7,215 days of the US military presence in Afghanistan, since the start of fighting was announced on October 7, 2001, until the official completion of the withdrawal on August 31, making it the longest war in American history.

Conservative estimates of the value of the material cost incurred by the US Treasury during the past 20 years amount to one trillion dollars, while the New York Times confirms that the amount is no less than 2 trillion dollars, but the Cost of War project at the University of Brown estimated the cost to be at least $2.27 trillion, or roughly $241 million a day. Yes! Successive US Republican and Democratic administrations spent 241 million dollars a day on a losing war that did not serve American strategic interests, with the exception of neutralizing al-Qaeda responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks, which was done in the first 3 months of fighting.

It is not possible to form an integrated picture to understand what happened and is happening in Afghanistan without addressing the nature of the "military-industrial complex".

After two terms of office that extended from 1953 to 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech against "undue influence, whether requested or not from the military-industrial complex," meaning the alliance between the huge military establishment represented by the Department of Defense (the Pentagon) ) and major military industries companies.

This alliance enjoys wide influence over the Democratic and Republican parties, and Congress passes annually, routinely, and without being affected by the party with the majority in both houses - the House and the Senate - defense budgets without valuable discussions or reservations, and the military budget is one of the rare issues in which the two parties compete to satisfy the Pentagon.

It is noteworthy that the US military budget, which amounts to nearly $800 billion annually, exceeds the total defense budgets of the 10 largest countries in terms of military spending, namely China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, Britain, France, Japan, Germany, South Korea and Brazil.

The electoral calculations of members of Congress govern their positions regarding military allocations, or the maintenance of unnecessary military bases and equipment, and members of Congress are pressing to maintain production lines for armored vehicles, tanks, and aircraft, of which there is no longer a practical need for American forces to acquire more.

On the other hand, a complex machine of corporate "lobby" pressures members of Congress to maintain or increase the size of the defense budget.

In addition to the major arms companies - which are seeking to double their contracts with the US government - Washington includes various research centers that support and defend the inflation of the military budget.

Instead of talking about a low threat rate for the United States while maintaining the world's most powerful armies and the largest military budget, the focus is on increasing threats, increasing the volume of strategic competition from China and Russia, and the dangers of Iran and North Korea, in addition to terrorist threats.

American intellectual circles have known for many years that there is no military solution in Afghanistan, yet the American forces remained there without a specific goal to achieve.

The current Secretary of Defense, General Lloyd Austin - after retiring from the armed forces in 2016 - joined the boards of directors of several companies, led by Raytheon, one of the largest US arms manufacturers, of which the Pentagon is its number one customer.

The American elite, even with the images of the collapse, suffering and chaos associated with the Kabul evacuation, avoids asking serious questions about who benefits from spending $241 million a day for 20 years!

It is not possible to understand what happened and is happening, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq, until after dismantling and understanding how these funds were distributed, and to which bank accounts they ended up, whether those linked to major companies or companies of government contractors, most of which are owned by former military officials.

A report issued a few months ago by the Pentagon's Office of the Special Inspector for Afghanistan notes that there are 22,500 contractors funded from the Pentagon's budget in Afghanistan at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

This result reflects the failure of the "Washington" in its clearest form.

Washington, the federal capital, and the seat of political decision-making, is rife with manifestations of legal corruption that has accumulated in an unprecedented manner in recent decades, in contrast to the great successes witnessed by the rest of the centers of American power.

The "revolving door" phenomenon allows former administration officials to leave to work in private companies and institutions, and then return again after years to work in the government and take high government positions again.

This scenario is repeated to create a complex web of personal and private relationships that do not hesitate to embroil the United States in pointless wars. The current Secretary of Defense, General Lloyd Austin - after retiring from the armed forces in 2016 - joined the boards of directors of several companies, led by Raytheon Company, one of the largest US arms manufacturers of which the Pentagon is its number one customer. And the matter is not limited to the current defense minister, as all former officials join the boards of major arms manufacturers, major investment companies' funds, or work in lobby companies. For example, former Defense Secretary General James Mattis is currently working as an advisor to General Dynamics, one of the largest American arms manufacturers, of which the Pentagon is its number one customer, for an annual salary of $900,000.

Although Americans are proud of their country's democracy, it also has a political system that may be the most corrupt in the world; The reason most Americans are not aware of this fact is that corruption is legal in them. Although most Americans believe that their government is “the government of the people, by the people, and for the people,” the reality is more complex than that, as it appears to be “the government of the people from interest groups and for the interests of these groups.” At the head of these groups comes the military-industrial complex.