Why did NATO spend 20 years in Afghanistan?

I am surprised at the commentary from both the media and politicians about the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, for one, said that Canada would not recognize a Taliban government that violently deposed a freely elected government. What he did not say was that in a nation of 36 million, in the last election, only 1.6 million actually voted. This hardly seems like an overwhelming vote of confidence among Afghans for that election.

Equally interesting were the stories of a high level of corruption in the supposedly freely elected Afghan government. The corruption pervaded every level of government as well as the Afghan army and police force. There was, of course, a U.S. government study detailing this rampant corruption but the policy response was a focus on addressing wrong-doing at the lowest levels of government rather than going after officials at higher levels in an effort to eliminate or at least greatly reduce such behaviour. This could be characterized as nibbling around the edges of the problem and was obviously a failure. It turns out that the Afghan army was a major source of ammunition for the Taliban.

Why America and other NATO nations spent 20 years and suffered several thousand casualties among their troops trying to establish a democratic regime in a cultural and economic environment that was fundamentally inhospitable to such an effort is beyond comprehension. A case of hindsight being 20/20 no doubt, but there is a viable argument that America should have learned from recent history.

And as was the case in Vietnam and to a lesser degree in Iraq, a seemingly never-ending parade of generals with impressive medals never admitted that the task of establishing a democratic government was not something they were able to achieve. They were very good at achieving certain military objectives such as ridding Iraq of a corrupt dictator or shutting down the terrorist operation of Osama Bin Laden – but in building a durable form of democratic government they were and remain deficient.

Why did governments in the U.S., Canada and Europe just never face the facts? The U.S. is said to have spent $2 trillion in Afghanistan. And now all they have to show for it is a clear demonstration that the vaunted military power has limits that were never clearly spelled out to the voters.

Since President Dwight D. Eisenhower pointed out the risks associated with the rapid growth of what he termed the “military industrial complex,” the U.S. has spent many trillions on defence. In fact, in any given year, these expenditures were greater than the next 10 largest spenders combined! Imagine if reducing the defence budget to the level of the combined expenditure of the next five largest spenders had permitted the U.S. to expand other expenditures for priorities like maintaining infrastructure. But the military industrial complex has a formidable lobby force that is skillful beyond measure in making sure the defence budget is never cut.

Surely questions will finally be raised to find out what has been going on and why the military hasn’t spelled out clearly what was happening? As one commentator said, every army is always well-prepared to fight the previous war – but eventually somebody figures out things have changed.

The debacle in Afghanistan is not surprising. The Brits failed to drag the country into the 19th century and the former Soviet Union failed in the 20th. Now America, the richest and most powerful country on the planet, has failed in the 21st. Three centuries of failure. Time to leave Afghanistan alone and let them try to find their future without interference.