> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. Punishing the sponsors of the 9/11 attacks, not entrenching an ideological split.
That's bollocks. I'm German, had the Allied Powers followed the Morgenthau plan Germany would be essentially an Afghanistan today - an agro state and nothing more. But you all followed through with Marshall, and that was perhaps the ideal example that nation building works.
It is just very complex, requires understanding of cultural differences, and patience. The Western countries didn't even have a proper post-immediate-hostility strategy (partially because Bush's cronies clearly hadn't invested a single second of thought beyond "how to fill the coffers of the MIC) in Afghanistan, much less a plan on how to give Afghanistan-the-country an economic perspective beyond farming opium.
Afghanistan has a lot of precious natural resources: minerals, metals, oil and gas. Had the Western countries invested in kickstarting mining these, providing locals with employment and the government with a steady stream of funds, the situation would have been very difficult today. Especially since a population that has security, stability and income doesn't go and look for the next fundamentalist terrorist for a perspective!
As a result: I refuse to put blame on any ANA soldier or civilian for deserting against the Taliban. Why fight for a country that has literally no way to survive on its own?
And fwiw, the lack of a modern "Marshall Plan" clone is also what led to the shitshows that are Libya, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. You can't just go into a place, depose a dictator and then hope that the situation will turn out all right on its own. If you want democracy, you have to make it appealing to people!