The Taliban is rapidly advancing in Afghanistan. How did this happen after 20 years of US involvement?
[THREAD]
To answer the question, you need to understand:
1) That Afghanistan was fragile before the US invaded in 2001
2) The reason why the US invaded in 2001
3) That the US lost focus on Afghanistan shortly after completing the invasion
First, it's important to understand that Afghanistan was a fragile country prior to the 2001 US invasion.
Throughout the 1980s, Afghanistan was the ground for a "proxy war" between the Soviet Union (backing the government) and the United States (backing rebels).
Soviet troops left in 1989 and the USSR fully withdrew support to the Afghan government in 1992 (following the USSR's collapse).
The result was the onset of a new civil war in the country between multiple groups.
Of the groups, the Taliban (w/ support from Pakistan), emerged as the dominant group. It eventually took control of most of the country
But fighting continued. By 2001, the country looked like this (with the remaining militant groups forming the "Northern Alliance")
Second, it's critical to review why the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001.
On September 11, 2001, the US was attacked by the extremist group Al-Qaeda
Why those attacks happened is for another thread (20th anniversary is coming soon). For now, what's important is that Al-Qaeda's base of operations was Afghanistan and it was supported by the Taliban government (such as making use of training facilities -- shown in photo)
Then US President George W. Bush issued an ultimatum to the Taliban: close the facilities and hand over the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.
The Taliban refused the ultimatum.
Without going into all of the details, the US lent support to the Northern Alliance forces and then brought in its own forces. The Taliban forces were quickly defeated.
At this point, the United States, with the assistance of its @NATO allies, sought to stabilize and rebuild the country (via the @UN authorized ISAF mission) -- important to remember that international community largely supported US actions at this point.
Third, it's essential to understand that the US essentially deprioritized Afghanistan shortly after completing the interstate war portion of the fighting.
How so? Iraq, specifically Saddam Hussein.
I can't go fully into why the US invaded Iraq. That's covered in this thread
What is critical is that the decision to invade Iraq shortly after invading Afghanistan drew away vital resources (attention, military resources, and aid) during the critical early years of the occupation. nytimes.com/2007/08/12/wor…
The consequence of deprioritizing Afghanistan? It meant by 2009, control of the country looked like this: scattered government control
Essentially, any chance at creating a stable country not controlled by the Taliban was lost (let's say squandered) in the first few years following the invasion. This @RANDCorporation report even refers to a "Golden Hour" for nation building success. rand.org/pubs/research_…
After missing that "Golden Hour", the US has since simply been bidding time and postponing the inevitable. mwi.usma.edu/imperial-polic…
So this is not a "the US broke it, the US owns it" situation.
This is a situation where the US (w/ widespread international support) invaded a broken country, but was distracted at a crucial early moment in the rebuild.
In sum, this tragedy was years in the making.
[END]
Addendum: for those looking for more details on the various Afghan groups fighting in the 1980s Cold War proxy war and 1990s civil war, see this thread 👇
Addendum 2: @SIGARHQ's new Lessons Learned report raises the "Iraq as distraction" angle, but also highlights how Iraq generated the wrong lessons for AFG -- Officials thought some "successes" in Iraq could be "copy and pasted" (sometimes literally) in AFG
Which of these two men is most responsible for World War II?
Short answer: not Churchill
Long answer: [THREAD]
To be clear, in this thread I am dealing with the onset of the war in Europe. The War in Asia was just as important and obviously connected to Europe. But that is for another thread. For now, I do highly recommend Paine's book "The Wars for Asia"
Solving the "Europe Problem" has vexed US foreign policy since the beginning.
[THREAD]
As I wrote last week, a key trait of US "grand strategy" since the founding of the Republic was "Go West" either by expanding US territory west or seeking to maintain trade with China.
Since the founding of the republic, US foreign policy has been about one thing:
Go west (and don't let Europe get in the way).
[THREAD]
I'll write more about "don't let Europe get in the way" in another 🧵. This one will focus on the "Go west" part (which will also touch on the Europe part).
One could go so far as to argue that the Republic itself was founded because of a desire to go west. Specifically, the colonials were forbidden to go west of the 1763 Proclamation line.
When you hear "Liberal International Order", just think "the G-7, for better and for worse"
[THREAD]
While some scholars and policy makers like to speak of the "Liberal International Order" as the collection of post-World War II international institutions.... cambridge.org/core/journals/…
...the phrase itself is much more recent in origins, largely a product of the mid-1990s.
As I wrote in my latest for @WPReview, shifting patterns in population growth will inevitably influence international politics. worldpoliticsreview.com/global-demogra…
This isn't a new idea. It's one found in classic works on change in world politics.