“The Afghan army did not fight. This is because the Taliban have been invested with this role by the Chinese, Turks and Americans ”. Present and future of Afghanistan analyzed by Dario Fabbri (LImes)
The Taliban , 20 years after the start of the war in Afghanistan, have returned to command of the country. The return to power of Islamic students is no surprise. On February 29, 2020, an agreement was signed in Doha between the United States and the Taliban which provides for the country to be gradually handed over to the Taliban. This is also the reason why the Afghan army, although made up of 300,000 soldiers, did not fight a force that had already been chosen by the international powers. International legitimacy
“The Taliban have not changed, but today they are looking for an international legitimacy that they did not pursue 20 years ago – underlined Dario Fabbri , a geopolitical analyst from Limes, in the course of Omnibus, on La7 -. The Afghan army didn’t fight, and it all happened quickly. This is because the Taliban have been invested with this role by the Chinese, Turks and Americans. For three years they have been chatting, speaking in Qatar and also through Turkey, they have established that the Taliban return to power. The US does not care who commands in Afghanistan, Turkey prefers it this way, according to China and Pakistan and more immediate solution “. In all likelihood, in this first embryonic phase, the Taliban in this phase will maintain a civilized conduct closer to Western canons, but this is only because they want to obtain international recognition that they did not have 20 years ago. The consent of the Taliban in Afghanistan
Dario Fabbri is convinced that the Taliban enjoy a broad consensus among the population. A very different population from the western one, divided by clan and tribe. “ The Taliban have a real consensus in the country, there is no regime, not even the most despotic, that can exist without consent. Not even that of Kim Jong-un in North Korea – added Fabbri -. Perhaps most of the Afghan population would not introduce a Taliban regime like they did 20 years ago, but that doesn’t mean they see things the way we do. The consensus they have is real , that is, between the Taliban and a Western-style institution, it is not at all obvious that the Afghans will choose ours ”. There are no universal human rights
“We are convinced that universal human rights exist, there are also academic programs. We created universal human rights, they are of interest only to us – added Fabbri -. It would be very nice if it were not so, if they really belonged to everyone but it is not that if we go to a country that is not Western and we talk about human rights they take us seriously. But not because they are crazy but because they consider them colonial. Expecting that Afghans see the world – among other things they have a very different civil development from ours , a very different culture, a very different approach to things in the world from ours – expecting them to react as we want is madness and we cannot be hurt . The objective when studying a case is to immerse yourself in the mentality of others, and the first law of geopolitics “. The female question
In recent days there have been appeals from NGOs and feminist organizations not to leave Afghan women alone. Videos of Afghan women asking not to be abandoned have gone viral. “ Afghanistan is not a country that has an individualistic approach to institutions , this is a Western construction – said Fabbri -. When we see the dramatic appeals of women about what might or is already happening in Kabul or elsewhere we must remember that the role of the individual matters next to nothing. Everything that concerns social life or institutional constructions is mediated by collectivities whether they are tribes or clans. The decisive point and “the tribes or clans” will trust the Taliban
This is the question “.The objectives of the war in Afghanistan
The US arrives in Afghanistan after the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. “What the US goal was has never been very clear. The US finds itself in Afghanistan to destroy a regime that had hosted Al-Qaeda – according to Limes’ analyst -. After 10 years they kill Bin Laden in Pakistan , on the other hand. The mission might have ended there. Since then, the American goal has become “How are we leaving now that we said we were here to graft democracy
“. They thought about it for a while and then decided to just go away and leave the hot potato to the Iranians, Russians, Turks and Chinese who live and gravitate in the region ”. Over the past 20 years, Americans have spent billions of dollars. “The Chinese spent this money on the Americans who financed the American public debt lavishly following the Napoleonic maxim: never disturb an enemy who makes a mistake – adds Fabbri -. And the United States in Afghanistan was doing something that not even God understood ”. The reasons for the withdrawal the trap for China
The US, according to Fabbri , has every tactical interest in leaving Afghanistan. “The United States had to leave Afghanistan – says Fabbri -. It can be a trap for China. Afghanistan is not a strategic territory, although it has rare earths used by China. It finds itself inside Pakistan for reasons of influence. If Afghanistan collapsed and derailed to Pakistan, a country already in serious trouble and a crucial hub on the Silk Road, it would be a major problem for China . The Americans have wondered why to keep Afghanistan together and prevent it from overwhelming Pakistan. To this it must be added that the Americans would not mind if the Turks ended up in it, in full Ottoman ambition and who mediated between Afghans and Americans in Qatar “. The similarity between Vietnam and Afghanistan
The American defeat in Kabul inevitably made one think of the defeat in Vietnam. The similarities between these contexts, according to Fabbri, are not so numerous. “In Vietnam, the Americans fought a proxy war by doing it directly. In Afghanistan what war by proxy they made
The only adherence is that Vietnam is the most overestimated context in the history of the twentieth century – says Fabbri during the live broadcast on Limes YouTube channel -. A tactical defeat mistaken for strategic , in the absence of rudiments of geopolitics. Even today, it is incredible to believe that Vietnam was a pivotal event in the history of the 20th century. It was one of the many infamous tactical operations of the Americans that never have strategic value.Americans tend not to miss the few strategic operations they do , almost all of those tactics are wrong. In this there is a similarity between Vietnam and Afghanistan, a tactically insane operation, a disaster, a tactical defeat which, however, has no strategic significance. Only in this Vietnam and Afghanistan are they similar ”.

Previous articleWhat did Mario Biondo do in the hours before his death?
Next articleLidl launches a gazpacho made with pink tomato, by Sevillian chef Pepa Munoz