Follow us on social


Rough waters ahead for Afghan withdrawal optics

The pressure on Biden is increasing as the Taliban take more territory by the day, and the Pentagon continues to send mixed signals.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

"Long hot summer" is the perfect descriptor for what awaits the Biden administration — and the American people — as troops and equipment roll out of Afghanistan for the promised withdrawal by September 11. The Taliban has taken over 40 districts and more territory everyday — including key provincial centers and yesterday, the country's main border crossing with Tajikistan.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon seems really restless and squirmy with the idea of fully leaving Afghanistan — despite all of its modulated talk to the contrary. In fact, a dip into one of its press conferences is much like peering through a kaleidoscope — it all sounds on the up-and-up, but in retrospect what you've got is a jumbled word salad that when re-assembled, doesn't read as positive as it endeavors to be. Like this, when DoD spokesman John Kirby was asked about the pace of the withdrawal (which the Pentagon apparently calls "retrograde") in light of recent Taliban attacks. From the DoD website Monday:

The Taliban have attacked Afghan government bases and units. Kirby said that Austin and military leaders in the Pentagon, at U.S. Central Command and in Afghanistan, "are constantly looking at the pace we're going at, and the capabilities we have, and the capabilities that we're going to need throughout to complete the withdrawal," Kirby said. "So as we said, from the very beginning; while there is a schedule, we are mindful that that schedule could fluctuate and change, as conditions change."

Kirby said there are only two aspects of the Afghanistan retrograde that will not change: The first is the U.S. military will withdraw all U.S. forces from the country, and the second is the withdrawal will be finished by the September deadline set by President Joe Biden.

The report goes on to say that in order to ensure those "capabilities," the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier is going to extend its deployment to the region.

Commanders at many levels are wrestling with what over-the-horizon counterinsurgency and over-the-horizon logistics will look like. The U.S. military can already provide the over-the-horizon support that the Afghan government will need, Kirby said, those capabilities already exist. Leaders are looking for better ways to perform the missions.

Furthermore, one of those "better ways" is clearly outsourcing.

Planners continue to look at ways to provide contractual support to Afghan forces once the retrograde is completed. "There's a range of options that we're looking at for how to continue to provide contractual support … specifically the Afghan Air Forces," Kirby said. "We're very actively working our way through that right now. We're looking at a range of options."

This conversation, mind you, comes two weeks after the New York Times reported that there is an active "debate" going on in the Pentagon over whether or not the military should seek authorization to conduct airstrikes to protect the capital of Kabul or other key Afghan cities like Kandahar that are vulnerable to Taliban takeover. The airpower would likely take the form of armed drones. Officials who spoke with the paper said this naturally leads to the question of the support capacity in the region (basing, fuel), which leads of course to the question of what kind of counter-terrorism presence the U.S. will have and where after September 11. If the military is given the authorization to provide air support to Afghanistan say, if Kabul is about to fall, then it will need some sort of basing.

This is music to lawmakers ears, of course, particularly the ones who did not want to get out of Afghanistan in the first place. “Our policy should be to do everything possible, consistent with not having troops on the ground, to enable the legitimate Afghan government and security forces to hold on,” Representative Tom Malinowksi, Democrat of New Jersey and a former State Department official, told NYT.

Surely, GOP Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, would agree, as he penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal just a week ago, calling for Biden to "leave a small force of about 1,000 troops in Afghanistan until at least the spring of 2022."

As things heat up and they already are — see here, here, and here — members of Congress and especially the White House are going to be increasingly worried about the optics of Americans leaving a smoldering landscape, with vulnerable, innocent Afghans behind. Who knows what Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is going to say to pressure Biden when he visits Washington at the end of this week.

Like him or not (not!), ex-president Hamid Karzai hit it on the head with his comments to the press last weekend:

“We will be better off without their military presence,” he said. “I think we should defend our own country and look after our own lives. … Their presence (has given us) what we have now… We don’t want to continue with this misery and indignity that we are facing. It is better for Afghanistan that they leave."

Committed to ending our part in this war, this is the message we must keep in mind. It is the only way Afghans can move ahead — as hard as that will be in the near future.

An aerial view of the Pentagon, in Washington, District of Columbia. (TSGT ANGELA STAFFORD, USAF/public domain)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers

KYIV, UKRAINE - July 12, 2023: Destroyed and burned Russian military tanks and parts of equipment are exhibited at the Mykhailivska square in Kyiv city centre. (Oleksandr Popenko/Shutterstock)

The Ukraine War at two years: By the numbers


Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.

Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.

keep readingShow less
Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin

A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer

Navalny's death shouldn't close off talks with Putin


President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.

For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.

keep readingShow less
Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

ProStockStudio via

Big US investors prop up the nuclear weapons industry

Military Industrial Complex

Nuclear weapons aren’t just a threat to human survival, they’re a multi-billion-dollar business supported by some of the biggest institutional investors in the U.S. according to new data released today by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and PAX, the largest peace organization in the Netherlands.

For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis