Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[Jacob]

Yeah. China's approach is going to be arguably easier in that they are indifferent to the form of a regime or its internal politics, but I think there will be a "provided it is stable" caveat in the future. At least for states that are in a position to impact China's access to raw materials or its strategic economic interests (like developing OBOR).

As I understand it the Taliban has been quite supportive of the Uighurs in China in various ways that go beyond simple criticism. So while China may be interested in helping a US opponent it's not clear to me that they'll necessarily get what they want from the Taliban. It certainly wouldn't be the first time an imperial power has supported an Afghan power to annoy an enemy, only to create problems for themselves.

It's in that context that I think Turkey has actually been a really interesting and canny player - because they are moderate in their criticisms of China of Xinjiang but they are, at the top of my head, the only Muslim country in the Middle East or Central Asia that has criticised China at all. But also they may be part of OBOR but the "middle corridor" which goes through Central Asia-Caspian-Caucasus-Turkey is only one of the options including going through Iran or going through Russia. It's easier probably than the North route because it doesn't rely so heavily on Russia and it doesn't need the Russians and Georgians to cooperate, plus with this route post-conflict there's no need for the Armenians and Turks to cooperate or share their cut. And it's a route that will happen anyway - Turkey wants access to Azeri fuel - so it'll arguably be cheaper. But it puts Turkey in a far stronger negotiating position with China than if they are just one option to receive the end bit of the route as they would be with the Northern or Southern routes - especially if Turkey continues to expand its influence and relationships with the Central Asian states.

Sort of apropos - anecdotally, individual Turks have been assisting the PRC in administrating Uighur oppression.

[The Minsky Moment]

Pakistan is a linchpin ally for China.  Whatever interest China has with Afghanistan and the Taliban, - and I strongly suspect it is limited to minimizing the mischief they may cause - it is far subordinate to their interests in the Sinopak alliance.

[viper37]

I was reading Al Jazeera's Live Updates about Afghanistan and, to me, it looks like the choice is between staying forever or letting the Taliban have the country.  (Biden insists that the latter is not a foregone conclusion.)

As a second question if the Taliban does retake the country; was the coalition involvement in Afghanistan a success?  We ended up more or less where we started 20 years ago minus an Osama bin Laden.

no, it was the wrong decision.

he should have tried harder to rebuild an international coallition, vanquish the Taleban and truly train the troops there to take care of their security.

Tried harder, holy fuck. What a policy.

Not my fault if Republicans elected morons with short sight vision.

America can't win a war alone, it has to be a multilateral effort.  I think the past 4 years have proven my point, "american first" just isn't going to work to contain threats from Russia and China.  And now, you'll have a new giant training camp for all wannabe djihadist in the world.  And in 15-20 years, we'll all have to go back there again following a series of terrorist attacks in occidental countries.

That the war was mismanaged without any clear plan to win does not mean it is unwinnable.  The Taleban do not have a majority of the population behind them because of their charisma.  They have them by the throat.  They offer the only sensible alternative between justice and anarchy, and they kill anyone who opposes them.

[crazy canuck]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

[viper37]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

[crazy canuck]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

A lot of Canadians who had friends and family injured and killed in Afghanistan would not agree that there were no troops there.

https://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/07/30/remembering-list-of-canadas-afghan-war-dead

[grumbler]

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

"All wars are winnable" ranks up there with "Invincible is a lucky name for a warship" in the annals of "don't know what you are talking about."

[Eddie Teach]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

A lot of Canadians who had friends and family injured and killed in Afghanistan would not agree that there were no troops there.

https://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/07/30/remembering-list-of-canadas-afghan-war-dead

He clearly meant "barely any" rather than "no".

[grumbler]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

A lot of Canadians who had friends and family injured and killed in Afghanistan would not agree that there were no troops there.

https://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/07/30/remembering-list-of-canadas-afghan-war-dead

He clearly meant "barely any" rather than "no".

Given that US troop levels peaked at 100,000 in August, 2010, "barely any" is about as dumb as "no."

[crazy canuck]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

A lot of Canadians who had friends and family injured and killed in Afghanistan would not agree that there were no troops there.

https://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/07/30/remembering-list-of-canadas-afghan-war-dead

He clearly meant "barely any" rather than "no".

Either is inaccurate.

[jimmy olsen]

Not a good choice, but it seems unfortunately, to be the best of the bad choices.

[Eddie Teach]

If you define winning as removing the Taliban forever, then this was never a winnable war.

all wars are winnable.  but since there were barely no troops in Afghanistan from 2003 and on, US or otherwise, they had ample time to regroup and reform.

A lot of Canadians who had friends and family injured and killed in Afghanistan would not agree that there were no troops there.

https://www.thesudburystar.com/2017/07/30/remembering-list-of-canadas-afghan-war-dead

He clearly meant "barely any" rather than "no".

Given that US troop levels peaked at 100,000 in August, 2010, "barely any" is about as dumb as "no."

Perhaps, but apparently not enough.

[Savonarola]

Not my fault if Republicans elected morons with short sight vision.

America can't win a war alone, it has to be a multilateral effort.  I think the past 4 years have proven my point, "american first" just isn't going to work to contain threats from Russia and China.  And now, you'll have a new giant training camp for all wannabe djihadist in the world.  And in 15-20 years, we'll all have to go back there again following a series of terrorist attacks in occidental countries.

That the war was mismanaged without any clear plan to win does not mean it is unwinnable.  The Taleban do not have a majority of the population behind them because of their charisma.  They have them by the throat.  They offer the only sensible alternative between justice and anarchy, and they kill anyone who opposes them.

Barack did escalate the war in 2009 as he tried to replicate the success of the Surge in Iraq (and he did have a broad based coalition of nations as well.)  At the time it was successful in driving the Taliban to the hills, but it was also a time of increased deaths of NATO troops and atrocities committed by the US as well (and the WikiLeaks releases.)  Ten years later the Taliban is back in force.  I don't think Biden has the political capital to call for another, bigger surge and, unless we're willing to make a desert and call it peace, I don't think it would make any difference in the long run.

[Savonarola]

The Taliban won't get the whole country, of course.  They'll get the Pashtun majority of the country, and when they try to take over the Tajik and Hazera parts of the country they will be Taliban'd themselves.

Defeating the Taliban would require ethnic cleansing of the type that is just not acceptable these days.

Yeah, I was going to post exactly this--it's misunderstood about the Taliban having support all over the country, Afghanistan's two largest ethnic groups are Pashtun and Tajik, the Taliban has no support amount Tajiks. Pakistan moved support to the Taliban in 1994 as it emerged, due to fall outs with some other Mujahedeen groups. Several of the other prominent Mujahedeen groups were in serious disarray from basically 20 years of fighting, the Taliban was arguably in a fresher position, and with a lot of outside support it was able to get most of the country other than the Northeast. The situation this time isn't quite like that, the Taliban has some outside support, but nothing like the relative support it had versus the other Mujahedeen in the mid-90s. Additionally the Taliban's entrenched enemies have a lot of support this time they did not have last time. The Taliban is going to do really well in the parts of Afghanistan that have basically been "under occupation" by the central government, due to their people completely rejecting the legitimacy of the central government. But not all of Afghanistan is like that. Areas that are not Pashtun majority and where tribal affiliations are distinctly not aligned with anything the Taliban is doing, will be very hostile operating territory for the Taliban. They'll be limited to terror attacks and raids into those areas, but occupations? No. They likely will suffer lots of counter raids and counter-terrorist attacks as well.

Thanks, Otto, Grumbler and Tonitrus; I was unaware that the Taliban would only be able to control Pashtun areas.  To me that raises the question: is a long lasting civil war in the region a better outcome than complete Taliban control? 

[The Minsky Moment]

On reflection I am leaning towards no or at least mixed bag.

The status quo c 2020 displeased everyone but was it really that awful compared to the realistic alternatives?  There was an de facto stalemate with the Taliban controlling significant territory but effectively contained and the government controlling the majority of the populated areas.  The Afghan government suffers from high level of corruption and ineffectiveness but it is a functional democracy that guarantees basic freedoms in the areas under its control.  The economy has been moribund for a decade, but at levels much higher than those experienced when under Taliban rule.

Biden's move will result in millions of people coming under direct and indirect Taliban rule as compared to the present.  The humanitarian impact of that is undeniable and should not be shrugged away.  It amounts to a sharp curtailment of freedom. political participation and quality of life, and submission to rule by a brutal and violent clique.  Many people will die because of this, and many will suffer terribly.

The strategic implications are less clear and predictable but it is hard to see that how it improves from the US POV and easy to conceive that it could get materially worse.  Geopolitical "Nature" abhors a power vacuum and whatever fills the space departing by a weakening Afghan government and its US backer isn't likely to be good.  Both Islamic State and Al-Qaida are active and recruiting in country but the biggest risks are the unexpected "unknown unknowns"

Against this are the costs of the US staying in. The financial costs while significant are and have been well within the capability of the US to bear.  The Trump years showed that a precarious status quo could be maintained with a smaller overall troop level.  The cost in terms of casualties is by nature incommensurable to the benefits.  Because of the decline in troop presence, deaths and KIA have declined a lot.  In the past year, there were no troop deaths in Afghanistan; in the 6 months prior to that, there were 4 deaths, all non-hostile.  In Feb 2020, 2 US soldiers died in a "Green on blue" attack from a rogue Afghan policeman and in the 12 months prior to that 20 deaths from hostile fire or IEDs.

As an American president, Biden's first duty is to safeguard American lives and so there is a logic to saying that no American lives should be put at risk for Afghan lives.  However, there should be no illusions that while withdrawal will prevent the future deaths of some number of US soldiers, it will very likely result in the deaths of a much larger number of Afghans, and other very bad consequences.

The bigger and unknown question is whether as the consequences of the withdrawal play out over time, America is eventually drawn back into the region to address an emergency situation at a much cost than would have been sustained by simply staying put at the reduced 2020 force levels.  It's impossible to precisely quantify that risk.  However, in Biden's shoes I'm not sure i'd roll those dice.

The status quo ex ante was a messy compromise.  Very easy to criticize, but much harder to improve upon.