President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan ended an unsustainable U.S. military intervention with no end in sight. Over the last two decades of the war in Afghanistan countless Afghans assisted the American mission by working as interpreters and in civil society and human rights.
Right now, Washington is undertaking a massive evacuation of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, special immigrant visa applicants (SIVs), and other refugees with priority statuses. Kabul’s airport only has one runway and the Taliban have set up checkpoints outside some of its gates and along routes to the airport. Now is not the time for bureaucracy or delay. The United States will only get one opportunity to evacuate as many vulnerable people as possible. Below find four steps the Biden administration can take immediately to accomplish this goal.
Establish a through line between U.S. government agencies and civil society. There are several organizations that have worked around the clock for months on the issue of Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) and refugees with priority statuses. These organizations are staffed with subject-matter experts who have continuous contact with at-risk individuals and often have significant military or government experience. The Pentagon and Department of State should take advantage of this resource through an organized joint effort. It is also critical that information from U.S. government agencies is distributed through an established pipeline. Ad hoc releases of information and rumor mills have only induced panic.
Secure the airport. With the Taliban in control of Kabul it is increasingly difficult to secure the airport and its immediate surroundings. Nevertheless, a more orderly process would decrease chaos and entry points could be made more efficient to avoid trapping vulnerable individuals who are turned away or asked to wait and find themselves stuck in limbo between airport gates and Taliban checkpoints. Increasing consular staff and services inside the airport will also help.
Stop fixating on the paperwork. There should not be reports of C-17s departing from Kabul half filled. A fixation on prioritizing certain categories of evacuees over others, minutiae of paperwork, and whether an Afghan national is in contact with a U.S. based organization is slowing down the evacuation process. U.S. soldiers are not trained to serve as customs officials. A minimal set of details should be verified and then individuals should be evacuated to a third country. Details can be worked out in third countries and individuals who do not qualify for entry into the United States can be referred to the UNHCR or third countries. President Biden himself appeared to endorse this approach in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos when he said, “I had a meeting today for a couple hours in the Situation Room just below here. There are Afghan women outside the gate. I told 'em, ‘Get 'em on the planes. Get them out. Get them out. Get their families out if you can.’"
Use backdoor diplomacy where possible. The Taliban have set-up checkpoints, discharged their weapons, and harassed and beat individuals attempting to make their way to the airport. The United States has limited control over these actions, but keeping the communication lines open could prove critical to preventing the situation from deteriorating even more. A clear message should be delivered to the Taliban that slowing down the evacuation is not in their interests.
Adam Weinstein is Deputy Director of the Middle East program at the Quincy Institute, whose current research focuses on security and rule of law in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.
A boy is processed through an Evacuee Control Checkpoint (ECC) during an evacuation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, Kabul, Afghanistan August 18, 2021. Picture taken August 18, 2021. U.S. Marine Corps/Staff Sgt. Victor Mancilla/Handout via REUTERS THIS IMAGE HAS BEEN SUPPLIED BY A THIRD PARTY./File Photo
“I don’t need anybody’s money…I’m not using the lobbyists. I’m not using the donors,” proudly proclaimed Donald Trump in his 2016 campaign for president that, like his other campaigns, was laced with disdain for how money drives politics in the U.S. He, of course, did take hundreds of millions of dollars in donor money (some of it from lobbyists) in his 2016, 2020, and 2024 campaigns. And, he certainly wasn’t the only politician railing against the corrosive impact of money in politics. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) famously vowed to “get corporate money out of politics,” in his 2016 presidential campaign and regularly advertised that his average donation was just $27.
Rhetoric like this from Trump and Sanders works extraordinarily well because it strikes a nerve in an American public that really doesn’t trust its government and despises money’s corrupt influence on our politics.
The public’s trust in government is near all-time lows. Last year, the Pew Research Center found that just 23% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or most of the time. That figure was 75% when Pew first began asking the question in 1958. These abysmal levels of trust in government are mirrored by enormous distrust of “experts.” Just 48% of respondents to a 2022 survey said that “public policy experts” were “valuable” to society. Why the skepticism of policy experts? According to the survey, the number one reason was “suspecting the expert may have a hidden agenda.”
Sadly, their suspicions are absolutely right. And, in few areas is the corrosive impact of money in politics more apparent than in U.S. foreign policy. D.C. has become awash in cash from special interests that profit from America’s endless wars. Campaign coffers are flooded with money from the arms industry, but that’s just the beginning. Many of the experts you see on TV, hear on the radio, or read in mainstream newspapers do, in fact, work at organizations that cash huge checks from Pentagon contractors and foreign governments that profit — financially or otherwise — from America’s military conflicts. Those media outlets themselves are often cashing checks from war profiteers who are all too eager to buy their ad space.
This elite-driven boondoggle is the reason why the Pentagon continues to invest billions of dollars in jets and ships that don’t work, why the U.S. is funneling arms to two-thirds of all current global conflicts, and why lawmakers spend their time auditioning as lobbyists instead of representing their constituents. Most importantly, the American people are paying more for national security every year and getting less of it.
I know all of this firsthand. It’s actually my job to know this. And, unfortunately, business is good. In just the last six months, I’ve documented how the lobbyists for foreign governments work to militarize U.S. foreign policy and how foreign policy think tanks — the employers of many of the experts the public has grown to distrust — are flooded with cash from foreign governments and Pentagon contractors. In short, it’s a target-rich environment for someone that investigates D.C.’s influence-peddling machine and — as much as I enjoy the gainful employment — that is a problem.
The public needs to understand the truth behind how U.S. foreign policy is actually being created. But, just knowing how the sausage is made doesn’t make it any easier to swallow. In fact, it can make it much harder and, ultimately, contribute to the crisis of confidence in government. Exposing corruption — both the illegal and perfectly legal varieties — is a necessary step, but it must be followed by actions that fix the broken system itself.
That is why we’re starting this column: the Lobby Horse. We’ll track the trojan horse that is the money behind U.S. foreign policy and, ultimately, work to stop it from leading us into the next endless war. We want readers to get the stories behind the stories in U.S. foreign policy so you can see in real-time how money is moving America’s foreign policy. We’ll be going behind the scenes of the latest money-in-politics scandals that are making headlines, while also doing deep dives into corruption investigations that mainstream media outlets all too often ignore. All this is with one goal in mind: to inform American people how U.S. foreign policy is actually being created and what we, together, can do to fix it.
If this sounds like your cup of tea, tune in every other Wednesday. The column will usually be written by me, but we’ll also have contributions from other Quincy Institute muckrakers, like Bill Hartung and Nick Cleveland-Stout.
Regardless of who has the pen that week, I’ll promise you this: you’ll see a side of foreign policy that you won’t see anywhere else. Buckle up, the Lobby Horse is going to be a wild ride.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: A Palestinian man looks at an Israeli military vehicle during an Israeli raid in Tubas in the Israeli-occupied West Bank October 31, 2023. REUTERS/Raneen Sawafta
A Palestinian man looks at an Israeli military vehicle during an Israeli raid in Tubas in the Israeli-occupied West Bank October 31, 2023. REUTERS/Raneen Sawafta
President Trump paused most foreign aid programs in January but is now asking Congress to approve $1 billion worth of bombs and demolition equipment to Israel.
The administration has been adding exceptions to its foreign aid pause since announcing it, but it seems Israel’s aid was never in jeopardy, according to diplomatic cables.
The American taxpayer will pay for the $1 billion sale of the weapons as part of the $3.8. billion military aid package sent to Israel each year. In total, from Oct. 2023 to Oct. 2024, Israel received a record-breaking $17.9 billion worth of weapons, and President Biden announced plans to send an $8 billion arms package to the nation in January, but it has not yet been fully approved by Congress.
This new arms package comes as President Trump is set to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday. Trump also lifted the pause on the sale of 2,000-pound bombs to Israel in late January.
The weapons and equipment included in the most recent sale include 1,000-pound “general purpose” bombs and Caterpillar D9 armored bulldozers, which have historically been used to raze houses and other buildings in the West Bank as collective punishment, including as part of an ongoing operation in Jenin.
Trump’s decision to continue large-scale arms sales to Israel is shadowed by a fragile cease-fire in Gaza, and by reports that raised the death count in Gaza to at least 62,000.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Secretary Marco Rubio participates in a podcast with Megyn Kelly at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., January 30, 2025. (Official State Department photo by Freddie Everett)
I almost fell off my chair listening to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s recent interview with former Fox News host Megyn Kelly where he declared unipolarity an anomaly and treated a return to multipolarity essentially as a correction by the gravitational forces of geopolitics.
This is what he said:
“So it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power. That was not — that was an anomaly. It was a product of the end of the Cold War, but eventually you were going to reach back to a point where you had a multipolar world, multi-great powers in different parts of the planet. We face that now with China and to some extent Russia, and then you have rogue states like Iran and North Korea you have to deal with.”
Rubio’s comments should be getting more attention.
Setting aside whether he truly believes this or is simply adjusting to President Trump's worldview, it is still very significant for the secretary of state to not only declare unipolarity over (Hillary Clinton said the world was multipolar already in 2010, but saying it and meaning it are two different things), but to also treat the return to multipolarity as a return to normalcy.
It’s not clear how far Rubio has thought this through, and he makes no mention of ending primacy as a grand strategy. However, he speaks of centering U.S. interests in U.S. foreign policy and that the U.S. cannot be responsible for resolving every problem in the world.
But if one sees unipolarity as a historical accident and an anomaly, then it would be difficult to justify a grand strategy of primacy or liberal hegemony that, at its essence, seeks to either restore or prolong that anomaly.
Of course, the gap between what is thought, what is said, and what is done by the Trump administration may be quite sizable.
Either way, Rubio's interview here deserves more attention. Not only because it is refreshing but also because a serious grandstrategic conversation — free from dishonest accusations of isolationism or China-hugging — is long overdue.
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.