President Donald Trump accomplished something in his last year in office that no U.S. president before him was able to accomplish in nearly two decades.
Through his deal with the Taliban and accelerated U.S. troop reductions, he drove down the number of U.S. combat deaths over the past year to zero.
Trump had soured on the war in Afghanistan years before he ever became president, calling it “a total disaster” and complaining that billions of U.S. dollars and lives were being wasted by “very stupid leaders.”
Trump spent four years in office battling with and often belittling his military commanders and civilian advisers, who insisted the now relatively small number of remaining U.S. troops were an insurance policy against another 9/11 attack.
Trump was never convinced.
Afghanistan was a no-win war, Trump firmly believed, and if you can’t win, then it’s time to leave.
But in cutting U.S. losses, Trump handed the Taliban both a political and a tactical victory in its battle with the Afghan government.
As a recently released Pentagon inspector general’s quarterly report notes, emboldened by the impending United States and NATO departure, the Taliban have stepped up attacks against the government in Kabul, paid only lip service to the inter-Afghan peace talks, and failed to cut ties with al Qaeda and other terrorists as they promised in an agreement negotiated with the Trump administration in Doha, Qatar, last February.
Instead, the IG report concluded that the Taliban are refusing to make any substantive compromises in the talks and using violence, including an all-out assassination campaign to increase their negotiating leverage.
“Major government officials being assassinated, religious leaders assassinated, journalists assassinated, judges assassinated, all personnel who are, I think, inimical to Taliban rule,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch, chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on National Security. “They are eliminating their opponents.”
That leaves President Biden facing a classic no-win dilemma: having to pick from two seemingly equally bad options.
A report by the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group, written before the results of the 2020 election were known but released this month, frames the quandary concisely: “On the one hand, the Taliban have signaled publicly that if all international forces are not withdrawn by May 2021, as envisaged in the Doha agreement, they will resume their ‘jihad’ against the foreign presence and will withdraw from the peace process,” the group’s final report states. “On the other hand, a withdrawal in May under current conditions will likely lead to a collapse of the Afghan state and a possible renewed civil war.”
Pick your poison.
The co-chairs of the 15-member Study Group testified before Lynch’s oversight committee, presenting its recommendations, along with a warning that a “precipitous withdrawal” of U.S. and international troops in May would be “catastrophic.”
“We believe that it is possible for the United States, with the engagement from countries in the region and our NATO partners, to negotiate an extension of the May 1 Doha deadline because the process got off to a late start and the conditions indicated in the Doha agreement have not been met,” testified former Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, one of the group’s co-chairs.
“Our troops would remain, not to fight a forever war but to guarantee the conditions for a successful peace process and to protect our national security interests to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a haven again for terrorists who threaten the United States of America.”
The Taliban have shown no appetite for extending the withdrawal deadline and for months now have been positioning forces around key Afghan cities, including the capital Kabul, preparing for a final push to topple the U.S.-backed Afghan government as soon as foreign troops are gone, according to a New York Times report.
“Is it possible that the Taliban have no interest in coming to a lasting peace and that a civil war will be the ultimate outcome?” Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina asked former Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford, another of the group’s co-chairs.
“My short answer is, is it possible that civil war will result regardless? I’d have to say, in candor, yes, it is possible,” Dunford replied.
“Our argument right now is, ‘Let’s first focus on the Afghan peace negotiation, see if we can set the conditions for reduction of violence, such that it doesn’t impact our interests,’” Dunford said later in his testimony.
“And then if that doesn’t work out … we have other options that the president can take in the future should he judge that Afghan peace negotiations are not going to be successful.”
At the time of this writing, there are only two months left before the May 1 deadline for all 7,500 international troops, including 2,500 U.S., to depart, along with their vehicles, aircraft, and equipment.
The logistics of that alone would seem to indicate a de facto decision to delay withdrawal for at least a few months.
At the Pentagon, after meeting virtually with his NATO counterparts, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters that no decisions have been made about the future U.S. force posture in Afghanistan and that he would not “preview the advice” he planned to give Biden.
But Austin also pledged publicly, as he did privately to NATO defense ministers, that America would not cut and run.
“We are mindful of the looming deadlines. But we want to do this methodically and deliberately,” he said. “The United States will not undertake a hasty or disorderly withdrawal from Afghanistan that puts their forces or the alliance’s reputation at risk.”
But if the U.S. is going to avoid beating a hasty retreat, Biden is going to have to hurry up and decide.
Jamie McIntyre is the Washington Examiner’s senior writer on defense and national security. His morning newsletter, “Jamie McIntyre’s Daily on Defense,” is free and available by email subscription at dailyondefense.com.
