"the objective of Afghanistan is not a successful war but an eternal war to enrich the elites of the military-industrial complex", 

Afghanistan’s debacle after the withdrawal of foreign, especially US troops is one of the biggest diplomatic failures of the 21st century. President Joe Biden was quick to announce that it marks the end of America’s ‘forever wars. This statement raises more questions than it can answer, specifically the question of who, and what was responsible for the perpetual nature of these wars. 

The reasons for the conflict being long drawn are varied. International politics can never be measured in binary terms, and there are always innumerable factors at play. Afghanistan’s case could be analyzed day and night, and you still couldn't place a finger on a definitive factor that made Afghanistan crumble the way it did. 

The decades-long war in Afghanistan is a prime example of a forever war

The United States’ drive to intervene and invade foreign soil, in order to protect/further their interests or to promote democracy and engage in nation-building is again receiving widespread scrutiny. A brief tracing of history would take us back to President Woodrow Wilson, who in his idealistic conception of American values and the American state, desired to see it emulated around the world. A greater and definitive push was given by President Harry Truman, who stated that the “United States would provide political, military and economic assistance to all democratic nations under threat from external or internal authoritarian forces”, coming to be known as the Truman Doctrine.

Apart from zealous Presidents envisioning global domination of American values and democratic systems, there is another factor that has cemented its place in the power corridors of the White House. The Military-Industrial Complex or MIC has been touted as the main agency responsible for these forever wars. The theory is quite simple, the MIC consists of private defence industries. These industries are driven by profit, and their profit and revenues can be maximized by lobbying for militarized action by the American state. It is therefore in their interest that these forever wars remain forever, literally. 

This theory is not merely that. It is backed by empirical evidence. Before we get to hard facts on the ground and complexities of US polity, a better assertion of the existence of MIC was given by President Eisenhower himself. In his address at the end of his Presidentship, he warned us to be wary of the solicited or unsolicited influence of the military-industrial complex. After five decades, his words underscore the harsh reality facing the US today.  

Building a favourable public opinion is a key factor in mobilizing support for interventionist foreign policy programs. According to a study by the Middle East Research and Information Project or MERIP, think tanks form an important cog in influencing lawmakers and creating a conducive atmosphere in public discourse. The study states that 12 of the 25 most prominent and cited think tanks in the US, receive donations from defence industry firms. An example could be given of the Center for Security and International Studies (CSIS), which has been the recipient of 6 major defence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. 

There have also been instances where countries themselves have donated a sum to lobby for the sale of defence equipment. The same study mentions the UAE, which donated a sum of $250,000 for approval of the sale of drones to the Middle Eastern country. The money was donated to a think tank, which was able to create enough backing, so much so that there was a written recommendation given to President Trump by bipartisan house members. Apart from indirectly orchestrating favourable policies, it is no secret that these firms are donors to presidential campaigns as well. In the 2020 election cycle, the firms (20 total) contributed $46million in campaign funding.  

 The current adversarial relationship with China means that the US would not be willing to cut its defence expenditure any time soon either. The USA’s quest to protect and conserve its hegemonic status would be enough incentive for defence firms to step up their lobbying efforts. It would also unfortunately mean that whistleblowers like Julian Assange would not be the last person to face persecution for telling the truth. The fall of Afghanistan has given the Taliban possession of US weapons and aircraft, which can only underline the point of this article.   

 A broken Afghanistan, defence industry and polity characterized by crony capitalism, and hawkish advocates of interventionist foreign policy programs creates a concocted mix that throws up the following 

The reality of 'forever wars'

0 Comments