Follow us on social

google cta
Top Dem: Biden plans to stay in Afghanistan past May 1 deadline

Top Dem: Biden plans to stay in Afghanistan past May 1 deadline

Biden officials told House Armed Services Chair Rep. Adam Smith that the proposed delay is a matter of logistics.

Reporting | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

The Biden administration is planning to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan past an agreed-upon May 1 deadline to withdraw, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said Wednesday to a panel hosted by Foreign Policy.

“It’s a general feeling that May 1 is too soon, just logistically,” Rep. Adam Smith (D–Wash.) claimed, citing conversations with administration officials. “You cannot pull out ten thousand plus troops in any sort of reasonable way in just six weeks.”

Under the terms of the Doha Agreement signed with the Taliban in February 2020, the United States is obligated to pull its forces out of Afghanistan by May 1 this year. Smith said that the Biden administration wants to “negotiate past May 1” in order to explore its options.

“Job one is to try to get back in to talk to the Taliban about at least giving us more time,” he added.

“It is a purely logistical argument,” Smith clarified in response to an audience question, noting that he thinks “the Biden administration is skeptical” that the Taliban or a future Afghan unity government “could be comfortable with our presence” in the long run.

There are roughly 3,500 U.S. troops and 7,000 allied forces in Afghanistan as part of the mission to shore up the U.S.-backed Afghan government against Islamist rebels. Last week, it was revealed that the U.S. government had been undercounting its troop presence by about 1,000 service members.

After helping the Afghan government fight the Taliban for nearly two decades, the United States opened a peace process with the rebel group in 2018. The Taliban agreed in 2020 to cease attacks on foreign forces in exchange for a full withdrawal — a bargain the rebels have held up — and U.S. forces have even begun to partner with the Taliban against the Islamic State.

There have been no U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan since the agreement was signed. Experts warn that the Taliban could go on an “all-out offensive” against foreign troops if the United States breaks its end of the deal.

Laurel Miller, director of the Asia program at the International Crisis Group, told Wednesday’s panel that “you can’t roll back the clock to the time before the Doha agreement…just because someone wants something better.”

The intra-Afghan peace process has not gone so smoothly, as the Taliban ramps up its attacks on pro-government forces. The Biden administration has now begun a diplomatic blitz to try to resolve the Afghan civil war.

“Afghanistan is likely to spiral into more violence,” Quincy Institute executive vice president Trita Parsi and senior fellow Adam Weinstein argued in a Tuesday op-ed. “President Biden must accept the logical conclusion of this reality: The only variable he can control is whether American soldiers will be the target of that violence or be safe at home with their families.”

Lisa Curtis, director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, told the Wednesday panel that “the risks are simply too high to go to zero troops.”

“The Taliban would be able to retake power in twelve to eighteen months,” she contended. “You would see a convergence of terrorists from around the world in Afghanistan.”

Curtis acknowledged that staying in Afghanistan would expose U.S. forces to attack, but said that the United States “could answer the Taliban in kind.”

Smith, however, argued that “the risk is lower” from terrorism than it was in the 1990s—and that diplomacy was key to fighting the global terrorist threat.

“If you pull out of Afghanistan, it sends the message that you get that” about diplomacy, he said. “In the past twenty years, we have relied too much on the military and too much on thinking that if you kill enough people it will be okay.”

And he was blunt about the risks of breaking from the peace process: “If we are there in large numbers, we are vulnerable...we are going to lose lives.”


A coalition force member provides security for Afghan soldiers deploying within Afghanistan on March 4, 2013. The deployment process is part of the transition of security to the Afghan National Security Force before coalition forces depart in 2014. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Freire)|Tech. Sgt. Brent Spotts, 455th Expeditionary Operational Support Squadron dirt boy, poses for a photo during a pre-inspection, July 1, 2016, Jalalabad Airfield, Afghanistan. Spotts is forward deployed from the 455th Expeditionary Civil Engineer Squadron in Bagram, Afghanistan. As the only civil engineer in Jalalabad, Spotts is responsible for the airfield electrical systems, structure, and pavements and equipment. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Justyn M. Freeman)
google cta
Reporting | Asia-Pacific
Panama invasion 1989
Top photo credit: One of approximately 100 Panamanian demonstrators in favor of the Vatican handing over General Noriega to the US, waves a Panamanian and US flag. December 28, 1989 REUTERS/Zoraida Diaz

Invading Panama and deposing Noriega in 1989 was easy, right?

Latin America

On Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. military launched “Operation Just Cause” in Panama. The target: dictator, drug trafficker, and former CIA informant Manuel Noriega.

Citing the protection of U.S. citizens living in Panama, the lack of democracy, and illegal drug flows, the George H.W. Bush administration said Noriega must go. Within days of the invasion, he was captured, bound up and sent back to the United States to face racketeering and drug trafficking charges. U.S. forces fought on in Panama for several weeks before mopping up the operation and handing the keys back to a new president, Noriega opposition leader Guillermo Endar, who international observers said had won the 1989 election that Noriega later annulled. He was sworn in with the help of U.S. forces hours after the invasion.

keep readingShow less
Trump Central Asia
Top image credit: U.S. President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) attend a dinner with the leaders of the C5+1Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 6, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

Central Asia doesn't need another great game

Asia-Pacific

The November 6 summit between President Donald Trump and the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan in Washington, D.C. represents a significant moment in U.S.-Central Asia relations (C5+1). It was the first time a U.S. president hosted the C5+1 group in the White House, marking a turning point for U.S. relations with Central Asia.

The summit signaled a clear shift toward economic engagement. Uzbekistan pledged $35 billion in U.S. investments over three years (potentially $100 billion over a decade) and Kazakhstan signed $17 billion in bilateral agreements and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. on critical minerals. Most controversially, Kazakhstan became the first country in Trump's second term to join the Abraham Accords.

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

Golden Dome, mission impossible

Military Industrial Complex

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

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.