Follow us on social

google cta
2021-08-15t045757z_1_lynxmpeh7e020_rtroptp_4_afghanistan-conflict-scaled

20-year US intervention in ruins as Taliban enters Kabul

The world watches as the Afghan government tragically teeters on the brink and America reflects on its failed policies there.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

There are reports this morning that the Taliban have entered the capital city of Kabul. Developments on the ground are happening quickly after a week in which the insurgent group took one key provincial city after another, exposing the weakness of the Afghan military forces to hold them, and the government in Kabul to resist them.

According to the Washington Post, the Taliban have been instructed by its leadership not to push further into the city with force and that talks with the government were supposedly underway.

As of this morning the U.S. embassy was still functioning, but the majority of personnel were expected to be evacuated after Biden announced that 5,000 U.S. troops would be sent in to bring Americans and those Afghans with special immigrant visas out of the country.

Once America invaded Afghanistan and upended the internal and regional power dynamics the cost of withdrawal became a suspended prison sentence. President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was the correct one, but its execution suggests that Washington may not have learned the right lessons from the last 20 years. Our engagement need not make the false choice between indefinite military intervention and total disengagement.

President Ghani’s reported flight from the country and any resulting interim government are the consequence of the Afghan government’s inability to quell rapid Taliban gains on the battlefield. The fall of the majority of Afghanistan in just over a week is a brutal indictment of two decades of U.S. interventionist policy in the region that also spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Afghan security forces but made them reliant on a permanent U.S. presence. However, the reality is that the Taliban made gradual gains for years, and the status quo of an increasingly deteriorating stalemate was only made possible by indefinite U.S. troop deployments. 

The Taliban’s rapid advances throughout the country over the last month relied on local leaders to facilitate surrenders. Poor leadership in Kabul and undersupplied Afghan soldiers eroded morale and expedited these surrenders. Washington overestimated the legitimacy of the central Afghan government, but, most importantly, it exaggerated the willingness of Afghans to fight for that system even if they preferred it over a return of the Taliban Emirate. 

Too much commentary over the last 24 hours points to what the Taliban have achieved and naively asks, "why couldn't the United States pull that off?" The region and local power brokers knew the United States would leave one day. They also knew the Taliban wouldn't. 

The United States has been planning to withdraw from Afghanistan or carrying out a limited form of it for approximately a decade. A timely withdrawal by President Biden was the correct decision. We did not need another drawn-out charade. But President Biden’s execution of the withdrawal reflected a desire to wipe America’s hands clean of future engagement with Afghanistan. It unnecessarily placed former interpreters, women's rights defenders and other Afghans at risk rather than evacuating them in an orderly manner. It also made few attempts to explore what future engagement might look like. 

Today marks an important inflection point in U.S. foreign policy abroad: will we remain engaged in a region after U.S. troops leave or will we disengage completely? The latter would not truly end the forever wars but simply pause them. Finding a way to engage with troubled parts of the world in a way that does not rely on a militarized foreign policy is the only way to end costly military interventions for good. 


A Taliban fighter looks on as he stands at the city of Ghazni, Afghanistan August 14, 2021. REUTERS/Stringer
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
Swedish military Greenland

Top photo credit: HAGSHULT, SWEDEN- 7 MAY 2024: Military guards during the US Army exercise Swift Response 24 at the Hagshult base, Småland county, Sweden, during Tuesday. (Shutterstock/Sunshine Seeds)

Trump digs in as Europe sends troops to Greenland

Europe

Wednesday’s talks between American, Danish, and Greenlandic officials exposed the unbridgeable gulf between President Trump’s territorial ambitions and respect for sovereignty.

Trump now claims the U.S. needs Greenland to support the Golden Dome missile defense initiative. Meanwhile, European leaders are sending a small number of troops to Greenland.

keep readingShow less
Congress
Top image credit: VideoFlow via shutterstock.com

Congress should walk Trump's talk on arms industry stock buybacks

Military Industrial Complex

The Trump administration’s new executive order to curb arms industry stock buybacks — which boost returns for shareholders — has no teeth, but U.S. lawmakers could and should take advantage.

The White House issued an Executive Order on Jan. 7 to prevent contractors “from putting stock buybacks and excessive corporate distributions ahead of production capacity, innovation, and on-time delivery for America’s military." The order empowers the Defense Secretary to "take steps to ensure that future contracts prohibit stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance, insufficient prioritization or investment, or insufficient production speed."

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.