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
G20 south africa
Top photo credit: Workers appear behind a G20 logo as South Africa prepares to host the G20 Summit in Johannesburg from November 22 to 23, in Johannesburg, South Africa, November 13, 2025. REUTERS/Siphiwe Sibeko

Boycott of G20 is shortsighted and hurts US just as much

Africa

On November 22, South Africa will welcome heads of state and their advisors from the Group of 20 (G20) countries to Johannesburg for the organization’s annual leaders’ summit. This two-day event will mark the culmination of a year-long period during which South Africa has served as chair of the G20 — a first for any African state.

How the U.S. boycott of the summit will affect South Africa’s last hurrah as it passes the baton to the next chair — the United States — is yet to be seen.

keep readingShow less
Booming tech sector wants govt intervention for 'national security'
Top image credit: Metamorworks via shutterstock.com
Big tech isn't gonna solve our problems

Booming tech sector wants govt intervention for 'national security'

Military Industrial Complex

Authors of a new Council on Foreign Relations report are framing government subsidies and bailouts for key tech industries as a national security imperative. Not surprisingly, many of the report’s authors stand to benefit financially from such an arrangement.

Published last week, the report, titled U.S. Economic Security: Winning the Race for Tomorrow’s Technologies, urges, among a range of measures to build and onshore the sector, that “government intervention in the economy in the name of national security is most clearly warranted in cases of market failure.”

keep readingShow less
Marjorie Taylor Greene
Top photo credit: Dana Bash and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (CNN screengrab)

Pearl clutching as MTG questions Epstein-Israel connection

Washington Politics

The House plans to vote on releasing the Epstein files on Tuesday after a long and winding journey in which many have tried to prevent this from happening, with the Trump administration topping that list. This week the president reversed course and urged House Republicans to pass it and has vowed to sign if passed.

The more politicians have tried to block any new information from coming to light about the late, politically-connected convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, the more questions there have been about what powerful people seem to be so afraid of.

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.