Follow us on social

Us-capitol-scaled

Congress must hold Benghazi-level hearings on its own role in Afghanistan

Start by asking who benefited from the protracted war, a question that will elicit uncomfortable truths about Washington.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Congress should launch a Benghazi-level series of hearings into Afghanistan. The hearings should, of course, examine the Biden Administration’s planning for the final withdrawal of U.S. personnel and allies. But more importantly, they should dig into the much larger question: How does the United States avoid a future situation where it  is “easier” to stay in an unwinnable war for 20 years through lies than to tell the truth and get out?  

The investigation should start by looking in a mirror.

Congress voted to fund the war year after year, despite public reports and Congressional testimony by the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) and others that raised questions about the viability of the nation-building project in Afghanistan. The publication of the “Afghanistan Papers” in the Washington Post in December 2019 laid bare that the U.S. political and military establishment routinely lied to Congress about the progress on the ground, and that they did not believe the mission was likely to succeed. The response from Congress? Nada.

Reporting on endemic corruption in Afghanistan was plentiful. Why were we all taken by surprise by the  “ghost soldiers” on the Afghan payroll, and to find that morale was sapped, as Afghan troops in some cases were living off of rotten potatoes and insufficiently armed, while the United States was providing approximately $4 billion annually to support them?    

Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, among others, routinely reported on the toll that U.S.-backed bombing and drone operations were taking on the Afghan people, and Anand Gopal wrote a Pulitzer Prize nominated book — No Good Men Among the Living: America, the Taliban, and the War through Afghan Eyes — that explained clearly how these airstrikes and the chaos and terror they engendered directly led to the reconstitution of the Taliban and to widespread support for them in many quarters. Congressional cries in support of human rights were much more muted then, when people were actually being killed by our own bombs.

Many talking heads in Washington (and in London and Brussels and Kabul) — including members of Congress — warned strenuously against President Biden’s decision to end the war, claiming it was the greatest foreign policy disaster in modern memory. Why was this decision to take an off-ramp from an unwinnable war a greater blunder than, say, the bombing of the Medecins sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz in 2015, or routine bombings in the southern part of the country that drove many people into the Taliban’s camp?  

Congress should examine how this fiasco could go on for so long, given the open secret around corruption and the impossibility of the mission. They could start by examining who was benefitting from the war. 

Answer: The Foreign Policy Establishment, an interlocking mix of the military (with the revolving door to cushy arms company jobs or boards), the think tanks (which gratefully receive funding from the arms contractors) and congressionally mandated studies, like the Afghan Study Group (whose participants have ties to the arms companies), the media (which relies on arms corporate advertising dollars and former failed generals who serve as pundits), and Congress (whose campaigns are funded by arms corporate donations and who are strategically lobbied by constituents who work in the arms industry).

Given that mix, it’s no wonder that neither the media, think tanks, military or Congress asked and acted on key questions. Like: Did U.S. military actions — including repeated, misdirected, deadly airstrikes — directly contribute to the build up of the Taliban, as underscored in Gopal’s book?  Did the Washington policymaking system discount and disincentivize understanding of rural attitudes toward the Taliban?  How could the U.S. cooperate in Taliban operations against ISIS-K and Al Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan a year ago but today find the Taliban completely unredeemable? How can people who are worried about the rights of women and others in Afghan cities support choking off all outside funding to this aid- dependent country now?

President Biden has accepted responsibility for the mess at the airport. At its upcoming hearings, Congress should accept its share of responsibility for letting this knowingly unwinnable war continue for so long, and it should seek to learn through asking real questions about its own record, as well as that of the agencies it is supposed to oversee.    


(shutterstock/trekandshoot)
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
President Trump with reporters
Top photo credit: President Donald Trump speaks with members of the media at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland on Sunday, September 7, 2025. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

Is Israel forcing Trump to be the capitulator in chief?

Middle East

President Donald Trump told reporters outside a Washington restaurant Tuesday evening that he is deeply displeased with Israel’s bombardment of Qatar, a close U.S. partner in the Persian Gulf that, at Washington’s request, has hosted Hamas’s political leadership since 2012.

“I am not thrilled about it. I am not thrilled about the whole situation,” Trump said, denying that Israel had given him advance notice. “I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect of it,” he continued. “We’ve got to get the hostages back. But I was very unhappy with the way that went down.”

keep readingShow less
Europe Ukraine
Top image credit: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, Volodymyr Zelenskyi, President of Ukraine, Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the UK, and Donald Tusk, Prime Minister of Poland, emerge from St. Mary's Palace for a press conference as part of the Coalition of the Willing meeting in Kiev, May 10 2025, Kay Nietfeld/dpa via Reuters Connect

Is Europe deliberately sabotaging Ukraine War negotiations?

Europe

After last week’s meeting of the “coalition of the willing” in Paris, 26 countries have supposedly agreed to contribute — in some fashion — to a military force that would be deployed on Ukrainian soil after hostilities have concluded.

Three weeks prior, at the Anchorage leaders’ summit press conference, Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that Ukraine’s security should be ensured as part of any negotiated settlement. But Russian officials have continued to reiterate that this cannot take the form of Western combat forces stationed in Ukraine. In the wake of last week’s meeting, Putin has upped the ante by declaring that any such troops would be legitimate targets for the Russian military.

keep readingShow less
After bombing, time to demystify the 'Qatar lobby'
Top photo credit: The Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Qatar, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani, is standing third from the left in the front row, alongside the Minister of Culture of Qatar, Abdulrahman bin Hamad bin Jassim bin Hamad Al Thani, who is at the center, and the Minister of Culture, Sports and Youth of Oman, Sayyid Theyazin bin Haitham Al Said, who is second from the right in Doha, Qatar, on May 9, 2024. (Photo by Noushad Thekkayil/NurPhoto)

After bombing, time to demystify the 'Qatar lobby'

Middle East

On Tuesday, Israel bombed Doha, killing at least five Hamas staffers and a member of Qatari security. Israeli officials initially claimed the US green-lit the operation, despite Qatar hosting the largest U.S. military in the region.

The White House has since contradicted that version of events, saying the White House was given notice “just before” the bombing and claiming the strike was an “unfortunate" attack that "could serve as an opportunity for peace.”

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.