Follow us on social

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

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)
Asia-Pacific
Trump Vance Rubio
Top image credit: President Donald Trump meets with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance before a call with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Monday, August 18, 2025, in the Oval Office. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The roots of Trump's wars on terror trace back to 9/11

Global Crises

The U.S. military recently launched a plainly illegal strike on a small civilian Venezuelan boat that President Trump claims was a successful hit on “narcoterrorists.” Vice President JD Vance responded to allegations that the strike was a war crime by saying, “I don’t give a shit what you call it,” insisting this was the “highest and best use of the military.”

This is only the latest troubling development in the Trump administration’s attempt to repurpose “War on Terror” mechanisms to use the military against cartels and to expedite his much vaunted mass deportation campaign, which he says is necessary because of an "invasion" at the border.

keep readingShow less
US Navy Arctic
Top photo credit: Cmdr. Raymond Miller, commanding officer of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Bainbridge (DDG 96), looks out from the bridge wing as the ship operates with Royal Norwegian replenishment oiler HNoMS Maud (A-530) off the northern coast of Norway in the Norwegian Sea above the Arctic Circle, Aug. 27, 2025. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Cesar Licona)

The rising US-NATO-Russia security dilemma in the Arctic

North America

An ongoing Great Power tit-for-tat in which U.S./NATO and Russian warships and planes approach each other’s territories in the Arctic, suggests a sense of growing instability in the region.

This uptick in military activities risks the development of a security dilemma: one state or group of states increasing their security presence or capabilities creates insecurity in other states, prompting them to respond similarly.

keep readingShow less
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less

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.