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
New House, Senate attempts to preempt war with Venezuela
Top photo credit:
U.S. Navy Admiral Frank "Mitch" Bradley arrives for a classified briefing for leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. strikes against Venezuelan boats suspected of smuggling drugs, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., December 4, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New House, Senate attempts to preempt war with Venezuela

Washington Politics

New bipartisan war powers resolutions presented this week in both the House and Senate seek to put the brakes on potential military action against Venezuela after U.S. President Donald Trump said a land campaign in the country would begin “very soon."

On Tuesday, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), and Joaquín Castro (D-Texas) introduced legislation that would “direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.”

keep readingShow less
Africa construction development
Top photo credit: Construction site in Johannesburg, South Africa, 2024. (Shutterstock/ Wirestock Creators)

US capital investments for something other than beating China

Africa

Among the many elements of the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) currently being debated in Congress is an amendment that would reauthorize the Development Finance Corporation (DFC). What it might look like coming out of the Republican-dominated Congress should be of interest for anyone watching the current direction of foreign policy under the Trump Administration.

In contrast with America’s other major development agencies like the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which the administration has largely dismantled, President Donald Trump has expressed support for a reauthorized DFC but wants to broaden the agency’s mandate so that it focuses less on investing in traditional development projects and more on linking investment to national security priorities.

keep readingShow less
USS Lafayette (FFG 65) Constellation-class
Top image credit: Graphic rendering of the future USS Lafayette (FFG 65), the fourth of the new Constellation-class frigates, scheduled to commission in 2029. The Constellation-class guided-missile frigate represents the Navy’s next generation small surface combatant. VIA US NAVY

The US Navy just lit another $9 billion on fire

Military Industrial Complex

The United States Navy has a storied combat record at sea, but the service hasn’t had a successful shipbuilding program in decades. John Phelan, the secretary of the Navy, announced the latest shipbuilding failure by canceling the Constellation-class program on a November 25.

The Constellation program was supposed to produce 20 frigates to serve as small surface combatant ships to support the rest of the fleet and be able to conduct independent patrols. In an effort to reduce development risks and avoid fielding delays that often accompany entirely new designs, Navy officials decided to use an already proven parent design they could modify to meet the Navy’s needs. They selected the European multi-purpose frigate design employed by the French and Italian navies.

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.