Follow us on social


HR McMaster scorns endless war 'mantra' while pushing for endless war

The former general joins a chorus of calls to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely with broad assumptions that there will be no costs.

Analysis | Reporting | Global Crises

Amid the tragic scenes of the swift Taliban takeover of Afghanistan’s capital after the U.S. military withdrawal, mainstream American media outlets have tossed nuance and sober analysis aside and instead turned hysterical, seemingly incapable of distinguishing between the limits of U.S. military power and their understandable desires to help the Afghan people. 

As part of that campaign, news outlets have been promoting the very people who were responsible for pushing the United States into this 20-year quagmire, along with their claims that the U.S. military should stay in Afghanistan indefinitely (in most cases without an examination of the costs that that course of action would entail).

In one of the more brazen examples, H.R. McMaster — a former U.S. Army lieutenant general who spent time as a senior military official in Afghanistan and served at one point as Donald Trump’s national security adviser —   blasted the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan on CNN Monday while calling for the U.S. military to remain there indefinitely. 

“And what's so sad … [is that] it was a sustainable level of commitment, right, this ‘end the endless wars’ mantra,” he said, deriding those who want to end our forever wars. But then in his very next breath, McMaster proposed staying in Afghanistan forever to prop up an endless conflict. “You're talking about 3,500 troops or maybe 8,000 troops. I mean, it really doesn't matter that we’re enabling the Afghans to bear the brunt of the fight.” 

Of course there was no discussion of what that proposal might cost the American or Afghan people.

But recall that McMaster himself, almost a decade ago, provided a rosy assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, all while seeming to acknowledge the permanent roadblock toward stability there: rampant corruption. 

"Our soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors, working alongside Afghans, have shut down the vast majority of the physical space in which the enemy can operate," McMaster said during an interview with the Wall Street Journal in May 2012. "The question is, how do we consolidate those gains politically and psychologically?"

Later in the interview, McMaster identified the key problem with consolidating military gains, noting that Afghan officials in Kabul were “robbing Afghanistan of much-needed revenue, undermining rule of law, degrading the effectiveness of state institutions, and eroding popular confidence in the government."

But it’s not just McMaster. David Petraeus — former commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan who would later get caught sharing classified information with his mistress — argued on CNN this week that Afghanistan “was not Vietnam,” and called for a “sustained commitment” there. Petraeus didn’t elaborate on how long that commitment would extend, but comments he made to the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction in 2017 suggest that he knows there would be no end date. “I told Congress we wouldn’t be able to flip [Afghanistan] the way we flipped Iraq,” he said. “I had no expectation that we would be able to flip [Afghanistan].”

Cable news this week has featured a cacophony of calls for the U.S. military to remain indefinitely in Afghanistan under the assumption that there would be no substantial cost to doing so. Pundits have pointed to the relatively quiet U.S. military presence there for the past year and a half, forgetting that the Doha peace deal with the Taliban was largely responsible for absence of American casualties or omitting the fact that the war between the Afghan military and security forces and the Taliban was actually intensifying.

National security advisrr H. R. McMaster addresses the press during the White House daily briefing, Friday, May 12, 2017. Photo: Michael Candelori via
Analysis | Reporting | Global Crises
Ukraine-Poland row exposes history, limits of devotion
Credit: Polish President Andrzej Duda (Shutterstock/BikerBarakuss) and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky (Shutterstock/Oleksandr Osipov)

Ukraine-Poland row exposes history, limits of devotion


The vitriolic dispute between Poland and Ukraine brings out some aspects of the West’s approach to the war in Ukraine that the Ukrainian government would do well to study carefully.

The dispute originated in charges by Poland and other central European governments that Ukraine’s greatly increased grain exports to Europe — a consequence of the Russian closure of the Black Sea to Ukrainian maritime trade — were flooding European markets and depressing prices for Polish and other farmers.

keep readingShow less
Rep. Gerry Connolly

Rep. Gerry Connolly, screengrab via

How members of Congress can take on Iran hawks

Middle East

During a recent House hearing on “Iran’s escalating threats,” a Democratic lawmaker completely dismantled all the myths opponents of diplomacy peddle about Iran and its nuclear program.

The hearing was dominated by hawkish voices on Iran, who urged for increasing pressure and spurned any diplomatic engagement. The only exception was Suzanne Maloney from the Brookings Institute, who took a more moderate stance.

keep readingShow less
Brazil is showing us how to avoid a new cold war

President Joe Biden and Brazilian President Lula. photo: White House

Brazil is showing us how to avoid a new cold war

Latin America

When the BRICS grouping held its annual summit in late August, it was widely covered as a portentous affair that signaled a ripening challenge to the U.S.-led global order.

For the first time, the group expanded considerably, reflecting a growing ambition not necessarily shared by each original member. It was reasonable to wonder whether a robust challenge to U.S. hegemony was imminent.

keep readingShow less

Ukraine War Crisis