Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts tagged as “Afghanistan”

Biden, Afghanistan, and the U.S. Military

No to ‘Forever Wars,’ but Yes to ‘Forever Forward Deployed’

“It’s time to end the forever war,” declared President Biden in his Apr. 14, 2021, announcement that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan.

No one wants to say that we should be in Afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave…

So when will it be the right moment to leave? …War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking.

Of course no sane American wants to fight a “forever war”—that is, an indeterminable conflict with no end in sight, only a mounting list of U.S. casualties. But the President is wrong when he argues that the only alternative to “endless war” is military retreat and withdrawal.

In fact, there is a third and much better option: forever forward deployed as a garrison force, in country, that works closely with our allies—in this case, the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan—to protect vital U.S. interests in the region.

This was the option strongly recommended to Mr. Biden by his own military advisers, as well as the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group.

A small residual force of 4,500 U.S. troops, they argued, would be enough “for training, advising, and assisting Afghan defense forces; supporting allied forces; conducting counterterrorism operations; and securing our embassy.”

U.S. troops, after all, have been forward deployed in Germany, Japan, and South Korea for more than half a century. True, Afghanistan is a far cry from being remotely like any of these three countries; it remains wracked by armed conflict and civil war.

Progress. Nonetheless, with American military help, Afghanistan has made tremendous strides forward—socially, politically, economically, and militarily. U.S. casualties, meanwhile, have steadily and precipitously declined. As the New York Times’ Bret Stephens reports:

Millions of girls, whom the Taliban had forbidden to get any kind of education, went to school. Some of them—not nearly enough, but impressive considering where they started from and the challenges they faced—became doctors, entrepreneurs, members of Parliament.

“There have been no American combat deaths in Afghanistan since two soldiers were killed and six wounded on Feb. 8, 2020, in a so-called insider attack in eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province,” reports the Desert News.

“The U.S.,” Stephens notes “has lost fewer than 20 service members annually in hostile engagements in Afghanistan since 2015. That’s heartbreaking for those affected, but tiny next to the number of troops who die in routine training accidents worldwide.

“Our main role in recent years,” he adds, “has been to provide Afghan forces with effective air power. It is not an exorbitant price to pay to avert an outright Taliban victory.”

Strategic Ramifications. And preventing the Taliban from winning matters for reasons that extend far beyond Afghanistan. It matters in China, Taiwan, and the South China Sea. It matters in Russia, Ukraine, Pakistan, and Iran. And it matters in North Korea, Europe, and the Middle East.

“Our enemies will test us,” warns Bing West.

After Saigon fell [in the Vietnam War], Russia and Cuba supported proxy wars in Latin America and Africa, while Iranian radicals seized our embassy in Tehran.

The Biden administration will face similar provocations. Already, China is threatening Taiwan, Russia is massing troops on the Ukraine border, and Iran is increasing its enrichment of uranium.

“The theory of deterrence relies not just on the balance of forces, but also on reserves of credibility,” Stephens explains. “Leaving Afghanistan now does next to nothing to change the former while seriously depleting the latter.”

Diplomatic Leverage. The President disparages the notion “that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust U.S. military presence to stand as leverage.” Yet, he offers no evidence to refute this commonsensical and well-proven truth.

Instead, he blithely asserts:

We gave that argument a decade. It’s never proved effective—not when we had 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and not when we were down to a few thousand.

But the failure to win in Afghanistan is a reflection of an intractable war in an antiquated tribal society; it is not an indictment of the necessary nexus between military and diplomatic power.

Recognizing that the U.S. military has failed to achieve victory in two decades of conflict and likely will never achieve victory in the classic sense does not mean that we must reject wholesale the use of military power in Afghanistan.

This is a colossal blunder and unforced error by Mr. Biden.

The President compounds his error by arguing that “our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm’s way—U.S. boots on the ground. We have to change that thinking.”

In fact, we need to understand that a forward-deployed U.S. military presence overseas is a stabilizing force for the good and a critical component of American diplomacy.

False Choice. The bottom line: the choice between so-called endless war and abject withdrawal and retreat is a false choice. We do not have to accept either of these two badly mistaken and extreme options.

Instead, we should choose to be forever forward-deployed militarily in small but strategically significant numbers to protect our interests and put America First. The President’s failure to do so in Afghanistan jeopardizes our national security.

Feature photo credit: President Biden announces that he is withdrawing all U.S. military forces from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021, courtesy of ABC News.

What Will Trump Do In Afghanistan?

Only 11 days have passed since the United States signed a so-called peace deal with the Taliban that laid out a 14-month timetable for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan; but already we know how events there will unfold and what the crucial decision points will be in the months ahead.

We know this because we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly 19 years and we know the Taliban. We know that they remain committed to overthrowing the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan, conquering the country, and establishing a so-called Islamic Emirate.

What we don’t know for sure is how President Trump will respond when the Taliban renege on the deal, or exploit the deal’s many ambiguities, to realize their longstanding political objective. The early signs, unfortunately, are worrisome.

Last Friday (Mar. 6), for instance, Trump seemed nonplussed when asked whether he is worried that the Taliban might overrun the country after the U.S. leaves. “Well, you know, eventually, countries have to take care of themselves,” he said.

We can’t be there for… another 20 years. We’ve been there for 20 years and we’ve been protecting the country [Afghanistan]. But eventually, they’re going to have to protect themselves…

You can only hold somebody’s hand for so long. We have to get back to running our country, too.

History Lesson. Sigh. Of course, the United States has troops in Afghanistan not to protect Afghanistan, but to protect the United States. The Taliban gave sanctuary to the terrorists who used Afghanistan to plan and execute the bombing of the Pentagon and World Trade Center towers.

As a result, the United States invaded Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban. And we have been working with the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan ever since to ensure that a 9/11 bombing or similar terrorist attack never happens again. This is not charity; it is national security. 

It’s frightening and sadly disconcerting that Trump seems not to understand this despite having been president for the past three-plus years.

On the other hand, as we’ve noted here at ResCon1, there are times where Trump does seem to recognize the strategic importance of Afghanistan and the history there. So maybe he’s not as stupid and clueless as he often sounds.

In any case, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Marine Gen. Frank McKenzie, told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday that the Taliban are continuing to carry out military attacks in violation of its agreement with the United States.

McKenzie, reports the Associated Press, told the committee

he has no confidence that the [Taliban] will honor its commitments, but said his optimism or pessimism about the future doesn’t matter because any decision will be based on facts and what happens on the ground.

Decision Point. In other words, in the coming months, and especially next fall, Gen. McKenzie will tell Trump that the Taliban are not negotiating in good faith and have stepped up their attacks on the Afghan government in violation of the agreement.

Gen. McKenzie will tell Trump that the Afghan government needs U.S. support or it will will be overrun by the Taliban. What will Trump do?

Right now, it clearly sounds as if Trump will say: “I understand General, but we’ve been there too long. We must get out regardless [of the consequences].”

That’s obviously what Trump wants to do. But would he really risk allowing Afghanistan to become another terrorist training camp and base of operations? Would he really risk another 9/11-style terrorist attack?

We’ll soon find out.

Feature photo credit: Google Maps.

Trump’s Ignorance of the Taliban Undermines America’s Negotiating Posture in Afghanistan

As we’ve explained, pursuing a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan after nearly 19 years of fighting makes sense, but only if we are clear-eyed and sober-minded about who the Taliban are and what they are about.

And only if we maintain a firm and steadfast commitment to the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan and are willing to walk away from negotiations if the Taliban renege on their agreements and act in bad faith.

Unfortunately, as we reported Monday, President Trump appears to have little to no understanding of the Taliban, and the only thing he seems firm and steadfast about are bugging out of Afghanistan and withdrawing U.S. troops there.

Weakness. Trump’s palpable and pathetic rhetorical weakness vis-à-vis the Taliban undermines America’s diplomatic leverage and make it immeasurably more difficult to secure an enduring and sustainable agreement which protects U.S. security interests and the Americans homeland.

This is especially true give that the Taliban do not view negotiations in the same way as we do. For the United States and other democracies, negotiations are a means to reconcile differences and arrive at a mutually beneficial accord or modus vivendi

Not so for the Taliban. As Gen. Jack Keane (Ret.), told the Heritage Foundation Jan. 28, 2020:

The Taliban leadership position is very clear. Their top priority is to get the United States to sign an agreement to withdraw completely. They are willing to make just about any statement to get that, any promise to get that.

They’ll do a ceasefire to get that. They’ll promise negotiations with the Afghans to get that. And why do they want that?

In their words, it’s a massive boost to the movement. It amounts to a  U.S. admission of defeat, and it guarantees the legitimacy of their Islamic Emirate, which is what they call Afghanistan.  

They believe the agreement will help tip the military and diplomatic balance in favor of the Taliban, and help them to eventually overthrow the Afghan government. [That is] something they have never, ever given up [on].

The [Taliban] leaders are explicit. The agreement with the United States is a means of taking control of the Afghan government, not reaching a political settlement…

They don’t want a political settlement. They don’t want to share power. They don’t want to participate in a democracy.

Why is that? They’re very practical. [Some] 85% of the country reject the Taliban [and have rejected them] for 19 years. This in the most unpopular insurgency in modern times.

“The Taliban,” writes Bloomberg’s Eli Lake, “has always considered itself Afghanistan’s legitimate government in exile. This is why it sends its minions to attack polling places during elections, as it did last year.”

In short, the Taliban are not a legitimate political faction that simply wants a place at the decision-making table. To the contrary: they are hardcore fanatics, who have never wavered in their goal of reconquering all of Afghanistan and establishing a so-called Islamic Emirate there.

Yet, Trump acts like the Taliban are just another negotiating partner; and that negotiating a peace deal with them is no different, really, than negotiating a real estate deal with a mob boss or union official in Atlantic City. You split the differences and everyone walks away happy and content.

Negotiations. But that’s not how the Taliban think. They think that negotiations are a way for them to impose their will on a weak American president who wants out of Afghanistan, and to overthrow what they see as an illegitimate government in Kabul that has no right to rule.

It would help America’s negotiating posture if Trump showed some indication that he understands this. Instead, he repeats discredited Taliban propaganda that they are “tired of fighting.”

No, Mr. President, the Taliban are not tired of fighting. The Taliban fight—and negotiate—to win. And their continued fighting is the real obstacle to peace in Afghanistan.

Feature photo credit: France 24.

Trump’s Afghanistan Peace Deal Could Possibly Work, But Not If He Indulges His Isolationist Fantasies

We’ve alluded before to the sharp divergence between President Trump’s reckless and counterproductive rhetoric about Afghanistan and his more careful and deliberative actions vis-à-vis the country.

Rhetorically, Trump is eager to bug out of Afghanistan and end so-called endless wars. Yet, his actions there have been far more sober and deliberative than his foolish rhetoric suggests.

The danger is that Trump’s isolationist instincts will win out and that the disaster we’ve seen unfolding in Syria as a result of Trump’s sudden bug out there will be repeated in Afghanistan, albeit with far worse results.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, this same dichotomy exists in the new peace agreement that the Trump administration signed with the Taliban Saturday. The early indications are that Trump intends go all-in on the deal and live out his isolationist fantasies.

Diplomacy. Of course, pursuing a diplomatic solution in Afghanistan is a good idea. As Michèle Flournoy and Stephen J. Hadley explain in the Washington Post, “What is the alternative? After more than 18 years of war, neither the Taliban nor the combined U.S., Afghan and coalition forces have been able to defeat the other.”

But for diplomacy to be successful and not simply a ruse for surrender and defeat, the United States has to be determined to walk away from the negotiations if the Taliban does not act in good faith and fails to meet its obligations under the agreement.

The Department of Defense and the Department of State clearly understand this. Which is why both the Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, and the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, have both stressed that the agreement is “conditions-based.”

What Esper and Pompeo mean is this: If the facts on the ground in Afghanistan do not correspond with what was agreed to, then the planned withdrawal of U.S. troops will be called off.

“This deal doesn’t depend upon trusting anyone,” Pompeo told Face the Nation’s Margaret Brennan

It has a deep, complex, well-thought-out, multi-month-negotiated verification complex and mechanism by which we can observe and hold every member of the agreement accountable.

We’ll do that. It’s not about trust. It’s about what happens on the ground, not only yesterday which was an important day, but in the days that follow.

“This is a conditions-based agreement,” added Esper in the Washington Post

As this is a conditions-based agreement, if we assess that the Taliban is honoring the terms of the deal, the United States will reduce its military presence to 8,600 troops within a matter of months.

This drawdown will be part of a NATO-approved plan for commensurate reductions by other troop-contributing nations.

If progress on the political front between the Taliban and the current Afghan government continues, then the United States and its partners will further reduce our presence toward a goal of zero in 2021. If progress stalls, then our drawdown likely will be suspended, as well.

So far so good. The problem, as always, is the man at the top: President Trump, who is clearly singing a different tune.

Time-Based Deal. For Trump, the agreement is not conditions-based; it is time-based. Indeed, time, not conditions, are the determinative factor. We’ve been in Afghanistan for almost two decades, damn it, and, well, it’s just time to get out!

That’s a paraphrase of what Trump said, but it is an accurate paraphrase! Look for yourself. Here are Trump’s exact words, in full context, at a White House press briefing Saturday:

I’d like to congratulate all those incredible people that have worked for so long on our endless war in Afghanistan—19 years, going on 20 years

We’ve had tremendous success in Afghanistan in the killing of terrorists, but it’s time, after all these years, to go and to bring our people back home. We want to bring our people back home.

And, again, it’s been—it’s been a long journey in Afghanistan in particular. It’s been a very long journey. It’s been a hard journey for everybody. We’re very largely a law enforcement group; and that’s not what our soldiers are all about. They’re fighters. They’re the greatest fighters in the world.

As you know, we’ve destroyed, in Syria and Iraq, 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate. One hundred percent. We have thousands of prisoners. We have killed ISIS fighters by the thousands—and, likewise, in Afghanistan.

But now it’s time for somebody else to do that work, and that’ll be the Taliban, and it could be surrounding countries. There are many countries that surround Afghanistan that can help. We’re 8,000 miles away.

So we’ll be bringing it down to 8,000 [U.S. troops], to approximately 8,600 [U.S. troops]—in that vicinity—and then we’ll make our final decision [at] some point in the fairly near future.

But this was a very spirited agreement. There was a lot of—there was a lot of talk. There was a lot of everything. They’ve been trying to get this for many years. And just—it’s time.

So I just want to thank everybody. I want to congratulate everybody. I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show that we’re not all wasting time.

If bad things happen, we’ll go back. I let the people know: We’ll go back and we’ll go back so fast, and we’ll go back with a force like nobody has ever seen. And I don’t think that will be necessary. I hope it’s not necessary.

Yes, Trump talks about going back into Afghanistan; but that presumes we leave altogether first and let things fall apart.

In other words, Trump is determined to get out first and ask the hard questions later: because, in his mind, “it’s time” and we can always go back in if we have to.

Naïveté. This is naive and dangerous talk from the Commander in Chief. Leaving Afghanistan and then going back are not nearly as easy as Trump glibly suggests. And letting Afghanistan fall apart poses a host of dangerous risks to American national security and the American homeland.

Trump’s reckless rhetoric also makes it much more difficult for him to achieve an enduring and sustainable peace agreement with the Taliban. They surely can sense, after all, Trump’s weakness and his palpable desire for a deal, any deal.

On the other hand, we do have 14 months under this agreement before U.S. troops would leave Afghanistan altogether.

A lot can and will happen between now and then. We can only hope and pray that Trump—or his successor—comes to his senses and recognizes the danger and folly of acting out his isolationist fantasies in Afghanistan.

Feature photo credit: Live Science.

Trump’s Careful and Deliberative Actions in Afghanistan Contradict His Reckless Rhetoric

We noted yesterday that President Trump is eager to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Yet, he’s been president for three years and hasn’t done so. Why? Clifford May, President and Founder of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies explains why in today’s Washington Times:

I suspect his advisers have painted a picture of what could happen were he to cut and run:

A historic Taliban victory and U.S. defeat; helicopters evacuating diplomats from the U.S. embassy; pro-American Afghans having their heads chopped off with videos going viral; America’s enemies around the world redoubling their efforts to hasten what would be seen as America’s imminent decline and fall.

Not the results Mr. Trump wants to produce—least of all in an election year.

Trump himself made this same point, essentially, during a July 1, 2019, interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson.

Trump told Carlson that he would “like to just get out” of Afghanistan; but “the problem is that it [Afghanistan] just seems to be a lab for terrorists… I call it the Harvard of terrorists..”

Trump noted that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center in New York City were trained in Afghanistan; and that the country’s history as a terrorist training ground and terrorist base of operations makes withdrawing U.S. troops there problematic.

“I’ll give you a tough one, if you were in my position,” he told Carlson:

A great central-casting general walks up into your office. I say we’re getting out. “Yes, Sir, we’ll get out. Yes, Sir.”

I say, ‘What do you think of that?” “Sir, I’d rather attack them over there than attack them in our land.” In other word, them come here.

That’s always a very tough decision, you know, with what happened at the World Trade Center, etcetera, etcetera.

When they [U.S. military leaders] say that, you know, no matter how you feel…

When you’re standing there and you have some really talented military people saying “I’d rather attack them over there than have them hit us over here and fight them on our land”— it’s something you always have to think about.

Now, I would leave and will leave—we will be leaving—very strong intelligence, far more than you would normally think, because it’s very important. And we can do it that way, too. But we have reduced the forces very substantially in Afghanistan.

First off, kudos to Tucker Carlson for asking an important and straightforward question about Afghanistan and giving the president the time and space that he needed to answer that question fully and completely.

I am not a fan of Carlson. His snide anti-interventionist views do not comport with my own perspective, but credit where credit’s due.

Carlson, obviously, has earned Trump’s trust; and, as a result, Trump shares with him his thinking. This is something that Trump rarely does (at last in a serious and thoughtful way), and the result here is great journalism and a genuine public service.

Reassuring. Moreover, it is reassuring to know that Trump sometimes listens, seriously and with due respect and consideration, to his military advisers, and doesn’t always act out impulsively as he often seems wont to do.

It also is reassuring to hear Trump say that, so long as he is president, the United States will retain a robust intelligence apparatus in Afghanistan.

This almost certainly means that some number of troops will be kept there indefinitely to collect and analyze intelligence and ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a terrorist base of operations from which to attack the United States.

The fear with Trump, though, is that what he says one day he may not mean the next day. He can and does change his mind impulsively. Policy decision-making, consequently, can be inconsistent and erratic.

Syria. Look at what happened in Syria, for instance. Trump abruptly announced last fall that he was withdrawing U.S. troops. This set off an unnecessary military and humanitarian disaster.

The president then announced soon thereafter that he would keep some U.S. troops in Syria, ostensibly to “protect the oil,” but the strategic damage already had been done: U.S.- and allied-controlled territory had been ceded to Russian- and Iranian-backed regime forces; the Islamic State had been given a new lease on life; and chaos reigned—and still does.

However, at least with respect to Afghanistan, Trump seems to be proceeding carefully, cautiously and deliberatively, with greater situational awareness and understanding of the longer-term strategic ramifications of his actions and what these actions might mean for the safety and security of the American people.

Trump’s caution may be surprising in light of his more reckless rhetoric about wanting to leave Afghanistan. Yet it is nonetheless reassuring, and it makes Trump a more successful president. More importantly, the American people are better served—and better protected—as a result.

Feature photo: DoD/DVIDS via KNOP News.