✪ Wancheng | Institute of Central Asian Studies, Lanzhou University
According to media reports, the US delegation will hold its first face-to-face meeting with the Afghan Taliban high representative since the withdrawal from October 9 to 10 local time. Previously, the United States had hastily withdrawn its troops from Afghanistan at the end of August, which once caused heated discussions; in less than 2 months, why was the United States eager to return to the negotiating table? Will there be new variables in Afghanistan and even in the relevant geopolitical situation?
This article comprehensively sorts out the current attitudes and propositions of various international parties, unveils the "fog" of changes in Afghanistan, and provides a panoramic picture for us to understand the above problems. The United States generally believes that the entire Afghan strategy has brought huge losses, but the withdrawal of troops is not a strategic failure, and the United States still maintains a global leading position in the military, high-tech and other fields. Some Western analysts pointed out that Afghanistan is at stake for China's core interests, such as maintaining border security and stability, obtaining important strategic resources (such as rare earths), and gaining more geopolitical space for advancing the "Belt and Road". "If China acquires Afghanistan's rare earth resources, it will have a monopoly position on this resource worldwide, which will not only allow China to deal with US trade sanctions, but even counter the United States, and this situation is dangerous." In addition, Russia, India, Pakistan, Central Asian countries, Europe, etc. are also highly concerned about the Afghan issue, with strategic objectives, especially Russia is re-planning its Central Asian strategy, trying to win the opportunity in the era of withdrawal. Analysts argue that tribal divisions and factionalism remain political variables within Afghanistan, while the 2.0 version of the Taliban has become more pragmatic, at least one of them expecting the international community to recognize its legitimacy and receive international aid and loans, thus softening on many issues. But the emergence of this change is the result of the Taliban learning to compromise politically, and its ultimate ideological goals will not change.
This article was originally published in the October 2021 new issue of Culture, originally titled "The Mist: Changes in Afghanistan", which only represents the author's views, and is hereby compiled and distributed for the consideration of all kings.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="14" > Fog: The Change in Afghanistan</h1>
The withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan has aroused heated discussions around the impact of the withdrawal on the global leadership of the United States, the impact of the withdrawal on the global leadership of the United States, its geopolitical consequences, the ideology after the Taliban return to power, and the global security issues brought about.
▍ The future of U.S. withdrawal and its hegemony
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has sparked a series of global discussions about the status of the United States itself, mainly on the failure of the U.S. Afghanistan strategy, the impact of the withdrawal on its hegemony and credibility, and what measures should be taken to compensate for its mistakes.
On the issue of whether the US Afghanistan strategy has failed, the majority of the losers are theorists. In a june 22 questionnaire of U.S. experts on Afghanistan organized by Foreign Affairs, scholars represented by John Millsheimer, a professor at the University of Chicago, and Barnet Rubin, a professor at the Center for International Cooperation at New York University and an expert on Afghanistan, believe that military means cannot solve the Afghan problem and that the U.S. Afghanistan policy has failed. Given the current situation in Afghanistan, the U.S. withdrawal is a wise choice to stop the loss in time.
Before the Taliban occupied Kabul, U.S. geostrategist George Friedman wrote that the United States had lost the 20-year war in Afghanistan. It is futile for the United States to try to convert afghan values, and the United States is neither familiar with Afghanistan nor responds to it in an appropriate way, so failure is inevitable. On the day the Taliban occupied Kabul, Michael McKinley, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, wrote that "we have all lost Afghanistan." He pointed out that the failure of the war stemmed from the following aspects: premature satisfaction of the victory in the war on terrorism and neglect of state-building; the failure of the afghan national army to bear primary responsibility for the military failure of the Afghan government; excessive trust and reliance on local forces and warlords to provide security guarantees, failure to coordinate relations between the Pashtuns and other ethnic groups; failure to notice the changes in the Taliban and their tactics; and failure of communication with Pakistan on the Afghan issue. In the course of the U.S. withdrawal, former Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger wrote in The Economist pointing out that the wrong military and political goals set by the United States and the division of the domestic political process led to the defeat in Afghanistan.
But there are also different voices on the above issues. Will Ruger, deputy director of the Charles Koch Center for Policy Studies and a former veteran of the war in Afghanistan, believes that the United States has targeted bin Laden and effectively defended the security of the homeland, and has completed the strategic goal of "counter-terrorism". He believes that more financial resources should not be spent in Afghanistan, and that withdrawing troops does not mean strategic failure. Although former US national security adviser John Bolton also severely criticized Biden's withdrawal policy, he denied the US defeat on the battlefield in Afghanistan. In his view, the withdrawal of US troops was not caused by military defeat, but an act of voluntary abandonment.
All circles in the United States generally believe that the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan does not mean that the hegemony of the United States has declined. This view is represented by Friedman. During a radio appearance on Gallup, he discussed the theme of "U.S. withdrawal and its future hegemony" with host Muhamed Younis, saying that although the U.S. Afghanistan strategy failed, the U.S. withdrawal was not a military defeat and should not exaggerate its impact. He believes that at present, the United States still maintains a global leading position in the military, high-tech and other fields, which is the basis for the future hegemony of the United States to gain a foothold.
The Biden administration's decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and its performance have been questioned and criticized by allies who, in addition to questioning the credibility and capabilities of the United States, have also expressed concerns about the necessity of NATO's existence. In the face of allies' questions, Biden said at a news conference on August 20, 2021, that the United States has not lost credibility worldwide. White House security adviser Jack Sullivan also said the U.S. commitment to allies and partners is as sacred as ever.
On the issue of how to make up for its mistakes, the United States has formed views such as the theory of strategic transfer and the theory of safeguarding core interests. The strategic shift theory, represented by former U.S. National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and former chief of national intelligence John Ratcliffe, argues that the United States should now shift its strategic goals to the Asia-Pacific region and counter China through a series of diplomatic operations to regain global credibility. The theory of safeguarding core interests holds that the strategic center of the United States in Afghanistan should be counter-terrorism and safeguard the United States from terrorist attacks. This argument means that while maintaining its current capabilities, the United States still has the possibility of interfering in Afghanistan and the region under the pretext of counter-terrorism.
▍ China's strategy toward Afghanistan in the era of withdrawal
In the context of increasingly fierce global competition between China and the United States, the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan has also triggered discussions in the commentators' circles about China's strategic positioning in Afghanistan. Generally speaking, the Western world, represented by the United States, generally holds the Theory of China's Attack. After the Taliban representatives came to Tianjin for negotiations, the above views have been fermented in the Western world. Rand Corporation analyst Derek Grossman wrote an analytical article saying that "China and the Taliban will begin a honeymoon period." He pointed out that through negotiations and communication with the Taliban and the establishment of a round-the-clock strategic cooperative partnership with Pakistan, China will be more deeply involved in the affairs of the region. In addition to analyzing China's strong grip on intervention in Afghan affairs, he also analyzed the challenges that China may face in interfering in Afghan affairs: first, it arouses Russia's suspicion and rejection, and second, China's counter-terrorism demands in Afghanistan contradict Pakistan's strategic interests, and Pakistan prefers terrorist organizations to operate outside its territory.
In addition to determining that China will attack Afghanistan, the West has also analyzed China's strategic interests in Afghanistan. On this issue, the views of Ryan Haas, a senior fellow in East Asian policy at the John Thornton Center for Chinese Studies in the United States, are representative. Haas believes China will benefit from the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan. China's benefits are not limited to what Western analysts believe is about maintaining security and stability in Xinjiang, gaining access to important strategic resources and gaining a broader geopolitical space to advance the Belt and Road Initiative, but also can use U.S. withdrawals from Afghanistan to play off U.S. decline and launch a tougher propaganda offensive against Taiwan.
Some analysts highlighted China's emphasis on Afghanistan's mineral resources. In their view, Afghanistan is rich in gold, silver, tin, lapis lazuli and rare earth mineral deposits, which are worth a total of about $3 trillion. Among all the mineral resources, China's most important is Afghanistan's rare earth resources, if China obtains Afghanistan's rare earth resources, it will have a monopoly position on this resource in the world, which can not only allow China to deal with US trade sanctions, but even counter the United States, and the emergence of this situation is dangerous.
▍ Security issues arising from the situation in Afghanistan
The security issues raised by a series of changes in the situation in Afghanistan are of close concern to the international community, including the intensification of the threat of terrorism, geopolitical security, refugee issues and the consequent spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Deeply affected by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the security concern of the United States is whether the re-established Taliban will once again provide safe haven to terrorist groups and make Afghanistan a source of terrorist attacks. Although the Taliban have issued several statements before and after the occupation of Kabul, saying that they will draw a line with terrorist organizations and limit their attention to Afghan affairs, the Haqqani Network, a terrorist organization identified by the United States, is still within the organizational structure of the Taliban, and its leader, Serajuddin Haqqani, is currently serving as the deputy leader of the Taliban, and the organization is still very close to the "al-Qaeda", so the United States does not trust the Taliban and expresses major concerns about the indigenous security problems brought about by the Taliban's re-emergence to power.
David Petraeus, former commander of the U.S. coalition forces in Afghanistan and former director of the CIA, as well as Seth Jones, Colin Clarke, and others who study Afghan security issues have opposed the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan from the perspective of counterterrorism prevention strategies. They believe that leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban is dangerous and would greatly increase the risk of terrorist organizations launching terrorist attacks against the United States.
Tom Capland, director of research at Centennial College of Colorado Christian University, said that from the perspective of time, the regime change in Afghanistan is close to the 20th anniversary of the "9/11" incident, and the possibility of another terrorist attack on the US mainland is extremely high. He further noted that there are still nearly 20 terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan, including Al-Qaida, which, despite their different objectives, have the same attitude towards the United States. They are highly likely to launch a recent terrorist attack on the U.S. mainland. Military historian Victor Davis Hasson agreed with Kaplan's judgment, saying that the next three and a half years would be the most dangerous moment for the United States since the Cold War.
Compared with the United States, neighboring powers and neighboring countries are more concerned about geopolitical security. While warning of the proliferation of extremist groups to the Central Asian region, russia says that terrorists may infiltrate neighboring countries with refugees, and on the other hand stresses the need to play the role of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to deal with this security threat. At the same time, Russia has also issued warnings about the return of the United States to establish military bases in Central Asia. These moves suggest that Russia is reimagining its Central Asian strategy and trying to win the lead in the era of withdrawal.
For India, geosecurity issues are of the greatest concern. A longtime supporter of the Ghani government and a hostile to the Taliban, regime change in Afghanistan has plunged India into a sinister geopolitical space. Analysts represented by the Asia-Europe Group said that encouraged by the Taliban's return to power, Pakistan is likely to re-provoke incidents on the India-Pakistan border. After the appearance of Pakistan's isletis HAMID in Kabul on September 5, Indian strategic circles have expressed concern about Kashmir and said that the simultaneous support of China and Pakistan for the Taliban regime will further reduce India's strategic space.
As the largest economy in Central Asia, Kazakhstan is more concerned about the disruption of the strategic balance in Central Asia as U.S. troops withdraw from Afghanistan. Kazakhstan is not too worried about the infiltration of terrorism, which is of general concern to the international community. Dossym Satpayev, a political scientist in the country, said that unless neighboring countries suffer political changes, the impact of terrorism on Kazakhstan will not be particularly severe. However, Kazakhstan is quite worried about the possible prospect of Central Asia being dominated by a certain major country in the era of withdrawal. In this regard, Satpayev pointed out that Russia's attempt to take advantage of the current geopolitical situation and return to Central Asia through military channels is a post-empire syndrome.
Kyrgyzstan, which does not border Afghanistan, has expressed concern about the spread of terrorism. Terzikbayev, chief of the general staff of Kyrgyzstan's Ministry of National Defense, and Turganbayev, director of the Border Guard Bureau, both believe that with the Taliban coming to power, extreme terrorist forces will infiltrate Kyrgyzstan. Given the lessons of the "Butken Incident" and the continued infiltration of the Islamic State into the country in recent years, Kyrgyzstan has had to remain vigilant about the situation in Afghanistan.
As an extraterritorial player, Europe is more concerned about the impact of a new wave of refugee flows. This includes not only the admission of refugees, but also the division of European values brought about by the admission of refugees, and the consequent rise of far-right forces. These issues have had an all-encompassing impact on Europe since 2015. In this regard, important people, including the EU foreign policy president José Borrelli, have repeatedly issued warnings.
▍ The Taliban and their ideology
In the pursuit and discussion of the source of the Taliban's ideology, what its ideology is and why it is so conservative and extreme has always been the focus of attention. American scholar Thomas Barfield believes that the Taliban ideology is a mixture of Pashtun tribal law and Sharia law, while Antonio Dieustoz, a scholar who studies the issue of local forces and warlords in Afghanistan, believes that its ideological connotation is that the village mullah holds high the banner of Islamism to oppose Pashtun tribal law. Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani expert on Afghanistan and regional affairs, pointed out that historically, Afghan Islam has been heavily influenced by the Deobandi and has a strong sufism tradition. The extremism and conservatism of the Taliban's ideology do not come from the Afghan Islamic tradition, but from what its members learned in Pakistani religious schools. The closed environment makes the members of the Taliban unaware of neither Afghan Islamic traditions nor the theoretical controversies of the external Islamic world, which creates their conservatism and extremism.
In 2021, as the Taliban launch a general offensive of cities surrounded by rural areas, Thomas Rutiger, senior analyst and co-director of the Afghanistan Analysis Network, an independent research institute, wrote an article analyzing the Taliban's ideological problems. Rutiq has worked as a resident correspondent for two top Taliban leaders, Mullah Omar and Akhtar Mansour. In his report to the Counterterrorism Center at West Point, Ruthig traced the ideological evolution of the Taliban, pointing out that after the Taliban lost power, there were certain signs of softening in the treatment of women's rights and education issues, relations with non-governmental organizations, and treatment of the media and communication with the outside world, which was brought about by the change in the political status of the Taliban, the growth environment of a new generation of leaders and members, and the ability of the Taliban to learn. But at the same time, Ruttig also stressed that the emergence of this change is the result of the Taliban's learning to compromise politically, and its ultimate ideological goals will not change.
These issues received more attention after the Taliban took over Kabul. Through long-term observation of the Taliban, Tiustoz recently wrote that the Taliban have dealt with the vision of de-globalization in the jihad narrative, but they will still encounter difficulties in managing foreign jihadists. William Darlingpur, a Scottish-born South Asian historian, argues that tribal factors will play an important role in the Taliban's ideological reconstruction. He noted that the powerful Haqqani network and the Yakub faction within the Taliban belonged to the Zadran and Hotak branches of the AhmedZai tribe, while Baradar, representing Kudashura, was of Durrani tribe. These tribes and tribal branches have long been at odds with each other, and there are differences over how to deal with the United States and jihad. Therefore, in the future, the Taliban's ideological expression will also be affected by the decentralization of its internal factions.
Russia has a closer geopolitical relationship with Afghanistan, and scholars in the country have expressed their views. Among them, Vitaly Naumkin, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Oriental Studies and an expert on Islamic issues, has a similar attitude toward the Taliban as Rutiq. He argues that the current Taliban are pragmatists, that after a long civil war, a new generation of Taliban has changed, at least one of them expects the international community to recognize its legitimacy and receive international aid and loans. Alexei Marathin, principal investigator at the Imimo Ras Institute, is more optimistic than Naumkin, arguing that the Taliban's ideology has become more moderate and stressing that they entered Kabul following the peaceful entry of the Prophet Muhammad into Mecca, demonstrating an educated soft Islam appeal. Yevgeny Zelenev, director of the Institute of Oriental and African Studies at the Higher Institute of Economic Research in St. Petersburg, said that the Taliban in version 2.0 will not have a fundamental change in ideology, and that Islamic values as their value pursuits are deeply rooted, and that after coming to power, the Taliban will use What they consider to be correct Islamic values as the governing principle. But at the same time, Zelenev also noted that the 2.0 version of the Taliban sought to establish an Islamic and nationalist regime.
This article was originally published in the October 2021 issue of Culture magazine under the title Of Mist: Change in Afghanistan. Welcome to share personally, please contact this public account for media reprints.