The war in Afghanistan was a colossal failure, as was nearly every decision of the Bush era. As we learned from the 'Afghanistan Papers', the American people were deceived for decades as to the success (ie, failure) of our continued presence in Afghanistan. It's also true that Trump saw no transactional value in continuing the war, and wanted 'out'. In typical Trumpian fashion, he negotiated a secret deal with no upside for the US, and would have botched the withdrawal as badly as Biden has done. That said, we expected far more from Biden. He continues to maintain that the American people were adamant that we end the war in Afghanistan, but is this true? First, I doubt that ending this conflict falls into the top 50 concerns of most Americans. Second, even if Americans had a vague desire to end the war, would they have agreed when presented with the stark reality of what withdrawal meant? I fail to see how withdrawal makes us more secure. If Biden wanted to avoid more US casualties, couldn't he have navigated a middle ground where contractors remained or an outside militia (accountable to Congress)? Activists, veterans, NGOs, even members of Congress begged the administration to assure the safe passage of Afghan allies, but were ignored. How does this help US standing in the world? How does this help ensure the safety of our troops elsewhere in the world? So, perhaps what I'm saying is that you can't disentangle the question of whether the US should have left from how we left.
A few different polls show a majority Americans supported withdrawing. The country is divided on whether the war was a mistake, that's a near 50/50 split.
However - as you point out - there are serious issues with the messiness of this exit including the safety of our allies and our global standing. I am encouraging us to decouple discussion of the botched withdrawal from the idea of ending the war more generally. I would think that's sort of the answer to your question. Americans likely wouldn't have wanted this messy exit - and I think this will have lasting political impact since these images are so striking, sad, and directly evocative of Vietnam. However, I don't think a withdrawal *had* to be like this. It probably would have been a mess to some degree but as you note, many observers were ringing alarm bells and calling for better preparation. This was an unforced error by the administration that didn't need to be part of the story here.
Another reader, CW, wrote in via email (I love when you guys do that! You can reply directly to each issue) to point out that "Afghanistan was 'Russia’s Vietnam' in the 70s and 80s." It's true, but Russia managed a decidedly more orderly departure. The government they backed also managed to last a couple years rather than a few days.
Here's an interesting article on the Russian exit and its echoes in the present moment:
Thank you, I've read a few overviews of Russia's exit, and I'll review this link. I guess I'd make 2 observations: (1) Americans were likely to support an end to an unwinnable war, but the majority of Americans lacked all context to support their answer to a polling question. I'm not a fan of foreign policy via poll results, and (2) who exerts power in the sudden vacuum left by the US? Nominally the Taliban, but China has interests that might be served by using its leverage. It feels as though this decision was made without consideration of either our Afghan allies or the broader geopolitical picture. There are vague mentions of counterinsurgency provisions, but based upon the poor quality of US intelligence for the past 20 years, I place little faith in the outcomes. Perhaps Blinken is pulling together a loose multi-national alliance to oversee developments, but given the chaos of our withdrawal, it's challenging to see this working. So perhaps a withdrawal (which actually had short and long-term contingency plans in place) was the right decision, but that's not what we have.
The point about China's influence is a very interesting one. They've been doing a lot of Vaccine diplomacy. I also saw their cash diplomacy in Ecuador firsthand a few years back. It remains to be seen how this will all work out for them but they seem to be projecting influence outward just as America retreats from the military interventionism of the Bush era.
Completely agree. I've no idea why we didn't cover the globe with vaccines, but I'm assuming Biden feared attacks from the right if additional dosescwew needed (as is the case) and Americans were left waiting. The problem with trying to anticipate attacks from the right is that you over-correct, and miss opportunities for soft diplomacy or botch national security priorities as we are witnessing in Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan was a colossal failure, as was nearly every decision of the Bush era. As we learned from the 'Afghanistan Papers', the American people were deceived for decades as to the success (ie, failure) of our continued presence in Afghanistan. It's also true that Trump saw no transactional value in continuing the war, and wanted 'out'. In typical Trumpian fashion, he negotiated a secret deal with no upside for the US, and would have botched the withdrawal as badly as Biden has done. That said, we expected far more from Biden. He continues to maintain that the American people were adamant that we end the war in Afghanistan, but is this true? First, I doubt that ending this conflict falls into the top 50 concerns of most Americans. Second, even if Americans had a vague desire to end the war, would they have agreed when presented with the stark reality of what withdrawal meant? I fail to see how withdrawal makes us more secure. If Biden wanted to avoid more US casualties, couldn't he have navigated a middle ground where contractors remained or an outside militia (accountable to Congress)? Activists, veterans, NGOs, even members of Congress begged the administration to assure the safe passage of Afghan allies, but were ignored. How does this help US standing in the world? How does this help ensure the safety of our troops elsewhere in the world? So, perhaps what I'm saying is that you can't disentangle the question of whether the US should have left from how we left.
A few different polls show a majority Americans supported withdrawing. The country is divided on whether the war was a mistake, that's a near 50/50 split.
However - as you point out - there are serious issues with the messiness of this exit including the safety of our allies and our global standing. I am encouraging us to decouple discussion of the botched withdrawal from the idea of ending the war more generally. I would think that's sort of the answer to your question. Americans likely wouldn't have wanted this messy exit - and I think this will have lasting political impact since these images are so striking, sad, and directly evocative of Vietnam. However, I don't think a withdrawal *had* to be like this. It probably would have been a mess to some degree but as you note, many observers were ringing alarm bells and calling for better preparation. This was an unforced error by the administration that didn't need to be part of the story here.
Another reader, CW, wrote in via email (I love when you guys do that! You can reply directly to each issue) to point out that "Afghanistan was 'Russia’s Vietnam' in the 70s and 80s." It's true, but Russia managed a decidedly more orderly departure. The government they backed also managed to last a couple years rather than a few days.
Here's an interesting article on the Russian exit and its echoes in the present moment:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/08/16/world/middleeast/afghanistan-taliban-soviet-friendship-bridge.amp.html
Thank you, I've read a few overviews of Russia's exit, and I'll review this link. I guess I'd make 2 observations: (1) Americans were likely to support an end to an unwinnable war, but the majority of Americans lacked all context to support their answer to a polling question. I'm not a fan of foreign policy via poll results, and (2) who exerts power in the sudden vacuum left by the US? Nominally the Taliban, but China has interests that might be served by using its leverage. It feels as though this decision was made without consideration of either our Afghan allies or the broader geopolitical picture. There are vague mentions of counterinsurgency provisions, but based upon the poor quality of US intelligence for the past 20 years, I place little faith in the outcomes. Perhaps Blinken is pulling together a loose multi-national alliance to oversee developments, but given the chaos of our withdrawal, it's challenging to see this working. So perhaps a withdrawal (which actually had short and long-term contingency plans in place) was the right decision, but that's not what we have.
The point about China's influence is a very interesting one. They've been doing a lot of Vaccine diplomacy. I also saw their cash diplomacy in Ecuador firsthand a few years back. It remains to be seen how this will all work out for them but they seem to be projecting influence outward just as America retreats from the military interventionism of the Bush era.
Completely agree. I've no idea why we didn't cover the globe with vaccines, but I'm assuming Biden feared attacks from the right if additional dosescwew needed (as is the case) and Americans were left waiting. The problem with trying to anticipate attacks from the right is that you over-correct, and miss opportunities for soft diplomacy or botch national security priorities as we are witnessing in Afghanistan.