The momentum to keep American troops engrossed in a 20-year civil war has been given a fresh bolt of energy. The intellectual adrenaline shot was given by the Afghanistan Study Group, co-chaired by former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joe Dunford.
Dunford recommended delaying former President Donald Trump’s May 1 troop withdrawal timetable. Since the 84-page report was published, a flurry of editorials and op-eds have piggybacked on its recommendations. On Feb. 19, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote that “keeping the troops in place a while longer” is probably the best policy option available. The lobbying appears to be having some effect on the Biden administration. According to a source involved with President Biden’s Afghanistan policy deliberations, full withdrawal by May 1 is “off the table.”
None of us should take arguments against withdrawal laying down.
Those who are advocating for a sustained presence have a responsibility to explain why the benefits outweigh the costs.
For a start, why would the Taliban actually negotiate an extension with the United States? The movement’s raison d’etre is to expel U.S. and foreign forces from Afghanistan on the road to what it hopes will be an Afghan government under its control, or at least under its sway. Taliban fighters have fought against the world’s only superpower for 20 years for precisely this purpose. The only reason the Taliban agreed to sit down for talks with U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in late 2018 was that the Trump administration was willing to discuss withdrawal as part of the negotiations. To expect Taliban negotiators to accommodate the U.S. now, regardless of what additional concessions Washington may put on the table, is based on hope, not reality.
Second, what evidence is there that keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan for another six months will positively affect the intra-Afghan peace talks? Those who make this link overestimate what the U.S. military can do. They also ignore the history of these peace talks. After all, it took seven months for the Afghan government and the Taliban to complete a prisoner exchange process that was designed to be a confidence-building measure. Another three months went by before the parties could agree on what to talk about. Since December, the process has been essentially frozen in place, with both delegations trading blame for stonewalling and making excessive demands. All of this is occurring despite the roughly 10,000 U.S. and NATO troops still in the country. On what basis do we believe that a few more months will do what the last 20 years have not?
Third, and most important from the U.S. standpoint, proponents of jettisoning the May 1 withdrawal date consistently underplay the risks of staying in Afghanistan. The Taliban have made it abundantly clear what would happen if the Biden administration decided to stick around: more war and less peace. Taliban fighters are preparing for escalated operations in preparation for precisely this scenario. U.S. troops would again be prime targets for Taliban offensives, exponentially increasing the prospect of additional U.S. casualties. And as U.S. casualties go up, the pressure in Washington to respond with more troops and more firepower would go up along with it. All of a sudden, a six-month extension turns into the continuation of an indefinite conflict.
Biden needs to think long and hard about what the U.S. can achieve in Afghanistan. He must demand specific answers as to the benefits of a U.S. troop presence past May 1. He must question whether sacrificing more American blood and treasure is the price we need to pay for a peace that may never come.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
