Introduction
Wars are caused by extremism in human belief systems. While conflicts are inevitable across all cultures, their propensity to wars causes extreme havoc on the people. The ultimate ramifications include loss of life and property and destabilization of the political and economic systems of the country. The Middle East region has been on the frontline for multiple war crises emanating from factions having different beliefs in how the systems should function. At the center of every group, the extremist factions attempt to topple the government of the day. The causes of conflict can be as mild as a differentiated interpretation of the holy books like the Bible and Quran or propaganda. They have all worked in the Middle East. In this presentation, an analysis of Afghanistan through the insurgency caused by the Taliban is evidenced to broaden the perspectives of international relations and the determining factors. To provide a reflective conceptualization of how conflicts can lead to full-blown wars for a country, international relations theory and political science from the frameworks for analysis. In the modern world, there is nothing praiseworthy about War besides the glaring violation of human rights and destabilization of state systems.
The American-Afghanistan conflict created internal power discourses that contributed to parried civil reception. War creates opportunities for countries and the political careers of individuals. In measuring presidential success, metrics utilized have always been foreign policy formulation and implementation. For example, the American-Vietnamese War made the presidency of Johnson Lyndon more controversial than his predecessor. Comparatively, the presence of American troops in Afghanistan created a thoughtful debate on the presidency of Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden and why Americans should care (Dobbins et al. 8). In other words, when the objectives of the War remain unachieved for long, politicians use them as trojan horses for milestone coverage in national politics. The causative factors of the conflict may be clear as day, but as conflicts develop over time, they begin to attract propagandist issues that either fuel or delay their resolution. Therefore, the conflict in Afghanistan is a dichotomy of internal and international politics.
Political science theory
The ideas of Max Webber, a political ideologist, provide ramifications for interpreting liberalism as a school of thought in political science. According to Max Webber, an individual should be nationalistic and uphold the virtues of the country from where they come (McLean and Nix 4). Liberalism views the rights of individuals, freedoms, and permission to be governed through equity and equality as the foundations upon which political governance should percolate (McLean and Nix 4). Through liberalism, American systems can be analyzed against the conflicts experienced in Afghanistan. For the United States, freedoms, rights, justice, the rule of law, and equity are part of the elements that make up citizenry (McLean and Nix 6). For a country like Afghanistan, popular Western beliefs such as freedom for all people, including women, are unheard of. Therefore, interpretations of facts become a significant conflict used in war propaganda. In other words, liberalism forms a strong background for exploiting the social, economic, and political differences in the Middle East.
International relations theory
Classical realism theory modifies the understanding of international relations by demonstrating that countries are motivated to act in ways that regard themselves. Realists say every country joins an alliance to gain economically, politically, or through military protection (Jones and Jenne 6). Therefore, the desire to become hegemonic in regional balance saturates the influence with which the United States expands its global presence. In establishing countermeasures against conflicts that often lead to wars, the United States has allied with greater countries such as the United Kingdom, among others in the European Union (Dora 172). The robust political and military systems of these countries make their presence in global political and economic matters unavoidable. In the wake of the September 11th, 2001 attacks, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom united to launch the Global War on Terror before bringing it to Afghanistan (Dora 173). The impacts of such a move lasted 20 years before the American troops were recalled. Therefore, the ideas of classical realists have shaped American international politics and regional relationships.
Causes of the War
The events of 9/11 contributed to the full-blown conflict in Afghanistan. Reports indicate that the country gave homage to the Al-Qaida group that planned and implemented the hijacking and deadly twin-tower bombings in September 2001 (Dora 173; Connah 74). As a result, the United States government moved its troops to the south-eastern Asian country (Afghanistan) to stage the direct War against terrorism that was brought to its doorstep. In a message by the Department of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin III, an announcement is made that the United States went to Afghanistan to wage a war of self-defense after the 9/11 attacks (Austin n.p). As a liberal country, the United States made confirmed decades after the end of World War II that it still determined global politics. Their entrance to Afghanistan has since been marked as a cause of unending social, economic, and political deterioration in the country.
Continuation on the causes
Critics have published that differences in cultural and social appropriations have led to continued conflicts in Afghanistan even after the departure of the American troops. The Afghans believe that Western ways corrupt their social fabric. Practices like the education of girls contravene their roles in the family (Silove and Ventevogel n.p). Moreover, American troops in the country saw a regeneration of newer models of interpreting international relations, religion, and cultural practices. The supporters of the Taliban use propaganda that American interests are economical, focusing on resource exploitation such as natural gas. At the same time, the US built schools and other social amenities to win the civilians (Connah 75). On the other hand, the Taliban are labeled as religious extremists that force people to commit suicide by self-bombing (Connah 71). The disparaged views of either side can collectively be interpreted by the liberalism ideology of values a country holds through its citizens. In a nutshell, winning Afghanistan took a course explainable only through the theoretical lens.
Conduct of the War
The War was waged on the kill-and-capture tactic of the leader of Al-Qaida and winning the trust of the locals. Winning a war that has been prolonged into years occasioned by the presence of the American troops in Afghanistan was going to be challenging from the beginning (Connah 72). However, when Osama Bin Laden was killed, it demonstrated a victorious epilogue of America’s commitment to end the War on terror. It may have given them the international hegemonic ranking but initiated inherent counterattacks between the government and the Taliban. Up to the time leading to departure from Afghanistan, questions arose about civilian casualties against the moral good of intervening in the War (Connah 75). The Taliban lived among the people, dissociating them from ordinary civilians begs the question of the moral essence of human-inflicted conflicts. Therefore, the conduct of conflict in Afghanistan, and neighboring countries, including Pakistan and Iran, weaves together unanswered questions on the moral dilemmas of fighting an unending war.
Continuation of the conduct of conflict
The conduct of the War in Afghanistan, especially in 2001, was believed to have brought the American troops closer to capturing or killing Osama Bin Laden. The failure of the American troops to capture him, because they used the Pakistani-led forces to pursue him in the mountains, was believed to have prolonged the whole War by up to ten years (Dora 174). In the United States, foreign War was utilized for presidential elections campaign. It necessitated the divide on whether the troops should continue with the mission, creating internal political powerplay. In this regard, liberalism is the cornerstone with which people can argue whether the government and instruments of power are used in contravention of the Constitution and moral logic. Therefore, the conduct of the War expanded the political discourse over the influence and practices of the United States in other countries. This reality opines the realism theory of international relations (Threlkeld and Easterly 3). The aftermath of America’s involvement in the War has not practically ended conflict as the country lies in sovereignty concerns—the hands of another extremist group. In summary, the conflict in Afghanistan has become more questionable after the capture of political power by the Taliban.
Possible solution
There is a need to consider peace relations to stir counterintelligence measures to end the War on terror as opposed to political involvement in the affairs of a nation. The world cannot work under democratic leadership as predetermined by the United States’ power lobbyists (Threlkeld and Easterly 25). While most Middle Eastern countries are monarchies, there is a need to recognize their sovereignty as it amplifies the focus on the real issues. In other words, instead of the United States entering a war of more than two decades, it can learn going into the future that political relationships are different from instrumentalizing a nation to adopt a different leadership framework like democracy. This way, nations can work in intelligence sharing to eradicate terrorists without political interference. Moreover, countries can learn that international relations are not mainly about War (Connah 81). Instead, peaceful relations between conflicted regions can still augment the global outlook of the superpowers as long as objectives are structured and maintained.
Continuation on a possible solution
The future of global relations lies in solidarity through relationships. Realism theory provides alternative angles of dichotomizing how countries internationally relate. Because it broadens the objective of remaining economically, politically, and robust in military practices, considerations should be guided through counter efforts of the leading countries (Sniderman 3). Comparatively, the ongoing War in Ukraine-Russia demonstrates how conflicts should be avoided in the future. Like most Middle Eastern countries, Ukraine remained non-aligned to regional power organizations like North Atlantic Treaty Organization and European Union. Therefore, the Russian invasion was highly predictable. Global relations must focus on unionization to avoid the impacts of conflicts and wars witnessed in Afghanistan and Europe.
Conclusion
The conflict in Afghanistan started with terror attacks on American soil. However, it has progressed to the issues of social justice, gender discrimination, anarchy, and international relations concerns. While the politics of liberalism incorporates discussions about issues that affect civilians as they are central values like liberty, freedoms and the rule of law, the eminence of international conflicts deteriorates how countries relate. Not only are relationships between Afghanistan and Pakistan worsened, but also the Western democracies. The involvement of American troops in Afghanistan birthed the modern religious extremism issues, cultural dissimilation, and sociocultural conflicts that dictate the roles and plight of women in the Taliban-led region. While the objective of capturing and killing leaders of Al-Qaida was achieved over time, the installation of functional democracy has failed in Afghanistan. It leaves a lifelong lesson that politics should be distanced from issues of moral accords, such as peacekeeping and forming regional relationships.
Works Cited
McLean, Kyle, and Justin Nix. “Understanding the bounds of legitimacy: Weber’s facets of legitimacy and the police empowerment hypothesis.” Justice Quarterly 39.6 2022: pp.1
Dobbins, James, et al. Consequences of a precipitous US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Rand Corporation, 2019. Pp.1–13.
Austin, Lloyd, J. “Message to the Force – One Year Since the Conclusion of the Afghanistan War.” The Department of Defense. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3144082/message-to-the-force-one-year-since-the-conclusion-of-the-afghanistan-war/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20went%20to,them%20safe%20haven%20in%20Afghanistan.
Threlkeld, Elizabeth, and Grace Easterly. Afghanistan-Pakistan ties and Future stability in Afghanistan. United States Institute of Peace, 2021.
Jones, David Martin, and Nicole Jenne. “Hedging and grand strategy in Southeast Asian foreign policy.” International Relations of the Asia-Pacific vol. 22. no. 2. 2022. pp.1–12.
Dora, Zuhal Karakoc. “The US-led “War on Terror” in Afghanistan: 2001-2021.” MANAS Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 10. Özel Sayı. 2021. pp. 172-185.
Connah, Leoni. “US intervention in Afghanistan: Justifying the Unjustifiable?” South Asia Research vol. 41. no. 1. 2021. pp. 70-86.
Sniderman, Paul M. “Political Realism: An Essay on the Politics of Value Conflict.” PS: Political Science & Politics. 2023. pp.1–9.
Silove, Derrick, and Peter Ventevogel. “Living through interminable adversity: the mental health of the Afghan people.” World Psychiatry Vol. 21. no. 1. 2022.
write