Has Biden Made the Right Choice in Afghanistan?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The trust of the article is not that the decision to withdraw had been made, but rather that the implementation of the withdrawal has not been handled in a manner to America's advantage. There was no particular political pressure to withdraw so suddenly. The assertion is that the US made an error in relying, wildly overoptomistically, on the soundness of the Afghan government and army.

Not an invalid opinion, but I think ignores Biden's actual reason for doing it--Biden hated that we were there, and has always wanted out. He wanted out 10 years ago. He finally had the power and the ability to get it done, and did so. Delaying it would be the risk to Biden's mindset--he likely knew there would be "bad political optics" whenever the U.S. withdrew, so if he waits too long it affects either the 2022 congressional election cycle or even later--the 2024 Presidential election cycle. There's also inherent risk that "conditions on the ground" could have changed in a way that would have made withdrawing even harder. For example, if the Taliban hadn't been getting peaceful handovers, but an actual huge "shooting war" had broken out that was looking to go on for years, it might have made it harder for Biden to leave, and even hard to resist calls for more involvement. If anything, the very rapid and relatively bloodless (compared to a civil war) collapse made it even easier for Biden to stand his ground.

The Economist article is predicated that we care about one of either: a) playing some sort of "Great Game" in central Asia with China and Russia b) a long term stable, democratic Afghan government. I'm not actually sure Biden or most Americans care about either of those things. Internationalists might. They aren't a political force in U.S. politics any longer.

[Neil]

The trust of the article is not that the decision to withdraw had been made, but rather that the implementation of the withdrawal has not been handled in a manner to America's advantage. There was no particular political pressure to withdraw so suddenly. The assertion is that the US made an error in relying, wildly overoptomistically, on the soundness of the Afghan government and army.

There has been mounting pressure for a withdrawal for years, although I grant you there was no immediate crisis. 

The problem with the article is that is that if it's not proposing continuing the occupation, then it wants all the fruits of victory, without actually having to have won.  You can argue with how Biden framed the situation to the media, but the simple fact remains that the country had pre-negotiated their submission to the Taliban and were only waiting for the Americans to withdraw before they could finally end the war.  Continuing the occupation was a waste at that point, and every death on either side was senseless. 

[Malthus]

The trust of the article is not that the decision to withdraw had been made, but rather that the implementation of the withdrawal has not been handled in a manner to America's advantage. There was no particular political pressure to withdraw so suddenly. The assertion is that the US made an error in relying, wildly overoptomistically, on the soundness of the Afghan government and army.

Not an invalid opinion, but I think ignores Biden's actual reason for doing it--Biden hated that we were there, and has always wanted out. He wanted out 10 years ago. He finally had the power and the ability to get it done, and did so. Delaying it would be the risk to Biden's mindset--he likely knew there would be "bad political optics" whenever the U.S. withdrew, so if he waits too long it affects either the 2022 congressional election cycle or even later--the 2024 Presidential election cycle. There's also inherent risk that "conditions on the ground" could have changed in a way that would have made withdrawing even harder. For example, if the Taliban hadn't been getting peaceful handovers, but an actual huge "shooting war" had broken out that was looking to go on for years, it might have made it harder for Biden to leave, and even hard to resist calls for more involvement. If anything, the very rapid and relatively (compared to a civil war) made it even easier for Biden to stand his ground.

The Economist article is predicated that we care about one of either: a) playing some sort of "Great Game" in central Asia with China and Russia b) a long term stable, democratic Afghan government. I'm not actually sure Biden or most Americans care about either of those things. Internationalists might. They aren't a political force in U.S. politics any longer.

I disagree with the last part: the article itself claims that the result of this alleged shambles will be that "... America's power to deter its enemies and to reassure its friends has diminished. Its intelligence was flawed, its planning rigid, its leaders capricious and its concern for its allies minimal".

If true, these assertions ought to be of concern to Americans who care nothing for the Great Game or for the well being of Afghans. It ought to be of concern to Americans who care about American self interest.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, I'm thinking even from Kabul looking at a map though- its not that far from Islamabad (I think one of those expensive but not very impressive tarmacced roads flows that way?) and the Tajik border.

Elphinstone had the same idea.

[Legbiter]

Not an invalid opinion, but I think ignores Biden's actual reason for doing it--Biden hated that we were there, and has always wanted out. He wanted out 10 years ago. He finally had the power and the ability to get it done, and did so. Delaying it would be the risk to Biden's mindset--he likely knew there would be "bad political optics" whenever the U.S. withdrew, so if he waits too long it affects either the 2022 congressional election cycle or even later--the 2024 Presidential election cycle.

Yeah, the shit he's taking for ending this war is annoying. There would always have been bad optics but considering the circumstances there have been no US military casualties and it would only take one Taliban with a mortar tube sitting in a Kabul backyard to shut down the airport. Considering the last 20 years, it's on par or even slightly better. Seems the US and the Taliban have a deal.

I just worry the next President will be too scared to ever withdraw any US forces ever from pointless shithole entanglements.

[Josquius]

Yeah, I'm thinking even from Kabul looking at a map though- its not that far from Islamabad (I think one of those expensive but not very impressive tarmacced roads flows that way?) and the Tajik border.

Sure - but the Taliban will likely ask questions of why the (inevitable) thousands of people are fleeing and there will be repraisals. In addition Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban and is probably not going to be particularly welcoming to the groups who are trying to flee them. Iran would be more of a fit especially for Dari speakers and Shi'ite Muslims, but the political situation there is already difficult for the regime so they've actually passed some of the most draconian anti-illegal immigration laws in the world specifically targeting Afghans - I think there's a 20-25 year sentence. Further along, immigration is now a huge issue in Turkey - they are building a wall along a chunk of the Turkey-Iran border (again, aimed at Afghans) - and unlike in 2015 when Erdogan accepted millions of Syrians there's no sign Turkey will welcome Afghans.

I'm less sure about the Central Asian states but my understanding is they may only welcome people from "their" ethnic groups. And then there's China.

I have no doubt there'll be thousands if not millions of Afghan refugees over-land but at this stage it doesn't look like Syria did in 2015 when Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon absorbed millions of refugees (and are still struggling with the economic and political consequences). All of the neighbours seem pretty anti-accepting any refugees. They will still come because of the desperate situation but they will be escaping that and then travelling through or across various other forms of oppression to get out.

I was thinking less about these places as an end destination and more as safer places where they can be loaded on planes to go to their final destination
The Taliban do have a promise not to attack during the withdrawl and they've been sticking to that so far, so it does seem it would have been potentially a smarter option to do some in this way than the current mess around the airport.

[Jacob]

I expect Biden expected to take a bit of a hit right now. The real impact on future presidents potentially withdrawing is going to come from long term impacts.

If the Afghanistan withdrawal looks like it'll have an impact on the 2022 House elections, on the 2024 Presidential one then it might have an impact on future decisionmaking. If he loses some percentage points for a two, three, four months and then recover I don't think it's going to have much of an adverse effect on future presidents.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I'm a little skeptical of the claims that America has taken a "reputational" hit. I don't think most of our allies are our allies because of our reputation. It's because we've been the largest economic and military power since the 1940s. Obviously China is catching up with us and in many cases has caught up, that means it is all but inevitable China develops some countries in its orbit who decide it is more beneficial to work with China vs us. That's not really something that's going to change based on our "reputation."

[Sheilbh]

I'm not sure there will be a significant need for millions of Afghan refugees. The number of "collaborators" with the regime is probably less than 200,000 AFAIK. I don't think they're defining "anyone who had a government or military job" as a collaborator, especially since large numbers of those very people are the ones who did the surrender-for-cash deals with the Taliban in the first place.

People fled Syria because they were afraid of war or they were afraid of ISIS, ISIS was actively going into villages and committing genocide against basically anyone who wasn't a conservative Sunni Muslim. The Taliban wasn't like that even in the 90s. The vast majority of these rural tribal people are going to stay in their villages. Any refugees will likely come from the cities (which are only around 30% of the population) and a few specific ethnic groups like the Hazara who had been targeted for specific abuse previously.

Hopefully - there are already 2.5 million Afghan refugees from the 90s to the current conflict (which, while light on international troops has had significant civilian casualties). I think that might increase partly bcause of genuine social change - th number of women in education who I imagine will not want to stay - but also the risk of more conflict/resistance to Taliban power where the Taliban have quite modern weapons. At the minute we've got people fleeing the anticipation of Taliban rule - I think that will increase significantly as they start to implement it.

Also the overwhelming majority of Syrians who've fled the country weren't fleeing ISIS - they are Sunni Muslims who were fleeing Assad's regime in its fightback. That's partly why Turkey accepted so many - I don't think they would be as welcoming for non-Sunni Syrians.

Not an invalid opinion, but I think ignores Biden's actual reason for doing it--Biden hated that we were there, and has always wanted out. He wanted out 10 years ago. He finally had the power and the ability to get it done, and did so. Delaying it would be the risk to Biden's mindset--he likely knew there would be "bad political optics" whenever the U.S. withdrew, so if he waits too long it affects either the 2022 congressional election cycle or even later--the 2024 Presidential election cycle. There's also inherent risk that "conditions on the ground" could have changed in a way that would have made withdrawing even harder. For example, if the Taliban hadn't been getting peaceful handovers, but an actual huge "shooting war" had broken out that was looking to go on for years, it might have made it harder for Biden to leave, and even hard to resist calls for more involvement. If anything, the very rapid and relatively (compared to a civil war) made it even easier for Biden to stand his ground.

Yeah I also there's an argument that two previous Presidents have won elections on a commitment to withdraw or significantly reduce the US presence in Afghanistan and both have been flummoxed in trying to do that, so they've had to reverse course. I think that also plays into why Biden feels he has to do it.

And frankly Matt Zeitlin was sharing a bit from Biden's memo in 2009 - which I think is right. I don't think this analysis is wrong:

I do not see how anyone who took part in our discussions could emerge without profound questions about the viability of counterinsurgency. Our military will do its part: They will clear anything we ask them to clear. They will hold anything we ask them to hold. But no one can tell you with conviction when, and even if, we can produce the flip sides of COIN that are required to build and transfer responsibility to the Afghans: an effective and sustainable civilian surge, a credible partner in Kabul, basic governance and services, and competent Afghan security forces. We simply can't control these variables, yet they're essential to the success of COIN.

I think his point is accurate and without that - it really is just imperial holding of land to avoid the risks of not holding that land. As you just a Great Game.

And oh there will be consequences to a Taliban takeover. Likely very bad ones. But are the consequences of continuing to kill innocent civilians and endanger our own soldiers in an endless, fruitless, and pointless war any less? A million people died when the British left India, but they were still right to do it.

Yeah I think the end of empire handovers are an interesting comparison - because the UK worked with almost anyone to mask the fact that it was constantly withdrawing from a position of weakness and utter powerlessness (especially where there had been civil wars in that country). The British state really valued an orderly ceremony - flag raising and flag dropping etc - to present an image of power in defeat and, frankly, I think to blame any post-independence conflict on the fractious "natives" not the withdrawing imperial power (that has started to turn, but it worked for a while in India, Palestine, maybe Yemen).

The one I think is most comparable is probably withdrawing from British Palestine. There are disputes around why Britain withdrew but I think broadly London felt the Mandate had failed utterly, that there was nothing they could do to solve that problem; that staying forever was not possible or desirable (this was when Attlee was considering withdrawing entirely from the British Empire east of Suez); and that war was inevitable but it wasn't for the British to stop it - and that might not even be possible. It as seen at the time as basically a humiliation and a catastrophic failure of Britain's responsibilities. In Whitehall I think there was a sense (which I think we'd now challenge) that the violence in India-Pakistan happened despite British efforts, but happened in Palestine because Britain made no efforts - it just withdrew and let the Arabs and Jews fight it out.

Obviously I slightly wonder how much that impacted Britain's reputation globally or its view as an ally in the context of the wider cold war - the next year NATO was founded, a year later Britain was participating in Korea and Suez was the bigger humiliation. I think the US's future conduct and capacity matters more - it should cause some reconsideration in Europe given the nature of the withdrawal, but it won't because that might lead to some difficult policy decisions. Similarly I think if China funded the Taliban or they were obviously chasing the US out of the country - rather than this being a policy decision by a US president - it might be different.

[grumbler]

I disagree with the last part: the article itself claims that the result of this alleged shambles will be that "... America's power to deter its enemies and to reassure its friends has diminished. Its intelligence was flawed, its planning rigid, its leaders capricious and its concern for its allies minimal".

If true, these assertions ought to be of concern to Americans who care nothing for the Great Game or for the well being of Afghans. It ought to be of concern to Americans who care about American self interest.

The Economist leader is premised that there was some (unknown even to the author of the piece) method of implementation of the withdrawal that could handled in a manner to America's advantage and would enhance or maintain its "power to deter its enemies and to reassure its friends."   I don't agree.  I also think that the Economist's view of a world where normally intelligence is perfectly unflawed, planning is utterly non-rigid, leaders are never, ever capricious, and concern for allies is paramount is childish and naïve.

There was no good path for the US out of Afghanistan after its government decided to replace the Taliban with a fictional national government.  There certainly wasn't a way for Biden's administration to oversee an ANG victory over the Taliban.  At best, the US could have continued the slaughter indefinitely.

[Sheilbh]

I was thinking less about these places as an end destination and more as safer places where they can be loaded on planes to go to their final destination
The Taliban do have a promise not to attack during the withdrawl and they've been sticking to that so far, so it does seem it would have been potentially a smarter option to do some in this way than the current mess around the airport.

I get that - but from what I understand the crackdowns in Iran and Turkey are about Afghans trying to transit not settle. Similarly I think Pakistan will probably cooperate with the Taliban in deporting anyone fleeing them - I could be wrong.

It probably was something worth trying for - but you'd need the agreement of all the transit countries too, which might not have been forthcoming (especially if there wasn't a commitment from the US/Europe etc to take the refugees in the end - which seems unlikely). Also I get why the Taliban agree to a month for people to get to Kabul airport - though there has been violence by the Taliban to people outside the airport - I'm not sure why they'd agree to a free for all across the country over land.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Much of the British Empire was possible because they established systems where relatively small military commitments by British forces worked with local natives organized into British military units to keep order and discipline, and ran by a joint government of British officials and local leadership. The whole system doesn't work when the locals aren't on board, and a lot of the ways the British kept the locals on board weren't working any longer.

There's similarities to Afghanistan, in that the only way it was ever going to work to our advantage is if a native government and military of strength and viability emerged. Otherwise it was just us using raw military power to keep it going, which just isn't sustainable.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I was thinking less about these places as an end destination and more as safer places where they can be loaded on planes to go to their final destination
The Taliban do have a promise not to attack during the withdrawl and they've been sticking to that so far, so it does seem it would have been potentially a smarter option to do some in this way than the current mess around the airport.

I get that - but from what I understand the crackdowns in Iran and Turkey are about Afghans trying to transit not settle. Similarly I think Pakistan will probably cooperate with the Taliban in deporting anyone fleeing them - I could be wrong.

It probably was something worth trying for - but you'd need the agreement of all the transit countries too, which might not have been forthcoming (especially if there wasn't a commitment from the US/Europe etc to take the refugees in the end - which seems unlikely). Also I get why the Taliban agree to a month for people to get to Kabul airport - though there has been violence by the Taliban to people outside the airport - I'm not sure why they'd agree to a free for all across the country over land.

I think you smoked a crack pipe if you think Pakistan is going to go after Pashtun people who cross from Afghanistan into Pashtun territory of Pakistan, unless Pakistan is up for major violence inside its own country.

The typical person who would try to emigrate from Afghanistan to Pakistan would be a Pashtun who was part of an anti-Taliban tribe, and felt they had affiliations with a tribe across the border that would help them out. I doubt Pakistan will desire to get involved in that.

Some urbanized Afghan lawyer from Kabul trying to drive to Islamabad or something, yeah I could see Pakistan deporting him.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah - totally agree on that. There'll be tribal movement.

I meant more the types of refugees transiting to the West.

[alfred russel]

Not an invalid opinion, but I think ignores Biden's actual reason for doing it--Biden hated that we were there, and has always wanted out.

That isn't true. Some remarks he made in the Senate in 2007:

in Afghanistan, success still is possible. Failure is
not thinkable. How can we turn things around? Very briefly, we need to do three things:
First, establish security. If we should be surging forces anywhere, it's in
Afghanistan, not Iraq. NATO troops are necessary, but not sufficient. We've also got to
train the Afghan police and army—which means, for starters, paying them decent
salaries....

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/congress/2007_hr/070308-biden.pdf

He did change his tune not long afterward.