Keith Kellogg, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general, is co-chair of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute.
When the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021, it ended a nearly 20-year military commitment costing American lives and resources. Five years later, with the Taliban firmly in control of Afghanistan, China is pursuing access to the country’s vast mineral wealth and expanding its influence, while Washington largely sees the country as the site of a closed, painful chapter in our history.
This is a mistake.
Afghanistan possesses substantial deposits of copper, lithium, iron ore and other minerals essential to national defense. Much of this wealth remains undeveloped, but Beijing understands its potential. Chinese companies have pursued mining concessions and commercial relationships with the Taliban, positioning themselves favorably for decades to come.
As the U.S. reduces dependence on China for critical minerals, we should care who gains these resources and the influence that comes with them.
Afghanistan’s importance extends beyond its mineral wealth. It is also geographical. The country borders China and Iran, connects Central and South Asia, and occupies territory that has been strategically important for generations. Russia remains an influential regional actor. Afghanistan’s location offers opportunities to develop natural gas pipelines, electricity transmission lines and transportation corridors that could strengthen regional connectivity and expand trade — provided an Afghan government can establish the conditions necessary to develop them.
The Taliban have given us little reason to believe that they can.
Since returning to power, they have failed to establish the institutions, commercial stability and international relationships necessary for sustained growth. Afghanistan remains isolated from much of the international financial system, and investors face serious questions about contract enforcement, security and political interference.
United Nations monitors continue to document the presence of al-Qaeda and other extremist organizations in Afghanistan. ISIS-Khorasan remains a threat, and instability along the Pakistani border adds to regional security problems.
These conditions make Afghanistan an unreliable partner for long-term economic relationships. China, however, may accept the risks. Beijing has shown a willingness to invest in unstable regions when doing so advances its strategic interests, particularly by securing natural resources or expanding trade routes.
Chinese investment will not automatically mean Chinese control. Yet financial dependence creates political leverage. Beijing is establishing relationships and influence in a strategically important country that will last long after the current Taliban leadership is gone.
American policy must also account for political forces beyond the Taliban.
Afghanistan is home to experienced business leaders, former public servants and a younger generation, both in the country and abroad, who understand the importance of economic development, functioning institutions and constructive relationships with the outside world. Two decades of American and allied investment helped develop this human capital, which remains an important asset for Afghanistan’s future. Many of these people are working to organize a political alternative to Taliban rule.
I recently met with Ellias Faizi Ghoryani, secretary-general of the Afghanistan Freedom Movement (AFM), who traveled to Washington to discuss his organization’s vision for Afghanistan’s future. AFM is seeking to bring Afghan political and opposition voices together around a common platform focused on legitimate governance, economic opportunity and a future beyond Taliban rule.
Our conversation was an initial one, and I fully understand American reservations about renewed involvement in Afghanistan, but I welcomed the opportunity to hear how Ghoryani’s movement intends to translate those ambitions into a practical political program. Its emphasis on Afghan leadership and building a broader coalition raises important questions worth exploring.
The measure of AFM’s success, as with any emerging political movement, will be its ability to earn support within Afghanistan, unite communities with different interests and demonstrate that it can offer a credible governing alternative. Those are demanding but necessary standards.
Washington should engage credible Afghan political voices working toward a legitimate alternative to Taliban rule. It should seek to understand their leadership and capacity to build support, while using diplomatic, economic and financial tools to maintain pressure on the Taliban.
This does not require sending American troops back to Afghanistan, another nation-building mission or a new financial commitment from taxpayers. We spent two decades learning the limits of U.S. military power when a country’s political future lacks local legitimacy. Any lasting change in Afghanistan must come from Afghans themselves.
A stable Afghanistan with a legitimate government, dependable commercial institutions and productive relationships with its neighbors would offer opportunities for American businesses and contribute to regional security, including by helping to resolve the conflict with Iran. Its mineral resources could become part of more diversified global supply chains and reduce U.S. and allied dependence on China.
None of this will happen quickly. Afghanistan’s divisions are substantial and development will take years. Those difficulties warrant careful engagement, not indifference.
The 2020 Doha Agreement established a framework for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan to end America’s longest war. It was never a determination that Afghanistan had ceased to matter to American security or economic interests.
China is making its calculations about Afghanistan’s future. The U.S. should be making its own.
The post The U.S. left Afghanistan. China’s still there. appeared first on Washington Post.
