A major feature of the news in the UK currently (and I suspect across much of the world) is the departure of troops from the US and other allied countries from Afghanistan, and coincident success of the Taliban retaking control of the country. Most opinions and comments I see expressed on the matter say how this is a defeat for the West, and that the West are deserting the Afghan people. Although I'm no expert on this, this seems very unfair to me.
The USA and their allies invaded Afghanistan shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and have remained there since. The initial objective, which was achieved, was the removal of the Taliban from power, and since then support has been provided for a democratic government. This has manifested itself in the aid, investment and military support that has poured into the country from the US and allied countries, with the hope that this would enable the democratic Afghan government to stand on its own two feet. To achieve this goal, many lives and large funds have been contributed over the past two decades by the Western powers. This demonstrates a remarkable contribution from the United States and other nations in terms of time, money and sacrifices for the betterment of Afghanistan.
As these forces now withdraw, the Taliban has made swift progress in undermining the Afghan government and seizing control from them. To me, this says more about the Afghan government than those other countries hitherto providing it with support. Surely the United States and others have contributed more than enough over the years, and enough time has passed to enable a new Afghan regime to gain a sufficient foothold to function independently? Otherwise- how long? Should outside governments remain indefinitely? Two decades seems a long time to prop up a regime before allowing it to function alone...
Unfortunately however, it appears that loyalties amongst Afghan police and government troops are directed more at families and tribes than an Afghan nation, so morale is low and the risk of corruption is high. From what I have read, despite the significant overseas investment in equipment and training for Afghan forces, this seems to explain why the Taliban has been able to get control of so much of the country so quickly.
To put it very basically, I can't help but think of the saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink". Despite how much time, money and effort has been contributed over the past twenty years, if those given the responsibility of the country (the Afghan government and security forces) are unwilling and/or unable to uphold their regime, that is down to them and not the countries that have already contributed so much to enable them to do it for themselves. From what I understand if, as expected, the Taliban take full control of Afghanistan, it will impose a regime considered appalling to most (though, in terms of treatment of women, extremism of attitude to religion, lack of democracy, and harshness of their penal system, there seem to be many areas of common ground with existing (or recent) rule in Iran and Saudi Arabia), and it would be a great shame (it can't really be expressed in words, particularly by an outsider like myself)- but I don't think it is right to put all blame on to Western governments and to regard this as a Western failure.
