Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
al Sharaa UAE
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa is welcomed by UAE's Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan as he arrives for a meeting with UAE's President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, April 13, 2025. Syrian Presidency/Handout via REUTERS

UAE may need al-Sharaa as much as he needs it. Here's why.

Middle East


Syria’s new government seeks greater recognition and legitimacy from Western and Arab states, making President Ahmed al-Sharaa’s April 13 visit to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) important to his war-torn and much-sanctioned country’s future.

After Saudi Arabia, the UAE became the second Gulf Arab state that Sharaa visited as president, illustrating how Damascus and Abu Dhabi both place much value on bilateral engagement despite significant distrust in the relationship.

keep readingShow less
Vietnam tariffs trade
Top photo credit: People walk past a gate of the Samsung Electro-Mechanics factory, following U.S. President Donald Trump's imposition of a tariff rate of 46 per cent on Vietnam — later paused — in Thai Nguyen province, Vietnam, April 9, 2025. REUTERS/Thinh Nguyen

Vietnam's fortunes actually take a dramatic turn, and not for worst

Asia-Pacific

Vietnam’s trade fortunes have taken a dramatic turn.

Once slapped with a staggering 46% tariff in President Donald Trump’s initial “Liberation Day” trade offensive, the Southeast Asian nation now finds itself in a much better spot — benefiting from a reduced 10% tariff rate, in line with most other countries. It’s a striking reversal that highlights Hanoi’s stepped-up diplomatic hustle on the global stage.

keep readingShow less
US army
Top photo credit: US Army/US Department of Defense

The US Army is about to get smaller, especially in Europe

Military Industrial Complex

What are the Trump administration’s plans for the U.S. Army at home and abroad?

The question hung over recent House and Senate hearings with Pentagon officials about security challenges facing the United States. “The Department [of Defense (DoD)] is undergoing a global force posture review…No decisions have been made at this time,” the acting assistant secretary for international security affairs, Katherine Thompson, responded at one session when asked about the possibility of changes to the U.S. military footprint in Europe.

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.