Follow us on social

google cta
Mq-9_reaper_uav_cropped-scaled

US 'debating' future air support for Afghans against Taliban

It's not clear how military strikes to protect Kabul wouldn't become a slippery slope towards re-entering the war.

Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

New York Times reporting reveals that the Pentagon is engaged in an internal debate about what red lines, if any, should trigger U.S. air support to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF)? 

Contingency planning for future scenarios in Kabul is to be expected. To not engage in one would be negligent given the presence of a U.S. embassy and allied diplomatic missions. However, future military actions in Afghanistan should clearly serve compelling U.S. interests — not just those of our partners. It remains unclear how strikes to thwart a future siege on Kabul would alter the outcome without becoming a slippery slope towards drawing the United States back into the war. 

Reporting also indicates there is at least some deliberation over whether to provide air support if the Taliban wage attacks on secondary cities, and Afghan officials were reportedly told that the “United States would also stop any takeover of major cities.” If true, it is easy to see how this can create false expectations or draw Washington back into the conflict before it has even left. What happens when those airstrikes don't work? 

Having a plan matters, but messaging is also important. Statements from anonymous U.S. officials about the possibility of future U.S. airstrikes to support the ANDSF or defend Kabul sends a clear message to the Taliban that taking over Afghanistan by force could come at a cost. But depending on how it is interpreted, it could negatively affect the resolve of the ANDSF’s leadership to develop a sustainable plan to either fight or negotiate. Moreover, when senior U.S. officials say that “the immediate crumbling of the Afghan military is not a foregone conclusion,” this also has an impact on morale. As one recent analysis observes, the Afghan government has many advantages over the Taliban and the latter’s military advantage is not decisive. 

Continued support for the Afghan government and ANDSF should fall short of a guarantee against future events. Washington is not in a position to make good on such guarantees nor is it in the U.S. interests to make them. How much support is provided in the future should depend on the unity and functionality of the Afghan government, cohesion of the ANDSF, and most importantly the interests of the United States. 

The post-withdrawal period will require the Biden administration and the Pentagon to accept the new limits of its influence in Afghanistan.


An MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle flies a combat mission over southern Afghanistan. (Lt. Col. Leslie Pratt /U.S. government)
google cta
Asia-Pacific
Us-army-soldiers
Top photo credit: U.S. Army Soldiers, from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team depart for Afghanistan from Italy on Feb. 25, 2005. (U.S. Air Force Photo by Staff Sgt. Bethann Caporaletti)

Could the US win a war with a near-peer adversary today?

Military Industrial Complex

“One should never assert a power that he cannot exert,” said British statesman and wordsmith Winston Churchill. My hometown football coach expressed a similar thought: “The man with an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass” would get more than his share of whippings.

The U.S. military today has a hummingbird’s ass. Despite decades of sky-high military spending, our force is incapable of defeating a peer or near-peer adversary in today’s complex, dangerous world. If we continue on our alligator-mouth-sized trajectory, the consequences will be catastrophic.

keep readingShow less
G7 Summit
Top photo credit: May 21, 2023, Hiroshima, Hiroshima, Japan: (From R to L) Comoros' President Azali Assoumani, World Trade Organization (WTO) Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Australia's Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit in Hiroshima, Japan. (Credit Image: © POOL via ZUMA Press Wire)

Middle Powers are setting the table so they won't be 'on the menu'

Asia-Pacific

The global order was already fragmenting before Donald Trump returned to the White House. But the upended “rules” of global economic and foreign policies have now reached a point of no return.

What has changed is not direction, but speed. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s remarks in Davos last month — “Middle powers must act together, because if we’re not at the table, we’re on the menu” — captured the consequences of not acting quickly. And Carney is not alone in those fears.

keep readingShow less
Vice President JD Vance Azerbaijan Armenia
U.S. Vice President JD Vance gets out of a car before boarding Air Force Two upon departure for Azerbaijan, at Zvartnots International Airport in Yerevan, Armenia, February 10, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque/Pool

VP Vance’s timely TRIPP to the South Caucasus

Washington Politics

Vice President JD Vance’s regional tour to Armenia and Azerbaijan this week — the highest level visit by an American official to the South Caucasus since Vice President Joe Biden went to Georgia in 2009 — demonstrates that Washington is not ignoring Yerevan and Baku and is taking an active role in their normalization process.

Vance’s stop in Armenia included an announcement that Yerevan has procured $11 million in U.S. defense systems — a first — in particular Shield AI’s V-BAT, an ISR unmanned aircraft system. It was also announced that the second stage of a groundbreaking AI supercomputer project led by Firebird, a U.S.-based AI cloud and infrastructure company, would commence after having secured American licensing for the sale and delivery of an additional 41,000 NVIDIA GB300 graphics processing units.

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.