Follow us on social

google cta
2022-08-01t231106z_2002231278_rc2lhz5tvb28_rtrmadp_3_afghanistan-conflict-usa-zawahiri

Al-Zawahiri killing shows 'over-the-horizon' counterterrorism can work

Despite what critics said during the Afghanistan withdrawal, the US didn't need boots on the ground to take a top terrorist off the board.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Tonight’s announcement that al-Qaeda terrorist Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed over the weekend is the product of years of effort and Americans who paid the ultimate sacrifice. But it is also important to recognize just how wrong the conventional groupthink was about the limits of post-withdrawal counterterrorism.

It cannot be exaggerated how improbable conventional critics of President Biden’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan insisted today's success would be. The prevailing critique of an over-the-horizon strategy was that it would be nearly impossible to conduct effective counterterrorism strikes without continuing a 20-year failed counterinsurgency. Arguing otherwise became a lonely position in Washington. 

The Biden administration first pitched “over-the-horizon” strike capabilities as a way that the United States could manage counterterrorism after the withdrawal by conducting air and drone strikes from bases outside Afghanistan. It was largely received with sneers and criticism. Much of the criticism is valid from a technical standpoint. An over-the-horizon posture is complicated by less human intelligence, extended flight distances for drones and manned aircraft, and numerous other logistical and intelligence limitations. But it is a more sustainable form of risk management that necessarily diverts from the futile task of risk elimination that dominated the U.S. approach to counterterrorism in Afghanistan over the last twenty years. Furthermore, many of the deficiencies of an over-the-horizon strategy were still a reality even with tens of thousands of U.S. troops in-country, albeit at a significantly higher cost.

This weekend’s strike on Ayman al-Zawahiri represents over-the-horizon at its best: eliminating a high value target based on actionable intelligence, likely with pre-approval by the Commander-in-Chief, and potentially with regional support. This should not be conflated with the unhinged permissiveness of past drone wars which saw thousands of civilians killed based on dubious intelligence or none at all. One under-appreciated benefit of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan is that it has forced the U.S. military and intelligence community to truly prioritize threats.


FILE PHOTO: Osama bin Laden sits with his adviser Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian linked to the al Qaeda network, during an interview with Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir (not pictured) in an image supplied by Dawn newspaper November 10, 2001. Hamid Mir/Editor/Ausaf Newspaper for Daily Dawn/Handout via REUTERS/
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)
Top photo credit: President Cyril Ramaphosa (Photo: GCIS/Flickr) and Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

South Africa: Between Iran and a hard place (Donald Trump)

Africa

South Africa is struggling to unfurl its wings as a leading middle power and advance its relations with its fellow BRICS members while keeping out of the cross hairs of the U.S. president. This has been particularly hard considering that one member of the Global South grouping — Iran — is on Donald Trump’s current list of potential military targets.

South Africa joined BRICS in 2006. The organization is supposed to serve as an intergovernmental forum for member countries to connect on issues related to diplomacy, security, and economics. But the bloc has angered President Trump, who sees it as a threat to American leadership, particularly given China’s membership in the group.

keep readingShow less
Trump Khamanei
Top image credit: Bella1105/shutterstock.com

Could Trump bomb Iran before settling on a rationale?

Middle East

Shifting justifications for a war are never a good sign, and they strongly suggest that the war in question was not warranted.

In the Vietnam War, the principal public rationale of saving South Vietnam from communism got replaced in the minds of the warmakers — especially after losing hope of winning the contest in Vietnam — by the belief that the United States had to keep fighting to preserve its credibility. In the Iraq War, when President George W. Bush’s prewar argument about weapons of mass destruction fell apart, he shifted to a rationale centered on bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.

keep readingShow less
James Holtsnider
Top image credit: James Holtsnider, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be ambassador to Jordan, testifies before a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on nominations on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 11, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

New US ambassador's charm offensive is backfiring in Jordan

Middle East

Since arriving in Amman around three months ago to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to Jordan, James Holtsnider quickly became one of the highest-profile envoys in the Hashemite Kingdom. In addition to presenting his credentials to King Abdullah II, Holtsnider has met with Jordanian soccer players, attended weddings, and joined tribal gatherings.

However, a January 14 request by a U.S. Embassy delegation for the ambassador to offer condolences at the family home of former Karak mayor Abdullah Al-Dmour showed that many Jordanians have little interest in participating in Holtsnider’s public relations initiative. Dmour’s relatives rejected the U.S. ambassador’s wish to visit. Dmour’s tribe issued a statement noting Holtsnider’s request “violates Jordanian tribal customs, which separates the sanctity of mourning from any political presence with public implications.”

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.