The collapse of the nearly year-long negotiations between the United States and the Taliban had only one winner: Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Now, he will almost certainly go on to win reelection once the votes are tallied. The potential losers, however, are the American troops who will continue risking their lives in an unsustainable stalemate in Afghanistan.
U.S. military officials have indicated the war in Afghanistan will go on as if negotiations never happened. The Taliban have also delivered on their promise of escalation. This is one reason why only 20% of eligible Afghans went to the polls to vote for their next president, the lowest turnout in an election since the country’s post-Taliban political system was established. The country is deeply troubled: More than 4,000 civilians were killed or wounded in the first half of this year alone.
Nonetheless, former U.S. national security officials have counseled more patience for our continued intervention, seemingly oblivious to the fact that there is very little patience left after 18 years of investment and sacrifice. To squander more lives and taxpayer dollars on a fruitless mission will only lengthen U.S. involvement in an endless war taxpayers lost interest in a long time ago. Instead of staying on course to dead end in failure, President Trump should listen to the American people and move forward with an orderly, speedy military withdrawal.
Voters are wondering why we’re still at war there. Veterans are questioning whether their continued sacrifices are worth the cost anymore, since the intervention’s original mission of decimating al Qaeda and punishing the Taliban was quickly achieved.
Our presence in Afghanistan is bleeding the U.S. dry for no security payoff. We don’t need U.S. soldiers backstopping the Afghan government to defend our country from terror.
For one, terrorist groups don’t actually need land or territory in Afghanistan to plan attacks.
The numerous suicide bombings and shootings in Tunisia, France, Belgium, and Germany in 2015 and 2016 were orchestrated by disgruntled, radicalized individuals who took action on their own, often without financial, organizational, or logistical support from a terrorist organization with a physical presence anywhere. Driving a truck through a crowd of shoppers or shooting up a cafe is hardly the stuff of sophisticated planning.
Indeed, in the digitized world of the 21st century, terrorists are more likely to coordinate their operations through encrypted communications than physical training camps. All a prospective terrorist needs is a broadband connection and motivation to carry out an attack. Our military ground presence in Afghanistan does nothing to stop or even slightly deter these types of attacks.
Furthermore, we must recognize that Afghanistan is more of a region filled with tribes, not a cohesive nation. It is far from politically unified, and violence has long been a way to settle internal disputes over resources, power, and influence. While this is a sad and unfortunate fact of life for an Afghan population that has suffered decades of strife, it is not something the U.S. can change by military intervention — if 18 years of war have proven anything, it is this fact.
An infusion of U.S. troops can of course decrease the tempo of violence, but as soon as troops leave everything returns to the same state as if we were never there. It’s like sticking a fist in a bucket of water, achieving only a temporary displacement.
Afghanistan is fighting a longstanding civil war. American soldiers are exposed to more casualties for meager gains for another country. Whether the number of boots on the ground is 5,000, 10,000, or 100,000, our military doesn’t have the capability to end Afghanistan’s civil war or force the country’s warring parties to negotiate a comprehensive peace.
Resolving Afghanistan’s cycle of conflict is frankly the responsibility of Afghans, not Americans.
Should the Trump administration give up on diplomacy with the Taliban entirely and withdraw without a commitment from the Taliban to combat foreign terrorists on Afghan soil? This option may be unappealing, but it deserves serious consideration, particularly since counterterrorism promises from the Taliban are unlikely to be reliable. At the very least, negotiations (or lack thereof) should not slow down U.S. military withdrawal.
Fortunately, the U.S. retains the independent strike capability to degrade and punish terrorist organizations, including in Afghanistan, with or without the Taliban’s assistance. This can be done with quick strike forces and surveillance and reconnaissance assets in the vicinity, as well as pragmatic intelligence collaboration with Kabul and Afghanistan’s neighbors. They too have a national security interest in ensuring that the threat of terrorism in Afghanistan is managed.
After 18 years of blood, sweat, and treasure, President Trump should do some painful soul searching as he deliberates our next steps. The Trump administration would be wise to go back to one basic question: Do the benefits of an indefinite military presence outweigh the costs of staying for another generation? At this point, the answer should be self-evident.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner‘s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
