Every country has the right to defend its interests. Rather, this right can be confirmed by saying that it is the duty of every state to preserve its interests and priorities and what is beneficial to its people.
This talk can not be opposed by a sane person. But I think that the oppositions abound and the differences grow when the dispute is about the very concept of the interest, as any failure to understand what represents the interest may lead to the striking of that interest, and then it happens that a state threatens its interests while it believes that it is promoting its protection.
US President Joe Biden’s talk about the fact that it is not in the interest of the United States to stay in Afghanistan and fight there, given that its goal was not to build a state but to hunt down “Al-Qaeda”, adding that the mistakes of the past cannot be repeated, led us to reflect on what is believed to be an interest. In addition to another issue that we see as very important for a country that is the most powerful country in the world, and which manages this international community, is how to formulate a discourse of defense of interests.
It seems to us that President Biden’s speech, and the justifications he gave to explain his sudden exit from Afghanistan, and what the pictures of his departure conveyed about the abandonment of the Afghans after their country, land and wealth were used in the war of revenge by the United States against “Al-Qaeda”… The position and its justifications have hit the interests of the United States. United. We do not forget that the interests in the material, the tangible, and the symbolic are important as well, as the most powerful country in the world has an image interest as well, and power is first and foremost an image that is marketed, and the United States did this in the sixties, seventies and eighties, and not even children were spared from the images of power that it was spreading In cartoons, how many children have fallen victim to the heroes of American cartoon culture trying to imitate them.
It is noticeable that since the attacks of September 11, 2001, many things have changed in American politics and communication. The idea that it is the most powerful country in the world has been neglected, without being behaviorally abandoned.
To make it more clear: the abandonment of the United States in this harsh way, in which it assured the Afghans that their affairs and the matter of their country does not concern them, leaving their fate in the hands of the “Taliban” movement, in addition to the great resentment and shock that this produced in the world… But this behavior contradicts the image of The most powerful country in the world. Perhaps what women and girls are going through in Afghanistan today is an abandonment that does not befit the image of America, which has always tried to convince the world that rights and democracy are among the red lines.
Also, direct talk about the goal behind its presence in Afghanistan for two decades is a moral affront to the image of the United States, as there is recognition of the employment of a country and people for twenty years in order to pursue an organization that attacked America. Of course, this is well known, but over the course of these two decades the United States has been promoting other ideas, namely that it is fighting terrorism, and wants to eliminate it, and the result was that it left Afghanistan at a critical time.
Also, does the most powerful country in the world have the right to make mistakes in the world?
President Biden’s responses to those upset about his abandonment of the Afghan people and the handing over of the country to the Taliban movement included a clear and explicit signal that his country would not repeat the mistakes of the past. Therefore, the foreign policy of the United States is mistakes, and most of these mistakes were committed in the Middle East and beyond.
We believe that making mistakes, especially repeating mistakes to the extent that talking about mistakes, also affects the image of the most powerful country in the world, because the image of power requires success in managing the world, and without that strength vanishes in favor of the image of error and failure.
American policy theorists, led by Fukuyama, have promoted the idea that the era of totalitarian regimes has ended, and based on the recommendations of White House thinkers and American policies, orders calling for political reform, imposing pluralistic political participation, and opening the digital space and the Internet to peoples began. These ideas heralded a world dominated by democracy and human rights, and there were countries that accepted democracy through American power and tutelage. But the numerous experiences, or as the US President called them “mistakes,” all showed failure, and how the countries targeted by the United States left them in a state of crisis and rivalry. We have strong examples in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.
Perhaps these American experiences lead us to ask a set of questions: Was the goal of the United States of America to sow chaos that it thought was creative, so it was destructive for countries and peoples, or was it concerned with spreading democracy and bridging the gap between the advanced democratic countries and the totalitarian ones? To what extent was the US war on terrorism really, and how are the dimensions of the relationship of the largest country in the world to terrorism?
We ask these questions because we are facing a real crisis in managing the world, and in understanding that whoever wants to run the world, the interests of the world are part of his interests.