Biden was right and wrong
Afghanistan is falling to the Taliban much faster than most anticipated. So was President Biden right to get American troops out of harm’s way, or was he wrong to abandon friends and allies?
Right
The great virtue of his decision is apparent: the remaining 2500 or so American troops in Afghanistan, along with the diplomats and other officials, were in danger. Twenty years of American support, equipment, and training had not turned the tide. The Americans were doing little fighting, but the Afghan security forces were declining in effectiveness. There was little or no reason to believe that they would improve and considerable reason to doubt that they could continue to hold the Taliban at bay. Enlarging the US presence in Afghanistan would have been foolhardy. It is hard to give credit for a tragedy averted, especially when a different tragedy (for Afghans rather than Americans) ensues, but that is what Biden deserves.
Wrong
Abandoning the Afghans to the Taliban puts a lot more than 2500 human beings at risk. Even if every single one of the translators and others who helped the Americans is evacuated, thousands of Afghans will die, hundreds of thousands will be displaced, property, careers, and lives will be ruined. A relatively open society will close once again: women will be cloistered, media shuttered, health facilities closed, and education devalued. People who believed in democracy and the rule of law will be lucky to escape the country. Many will be killed, imprisoned, or at the least disempowered.
If you are truly a humanitarian, then it doesn’t matter to you whether the people who suffer are Americans or Afghans. Nor does it matter whether they believe in democracy and the rule of law. They are entitled to a life with dignity. They won’t get it with the Taliban back in power.
Odds are that the Taliban will welcome back (clandestinely if not openly) Al Qaeda or even the Islamic State, which otherwise will present a risk to their rule. While Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are in no position today to represent a big international threat, a few years of rebuilding on Afghan soil could make them a threat once again. You can discount that threat because it is years off, but what is your discount rate? Will you be unhappy if international terrorists return to attack the US in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?
It was no easy decision
President Biden has said the decision was easy. It should not have been. While he may have imagined that the Afghan security forces would hold, he should have known that there was a possibility of collapse. He also knew that there would be a real possibility the Taliban would not fulfill their commitment to disallow international terrorism.
Biden may have imagined that other countries closer to Afghanistan would step in to save the day. Iran has a great deal to lose from a Sunni extremist regime on its border that will depend on drug trafficking. China and Russia do too. While Pakistan has supported the Taliban, despite Islamabad’s denials, the Pakistani Taliban may gain renewed momentum from the change of regime in Kabul. All of these nearer neighbors have more at stake than the US, but none of them has been ready to shoulder the burden so long as the Americans were doing it for them. Nor is it likely they will do so now.
Bottom line
I don’t think the US presence in Afghanistan was sustainable, for two reasons: domestic US opposition was growing and the Taliban were gaining ground. Biden should have found a more fruitful exit with a better chance of preserving at least some of the gains of the past two decades. President Trump set the process of withdrawal in motion, but Biden had an opportunity to improve on the deal his predecessor unwisely cut. He’ll pay the political price for that at home, though it may not be a high one. Afghans will pay a much steeper price.
You can be right in one dimension and wrong in another.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
4 thoughts on “Biden was right and wrong”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
With the odds that the U.S. will again suffer from terrorists fomented on Afghan soil, and hence perhaps again be obliged to attempt extinguishing them again, why not have remained indefinitely with the appropriate force, logistics, diplomatic corps, etc, to at least stalemate the Taliban? We militarily remain in Germany, South Korea, Japan, and a host of other lesser prior conflict areas, many with some levels of success. As difficult as the geography may be in Afghanistan, I agree our inept, sloppy, and unnecessarily pre-announced withdrawal will cost Afghans dearly. As unpleasant as it may seem to many, remaining in-country might well have been the only way to cement the many gains achieved in the past 20 years.
I think the main reason for not staying indefinitely is that our presence was helping jihadist recruitment, not only in Afghanistan. Nothing comparable occurred in Germany, South Korea or Japan.
Agree it’s not comparable to Germany, South Korea, or Japan (though plenty of friction/resistance to U.S. troops existed in the early years after WWII). As for Afghanistan, or any other country where jihadists find refuge, I posit they’ll hate us whether our troops are in their country or not. And certainly, once there (for valid reason), and our blood & treasure heavily invested over many years, an announced and precipitous withdrawal simply spells disaster — as what is now happening in Afghanistan. We can’t even get our allied Afghan civilians who aided us out of that disaster: many will suffer and die needlessly. In spite of the President’s counter statement, this will be an April ’75 re-do.
Every action has its reaction. Let’s see how Taliban bode on a ‘long term’ with them being the tyrant. Or just govern. Once a man has changed the relationship between himself and his environment, he cannot return to the blissful ignorance he left. Motion, of necessity, involves a change in perspective. What could be done, it was already done.