Follow us on social

google cta
Shutterstock_2026737029-scaled

GOP drops scathing review of Afghanistan withdrawal, White House reacts

The Biden administration is reiterating its case for ending the war, while Republicans are focused on the evacuation.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific
google cta
google cta

Republican lawmakers accused President Joe Biden Sunday of failing to properly prepare for last year’s Afghanistan withdrawal. In a report, GOP members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said Biden left key decisions about civilian evacuations to the last minute and implied that U.S. troops should have stayed in the country longer.

“The Biden administration had largely wasted the four months since the president announced the full withdrawal, failing to adequately plan for the anticipated Taliban takeover,” the panel wrote.

Biden’s team swung back at the report in a memo defending the withdrawal that was leaked to Axios. In the document, which is reportedly meant to be circulated on Capitol Hill, a National Security Council spokesperson argued that the “partisan” interim report “is riddled with inaccurate characterizations, cherry-picked information, and false claims.” The memo pins the blame for any issues on former President Donald Trump’s 2020 agreement with the Taliban and contends that staying in Afghanistan was not an option.

“The President rejected the impossible notion that a so- called low-grade effort could have maintained a stalemate,” the spokesperson wrote. “There’s nothing low-grade, low-risk, or low-cost about any war – and there were no signs that even more time, funds, or even more importantly Americans at risk in Afghanistan, would have yielded different results.”

As the anniversary of the withdrawal approaches, the back-and-forth previews the battle lines that Republicans and Democrats will hold in the coming weeks as public fights over the operation continue. And, if the GOP wins the House in November, that debate could bleed well into 2022.

Another factor that will keep the discussion going is that each side has a point. On Biden’s side, he was no doubt right that Washington had a limited ability to create a sustainable government in Afghanistan, and another few months would have done little to change that. He also had his hands tied to some degree by the Trump-era Doha Agreement, which was widely criticized as short-sighted and half-baked.

On the other side, the GOP is on solid ground when it argues that the implementation of the withdrawal was a disaster. Republicans are also right to point out that Biden has failed to hold anyone accountable for that disaster, and it’s hard to defend the State Department’s decision to block requests to bring dozens of officials before the committee to testify about it.

As the bickering carries on in Washington, the situation continues to deteriorate on the ground in Afghanistan. The International Committee of the Red Cross reported today that more than half of Afghans are in need of humanitarian assistance, blaming the crisis on a wide range of factors including economic sanctions, a “paralyzed” banking system, and the long-term effects of decades of war in the country.

Of course, U.S. officials have the ability to alleviate at least two of those factors given that Washington has spearheaded the sanctions regime and currently holds billions of dollars in frozen Afghan central bank funds. According to many economists, that second policy has made it impossible for Afghan officials to manage their own economy, contributing to its collapse.

“The people of Afghanistan have been made to suffer doubly for a government they did not choose,” Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz and more than 70 other experts wrote in a recent open letter.

Unfortunately for the people of Afghanistan, the idea of changing either of those policies is so controversial in Washington that it’s rarely even brought up in the halls of power. And Biden has already ruled out releasing the central bank funds, according to the Wall Street Journal. For policymakers in the Beltway, it’s apparently easier to have partisan arguments about the past than it is to save lives in the present.


Kabul, August 18, 2021. (Shutterstock/John Smith 2021)
google cta
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Meet Trump’s man in Greenland
Top image credit: American investor Thomas Emanuel Dans poses in Nuuk's old harbor, Greenland, February 6, 2025. (REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier)

Meet Trump’s man in Greenland

Washington Politics

In March of last year, when public outrage prevented Second Lady Usha Vance from attending a dogsled race in Greenland, Thomas Dans took it personally.

“As a sponsor and supporter of this event I encouraged and invited the Second Lady and other senior Administration officials to attend this monumental race,” Dans wrote on X at the time, above a photo of him posing with sled dogs and an American flag. He expressed disappointment at “the negative and hostile reaction — fanned by often false press reports — to the United States supporting Greenland.”

keep readingShow less
Trump
Top image credit: President Donald Trump delivers remarks at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, following Operation Absolute Resolve in Venezuela leading to the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Saturday, January 3, 2026. (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

The new Trump Doctrine: Strategic domination and denial

Global Crises

The new year started with a flurry of strategic signals, as on January 3 the Trump administration launched the opening salvos of what appears to be a decisive new campaign to reclaim its influence in Latin America, demarcate its areas of political interests, and create new spheres of military and economic denial vis-à-vis China and Russia.

In its relatively more assertive approach to global competition, the United States has thus far put less premium on demarcating elements of ideological influence and more on what might be perceived as calculated spheres of strategic disruption and denial.

keep readingShow less
NPT
Top image credit: Milos Ruzicka via shutterstock.com

We are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe

Global Crises

In May of his first year as president, John F. Kennedy met with Israeli President David Ben-Gurion to discuss Israel’s nuclear program and the new nuclear power plant at Dimona.

Writing about the so-called “nuclear summit” in “A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion,” Israeli historian Tom Segev states that during this meeting, “Ben-Gurion did not get much from the president, who left no doubt that he would not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons.”

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.