Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-08-11-at-5.19.20-pm

Update: US sends troops in to evacuate embassy personnel in Kabul

Not only would this be the "Saigon moment" Biden is trying to avoid, it would signal a full-scale diplomatic abandonment of Afghanistan.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

UPDATE 8/13: The U.S. government announced Thursday that 3,000 soldiers and Marines will be sent back into Afghanistan, and some 4,000 to the region to help assist in the evacuation of Kabul embassy personnel, unspecified American civilians, and the planned evacuation of Afghanistans who worked with Americans and who have applied for SIVs (special immigrant visas).

The move appeared to be in reaction to the rapid decline of the security situation in the country, with officials saying they plan to shrink the embassy staff to a "core" by the end of the month. Pentagon spokesman Ned Price was adamant in his press briefing yesterday that the embassy "remains open," though sources were telling reporters that depending on the violence the building could close by the end of the month.

Meanwhile, American negotiators, led by envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, have urged Taliban leaders not to overrun the embassy, tying future aid to the security of the compound, and to the preservation of the government in Kabul, according to the New York Times.

________________________________________________________________________________

As the news from Afghanistan gets worse by the day, the Biden Administration is reportedly weighing the worst-case scenario — closing the U.S. embassy in Kabul. 

According to Politico reporters Quint Forgey and Alex Ward:

Three people knowledgeable of the situation said there are internal discussions underway about shuttering the U.S. embassy in Kabul (as one option among others), with one person saying the mission could be evacuated by the end of the month. Another said there has been a continuous and fluid conversation about how many American diplomats are needed in Kabul in light of the danger.

That “danger” is the increasing concern that the Afghan capital city could fall to the Taliban like other provincial centers have in recent days. According to the latest, nine capitals have fallen since the start of the month and three critical ones — Herat (capital of Hera),  Lashkar Gah (capital of Helmand), and Kandahar (capital of Kandahar) — are currently in play. 

Just this morning, it was reported that the Taliban now held the borders with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and that the Afghan government’s acting finance minister had fled the country. Also today, major U.S. newspapers reported on an alleged U.S. intelligence assessment that Kabul could fall within 90 days. 

But an evacuation of the Kabul embassy would raise the very specter of the 1975 fall of Saigon that the Biden administration has been trying to avoid. More important, it would signal a full-scale abandonment of the country, far beyond troop withdrawal. We didn’t even do that in Iraq. As ineffectual as the diplomatic presence in Baghdad was after troops were first withdrawn in 2011, the embassy in the Green Zone remained. Our commitment to the central government there remained.

“Biden’s withdrawal decision recognized the inability of U.S. troops to end the war in Afghanistan," charged Quincy Institute fellow Adam Weinstein, who is also a veteran of the war, upon hearing the news. "Closing an embassy which has ample security is nothing more than a capitulation to hysteria and an ominous sign that Washington plans to disengage diplomatically from the region.”

While the State Department is clearly weighing contingencies, officials talking to reporters about possibly leaving by the end of the month is damaging to the morale of the people, and broadcasts to our partners in the region that we may already be one foot out of the door.

The core argument for ending this phase of our 20-year war and bringing the troops home was that there was no military solution to the problems in Afghanistan, and that our resources should be put into a regional diplomatic effort to help the Afghan government find a political solution with the Taliban. President Biden pledged to keep up aid to both civil society and the Afghan military so that Kabul would have the tools to defend and rebuild.

But to leave the embassy now — to even talk about it — undermines that pledge in the worst possible way, and convey to other countries that the United States may not be as invested in the long-term project.

"Shuttering the embassy in Kabul would send an unnecessary and, frankly, dangerous signal to other countries to end their diplomatic missions in Afghanistan just when they are needed most,” Weinstein added.

For its part, the State Department did not deny the reports that evacuation was being considered. ​​“Our posture has not changed,” a State Department official told Politico’s NatSec Daily. “As we do for every diplomatic post in a challenging security environment, we will evaluate threats daily and make decisions that are in the interests of individuals serving at our Embassy about how to keep them safe.” 

Weinstein reiterated that this would be the worst possible outcome and that the news from Afghanistan — as bad as it is — "simply does not justify closing the U.S. embassy.”

“We often hear about America in retreat; well, this is U.S. diplomacy in retreat."


US. Embassy in Kabul (US Department of State)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.