While watching the developments in Afghanistan, one cannot help but ask what is the difference between the ongoing US occupation and the current situation. While saying this, I would like to state that I am not against the exit of the USA from Afghanistan, in order to avoid any misunderstanding. Moreover, it is still not clear whether the US has withdrawn from Afghanistan. For example, did the United States take away the weapons it has piled up in Afghanistan for years, and if so, how much? Or are the weapons he really left just a pile of junk, or did he leave the weapons necessary for the Taliban to establish dominance in Afghanistan as per the agreement reached with the Taliban? Because after the withdrawal of the USA, such photos were served to the media that it seemed that there were some attractions to hide what they wanted to do. For example, there were images of some US soldiers breaking the windows of their vehicles before they were taken at Kabul Airport. If you didn't take it, why are you trying to destroy the weapons you left? One cannot help but ask if your aim is to hide the truth of the matter.
At this point, when the news that the Taliban is working on forming a government in Afghanistan, US Chief of Staff Mark Milley is warning that a civil war will start in Afghanistan. Of course, it is not surprising that a civil war broke out in Afghanistan due to the resulting administrative vacuum. Moreover, there has been no lasting peace in Afghanistan, even though conflicts have stopped from time to time during the 40 years since the Russian occupation. Perhaps lasting peace could be achieved after Russia was expelled from the country, but that was not due to the inability to reach an agreement on the formation of a government between the groups fighting side by side on the fronts. At this point, the fact that the groups in Afghanistan have learned the necessary lessons from the past sufferings is worrisome. Because in Afghanistan, it is not possible to achieve peace with the mediation of the invaders and colonialists, whether it is the USA, Russia or any other country. Because even if the colonists leave a country they entered, they do not neglect to leave their own residues behind. Just because the colonists leave a country does not mean that they have stopped exploiting. They just change the form of exploitation. They are taking steps to make their exploitation cheaper. Currently, it is possible to see this reality in many countries in Africa.
Meanwhile, the fact that the invading forces have withdrawn from a country does not mean that they left no force there in their name. Even leaving the administration to the indigenous people is often fraudulent. Because they maintain their existence even if they are not de facto by some groups they have formed. Moreover, they are not ashamed to blame other countries to cover up their own colonialism and occupation. For example, the failure of a US senator, who defines the Turkish soldier in Cyprus as an occupier, it would be enough to show the hypocrisy of the colonialists for not asking the question, "What are we doing in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan?" In addition, against the same senator's telling the world that they have been fighting against DAESH for years in the face of the death of 13 policemen in the DAESH attack in Iraq, the other colonialists, especially the USA, who have been presenting their presence in Syria and Iraq as the fight against terrorism for years. While they should be ashamed of the fact that Turkey maintains its entire existence in the region, they do not feel the need to question it. In this respect, clearly, the presence of the USA in a country alone means civil war. If a country wants to get rid of the civil war, they must first question the invaders in their country.