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.


Gen. David Petraeus in 2010.(Institute for the Study of War/Creative Commons)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

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.