By Rudy Barnes, Jr.
President Biden described America’s exit from Afghanistan on August 30 as an extraordinary success. That accolade may come back to haunt him, as did President Bush’s declaration of mission accomplished a few days after the invasion of Iraq in October 2003--and President Trump described American bombing raids in Syria the same way in April 2018.
America’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan cost the lives of 13 American soldiers and left behind and at the mercy of the Taliban over 100 Americans and many Afghans who supported the American cause. Only time will tell whether Biden’s exit from Afghanistan was an extraordinary success or a strategic failure.
What criteria should be used to judge the withdrawal? Was America’s strategic objective in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from returning to power and providing a haven for Islamist terrorists, or was it to promote democracy and human rights--or both? And were there alternative exit strategies that could have come closer to accomplishing those objectives?
Mark Twain once described his premature obituary as greatly exaggerated. Biden’s description of his exit from Afghanistan as an extraordinary success was, at the very least, premature; and it was political hubris for him to ignore its many flaws. Biden sounded like Donald Trump in praising his own policies, and that will likely detract from his legacy.
Another contingency that will shape Biden’s legacy is what happens to the Americans who remain in Afghanistan and the many Afghans who wanted to escape a Taliban regime, but were left behind. Even so, 124,000 Afghan refugees did escape the Taliban as part of the massive airlift out of Afghanistan, and they are now seeking a place to settle.
With the return of the Taliban to power, it’s obvious that America failed to transform Afghanistan into a democracy that respects human rights. As to whether Afghanistan again becomes a haven for Islamist terrorism, Talban assertions that it will prevent al-Qaeda and ISIS from exporting terrorism mean little if the past is an indication of the future.
Andrew Bacevich has observed that “The American war in Afghanistan has ended in bitter humiliation. The age of American privilege is gone for good.” It represents the end of the age of a distorted American exceptionalism that motivated abortive military interventions in Vietnam and Iraq. It’s time for America to accept its loss of world hegemony.
Just as history embarrassed President Bush for his premature praise of the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as a mission accomplished, it will likely remember President Biden’s hasty exit from Afghanistan as underscoring the failure of America to clean up the mess it made there. Leaving Afghanistan after 20 years was the right thing for America to do; but its exit strategy was flawed.
Notes:
“In May 2003 President Bush stood under a Mission Accomplished banner just six weeks after the invasion of Iraq and asserted that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended. But the war dragged on for many years after that and the banner became a symbol of U.S. misjudgments and mistakes in the long and costly conflict. Bush was heavily criticized for the move.” Trump used the same ‘mission accomplished’ language to describe airstrikes in Syria in 2018”. See https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/04/14/bush-was-haunted-his-own-mission-accomplished/E73SdIkXxBfUGsbyXv7ISI/story.html.
Commenting on Biden’s speech on August 31, Aaron David Miller said, ”Biden is done with Afghanistan, but is Afghanistan done with Biden? Thousands of American University of Afghanistan students and graduates were left behind. Paradoxically the one issue that required more detailed comments from the President and will be treated most harshly by his critics was the issue Biden himself identified as the only vital national interest America has in Afghanistan: How to protect the homeland from terror attacks. ...Biden’s speech was for America. If US allies were looking for apologies ,they surely weren’t going to find it in Biden’s speech.” See https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/31/opinions/joe-biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-speech-miller/.
Andrew Bacevich has noted that “...throughout the decades-long Cold War, the United States was the envy of the world — free, democratic and prosperous. The end of the Cold War served to affirm such convictions. Hence, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the demise of communism prompted few second thoughts regarding the now well-entrenched power projection paradigm. Nor did 9/11. Indeed, in response to the terrorist attack on New York and Washington, George W. Bush doubled down, describing the nation’s new enemy as “heirs of all the murderous ideologies” of the prior century. The United States would deal with them precisely as it had dealt with ‘fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism.’ The recent past would define America’s future. So at Bush’s behest, the nation embarked upon a Global War on Terrorism. …The postwar formula for sustaining a position of global privilege is no longer working. The paradigm of power projection, with its emphasis on military intervention abroad, no longer provides a relevant response to these threats. The American war in Afghanistan ended in bitter humiliation, but it should serve as a wake-up call. The age of American privilege is gone for good. The most pressing task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships that will refurbish and renew the prevailing conception of American freedom.” See
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/02/age-american-privilege-is-over/?utm_campaign=wp_opinions_pm&utm_medium=email&utm. See also, Andrew J. Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Metropolitan Books, 2008.
According to Lindsey Graham (R, SC), the US will be going back to Afghanistan. Graham said “Afghanistan will be a cauldron for radical Islamic behavior, presenting the US with only two options: You can say that’s no longer my problem...or hit them before they hit us.” See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/09/07/lindsey-graham-us-going-back-afghanistan/?utm_.
The Editorial Board of the Washington Post has advocated a different path for US policy in Afghanistan, advocating, “the US should pursue its remaining goals in Afghanistan, which must include advocating the human rights of its people. There has been too much wishful thinking already.” But promoting human rights in Afghanistan may itself be wishful thinking. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/09/08/taliban-shows-what-it-means-by-inclusive-time-american-wishful-thinking-is-over/?utm_.
In the aftermath of America’s exit from Afghanistan Michael Gerson visualizes President Biden embracing a redefinition of war--but not an alternative to war. It’s a strategic shift from counterinsurgency with US troop deployments in hostile Islamic cultural environments overseas to over the horizon counterterrorism relying on hit and run tactics from distant bases. Gerson seems to recognize that such a change in military strategies will not change the outcome, which is increased cultural resentment to the U.S. that will foster more rather than less terrorism. See
On the conflict between Islam and libertarian human rights, and why advocating human rights in Afghanistan would be difficult, see Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of.
For other commentary on the challenge of promoting human rights in Islamic regimes, see Human Rights, Freedom and National Security (April 4, 2017) at
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/04/human-rights-freedom-and-national.html.
See also, What the Afghanistan Fiasco Teaches Us About Religion, Legitimacy and Politics (Aug 21, 2021), at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2021/08/what-afghanistan-fiasco-teaches-us.html.
On the conflict between Islam and libertarian human rights, and why advocating human rights in Afghanistan would be difficult, see Religion, Law and Conflicting Concepts of Legitimacy at https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5473-barnesreligion-and-conflicting-concepts-of.
For other commentary on the challenge of promoting human rights in Islamic regimes, see Human Rights, Freedom and National Security (April 4, 2017) at
http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2017/04/human-rights-freedom-and-national.html.
See also, What the Afghanistan Fiasco Teaches Us About Religion, Legitimacy and Politics (Aug 21, 2021), at http://www.religionlegitimacyandpolitics.com/2021/08/what-afghanistan-fiasco-teaches-us.html.
No comments:
Post a Comment