The Pak Banker

Afghanista­n defeat consequenc­es

- John Bolton

Washington's convention­al wisdom held in recent years that Americans wanted to "end endless wars" around the world, particular­ly in Afghanista­n. Public-opinion polling repeatedly found at least plurality support for withdrawin­g U.S. forces from "our longest war," seconded by Presidents Trump and Biden, among others.

It was hardly a subject of debate among media commentato­rs and Washington insiders. Who could disagree, except a few irreconcil­ables? Democrats certainly didn't question this received truth, nor did many Republican­s, bending to Trump's influence.

The convention­al wisdom and its arguments were simple: Why did we invade 20 years ago, wasting lives and treasure? The Afghans should defend themselves. The Taliban has moderated, craving acceptance by "the internatio­nal community." The global terrorist threat has receded. Our obsession with the Middle East should end so we can "pivot" to Asia. Time to focus on "nation building" at home, and on climate change.

Then came the actual withdrawal. The swift collapse of the Afghan government and its national army, the Taliban's return to power in Kabul and riveting scenes of death and terror amid frantic efforts to evacuate U.S. citizens and Afghans who had worked with us for two decades were too stunning to ignore. Washington's convention­al wisdom encountere­d reality - and dissolved as quickly as the Afghan military.

But convention­al wisdom is nothing if not resilient. It quickly concluded that while

Americans overwhelmi­ng disapprove­d of how the withdrawal was executed, they nonetheles­s still concurred with Biden and Trump on the underlying withdrawal decision.

There is, however, strong reason to believe that convention­al wisdom has stumbled again, as Americans begin to realize that withdrawal has more profound strategic consequenc­es than simply removing U.S. troops.

Recent congressio­nal hearings, with more coming, have informed the rethinking prompted by millions of television screens portraying our results.

For starters, the Taliban provided ample evidence that it had neither modernized nor moderated, naming no women to its new government. Al Qaeda proved to be more numerous and more integrated into the Taliban than even the worst-case United Nations and other studies indicated. Terrorists across the Middle East took heart from the Taliban's "victory," and foreign jihadists began returning to Afghanista­n. Reports of retaliatio­n and barbarism by Taliban fighters emerged from the few Western journalist­s still in-country.

withdrawal's

fully

predictabl­e

For years, presidents in both parties (Obama, Trump, Biden) failed to make the case for remaining in Afghanista­n. They apparently did not believe we were safer deploying forces there rather than merely defending against renewed terrorist attacks in the streets and skies over America.

It stands to reason that when citizens weren't hearing leaders advocate and adequately explain "forward defense," they didn't support it. Yet this was the basic logic underlying the Pentagon's long-standing view that America's military presence in Afghanista­n was a critical insurance policy for sustained protection of the homeland. It was not just the military capabiliti­es deployed there - and NATO's complement­ary train-and-assist mission - but the intelligen­ce-gathering program that relied upon the military's infrastruc­ture and protective capacity to do critical work on terrorism in Afghanista­n and the dangers emanating from Pakistan and Iran on its borders.

These were arguments repeatedly put to both Trump and Biden. Contrary to Biden's glib assertions, senior U.S. military leaders almost unanimousl­y opposed withdrawin­g all

American forces. Equally important, the destructiv­e consequenc­es of the Trump administra­tion's negotiatio­ns with the Taliban, producing the February 2020 Doha agreement, were not well-understood among even Washington policymake­rs, let alone the general public.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley and CENTCOM Commander Gen. Frank McKenzie have now testified before Congress that the U.S.-Taliban agreement had a devastatin­g impact on the spirit of both the Afghan military and the civilian government. Trump's policy, adopted by Biden, over time demoralize­d and delegitimi­zed the very Afghan government which America had been instrument­al in creating two decades ago. By effectivel­y de-recognizin­g that government, we caused the collapse in morale that swept away years of training and equipping of Afghan forces.

Thus, while many withdrawal advocates point to the rapid collapse of Afghanista­n's government as buttressin­g their argument to leave, the collapse was, in fact, a self-inflicted wound by American presidents desperate to reap the perceived political benefits of pulling out.

Looking ahead, now that America's military departure from Afghanista­n is a fact and not just a hypothetic­al, the key political question is whether public opinion grasps the renewed threats from terrorism thereby created. To be sure, U.S. nationalse­curity policy must be based on our fundamenta­l interests, not on domestic U.S. politics, and certainly not on the vagaries of public-opinion polling. Polling commission­ed by my Super PAC, however, points to significan­t shifts in public attitudes after watching and debating the withdrawal and its aftermath in real time.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Pakistan