The US defeat in Afghanistan did not begin last week. It became inevitable when the Americans set themselves a goal that goes beyond the punishment and deterrence of terrorists. Season for the needs of his people.
It is difficult for Americans to come to terms with the fact that there are societies that have no remedy, as long as they are not willing to disengage on their own initiative from their tribal and violent political culture.
If it is not necessary to prevent their damage, it is better to let them be defeated in their failure.
If such a society needs help in a sincere effort, carried mainly on its own shoulders, it can be assisted on the margins.
If there is no choice but to act against them, it is advisable to do so by strengthening their regional enemies, targeted economic or military pressure, operating sub-state envoys and using a variety of covert tools.
Just do not try to fix the distorted.
Neither by ineffective force nor by naive pleasures.
Taliban fighters in Kabul, Afghanistan, AP
Afghanistan and the like are lost. It is a failed society and barbaric leadership. It is not "different" in the sense that it justifies its inclusion in a multicultural approach. She is inferior, as her brutal and vicious attitude towards her sons, especially her daughters, excludes her from all civil society societies. As it shelters terrorism and spreads violence and drugs in arenas and to an unbearable extent, it may be necessary to bomb its territories, eliminate its leaders and their successors in an ongoing campaign, lay siege to it, support local elements fighting it and punish those who help it. All of these will not solve the problem, because the problem is unsolvable. The appropriate approach is damage control. These measures come at the cost of accidentally harming innocent civilians, but their cost, even in the humanitarian field, is dramatically lower than the number of civilians harmed during the two decades of the foolish attempt to change the failing and violent society in Kabul, and of course lower than the scenario of terrorism.
When it is harmed by the force that will be used against it, such barbaric leadership is likely, in the first instance, to actually increase its aggression.
It will do so, because only it knows how to do so, and to encourage in Western societies harmful and delusional elements in the media, academia and politics, claiming that the forceful means achieve the exact opposite of their goal.
In their view, it is better to adopt a policy of surrender and protection (which they call "helping the moderates"; "opening channels of dialogue"; "offering a political horizon"; "giving them something to lose").
Afghan refugees wait on border with Iran to enter the country, AFP
In the face of increased aggression, it is worth adopting Golani's divisional philosopher's recommendation: "What does not go by force - goes by most force." This policy is not universal, applicable to any case and at any time. Of course it did not suit, for example, the USSR during the Cold War and its distinct form not even towards Egypt in the 1960s and 1970s; it is certainly not helpful to China today. This stems solely from their extremism, their indifference to the lives of their people and the suffering of their society and the reluctance of developed democratic societies to violent confrontations with them.
The United States often fails because of its selective addiction to the ethos of improving the lives of other societies. Americans did contribute much to human freedom and well-being, but a precondition for these successes was the willingness of the supported society to bear most of the burden and develop an open pluralistic ethos. A society that rejects all these, is repulsive to all these, unworthy of help and will fail anyway. As in Afghanistan, as in Iraq, as in Gaza. Like the barbaric regimes in Iran, North Korea and Venezuela.