Afghanistan Not Strategically Central to US Vital Interests: Scholar
“The war was not winnable; the stakes were not critical; the government had important missions at home,” Gordon Adams told IQNA in an interview.
Dr. Gordon Adams, a professor of US Foreign Policy, has published widely on defense and national security policy, the defense policy process, and national security budgets. He is extensively used by the nation’s media for comment on U.S. national security policy.
Following is the text of the interview:
IQNA: In recent days, we have witnessed dramatic changes in the political scene of Afghanistan and the rise of the Taliban in this country. What do you think was the main reason for the Taliban regaining power in Afghanistan?
Adams: The Taliban were indigenous, focused, and strategic. The Americans were an outside force, constantly changing their goals and tactics, not focused. An invading force will always be at a disadvantage, faced with an indigenous one.
IQNA: Some believe that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan was irresponsible and somehow ceded the country to the Taliban. What do you think was the main reason for the Biden administration’s move, despite the high military and economic costs incurred in Afghanistan?
Adams: The American public had been tired of the war, as both Trump and Biden could clearly see. Afghanistan was not strategically central to US vital interests, but the war had dragged on for 20 years. 2,400 soldiers had died; 25,000 were wounded; 3,800 contractors had died, and hundreds of thousands of Afghanis had died. The war was not winnable; the stakes were not critical; the government had important missions at home.
IQNA: Widespread and organized government corruption has been cited as a factor in the Taliban's victory in Afghanistan. What do you think about this?
Adams: Corruption certainly played a part in the dissatisfaction Afghans had about the Ghani regime and the reluctance of some of the soldiers to fight. It had a great deal to do with the unpopularity of the Ghani government and its ineffectiveness in the country. And it had a great deal to do with the failures of the US "nation-building" effort.
IQNA: At the Taliban officials say the group’s policies on social issues have changed. Some believe that this is just a pretense to gain public trust. What do you think about this?
Adams: The proof of change in Taliban operations remains to be seen. Skepticism is warranted.
IQNA: What do you think the countries of the region and Afghanistan’s neighbors will do about the Taliban?
Adams: If the Taliban establish effective governance and control, regional countries will accommodate them. Power realities will predominate. The Taliban are unlikely to try to make Afghanistan into a regional power; they won’t have the resources to do so.
IQNA: How do you assess the future of Afghanistan in light of recent developments?
Adams: It will be hard days for those who started to emerge from oppression – women and children. The drug trade is likely to continue; it has throughout the war. There could be political/military struggle as warlords and their militia resist the Taliban. Dark days.
Interview by Mohammad Hassan Goodarzi
