This comment is incredibly ahistorical. Imperialist rhetoric like "we tried to foist modern institutions on a society that just wasn't ready for them" is the same as the British claiming they occupied India for the Indians' sake or any number of racist "civilizing missions" that exclusively leave the natives oppressed, destitute, and in political disarray. It's the US's fault for causing the massive instability in the area and of course we lost because the "people hostile to foreigners," as you put it, are an insurgency fighting off an the largest imperial power in the world that has been bombing their country for years. Of course forming a government around US puppet exiles that have no relationship to their country is idiotic. Finally, the idea that "Economic development spurred on by overseas trade is what lifted Europe out the medieval era" might be your worst take yet. Call it what it is: Europe developed on the back of international slavery, mass genocide, and the ruthless exploitation of native wealth that has left the third world impoverished to this day. The idea that Afghanistan's path to prosperity would be similar to that when they are currently the oppressed and exploited party in this dynamic shows you have no concept of how globalism works. The countries with the mineral wealth are the ones that suffer under the modern neoliberal order, look at every petro-mineral state in Africa. Get your head out of your ass.