppy flower output flourished in a country where opium production amounted to half of the real GDP (22).  Jedeed, a US soldier, explained how between bombing the areas where opium was grown—leading to locals being recruited to the Taliban—and leaving the farmers alone by turning the other way, the US chose the third option, which was also (23)

the one we went for while I was there, [and] was to give the farmers fertilizer as an incentive to grow wheat instead of opium poppy. The farmers then sold the fertilizer to the Taliban, who used it to make explosives for IEDs that could destroy a million-dollar MRAP and maim everyone inside.

Anatol Lieven writes that (24):

In 2014, the U.S. Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, or SIGAR, reported that the area of Afghanistan under opium poppy cultivation had risen by more than 200,000 hectares since 2001, and that Afghanistan accounted for some 83 percent of global heroin. Opium production rose from about 180 tons in 2001 to more than 8,000 by 2007.

Lieven explained that the Taliban was willing to curb and crack down against opium production on the condition that it would get international recognition from the western powers. However, the United Kingdom recently relocated its embassy to Qatar (25) and the United States, deeply unhappy with the Taliban once it no longer served its geopolitical purposes, has not extended its recognition to the new government. Russia, despite suffering heavy casualties from the same Taliban fighters under a different name, recognized the Taliban government. China has also recognized the Taliban, while the Chinese media blamed the US for its recent debacles in Afghanistan. (26)

Conclusion

The US left Afghanistan due to its own financial and international constraints. The global economic crisis is illustrated by the fact that the Afghan National Army has been short-sized and underfunded while foreign companies were given rights to maintain Afghan equipment. For the US neo-cons, the exit from Afghanistan is a horrible nightmare—if not a dejected state of mind following heroin withdrawal—that represents the decline of US power and prestige and the perceived new threats to the US’s security. Leading neo-Conservative Nikki Haley has expressed her indignation and consternation about the fact that China has already been taking over an empty US airbase in the country (27). Simultaneously, the neo-cons are overlooking the fact that the Taliban is a rational actor and that the US supported al Qaeda in Syria. The plight of the contractors and their extended families reveals the gulf of values between the United States and Afghanistan and potently illustrates why it was a mistake for the US to invade a country whose culture it hardly understands. 

Opium is likely to continue to be cultivated in Afghanistan, unless China manages to provide a lucrative way for farmers to make money as part of its Belt and Road Initiative. The United States refuses to recognize the new Taliban government, even though if it collaborates with it, it can aid its security objectives and crack down on heroin trade. Apparently the US feels humiliated, but acting out of humiliation and repressed anger can lead to counterproductive international policies. 

Endnotes:

(1) Laura Jedeed, The Real News, August 16, 2021, “Afghanistan Meant Nothing,” Afghanistan meant nothing (therealnews.com)

(2) Reuters, March 27, 2021, “U.S. spy agencies warn Biden of possible Taliban takeover of Afghanistan -NY Times, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afghanistan-security-report-idUSKBN2BI35Q

(3) John Allen Gay, Responsible Statecraft, June 25, 2021, “The Afghan Army we tried, but failed to build,” The Afghan army we tried, but failed to build – Responsible Statecraft 

(4) John Allen Gay, Responsible Statecraft, June 25, 2021, “The Afghan Army we tried, but failed to build,” The Afghan army we tried, but failed to build – Responsible Statecraft

(5) Eric R. Mandell, the Jerusalem Post, August 26, 2021, “Withdrawal Can’t Sweep Away Terrorists or their Ambitions, Withdrawal can’t sweep away terrorists or their ambitions – The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com

(6) Eric R. Mandell, the Jerusalem Post, August 26, 2021, “Withdrawal Can’t Sweep Away Terrorists or their Ambitions, Withdrawal can’t sweep away terrorists or their ambitions – The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

(7) Eric R. Mandell, the Jerusalem Post, August 26, 2021, “Withdrawal Can’t Sweep Away Terrorists or their Ambitions, Withdrawal can’t sweep away terrorists or their ambitions – The Jerusalem Post (jpost.com)

(8) The Conversation, August 26, 2021, The history of the Taliban is crucial in understanding their success now – and also what might happen next, https://theconversation.com/the-history-of-the-taliban-is-crucial-in-understanding-their-success-now-and-also-what-might-happen-next-166630

(9) The Associated Press, July 2, 2021, “A Timeline of More than 40 Years War in Afghanistan,” https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-islamic-state-group-afghanistan-europe-middle-east-70451c485d46908ef5c6a83a1de9f0f6

(10) Al Jazeera, September 22, 2003, US ‘Plans to Attack Seven Muslim States,’ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states

(11) Glenn Kessler, July 17, 2014, “The Cheneys’ claim of a ‘deep, longstanding, far-reaching relationship’ between al-Qaeda and Saddam,” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/07/17/the-cheneys-claims-of-a-deep-longstanding-far-reaching-relationship-between-al-qaeda-and-saddam/

(12) Charles Lister, “Al Qaeda Is Starting to Swallow the Syrian Opposition,” Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/15/al-qaeda-is-swallowing-the-syrian-opposition/ 

(13)Michael Hernandez, 04.08.2021, “US condemns regime’s ‘brutal assault’ on Syria’s Daraa,” https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-condemns-regimes-brutal-assault-on-syrias-daraa/2324568

(14) Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali, Reuters, “U.S. says Kabul drone strike killed 10 civilians, including children, in ‘tragic mistake,’” https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-military-says-10-civilians-killed-kabul-drone-strike-last-month-2021-09-17/

(15)Ali A. Jenabzadeh, January 3, 2021, “KRG rep. in Tehran says Gen. Soleimani helped Kurdistan to fight Daesh,” https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/456510/KRG-rep-in-Tehran-says-Gen-Soleimani-helped-Kurdistan-to-fight

(16)Dov Lieber, 11 February 2018, “Former Qaeda leader in Syria ‘welcomes’ Israeli airstrikes, ” https://www.timesofisrael.com/former-qaeda-leader-in-syria-welcomes-israeli-airstrikes/

(17)Raphael Ahren, June 29, 2015, “Israel acknowledges it is helping Syrian rebel fighters,” https://www.timesofisrael.com/yaalon-syrian-rebels-keeping-druze-safe-in-exchange-for-israeli-aid/

(18)Alison Bowen, September 3, 2021, “‘Bring them here’: Chicago man, reunited with family stranded in Afghanistan, pleads for US to evacuate extended family, ”https://www.chicagotribune.com/people/ct-people-interpreter-afghanistan-special-immigration-visa-extended-family-20210903-2vmuryp4cbbsrixu5sxke2e36q-story.html

(19)Alison Bowen, September 3, 2021, “‘Bring them here’: Chicago man, reunited with family stranded in Afghanistan, pleads for US to evacuate extended family”https://www.chicagotribune.com/people/ct-people-interpreter-afghanistan-special-immigration-visa-extended-family-20210903-2vmuryp4cbbsrixu5sxke2e36q-story.html

(20) Alison Bowen, September 3, 2021, “‘Bring them here’: Chicago man, reunited with family stranded in Afghanistan, pleads for US to evacuate extended family”https://www.chicagotribune.com/people/ct-people-interpreter-afghanistan-special-immigration-visa-extended-family-20210903-2vmuryp4cbbsrixu5sxke2e36q-story.html

(21)Alison Bowen, September 3, 2021, “‘Bring them here’: Chicago man, reunited with family stranded in Afghanistan, pleads for US to evacuate extended family”https://www.chicagotribune.com/people/ct-people-interpreter-afghanistan-special-immigration-visa-extended-family-20210903-2vmuryp4cbbsrixu5sxke2e36q-story.html

(22) Anatol Lieven, September 1, 2021, “What’s next for the heroin trade in Afghanistan?,” https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/09/01/whats-next-for-the-heroin-trade-in-afghanistan/?fbclid=IwAR1pDfGh_226MWHZgre9tr8lVCYguCy9mEoI5a7ViXIt8NDJpaesw9wYnvU

(23) Laura Jedeed, The Real News, August 16, 2021, “Afghanistan Meant Nothing,” Afghanistan meant nothing (therealnews.com)

(24) Anatol Lieven, September 1, 2021, “What’s next for the heroin trade in Afghanistan?,” https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/09/01/whats-next-for-the-heroin-trade-in-afghanistan/?fbclid=IwAR1pDfGh_226MWHZgre9tr8lVCYguCy9mEoI5a7ViXIt8NDJpaesw9wYnvU

(25)Ynet, 8.9.2021 [in Hebrew] https://www.ynet.co.il/news/article/r1uaz8sgy#autoplay

(26)Andrew Korybko, 7 September, 2021, “Who’s really to blame for the Taliban-U.S. ‘hostage crisis?,” https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-09-07/Who-s-really-to-blame-for-the-Taliban-U-S-hostage-crisis–13mOOOIwefC/index.html?fbclid=IwAR2krr5V8ZtIvg5PtQk7ejlAkmceUOxqKxPqXStKL3ALfk1NxM14rafcyhc

(27) Business Standard, September 3, 2021, “China trying to take over abandoned US airbase at Bagram: Nikki Haley,” https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/china-trying-to-take-over-abandoned-us-airbase-at-bagram-nikki-haley-121090200628_1.html