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
United Nations
Monitors at the United Nations General Assembly hall display the results of a vote on a resolution condemning the annexation of parts of Ukraine by Russia, amid Russia's invasion of Ukraine, at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City, New York, U.S., October 12, 2022. REUTERS/David 'Dee' Delgado||

We're burying the rules based order. But what's next?

Global Crises

In a Davos speech widely praised for its intellectual rigor and willingness to confront established truths, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney finally laid the fiction of the “rules-based international order” to rest.

The “rules-based order” — or RBIO — was never a neutral description of the post-World War II system of international law and multilateral institutions. Rather, it was a discourse born out of insecurity over the West’s decline and unwillingness to share power. Aimed at preserving the power structures of the past by shaping the norms and standards of the future, the RBIO was invariably something that needed to be “defended” against those who were accused of opposing it, rather than an inclusive system that governed relations between all states.

keep readingShow less
china trump
President Donald Trump announces the creation of a critical minerals reserve during an event in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, DC on Monday, February 2, 2026. Trump announced the creation of “Project Vault,” a rare earth stockpile to lower reliance on China for rare earths and other resources. Photo by Bonnie Cash/Pool/Sipa USA

Trump vs. his China hawks

Asia-Pacific

In the year since President Donald Trump returned to the White House, China hawks have started to panic. Leading lights on U.S. policy toward Beijing now warn that Trump is “barreling toward a bad bargain” with the Chinese Communist Party. Matthew Pottinger, a key architect of Trump’s China policy in his first term, argues that the president has put Beijing in a “sweet spot” through his “baffling” policy decisions.

Even some congressional Republicans have criticized Trump’s approach, particularly following his decision in December to allow the sale of powerful Nvidia AI chips to China. “The CCP will use these highly advanced chips to strengthen its military capabilities and totalitarian surveillance,” argued Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who chairs the influential Select Committee on Competition with China.

keep readingShow less
Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?
Top image credit: bluestork/shutterstock.com

Is America still considered part of the 'Americas'?

Latin America

On January 7, the White House announced its plans to withdraw from 66 international bodies whose work it had deemed inconsistent with U.S. national interests.

While many of these organizations were international in nature, three of them were specific to the Americas — the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, the Pan American Institute of Geography and History, and the U.N.’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. The decision came on the heels of the Dominican Republic postponing the X Summit of the Americas last year following disagreements over who would be invited and ensuing boycotts.

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.