THE FATE of Afghanistan also shows how Western forces approached the September 11 attacks as a test of national virility rather than a crime. The hijackers of the aeroplanes largely came from Saudi Arabia, with a couple from the United Arab Emirates.

However, neither the US nor Britain took any significant action against Saudi Arabia, because they are an economic and military ally. They’ve got a lot of oil and money and their generally reactionary politics fit well enough with Western foreign policy.

Bin Laden, whose organisation had a role in the attacks which the Western powers said was crucial, was in Afghanistan in 2001. But he wasn’t there for any of the subsequent 20 years of occupation.

He was finally found living in a suburb of a garrison city in Pakistan in 2011 and had most likely been living in Pakistan since 2001. But the Western powers would rather spend billions occupying Afghanistan in the name of “anti-terrorism” because it was an easier canvas on to which they could “project power.”

The “nation-building” occupation of Afghanistan was an attempt to demonstrate military and political strength after the shock of 9/11. Remembering back to those days, it’s worth remembering how they made this show of strength with some nervousness. Tony Blair told Parliament in December 2001 that British forces would not be in Afghanistan long.

“A specific time limit has not yet been decided, but people are talking of several months, so British forces would not be in the country on a long-term basis; they would simply get the security force going,” he claimed.

Sadly the apparent success of this limited show of power went to Blair and Bush’s heads: Western hubris lead to the long-term occupation of Afghanistan and the even worse adventure in Iraq.