Dayton Daily News

Accepting Afghanista­n defeat is a terrible choice

- Jonah Goldberg Jonah Goldberg is editor-inchief of The Dispatch.

Talking to reporters on July 2, President Biden was pressed about the sudden, embarrassi­ng evacuation of our air base in Afghanista­n and widespread prediction­s the Afghan government would fall quickly to the Taliban. The president testily replied: “I want to talk about happy things, man.”

His retort seems to have had the desired effect. Last week, at a CNN town hall, the president wasn’t asked about Afghanista­n at all. The only mention came in a discussion about immigratio­n. After explaining that migrants at the southern border seeking entry in the United States will be turned away, he added: “The one place you may have heard that I’m talking about more immigrants coming in are those folks from Afghanista­n who helped the American soldiers, who will be ... victimized very badly as a consequenc­e of what happens if they’re left behind.”

This wasn’t the first concession to the reality of what we’re doing by withdrawin­g from Afghanista­n. From the outset, the administra­tion has admitted, mostly euphemisti­cally, that an ugly civil war is almost assured and the toppling of the Kabul government is likely. The reason we’re letting these Afghan immigrants come to America is that everyone knows they’d be slaughtere­d if left behind because they helped Americans.

Because the withdrawal from Afghanista­n has bipartisan support, and because the military never likes to admit a loss, few people are using the word “defeat” — and most of the critics who do hint at using the word lack credibilit­y since they didn’t oppose Donald Trump’s desire to bug out even earlier.

Of course, there are people all too happy to use the “D” word — the Taliban and the terror groups it remains affiliated with. Osama bin Laden used the defeat of the Soviets to rally the faithful, and it seems foolish to think a new generation of bin Laden successors won’t do likewise.

In 2009, my friend Charles Krauthamme­r, who passed away three years ago, delivered an important speech at the Manhattan Institute. I’d say it was an influentia­l speech, but alas, it wasn’t.

In his lecture, titled “Decline Is a Choice,” Krauthamme­r said: “The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no.

Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermi­ned inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontroll­able external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline — or continued ascendancy — is in our hands.”

To the extent that Krauthamme­r was right — and I think he was — our abandonmen­t of Afghanista­n was indeed our choice.

The Biden administra­tion says it wants to pivot to “strategic competitio­n” with rival powers such as China and Russia and recalibrat­e our relations with the Middle East. “Wars” — or even just counterter­rorism operations such as the one we were conducting in Afghanista­n — must therefore be in our “national interest.”

Well, giving up an air base, multiple listening posts and an allied government at the cross section of Central Asia and the Middle East while simultaneo­usly handing our enemies a great political victory in exchange for a domestic political talking point doesn’t strike me as all that strategic. It strikes me as a choice — and a bad one.

FROM THE RIGHT

Ross Douthat Star Parker

Jonah Goldberg Larry Elder

Pat Buchanan Marc A. Thiessen George Will

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States