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
Dan Caine
Top photo credit: Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Dan Caine conduct a press briefing on Operation Epic Fury at the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., March 4, 2026. (DoW photo by U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza)

Did Caine just announce the Morgenthau option for Iran?

QiOSK

Gen. Dan Caine’s formulation of American war aims in Iran is remarkable not because it is bellicose, but because it is strategically incoherent.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff did not describe a limited campaign to suppress missile fire, blunt Iran’s naval threat, or even impose a severe but bounded setback on Tehran’s coercive instruments. He described a campaign against Iran’s “military and industrial base” designed to prevent the regime from attacking Americans, U.S. interests, and regional partners “for years to come.” In an earlier briefing he put the objective similarly: to prevent Iran from projecting power outside its borders. Rather than the language of a discrete coercive operation, this describes a war against a state’s capacity to regenerate power.

keep readingShow less
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

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.