“The broader region was able to defend itself from the Hybrid War threats that the U.S. attempted to export from Afghanistan,” Andrew Korybko tells the Tehran Times.
According to the American expert, the U.S. is pulling out of Afghanistan because of “the Central-South-West Asian space’s resilience to Afghan-emanating threats; and the emergence of a multipolar alternative to the U.S.’ plans led by Pakistan, Russia, and China.”
Biden administration will withdraw American combat troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, declaring an end to one of the nation’s endless war and overruling warnings from American military advisers that the departure could prompt a resurgence of the same threats that sent hundreds of thousands of troops into combat over the past 20 years.
Biden forcibly stamped his views on a policy he has long debated but never controlled in rejecting the Pentagon’s push to remain in Afghanistan for a more extended period. Now, after years of arguing against an extended American military presence in Afghanistan, the American president is doing things his way, with the deadline set for the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks.
However, many political pundits believe that the U.S withdrawal from Afghanistan is due to Biden’s push to consolidate ties with East Asian countries like Japan to curb China’s influence.
Following is the text of the interview:
Q: How do you evaluate the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan? Is Biden serious about ending the endless wars?
A: I elaborated on the reasons behind the U.S.’ planned withdrawal in my analysis for Pakistan’s Express Tribune about “Why America Couldn’t Win Its War in Afghanistan.” In short, the reasons are that it lacked the political will to accomplish its objectives in total; the Central-South-West Asian space’s resilience to Afghan-emanating threats; and the emergence of a multipolar alternative to the U.S.’ plans led by Pakistan, Russia, and China. More specifically, the U.S. didn’t want to carry out a literal genocide of the Afghans to achieve its military goals; the broader region was able to defend itself from the Hybrid War threats that the U.S. attempted to export from Afghanistan; and Pakistan’s CPEC+, Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP), and China’s Belt & Road Initiatives (BRI) synergize into a new promising future model for Central-South-West Asia. That said, the U.S. might retain some private military contractors (PMCs) and perhaps a limited military contingent to defend its diplomatic facilities. Still, Biden’s withdrawal plans are definitely a game-changer for the war.
Q: What is America’s legacy in Afghanistan and Iraq?
A: The U.S. was much more strategically successful in its War on Iraq than in Afghanistan. The former eliminated a controversial beacon of regional stability and created such chaos that it facilitated the emergence of easily manipulable non-state threats such as ISIS, which greatly destabilized the rest of West Asia. Regarding the latter, such a “Balkanization” scenario was thwarted by the regional states’ strong “Democratic Security” (counter-Hybrid War) policies, which prevented that from happening. Had it been different, then the entire so-called “Greater Middle East” would have been in flames and Afro-Eurasian geopolitics would look completely different today.
Q: How do you read the recent escalation between Russia and the U.S.? Why is Biden insisting on putting pressure on Russia and China?
A: Biden is simply continuing the Trump-era policy of simultaneously pressuring both of America’s top rivals. The U.S.’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) either think that they can take on both of them at the same time or eventually put enough pressure on Russia that the latter undertakes unilateral political concessions in pursuit of a so-called “New Detente” which could in practice weaken the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership that was formed in response to the U.S.’ aforementioned simultaneous pressure. From the looks of it, the U.S.’ policy has backfired since it only accelerated the creation of that aforesaid strategic partnership and recently made Russia so resolute in defense of its interests that it’s finally describing the U.S. as an “unfriendly state” instead of a “partner” like it’s done for years despite ever-worsening relations. It’s also seriously considering ways to contain the spread of U.S. influence proactively.
Q: Why did Biden decide to recognize the massacre of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire? Is the U.S. going to push Turkey out of NATO?
A: I explained why this in my recent analysis for CGTN about why “Historical Tragedies Mustn’t Be Exploited For Current Political Gain.” They boil down to the need to repay political favors to fellow Democrats, especially the powerful Armenian lobby in the Democrat stronghold of California and the interest in increasing pressure on Turkey as punishment for its increasingly independent policies towards Russia, China, and Iran. Turkey is unlikely to leave NATO, nor will the U.S. seek to remove it from the alliance. Still, their ties will probably be forever changed from here on out and enter into a completely new and unpredictable phase.
Q: Do you think Biden can form a bloc against China in East Asia?
A: The U.S. has already assembled the Quad between itself, Australia, India, and Japan. Still, it’s unclear how effective it’ll be to contain China since India isn’t convinced of America’s overall reliability. Recent examples that have made New Delhi second-guess the wisdom of joining this emerging bloc are Washington’s repeated threats to sanction the country for its planned purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defense systems, the U.S. Navy’s provocative violation of India’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) during a so-called “freedom of navigation” operation (FONOP), the failure of both sides to reach a long-discussed trade pact, and America’s refusal to provide meaningful COVID-19 aid to the South Asian state during its latest outbreak. These moves have contributed to India considering a recalibration of its multi-alignment policy away from its hitherto American centricity and back towards a more balanced relationship between the U.S., Russia, and China.