Follow us on social

google cta
Pressure building to keep US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely

Pressure building to keep US troops in Afghanistan indefinitely

Blowing off the May 1 deadline for withdrawal would be a mistake, but that seems to be where the winds are blowing.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The meeting of NATO defence ministers and Munich Security Conference has left unanswered the question over whether the Biden administration will bring remaining U.S. troops home from Afghanistan by May 1, in accordance with the U.S.-Taliban agreement. The ambiguity of European and U.S. statements following the meeting may be intended to pressure the Taliban and Afghan government back to the negotiating table. But indecision this close to the deadline risks throwing away a one-time opportunity to leave Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s remarks at the NATO meeting assured partners that the “U.S. remains committed to a diplomatic effort to end the war,” but also that the United States will not take a “hasty or disorderly withdrawal” from Afghanistan after nearly twenty years. As a result, the Biden administration is pushing itself into a corner in which it will likely forfeit a one-time opportunity to leave by May without having to broker a new understanding  with the Taliban, a path which would be fraught with risk and uncertainty. 

The consequences of unilaterally ignoring the May withdrawal deadline will be the dissolution of the U.S.-Taliban agreement, placing U.S. soldiers back in the crosshairs of the Taliban, and an end to intra-Afghan negotiations. A peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government may be unlikely if the United States leaves, but it is dead on arrival if Washington chooses to ignore the deadline altogether. 

An endless U.S. war effort will be left as the only remaining option. The passing of the withdrawal deadline will coincide with the beginning of the Taliban’s fighting season and violence will surge even more. This will lead to calls in Washington to cease diplomatic outreach with the Taliban and increase troop levels. If President Biden resists these calls and instead seeks to leave Afghanistan, then any date he chooses will be labeled as “arbitrary” since the May deadline will have passed. This will most likely lead to a doubling down of the counterinsurgency effort of the last twenty years. 

NATO partners may also pressure Biden to remain in Afghanistan. The NATO mission in Afghanistan known as Resolute Support was intended as a training mission and that largely remains the case for countries like Germany and Italy. But the majority of combat missions are U.S.-led and the Pentagon provides twice as many troops as the next largest NATO contributor which is Germany. The United Stateshas accounted for 67 percent of all coalition deaths throughout the war in Afghanistan with the U.K. and Canada accounting for the majority of the rest. 

The NATO mission in Afghanistan remains a U.S.-led war and it is therefore reasonable for President Biden to pursue an exit that advances U.S. interests. Still, it is crucial that Washington provide partners who have supported Washington in Afghanistan adequate time to withdraw their own remaining troops. This is why the Biden administration should make it clear to NATO sooner rather than later that it is leaving Afghanistan. 

Policy reviews are important but the world does not stop spinning as they occur nor do the opportunity costs. Regional diplomacy to push the Taliban toward a ceasefire and Kabul toward an interim government appears to be underway. The Biden administration should participate in such initiatives. But it should not use U.S. troops as a source of coercive leverage in diplomatic efforts because ultimately that runs counter to the goals of diplomacy. Now is the time to bring U.S. troops home before it is too late. 


Then-Vice President Joe Biden during a tour of the largest military training facility in Afghanistan in 2011. (Photo by Chief Petty Officer Brian Brannon/public domain)|Afghan national army Chief of Staff Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi meets Vice President Joe Biden during a tour of the largest military training facility in Afghanistan in 2011. (
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Contractors Gaza
Top Image Credit: Straight Arrow News: Nearly 100 US Special Forces vets hired to operate key checkpoints in Gaza (YouTube/Screenshot)
American security contractors walking thin line in Gaza

Are private American soldiers surging into new Gaza aid sites?

Middle East

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation officially closed up shop this week, just six months after it launched. The news came as something of a relief to the organization’s myriad critics, who argued that its privatized approach to aid distribution had contributed to the deaths of some 2,000 Palestinians.

For now, this means that aid in Gaza is being handled by the United Nations and other NGOs with long experience in the field, in coordination with the U.S.-led Civil-Military Coordination Center. But private contractors aren’t quite ready to throw in the towel yet.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Why do military planes keep crashing?

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.

keep readingShow less
Rand Paul, Tim Kaine, Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie
Top photo credit: Rand Paul (Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons); Tim Caine (Philip Yabut/Shutterstock); Ro Khanna (US Govt/public domain); Thomas Massie (Facebook)

Left-right backlash against war with Venezuela is growing

Latin America

President Donald Trump declared in his second inaugural address, “We will measure our success not only by the battles we win, but also by the wars we end, and perhaps most importantly, the wars we never get into.”

But he may be trying to get into a war in Venezuela. A chorus of voices on both sides of the political aisle are urging him to stick to his better instincts. Perhaps news this week that the president is now willing to talk to Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro is a sign they are having some impact. Or not.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.