Posted on 07/14/2021 2:05:34 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Sen. Lindsey Graham says it would be Biden's "biggest mistake yet," but the U.S. troop departure is long overdue.
On July 8, President Joe Biden updated his timeline for the U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. The mission is now set to reach its end on August 31 rather than the original September 11 deadline. Nearly 20 years in the making, America's longest war looks to be finally drawing to a close.
For some, it's too soon.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle say so, claiming that the departure is hasty and leaves no clear path forward for the Afghan government. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) said the move would be the president's "biggest mistake yet." Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D–N.H.), who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee, argued that "the U.S. has sacrificed too much to bring stability to Afghanistan to leave [without] verifiable assurances of a secure future."
Thankfully, the loud critics in Washington have not deterred Biden. "Nearly 20 years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that 'just one more year' of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution," he said July 8, "but a recipe for being there indefinitely."
His view is increasingly in line with the wishes of the American people. An April survey revealed that 73 percent of polled registered voters supported Biden's withdrawal plan. Broken down by political affiliation, 90 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents, and 54 percent of Republicans back the move. Those serving in the military and those who previously served also support withdrawal by a slim margin.
In 20 years of conflict, the U.S. has accomplished its initial security goals. The 2001-era Taliban was ousted, and since 9/11, no terrorist attack on U.S. soil has been carried out by an organization rooted in Afghanistan. Security concerns now lie elsewhere. "The Biden administration correctly assessed that the threat of terrorism from Afghanistan today is in fact smaller than from various parts of Africa and the Middle East," as Vanda Felbab-Brown writes for the Brookings Institution. Al Qaeda's capacities are limited. To say that Afghanistan hosts the same level of outward threat that it once did is patently false.
Internal threats do exist, largely in the form of a Taliban emboldened by the U.S. departure. Taliban fighters say they've gained control of 85 percent of Afghanistan—a claim the Afghan government has dismissed as propaganda. It's impossible to correctly assess current territory holdings, but Taliban attacks and seizures have increased recently. As a result, U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that the Afghan government could fall just six months after the Americans take their leave. Two former secretaries of state, Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, both worry about the implications of a full withdrawal; Rice even suggested the U.S. may need to return, according to Axios.
Coming from architects and longtime supporters of the war, this is hardly a surprise. Their views hinge on two still-open questions: Can the Taliban pull off a full takeover, and if so, will it be the U.S.'s responsibility to fight it? Experts are divided on the first. They float possibilities from a protracted civil war, to the preservation of the status quo, to an uneasy power sharing arrangement. Biden concedes that it's "highly unlikely" that there will be a unified government controlling the whole of Afghanistan. With peace talks between the Taliban and an Afghan government delegation currently taking place in Qatar, we may soon have a clearer picture.
As for the second, it's difficult to justify a continued role for the U.S. given its track record in Afghanistan. Over 47,000 Afghan civilians, 66,000 Afghan national military and police, and more than 6,000 U.S. service members and contractors have died. The Taliban still hasn't been banished. As Biden notes, "it's the right and the responsibility of the Afghan people alone to decide their future and how they want to run their country."
It's extremely unlikely that a 21st year of conflict would be decisive after the first 20 haven't been. We know the nature of the conflict and what continued warfare would involve—more dead soldiers, more dead civilians, and an increasingly futile commitment to nation building that will, in all likelihood, result in a less stable country.
Plus, U.S. lawmakers never voted to declare war in Afghanistan; they gave the president broad discretion to carry out "necessary" campaigns to bring justice to the actors who orchestrated 9/11. And only once since 9/11 have the costs of war been mentioned by those in the Senate Finance Committee. The price tag has come up just five times in the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. Costs and casualties already incurred in Afghanistan were used as reasons to push on; the U.S. had invested too much to give up the fight.
Leaving without a clear picture of what Afghanistan's government will look like in just a few months is an unsatisfying conclusion to America's longest war. That doesn't mean the U.S. should put off its withdrawal, or that it should already be gearing up to send troops back. While there may be an effective American role to be had in facilitating future peace talks between Afghanistan's warring parties, American participation in the conflict must end.
Politicians are wrong to treat the Afghanistan withdrawal as Biden's fatal blow. It's a sign of humility—recognizing where the U.S. has failed and where it cannot possibly succeed. It's quite easy for presidents to start wars. It's another thing entirely to end them.
“U.S. lawmakers never voted to declare war in Afghanistan”.
That is the problem.
It was the problem in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
The US could do more good by occupying South African cities.
Who supports that?
Should have never gone in.
Nuke it from outer space. It’s the only way to be sure.
The United States is not, and never should have been, in the business of nation building. This is clearly a process of “sink or swim” for the Afghan people, and for all the blood, time and treasure directed at that tormented land, they still choose, freely and without reservation, the “sink” option.
There are persons of Afghan origin who have tried, valiantly, to arouse their countrymen to rally around the efforts of the US and other allied powers to make their benighted land into something of a modern state, but their efforts have been for naught. These people should be afforded free passage to the US, as true asylum seekers, as only imprisonment, torture and eventual death remain for them and their families.
There are also persons of Afghan origin who have no such virtuous aims and objectives, who would slip in among the refugees, and like a school of pirhana, would slash though the fleeing persecuted erstwhile allies of the Americans, decimating and terrorizing them. For this we must be on guard, as their terroristic ways will not end with other Afghanis, oh, no. They may even manage to make MS-13 gang members look like Boy Scout troops.
There is evil at large in the world, and it knows no bounds except the will of others to contain and vanquish it.
Flimsey Grahamnesty is South Carolina’s biggest mistake and they keep making it over and over again, twice AFTER his THIRD amnesty vote.
No more muslim refigees.
No more muslim refugees.
That’s how we got Ilhan Nur Said Elmi (her real name)
Because we need to remind everyone in the world that the United States will stab you in the back if the idiots back home decide to elect other idiots.
Not me.
Not our circus, not our monkeys.
The closest I’ll get to supporting intervention is shipping boatloads of guns to the Cuban people.
Well said.
If you can’t run your country after the US has been working with you for 20 years, you DESERVE a good stabbing.
“Sen. Lindsey Graham says it would be Biden’s “biggest mistake yet,”
He only said that because he’s an idiot.
“Broken down by political affiliation, 90 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of independents, and 54 percent of Republicans back the move. “
Are there any of the dunce Republican 46% on this site?
I said this before the election: if Trump had ended this war, he would be president today.
The article says:
"The 2001-era Taliban was ousted, and since 9/11, no terrorist attack on U.S. soil has been carried out by an organization rooted in Afghanistan."
Maybe no terrorist attack has happened because our troops are there?
U.S. troops are deployed all over the world. Why remove them from this one country?
While taking fire from all sides, including his own stated desire, Trump had peace breaking out all over the ME. President Trump refused to cut and run and was actually brokering realistic deals in which all parties benefitted. Trump was bringing lasting peace to the area and he was responsible for doing it in a manner that brought “peace with honor” for America. When the election was stolen from Trump it was a catastrophe for us but it was also a great tragedy for the entire world.
Oh yes. There is quite a contingent of Armchair Warriors.
Disagree, they were going to cheat him out no matter what.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.