Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh I don't disagree which is why I advocated the stick with the status quo policy in this thread.

You can say that Biden was taken by surprise and didn't realize in advance how fast he'd have to pull out non-combat personnel but that's the risk his policy ran.  And when events turn adverse, the buck stops with the man at the top.

I think that's fair.

My view is that I don't think Biden has been lying about this - I think his statements probably reflected the advice and information he received from intelligence services, the State department and the military. Plus they reflect the American foreign policy consensus. I don't think there's ever been a President who's more embedded in and from that consensus/community. I think there is real shock in that world. But he took the decision and it is his responsibility.

But I think the alternative is probably a permanent ongoing presence in Afghanistan. I'm not sure it's justified - and I certainly think you need to make an argument for that (which would change the Taliban's behaviour and make them far more aggressive/trying to force the West out) rather than just carry on the status quo as if that level of permanence isn't a shift/change in policy.

The point of the orderly withdrawal is not that it'll decrease the chances that the Taliban takes over - it won't. The point of an orderly withdrawal is that people who worked with the West are less likely to get executed by the Taliban because they're waiting for a visa to be processed (because they have to apply at the German consulate in New Delhi or whatever), and that where possible fewer tangible benefits (such as military materiel) are left to fall into Taliban hands.

I get that. My point is that if the Taliban follow the same strategy - and there's good reasons for them to do so - then you're facing the same result unless you position your orderly withdrawal as not jut troops but embassy staff, Afghans who've worked for you and basically admit the Afghan state is going to collapse.

I don't think you can have an orderly withdrawal of troops without the Taliban waiting you out and this situation.

[Jacob]

This sounds simple. I suspect it is not.

After all....the expectation is that the US would withdraw, and the Afghan National government would maintain control of some part of the country, including Kabul, and there would not be a need for a mass evacuation.

Perhaps that is a pipe dream, but that was the idea.

You can't say "Hey, the US is leaving, but we have left a powerful miliary capable of defending the country! It's going to be fine! Also.....please have everyone who would be needed to help run that government, and everyone who might be in danger should that government fall, start evacuating right now...."

You don't know you need emergency evacuation until the emergency, and it seems pretty clear that the US was expecting that the Afghan Nationals would be able to hold onto the critical pieces of the country.

Now, this doesn't really excuse the mess per se - but I don't think it is nearly as simple as it is being made out to be.

Fair points. It's probably not particularly simple, and organizing a withdrawal when you think things are going to continue on for a while is probably a very difficult needle to thread. And you're also right that it doesn't excuse the mess. There were obviously (in retrospect) a number of failure points along the way, and people are paying the price for it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is Biden campaigned on a promise to withdraw. At some point we should actually get out of wars that our public consistently wants us out of; it's easy for the Ivory Tower types ala Minsky to advocate for staying there forever, he's not getting deployed.

[The Minsky Moment]

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is Biden campaigned on a promise to withdraw. At some point we should actually get out of wars that our public consistently wants us out of; it's easy for the Ivory Tower types ala Minsky to advocate for staying there forever, he's not getting deployed.

I spot about 3 logical fallacies in 2 sentences.

There's certainly merit to the pull out policy.  But as we've begun to see, there are downsides.

[The Minsky Moment]

My view is that I don't think Biden has been lying about this - I think his statements probably reflected the advice and information he received from intelligence services, the State department and the military. Plus they reflect the American foreign policy consensus. I don't think there's ever been a President who's more embedded in and from that consensus/community. I think there is real shock in that world.

Sure but it's a useful reminder that there are certain dysfunctions in the operation of government that were not unique toTrump.  The National Security mandarins - Otto might call them ivory-tower types - have a natural tendency to groupthink.  Add that to the fact that Biden's people know what the big man wants and even though he is far from a Trump, all else equal people prefer bringing news the boss likes to hear.   And on the flip side, the boss tends to hear what he wants to hear, crediting the intel and advice that best supports his position, minimizing what does against it.

Wishful thinking + groupthink + confirmation bias is a very powerful force.

But I think the alternative is probably a permanent ongoing presence in Afghanistan. I'm not sure it's justified - and I certainly think you need to make an argument for that (which would change the Taliban's behaviour and make them far more aggressive/trying to force the West out) rather than just carry on the status quo as if that level of permanence isn't a shift/change in policy.

The argument at is simplest: don't fix what ain't broke.

I get that. My point is that if the Taliban follow the same strategy - and there's good reasons for them to do so - then you're facing the same result unless you position your orderly withdrawal as not jut troops but embassy staff, Afghans who've worked for you and basically admit the Afghan state is going to collapse.

With the power of hindsight, that was clearly the way to go.

[Jacob]

I get that. My point is that if the Taliban follow the same strategy - and there's good reasons for them to do so - then you're facing the same result unless you position your orderly withdrawal as not jut troops but embassy staff, Afghans who've worked for you and basically admit the Afghan state is going to collapse.

I don't think you can have an orderly withdrawal of troops without the Taliban waiting you out and this situation.

Sure. So you don't start with "it'll be a total collapse, let's evacuate everyone" as your plan A because it's politically untenable. But it'd be good and competent if there was a solid risk analysis that indicated that a total collapse was a risk, and a plan to enact if a total collapse came sooner than expected.

Hindsight, of course, but that doesn't make it less true.

[Tonitrus]

It seems pretty clear that the overall thinking must have been something like "ok, if all of the cities except Kabul fall, we'll start pulling it all out, and the ANA will make some of fighting "last stand" and give us to time, maybe a couple weeks, to pull it all out in a somewhat orderly fashion".

They clearly didn't except/plan for it all go under inside a weekend.

[Jacob]

It seems pretty clear that the overall thinking must have been something like "ok, if all of the cities except Kabul fall, we'll start pulling it all out, and the ANA will make some of fighting "last stand" and give us to time, maybe a couple weeks, to pull it all out in a somewhat orderly fashion".

They clearly didn't except/plan for it all go under inside a weekend.

Makes sense.

And when you put it like that, it also makes perfect sense for the ANA to not make some sort of fighting "last stand" if they can get terms (even if it means the deaths of those who are closest to the US and allies).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Something that shouldn't be forgotten is Biden campaigned on a promise to withdraw. At some point we should actually get out of wars that our public consistently wants us out of; it's easy for the Ivory Tower types ala Minsky to advocate for staying there forever, he's not getting deployed.

I spot about 3 logical fallacies in 2 sentences.

There's certainly merit to the pull out policy.  But as we've begun to see, there are downsides.

You can spot as many as you want--we live in a country where Presidents campaign for office and make campaign promises. It is a reasonable approximation of public will when people elect someone (particularly by the margins Biden was elected.) We sent him to Washington to do things like this. The American people have said your desired billions of dollars a year never-ending deployment in Afghanistan needs to end.

[OttoVonBismarck]

FY2019 expenditure in Afghanistan (and this is only the special line item appropriated for OSF, the real cost is higher) was $46bn. That adds up over time, and when the only logical reason for it is "some people will have better lives", that's a  precedent I'm not comfortable setting. Obviously we wouldn't go do it, but you could make that argument for dozens of countries. I'd much rather us draw a line in the sand that we as the United States do not perpetuate endless military commitments to countries when those commitments do not serve U.S. interests.

[OttoVonBismarck]

It seems pretty clear that the overall thinking must have been something like "ok, if all of the cities except Kabul fall, we'll start pulling it all out, and the ANA will make some of fighting "last stand" and give us to time, maybe a couple weeks, to pull it all out in a somewhat orderly fashion".

They clearly didn't except/plan for it all go under inside a weekend.

Standard analysis would be that the Taliban is an insurgent force, lacking in a lot of the things that make major offensive against entrenched regular forces in large number successful. Insurgents work by attacking where you're dispersed and weak, not by hitting at your strength. It's a non-trivial thing for an insurgent force to take a city defended by a large, regular military. Especially one that has the backing of an air force (Afghanistan had its own air force.) The long term understanding would be that with the Taliban controlling most of the country side, you'd have morale issues and steady desertions, and eventually probably a collapse. I fully believe given all the handovers for cash that were happening, Biden was told about those and that the government wasn't going to last indefinitely.

But I also suspect he was told that Taliban irregulars just don't have the muscle to push out the real military that quickly. The truth is they don't, if the Afghan National Army had called its 20,000 special forces guys in from the provinces, entrenched and fought, it's possible the Taliban would've taken a year or longer to degrade overall conditions in the country to the point enough people had deserted that the Kabul government collapsed, and then the Taliban could've moved in. Look to Syria where entrenched Assad forces were able to hold cities where they were ringed by insurgents basically indefinitely. I think the big miss was they assumed that most of these defections for cash were going to stay in more of the rural provinces and wouldn't involve literally the entire military including the entire force defending Kabul turning coat, most without firing a single shot.

[DGuller]

I wonder how long it would take for Taliban to start their purges once they break the back of the idea of organized resistance to them.  Historically, the problem with surrendering power to an overwhelming force is that you're even more powerless to stop them from renegotiating the terms afterwards.  The Mongols likewise often got cities to surrender through threats of massacre, and everyone knew their word was good on that, but sometimes they massacred those who surrendered anyway.

[Savonarola]

By the looks of things the outcome of the US withdrawal was different than the assumptions Biden had used to make his decision.  Has anyone changed their mind based on the events of the past weekend (about keeping troops in the country long term, I mean, not about the withdrawal was handled or the immediate need to bring back forces)?  What would convince you to change your mind?

I voted that Biden made the right decision.  The collapse of the central government has not changed my mind.  If the Taliban takes control of one of Afghanistan's neighbors (especially Pakistan) or if there's another 9/11 style attack on western(ish) country then I will admit that I was wrong.

[grumbler]

Hardly wasted. We have provided the Taliban with a LOT of military hardware.

And created a huge market for replacement parts, ammo, and maintenance contracts. 

[DGuller]

I hope that Taliban learned to not get itself involved in the US business just as much as the US learned not to get itself involved in the Afghan business.  I think Taliban would've preferred to stay in power these last 20 years rather than wait for the US to leave.