Follow us on social

google cta
Petraeus

Don't let the generals dictate the war's legacy, make them answer for it

Expect the military officials who commanded Afghanistan to invoke 'cutting and running.' Let's talk about why they failed.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

David Petraeus — remember him? —  recently confided to a nationwide television audience that prospects in Afghanistan are looking grim. "The situation on the ground,” the retired general told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, “has become increasingly dire with each passing week."

Mustering all the authority of a former soldier once ranked alongside such immortals as Grant and Sherman, Petraeus went even further. "I fear we will look back and regret the decision to withdraw," he said. "Sadly, we may regret that sooner than I had originally thought."

“Regrets?  I’ve Had a Few.”  The lyric is from “My Way,” the song that became a Sinatra trademark. America’s war in Afghanistan, along with its companion in Iraq, does indeed offer plentiful cause for regret. But rather than an anticipatory lament for what fate may befall Afghans in the weeks or months just ahead, what American citizens need —and American soldiers deserve — is a forthright explanation for how a 20-year-long war undertaken by the strongest military on the planet appears headed for such a dismal conclusion. 

The armed forces of the United States have plainly failed in Afghanistan. They have not succumbed to outright defeat. But they have come nowhere near to accomplishing their assigned mission. To pretend otherwise is pointless. 

President Biden has wisely chosen to pull the plug on this misbegotten enterprise. That the United States retains a moral responsibility for what may come next is doubtless the case. On top of the many billions already expended to no purpose in a futile nation-building exercise, we will be spending more to alleviate suffering and provide sanctuary to Afghans who assisted us. On that score, our duty is clear. We can only hope that the Biden administration will muster the political will to fulfill it. 

But the larger question remains:  How did this happen?  Why is America’s longest ever war ending on such an abysmal note?  And why does such an eminently germane question go not only unanswered but also unasked?

One might think that General Petraeus who both commanded all coalition forces in Afghanistan and also presided over U.S. Central Command — of the many senior officers who rotated through these posts, the only one to fill both— would have a lot to offer on such matters. If his interview with Zakaria is indicative, however, don’t expect to hear anything other than banalities. 

Petraeus has washed his hands of Afghanistan. Expect his military peers to follow suit. As for civilian officials charged with directing the Afghanistan War over the course of several administrations, they too will opt for silence. Our longest ever war will slip into the past as an orphan, forgotten even before it actually ends.

Since 2001, over 2200 U.S. troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan. In the broad sweep of U.S. military history, this is not a large number. But neither is it a small one. 

The question must be asked:  What did they die for?  

Well, they died for their country, a judgment that applies to every American combat death since Lexington and Concord in 1775. 

But that judgment cannot suffice. It is incomplete, like saying Biden won the presidency in 2020 because unlike Hillary four years earlier he campaigned in Wisconsin. 

Leave it to Sinatra, who offers at least the approximation of an explanation: Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew, When I bit off more than I could chew.

In Afghanistan, through ignorance and arrogance, compounded by an unwillingness to face facts when victory proved elusive, the world’s self-proclaimed sole superpower bit off way more than it could chew. 

We owe it to those who served and sacrificed to openly acknowledge the causes of our failure. Only then can we guard against their repetition elsewhere.


Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2026. Happy Holidays!

Gen. David Petraeus in 2010.(Institute for the Study of War/Creative Commons)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Bart De Wever
Top image credit: Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever holds a press conference after a summit of Heads of State and Government of the European Union (18-19 December), in Brussels, on Thursday 18 December 2025. BELGA PHOTO NICOLAS MAETERLINCK via REUTERS CONNECT

EU avoids risky precedent in Ukraine aid deal

Europe

The European Union’s leaders began their crucial summit on Thursday aimed at converging around the Commission’s proposal to use Russian funds frozen in Europe to guarantee a “reparations loan” to Ukraine. In the early hours on Friday, they opted instead to extend a loan of €90 billion backed only by the EU’s own budget. The attempt to leverage the Russian assets opened a breach within the EU that could not be overcome. As the meeting opened, seven members — Belgium, Italy, Hungary, Slovakia, Czechia, Bulgaria and Malta — had opposed the proposal. Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and the three Baltic countries were its main supporters.

Proponents of the reparations loan — above all Commission president Ursula von der Leyen and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz — argued that approval would make the EU indispensable to any diplomatic settlement of the war in Ukraine. The EU as a whole recognized that Ukraine’s war effort and governmental operations require substantial new financing no later than the first quarter of 2026.

keep readingShow less
090127-f-7383p-001-scaled
MQ-9 Reaper Drone. Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force

Military contractors reap big profits in war-to-homeland pipeline

Military Industrial Complex

By leveraging the dual-use nature of many of their products, where defense technologies can be integrated into the commercial sector and vice versa, Pentagon contractors like Palantir, Skydio, and General Atomics have gained ground at home for surveillance technologies — especially drones — proliferating war-tested military tech within the domestic sphere.

keep readingShow less
Paradoxically, 'Donroe Doctrine' could put US interests at risk

Paradoxically, 'Donroe Doctrine' could put US interests at risk

Latin America

The Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy (NSS) not only spends significantly more space discussing and developing an approach to the Western Hemisphere than any recent administration, but it also elevates the Americas as the primary focus for the administration — a view U.S. Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio iterated shortly prior to his first international trip to Central America.

The NSS lays out a specific vision of how to approach the Americas described as “Enlist and Expand” — by “enlisting regional champions that can help create tolerable stability … [and] expand our network in the region… [while] (through various means) discourag[ing] their collaboration with others.”

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.