Much has been said about Afghanistan and the difficulties in its management.
It must be said to the credit of the Western countries that they tried.
Tens of billions have been invested in development, institutions, humanitarian aid and education, so that by the time the Western presence ends, there will be a functioning state.
Sound familiar?
The phenomenon in which the West pours money into the framework of "building democratic institutions", "human rights" and "humanitarian aid", without an understanding of the processes, is not unique to Afghanistan.
Iraq, Gaza and the Palestinian Authority, for example, are excellent examples of the creation of Western dependence, the results of which are known in advance.
In all of them money is poured in to build a nation without understanding the unique characteristics, limitations, realities and implications for the day when that future country will have to maintain and establish itself without outside assistance.
According to a study by the NGO Monitor, the European Union and European governments have invested half a billion euros a year in promoting rights, building democratic institutions and humanitarian aid in Afghanistan.
Americans even more so.
Everything collapsed within 72 hours.
It is not just a lack of understanding or the way in which a gradual and wise retreat is made.
There is also quite a bit of irresponsibility, lack of transparency and lack of oversight, common in the aid industry, many of whose players have long since abandoned the principles of neutrality, the promotion of universal values and independence from political interests.
The same phenomenon exists on the donor side as well, especially in government funding systems.
The money is painted in interests, and it is usually not possible to find out how the decision was made to fund one organization or another, even though the negative results are often known in advance.
In the anarchy of the international system the principle is quite simple.
As the dependency between the supporter and the supported continues, the chances of a deep crisis occurring when disconnected without proper planning increase.
This is true of the long American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq, the billions being poured into the Palestinian Authority without control and the aid money to Hamas in Gaza.
And here the main question arises - how to properly manage the construction of institutions in a country that is supposed to become independent, in such a way that it will not end in terror and tragedy?
Without going into the question of whether the solution to the conflict is the establishment of a Palestinian state on some border, one must take into account that the Afghan, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Gaza model is also reasonable in Judea and Samaria.
Preventing the scenario will require rethinking, which first addresses the essential questions: Who are the extremes?
What is the structure of the company?
What is the capacity for an independent economy?
And most importantly - to what extent is there a desire on the part of elites with different interests to maintain an independent political entity that will not pose a threat to those around it?
Itai Reuveni is the director of the communications department at the NGO Monitor research institute