USSR

US ends 20 year old war, leaving Afghani civilians in the lurch

By Madhavi Rao ’24

Staff Writer

After a 20-year insurgency against the U.S. government, the Taliban, an Islamic militant organization, has taken control of Afghanistan. The extremist takeover was hastened by the U.S.’s withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in July and August 2021. The militant group's seizure of power has caused human rights concerns for citizens of Afghanistan.

On April 14, President Joe Biden announced that U.S. troops would withdraw from Afghanistan, ending an ongoing war that spanned two decades. Biden stated that “[The U.S.] no longer had a clear purpose in an open-ended mission in Afghanistan,” Al-Jazeera reported. This decision was fully implemented on the Aug. 31 deadline, when the last U.S. troops left the country. The withdrawal of the U.S. military led to the rapid conquest of the country by the Taliban, resulting in the extremist organization’s capture of the capital, Kabul, on Aug. 15. 

During the reign of the Soviet Union, the USSR extended forces to Afghanistan as a way of supporting the communist government that existed there. In 1989, the Soviets were driven out by Islamic fighters. The subsequent power vacuum led to the creation of the Taliban, an Islamic extremist group consisting mostly of students, in 1994. When it first emerged, the group was described as consisting of “Islamic purists and Afghan patriots” by The New York Times. The movement was initially welcomed as a form of relief against the Afghan warlords that played a part in driving out the Soviet soldiers. However, in 1996, the Taliban declared Afghanistan an “Islamic Emirate,” ruling with a conservative view of the religion which was intolerant of other religions and oppressive of women’s freedoms. By 1998, the militant group had taken control of most of the country. 

Following the 2001 attack by the terrorist group al-Qaeda on the Twin Towers in New York City, Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, was harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The U.S. military launched airstrikes alongside Afghan Northern Alliance ground forces and deposed the Taliban rulers when they refused to hand over bin Laden. According to BBC News, the U.S. vowed to “support democracy and eliminate the terrorist threat” in Afghanistan. The Taliban returned, and the situation escalated into the longest war that the U.S. has fought. With the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops on Aug. 31, the future of Afghanistan under Taliban rule is uncertain. 

“For at least the past ten years, the Taliban controlled at least half of Afghan territory,”  chair of International Relations on the Alumnae Foundation and Professor of Politics Sohail Hashmi said. “The people in rural Afghanistan — the majority of the population — have been under Taliban rule. The choice facing President Biden was to prolong this stalemate for yet another presidential administration, escalate American troop presence to respond to escalating Taliban attacks, or pull out,” Hashmi continued. “In my opinion, President Obama made a crucial mistake when he decided to continue the American presence in Afghanistan after Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011. Remember, the U.S. attacked Afghanistan in 2001 to eliminate the threat from al-Qaeda coming from that country. Ten years later, bin Laden was killed not in Afghanistan, but deep in Pakistan.”

“Over the 20-year arc of the war, it has been a story of U.S. overreach and, at times, a self-deluding refusal to face facts,” American journalist David Ignatius wrote in an opinion piece for The Washington Post. 

“The problem with the evacuation, in part, was that military and civilian efforts were operating on different clocks,” Ignatius said. “The military raced out by July 1, embracing the generals’ credo, ‘speed is safety,’ and leaving behind only a token force of 650.” He continued, “The civilian withdrawal proceeded at a slower pace, moving more like ‘pond water’ than a rushing torrent, in the words of one four-star general. That was partly because Biden had promised President Ashraf Ghani to avoid a rush for the exits that might trigger a panic. It turned out that it was Ghani himself who panicked and fled for his life, handing Kabul to the Taliban.”

Omid, a 26-year-old Afghani medical student, told Al-Jazeera, “They gave us pens and taught us about freedom, and then just as quickly, they took it all away,” referencing the end of U.S. presence in the country. In an interview with the news outlet, he went on to explain that the main concern for many Afghani civilians at the moment is staying out of poverty, as well as finding a means of leaving the country. 

Abhilash Medhi, assistant professor of history at Mount Holyoke College, commented on the conditions of people in the country: “In terms of inflation, food security, poverty, etc. the country might face similar problems as it did under Taliban rule in the 1990s. People are already lining up to sell household items for money. One statistic states that one third of the country now has food insecurity.”

One reason for the economic instability is the withdrawal of U.S. aid to the country. Foreign aid accounts for nearly half the legal economy of Afghanistan, according to a report by The New York Times, meaning that stopping this inflow of cash could lead to a serious financial crisis in the nation. The exit of U.S. troops also removed a major source of tax revenue from the country. 

The Taliban’s conservative views are also a source of concern when considering the country’s future. In a report on the conditions of human rights in Afghanistan, Amnesty International stated, “Women and girls continued to face gender-based discrimination and violence throughout Afghanistan, especially in areas under Taliban control, where their rights were violated with impunity and violent ‘punishments’ were meted out for perceived transgressions of the armed group’s interpretation of Islamic law.” 

Medhi further clarified, “A large portion of the country was already under Taliban rule. In the south and the east, in regions such as Helmand, Wardak and Paktia, there were entire districts which were already controlled by the Taliban.” Medhi continued, “The Taliban’s strict doctrine is not dissimilar to how some ethnic groups, such as the Pashtuns, were already living. However, for groups such as the Hazaras, the Uzbeks and the Tajiks, these developments can be very troubling. The Taliban takeover means very different things for people based on their ethnicity and gender.” 

Massoud, a shopkeeper in the capital city of Kabul, told Al-Jazeera, “The former governments were full of corrupt thieves, but now, we have no freedoms.”

Armenia-Azerbaijan Border Is Exposed To Heaviest Fighting It’s Seen in Years

Photo courtesy of wikimedia commons

Photo courtesy of wikimedia commons

By Aditi Parashar ’22

Staff Writer

Armenia and Azerbaijan’s military forces have erupted into conflict, exposing their border to the heaviest fighting it has seen in years. The clashes began on Sept. 27, with both Armenia and Azerbaijan accusing the other of making the first move. 

This conflict has been the most significant military escalation the region has witnessed since the last war between Armenia and Azerbaijan ended in 1994. Al-Jazeera reported that experts and citizens alike fear that this could end in a full-scale war. Laurence Broers, a South Caucasus expert, said in a BBC article that containing the conflict within days, as has happened previously, might not be possible due to the intensity this time around. 

The decades-long conflict is centered around the battle between Armenia and Azerbaijan for control over the mountainous region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is internationally recognized as a part of Azerbaijan but controlled by ethnic Armenians. 

The tensions in the region began in 1988 while the two were still republics within the Soviet Union. As the Soviet Union began to dissolve, it gave formal control of the contested Nagorno-Karabakh region to Azerbaijan, despite the region having an Armenian ethinic majority. During the time in which formal control of the region was given to Azerbaijan, Armenians made calls for the control to be transferred to Armenia; the Nagorno-Karabakh regional parliament vote showed the residents of the area wanting the same. 

Central Eurasian studies expert Michael P. Croissant explains the historical background in his book, “The Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict: Causes and Implications.” “In August [of 1987] a petition signed by more than 75,000 Armenians was sent to General-Secretary Gorbachev, pleading for the Soviet leader to ‘reattach Mountainous Karabakh to Socialist Armenia,’” Croissant wrote.

Azerbaijan took steps to suppress this separatist movement because it wanted to maintain control over Nagorno-Karabakh. After Armenia and Azerbaijan both gained independence from Moscow in 1991, the region saw full-scale war due to the conflict of interest between the two countries. This resulted in tens of thousands dying in massacres and ethnic cleansings. Mass displacement led to a severe refugee crisis and various other human rights violations. The war lasted until 1994 and ended with a ceasefire; however, “Negotiations over decades, mediated by international powers, have never resulted in a peace treaty,” reported the BBC.

Nora Cyra ’21, a double major in international relations and Russian and Eurasian Studies, said: “The recent years have seen a notable increase in nationalist rhetoric from either side of the border. Both countries have emphasized how the other is an existential threat to the people, and placed great importance on how integral the Nagorno-Karabakh region is to each country’s national identity. The increasingly strong public opinion on both sides, especially following the 2016 outbreak of fighting, is that the only resolution can come from direct conflict.”

Shanze Hasan ’21, another international relations major, also weighed in on the conflict. “One of the major factors at play here is the desire for no compromise present on both sides. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have hardened their positions on this conflict so considerably that it leaves no room for compromise to even be considered. When the other side has been vilified to the extent we see in these two countries, even if tomorrow both the governments decided to hold talks, the result of their aggressive propaganda would be seen in their own populations’ inability to accept such a move.”

The BBC reported that the scale and scope of the conflict has surpassed the periodic escalations the border has seen over the years, this time “involving heavy artillery, tanks, missiles and drones.” Cyra explained, “Azerbaijan and Armenia have increased their own militarization capabilities in a way that has had a direct impact on the level of militarization visible at the border and thus, the willingness of both countries to engage in battle.”

Cyra, who is completing her thesis on the resolution of intractable conflicts in the former Soviet Union, further elaborated, “The changing international landscape has also led to an increased involvement of the allies of both countries which we could see result in a wider regional power conflict.”

Turkey has historically been an ally to Azerbaijan and has lent its explicit support to the Azeri government. There currently exist no diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia. 

The other key country which could potentially get drawn into the conflict is Russia. Russia maintains relationships with both Armenia and Azerbaijan, supplying them both with weapons. However, Russia has a military base in Armenia, and both are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, an intergovernmental military alliance. The BBC reported, “The longer that fighting goes on, and/or if one side is seen to be losing in a more protracted struggle, the more likely it is that Russia and Turkey will face difficult choices over whether to become more involved.”