Afghanistan is now facing a serious humanitarian crisis and the possibility of civil war, according to Julie Garyassistant professor of political science specializing in US foreign policy.
Widespread poverty, inadequate access to education and health care, and violence threaten the lives of nearly 40 million people, it adds. What is happening now could force millions of people to flee, endangering themselves, Afghanistan's future and the wider region as neighboring countries struggle to cope with and support the refugees.
Max Abrams, an associate professor of political science who focuses on international security, says that for the future of Afghanistan, there is no expectation that the Taliban will chart a new course as they are called upon to rule. “I would suggest that we look at Afghanistan in terms of more continuity than change,” says Abrahms, author of Rules for Rebels: The Science of Victory in Militant History.
News@Northeastern spoke with Garey and Abrahms about their take on the path ahead. Their comments have been condensed and edited for brevity and clarity.
It was only a matter of time before the Taliban took over Afghanistan, say political science professors Max Abrahms (l) and Julie Garey (r). Photos by Matthew Modoono/Northeastern University
US Secretary of State Tony Blinken said the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan “happened faster than we expected”. Why did the speed surprise so many?
ABRAHMS: It's interesting how quickly Afghanistan fell to the Taliban, but I actually think there's too much focus on speed. Would it really matter, in terms of US policy, if it took a week longer or two weeks longer or three weeks longer? I don't have a crystal ball, but I knew that the Taliban were much stronger than the Afghan army and that it was only a matter of time before they took Kabul. The Taliban have not lived up to their prowess over the years.
US officials may or may not choose to cooperate with the Taliban-led government. What are the benefits and risks of engaging or not?
GAREY: There is no potential benefit to not engaging. Isolation will do nothing for the United States, Afghanistan, or any of its allies, and will only entrench, and risk deepening, long-standing animosity.
The risk of non-engagement probably means total alienation of any possible labor “relationship”, total abolition of all US and allied initiatives, not just political or military, but also in the areas of education, health, infrastructure and others). That being said, I don't know what the road to commitment will be or where it will ultimately end up. Whether it is more like US-North Korea relations or US-Pakistan relations or something else entirely is unclear.
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is urging international diplomacy through the UN or NATO to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a “breeding ground” for terrorism and human rights abuses. Given the mixed feelings about the US decision to withdraw, is it possible for the world to form a common view of Afghanistan?
GAREY: Johnson's concerns about terrorism and gross human rights abuses are absolutely valid. I'm not sure there's a country in the world right now that isn't worried, although how much of that concern translates into concrete action remains to be seen.
I don't think there will ever be a common view on Afghanistan – right now there isn't even a “common view” from within. Of course, those states and leaders who sympathize with the Taliban will likely attribute responsibility to the decades of foreign intervention in Afghanistan (by the US and its allies and even before that with the Soviet-Afghan war), but especially for geographically close states the threats are many—refugees and those fleeing persecution, civil war, and future foreign presences, to name a few.
I cannot imagine a world in which there is a completely unified view of Afghanistan and its future.
Which countries are most at risk from a rising Taliban?
ABRAHMS: Besides Afghanistan, it's also India and Pakistan. The Taliban do not carry out attacks in Belgium or France or Mozambique like ISIS. Many other countries will also be affected, but not as victims of Taliban violence.
I see this as a civil war [in Afghanistan] and it is going to create millions of displaced people and Afghan refugees. And so countries around the world, especially the United States, are going to take in Afghan refugees and probably be criticized for not taking in enough.
The chaotic scene of Americans fleeing Kabul has been compared to the fall of Saigon. Are these comparisons fair?
GAREY: You could argue that the image and the American perspective of both are the same. And that in both cases the United States committed major miscalculations—any after-action report will chide policymakers for not “learning the lessons” of Vietnam.
But it's not a particularly useful comparison, and it can sometimes be detrimental if we want to learn any lessons here. The cause of the intervention, the means of the intervention and the failure of the intervention differ significantly.
The United States actually helped facilitate the rise of the Taliban when it supported the mujahideen [Islamic guerillas] in the Soviet-Afghan war. Afghanistan is not really a proxy war in the same way it was during the Cold War. the US faces no other great power.
So far the United States has not handled this evacuation very well. There are significant concerns about the safe release of essential Afghan allies and their families who are fleeing persecution.
Does the United States have a credibility problem?
GAREY: Definitely yes, and in many dimensions.
ABRAHMS: I'll say no. Hawks like this argument that if the United States doesn't go to war here, then America will lose credibility. They say that if the United States withdraws its troops from there, it will no longer be considered a world leader. But I think what's remarkable is not that Joe Biden decided to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan, but that it took so long to do so.
An entire generation has dedicated its life to building Afghanistan. It cannot be said that the United States did not make an effort to transform the country. The truth is that Afghanistan is not really a vital US interest in the way that, say, a nuclear war against Russia would be.
The United States cannot police the entire world. We have to set priorities and I think our opponents around the world understand that.
For media inquiriescontact media@northeastern.edu.
