Who Is Responsible for Afghanistan’s Collapse?

Who Is Responsible for Afghanistan’s Collapse?

What happened on August 15, 2021 did not happen overnight but was in the making since the US made a deal with the Taliban on February 29, 2020. The fall of Kabul, in Afghanistan, came as a blow to the world but many ignore the factors that were slowly making room for it to happen. The gradual disintegration of Afghan Defense and National Security Forces (ADNSF) and the loss of ground kept making room for the Taliban to pick ground and fill the vacuum the US created. But who empowered the Taliban to this extent? For this to be answered, the deal that Trump made with the Taliban and Biden decided to adhere to serves as the perfect starting point.

The terms and conditions of the withdrawal aside, the brokering of the deal was an enough morale-breaking development for the ADNSF.

The very recent report by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) presented initially before two US committees, points at the US-Taliban deal as one of the major contributing factors to the self-annihilation of the Afghan Security Forces. The withdrawal meant the gradual loss of air support (by the US) for the forces coupled with distortions and ultimately complete disconnect of the logistics and supply of ammunitions. How could a National Security Force survive in the absence of its backbone support and supply line. The blames that are directed at the Afghan Forces for not fighting back appropriately die a natural death once the ground situation is taken into account. Furthermore, a starved army; an army that cannot see where its guns must be pointed, cannot be expected to fight back or fight at all. SIGAR’s report rightly points to the concerns over salary leading to breaking of ADNSF’s morale.

There is, however, another side to the collapse of ANDSF, which is completely overlooked in SIGAR’s report.

ANDSF disintegrated so quick because it was never fully integrated to begin with.

Surprising records of corruption have been reported in the name of ‘ghost soldiers;’ an army that was shown on papers but never existed on ground. Officials from ISAF, NATO, and Afghanistan have been allegedly claimed to have filled their pockets with wages in the name of soldiers that existed only on paper. One account by Afghanistan’s ex-finance minister mentions 300,000 troops that existed only in papers. So, how could ANDSF fight Taliban with ‘ghost soldiers?’ The story does not end here.

An evident failure of the allied forces to invest in Afghan air force became apparent as soon as the allies withdrew their air support.

No mechanisms of accountability exist when it comes to these major instances of mishandling of the Afghan situation.

Decades of presence on the land, and the US and its allies could not build the capacity of the ANDSF like they should have. Hence, the collapse was inevitable. Going back once again, as the US settled into a deal with the Taliban, it granted an undeclared legitimacy to the agency of the Taliban. The Afghan Forces, from there on, could not see the enemy in the Taliban and surrendered by all means. The collapse happened because it was allowed to happen. Two successive US Presidents could not ensure the ‘Peace Agreement’ to deliver the ‘peace’ on the Afghan land. From decades of chaos and war in Afghanistan, entitled individuals in the West made fortunes and enterprises. But the end came as a rather ‘hasty withdrawal.’

The US was supposed to make things right in Afghanistan but what it did was quite the contrary.

By granting the Taliban an undeclared legitimacy, the US gave a message to the world, and Afghanistan’s neighbors specially, to extend relations with the Taliban and acknowledge them as the new government of Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the question of responsibility will surface time and again until a humanitarian and security catastrophe keeps haunting Afghanistan and the region – who is responsible for Afghanistan’s collapse? The country that loudly proclaims itself to be the most powerful country of the world, but failed to execute a deal for the good of an already deprived people of a war-ravaged land.

SAT Editorial Desk

Your go-to editorial hub for policy perspectives and informed analysis on pressing regional and global issues.

Recent

A critical analysis of Drop Site News’ report alleging a UK–Pakistan “swap deal,” exposing its reliance on anonymous sources, partisan framing, and legally impossible claims.

Anonymous Sources, Big Claims, Thin Ground

A recent Drop Site News report claims a covert UK–Pakistan exchange of convicted sex offenders for political dissidents. But a closer look shows the story rests on hearsay, anonymous insiders, and a narrative shaped more by partisan loyalties than evidence. From misrepresenting legally declared propagandists as persecuted critics to ignoring the legal impossibility of such a swap, this report illustrates how modern journalism can slip into activism. When sensational claims outrun facts and legality, credibility collapses, and so does the line between holding power accountable and manufacturing a story.

Read More »
A sharp critique of Zabihullah Mujahid’s recent evasive remarks on the TTP, exposing Taliban hypocrisy and Afghan complicity in cross-border militancy.

Zabihullah Mujahid’s Bizarre Statement on TTP: A Lesson in Hypocrisy and Evasion

Zabihullah Mujahid’s recent statement dismissing the TTP as Pakistan’s “internal issue” and claiming Pashto lacks the word “terrorist” is a glaring act of evasion. By downplaying a UN-listed militant group hosted on Afghan soil, the Taliban spokesperson attempts to deflect responsibility, despite overwhelming evidence of TTP sanctuaries, leadership, and operations in Afghanistan. His remarks reveal not linguistic nuance, but calculated hypocrisy and political convenience.

Read More »
Beyond the Rhetoric: What Muttaqi’s Address Reveals About Afghan Policy

Beyond the Rhetoric: What Muttaqi’s Address Reveals About Afghan Policy

Interim Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s recent address sought to reframe Afghanistan’s strained ties with Pakistan through a narrative of victimhood and denial. From dismissing cross-border militancy to overstating economic resilience, his claims contradict on-ground realities and historical patterns. A closer examination reveals strategic deflection rather than accountability, with serious implications for regional peace and security.

Read More »
We Want Deliverance

We Want Deliverance

Political mobilization in South Asia is not rooted in policy or institutions but in a profound yearning for deliverance. From Modi’s civilizational aura in India to Imran Khan’s revolutionary moral narrative in Pakistan, voters seek not managers of the state but messianic figures who promise total transformation. This “Messiah Complex” fuels a cycle of charismatic rise, institutional erosion, and eventual democratic breakdown, a pattern embedded in the region’s political psychology and historical imagination.

Read More »