Pakistan and the US military-industrial complex

the question Afghanistan He still monopolizes all international attention, with Joe Biden in the G7 confirming despite pressure from other leaders that August 31 is the final date for US forces to withdraw from the country.

In a scenario as complex and full of unknowns as Afghani, Money.it to interview Marco Carnelos, the current CEO and founder of MC Geopolicy, the former ambassador to Iraq and the first special envoy of the Italian government to the Middle East peace process and the crisis in Syria.

Nothing in particular emerged from the hastily convened extraordinary G7 meeting to discuss Afghanistan, except for Joe Biden’s confirmation of the final withdrawal of US forces by August 31. What will happen in Kabul starting in September?

The G7 can only be resolved by a list of well-known appeals and expectations that are largely taken for granted, and nothing more, underlining a marked absence of vision from what should be, but is no longer, the main international reference point. social communication. The world’s top seven at the moment seem rather average. Biden kept the August 31 deadline, but asked his people to anticipate contingency plans if the need to extend them becomes unavoidable, in essence it will take time because he doesn’t know what to do and with him no one knows, since no one knows what will happen in September. The international community has been sailing on the horizon in Afghanistan, and has been doing so for at least twenty years, because not knowing and perhaps never wanting to know the country, he preferred to project his own view of the world to he-she.

After Trump’s deal with the Taliban, could Biden handle this situation differently?

Biden inherited from Trump an agreement signed with the Taliban without the help of the Afghan government and the same NATO allies who remained somewhat displaced. Biden also met his withdrawal deadline, August 31. Surely this could have been better planned, but what the United States did not expect, or perhaps pretended not to see, was that the dynamics on the ground prevailed over the logistical and temporal needs of the United States and NATO. The Afghan armed forces, which had suffered heavy losses in recent years, contrary to Biden’s assertion, stopped fighting for two reasons: they felt it was no longer worth it, and they avoided further bloodshed; They no longer receive air support from American aviation. Recall that the Afghan army was trained to fight by the US military only in the way that provided the constant presence of air support, but this failed in everything.

In recent days there has been a lot of talk about some kind of geopolitical risk arising from the Taliban’s return to power. From Russia to China to Pakistan and Iran, who benefits from this new situation in Afghanistan?

As I wrote in the magazine yesterday Middle East Eye The outcome of the Afghan issue, with the defeat of America, ends the Great Game in Central Asia that lasted 20 years. I have always had some suspicion that the prolonged American presence in the country was motivated solely by counterterrorism and nation building. In fact, this has allowed Washington to insert a wedge into the large Eurasia project that China is implementing with the Belt and Road Initiative (New Silk Road) and which Russia and other Central Asian countries, Iran and Pakistan are linking with the United States. Disappointment because it is likely to change the global balance. It now remains to be seen how these countries will fill the power vacuum left by the United States. For now, in addition to the Taliban, there are only two clear winners coming out of the Afghan affair: Pakistan and the US military-industrial complex. The vast majority of the $2 trillion the United States spent in the country would have come back as contracts for American companies, entities, and contractors.

Even in this Afghan crisis, Europe has shown all its weaknesses in terms of foreign policy, and at the moment is only interested in the issue of immigrants.

Unfortunately, this has been the case for several years. At the moment, Europe has lost much of its impetus and it seems that literally all of its international business is obsessed with issues of immigration, which are of course very important, but which, if there is real vision and leadership, will not be allowed to impress with real. paralysis of our institutions.

Between Di Maio at sea and Draghi with his usual “pragmatic” approach, how does the Italian government move?

In a crisis of this magnitude, no one can move independently, let alone Italy, so we end up working within the traditional columns of reference, which are for Euro-Atlantic riders. Moreover, I understand that the Prime Minister was one of the few, if not the only, who advocated within the G7 the need for coordination with Russia and China on Afghanistan; A minimum of realism and common sense in a forum that seems to have lost its way a long time ago. As for the disputes over crises run by the bathing establishments, they are not new and do not concern us alone, as evidenced by the storm affecting British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab. In my humble opinion, it is a matter of image rather than substance. Today, technologies make it possible to manage crisis situations from anywhere, what matters is that you know what to do to deal with them effectively, and what matters is how not and where.