• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Joe Biden gives up on the war in Afghanistan, leaving a weak ally

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,601
Points
1,060
This will be interesting to watch over the next year or so. Trump planned to leave too, by May this year, so it's not a party political thing....

Joe Biden gives up on the war in Afghanistan, leaving a weak ally​

American troops are set to leave by September 11th, 20 years after they arrived. Will the Taliban return to power?


THE FIRST American forces to enter Afghanistan in 2001 arrived on September 26th when a CIA team dropped into the Panjshir Valley in the north of the country. At the peak of the war a decade later, America had more than 100,000 troops battling the Taliban. Another decade on, all of them will be gone and the longest war in American history will be over—for the Americans, at least. President Joe Biden has decided to withdraw all American forces from Afghanistan by September 11th 2021, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks which prompted America to invade in the first place. An official said on April 13th that the president would announce the move the following day.

Mr Biden had inherited a peace deal from his predecessor, Donald Trump. In February 2020 Mr Trump’s administration had signed an agreement with the Taliban in which America committed to reducing forces and ultimately withdrawing from the country entirely by May 1st of this year in exchange for Taliban commitments to break with al-Qaeda and discuss a political settlement with the Afghan government in Kabul.

There is little sign that the Taliban have delivered on either count. A report by America’s Treasury department in January noted that al-Qaeda members remained “embedded with the Taliban”, and on April 12th the group said it would not attend a forthcoming American-backed meeting in Turkey that would have discussed, among other things, the formation of an interim Afghan government that included the Taliban. Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s president, released 5,000 Taliban prisoners last year, notes Lisa Curtis, who oversaw American policy on Afghanistan in the Trump administration, and is now an expert at the Centre for a New American Security, a think-tank. “He got practically nothing in return, except an increase in Taliban violence and a demand for more Taliban prisoners to be released.”

Despite all this, Mr Biden had already said that he “could not picture” American troops remaining in Afghanistan beyond the end of this year. His military advisers had warned him that the Taliban, who have made important battlefield gains in recent months, would probably take over the country if America were to leave. General Mark Milley, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, reportedly told the president that women’s rights would go “back to the stone age”.
Others retorted that Afghanistan was no longer a vital interest, with al-Qaeda weakened, the terrorist threat greater in the Middle East, and other challenges—above all, the one from China in the Pacific—more deserving of American attention and resources. In the end, Mr Biden, who as vice-president lobbied against Barack Obama’s surge of forces to Afghanistan in 2009-10, sided with the latter group.

Officially, America has around 2,500 troops remaining in Afghanistan, though the true number is thought to be slightly higher, and that force is supplemented by several thousand private contractors. They will begin an “orderly drawdown” before May 1st and complete it by September 11th. Mr Biden’s hope may be that by announcing a clear end date, he can dissuade the Taliban from attacking American forces over the summer. Yet the certainty of America’s departure also removes any incentive for the Taliban to make concessions to supporters of the current Afghan state.

Once America—and, crucially, its warplanes—leave, the Taliban will be able to press their advantage. That does not mean the state will collapse at once, but it will struggle to stave off the insurgents’ advances. John Sopko, America’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, told Congress in 2020 that the Afghan armed forces remained “a hopeless nightmare and a disaster.” In an interview last month with Task & Purpose, a website, he added that the government had “limited capability to move food, ammunition, medical supplies...to units in the field.” An American intelligence assessment published on April 13th noted that the Afghan government “will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support.”

Mr Biden’s move will also create a headache for his European allies. Approximately 7,000 troops from other countries, including 1,300 from Germany and almost 900 from Georgia, are deployed to Afghanistan as part of a NATO-led coalition that trains Afghan forces. In February, Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s secretary-general, promised that “we will not leave before the time is right.” In practice, those troops would be unable to remain in Afghanistan without the insurance policy of American air power and other support. Their departure will leave Afghan security forces further weakened, and the government in Kabul more isolated.

America’s hope is that, even without troops on the ground, it can continue to keep al-Qaeda and Islamic State (which has a modest presence in the east of the country) in check through long-distance counter-terrorism, such as special forces and drones. What is less clear is where those forces would be based. One possibility is that the CIA will keep a paramilitary presence on the ground, working with the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s intelligence service. Another is that America will seek to place forces in Central Asia or Pakistan, where it once discreetly stationed drones. “But the politics of this type of basing remains enormously complicated and the administration hasn't figured out a workable arrangement,” says Asfandyar Mir of Stanford University. “Until that happens, al-Qaeda is going to gain in Afghanistan.”

American officials say they will continue “civilian, economic and humanitarian assistance programmes”. They will no doubt be mindful of the lessons of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989, when the Soviet-backed government clung onto power after the departure of foreign troops—but collapsed after the withdrawal of funding at the end of 1991. Yet America’s departure will inevitably create a power vacuum with wider implications. “Regional competition is likely to intensify,” says Avinash Paliwal of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London. During the civil war of the 1990s, Pakistan covertly backed the Taliban—as it does, today—while India, Iran and Russia supported anti-Taliban armed groups in the north of the country with money, arms and intelligence. If Afghanistan’s government begins to crumble, regional powers would expand support to their favoured factions to protect their interests and build influence against rivals.

On September 20th 2001, as American forces geared up to invade Afghanistan, President George W. Bush told a joint session of Congress that “this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion.” He was right about that.

 

stoker dave

Jr. Member
Reaction score
26
Points
280
There are no good options. I think leaving is the least-worst. A difficult decision to make but ultimately (IMHO) the right one.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
86
Points
560
They don't need us IMO. Afghans can have whatever government they want and are capable of keeping. We have no chance of guiding indigenous tribes to something they don't want. If they don't want Taliban or al Qaeda, they have the tribal manpower to push them out. If they want democracy, they can do that too. We've spent enough blood and treasure, far and above, considering the current state of affairs. We just have to make sure they understand one thing. Create an atmosphere where you start training for and exporting terrorism again and we'll just bomb you back to the stone age without setting foot on the ground. We can hurt them a hell of a lot more by making sure their opium and cannabis don't make it out passed their borders. Simplistic, haven't looked at all angles, might have it wrong, I don't know or
care. I don't want another penny of our tax money going there at all. For anything. People always say the poor people, who will protect them? The country has, throughout modern times, repelled every technologically, militarily and monetarily superior country that ever tried to rule them. They don't need us. They are very capable of taking whatever direction they want to go. That's just my 2 cents.
 

medic5

Jr. Member
Reaction score
37
Points
280
Does anyone really think that the provisional Afghan government will hold up if the US leaves? I'm guessing within a decade the country will go back to what it was pre 2001.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
590
Points
1,010
Does anyone really think that the provisional Afghan government will hold up if the US leaves? I'm guessing within a decade the country will go back to what it was pre 2001.
Optimist.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
644
Points
910
The west left before and it went to crap. You can tone down the support, but still help out. Regardless in my opinion we have poisoned the well for the Taliban, they never have the power they did have, to many people have some education, to many roads, cell networks and people have glimpsed what can be. The Taliban may gain power, but they have to spill a lot of blood to hold it and they will have nothing to offer when the roads fail, the phones stop working and the hospitals run out of supplies.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
590
Points
1,010
The west left before and it went to crap. You can tone down the support, but still help out. Regardless in my opinion we have poisoned the well for the Taliban, they never have the power they did have, to many people have some education, to many roads, cell networks and people have glimpsed what can be. The Taliban may gain power, but they have to spill a lot of blood to hold it and they will have nothing to offer when the roads fail, the phones stop working and the hospitals run out of supplies.
Don't underestimate the power of an ideology, backed up by ruthless acts.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
The west left before and it went to crap. You can tone down the support, but still help out. Regardless in my opinion we have poisoned the well for the Taliban, they never have the power they did have, to many people have some education, to many roads, cell networks and people have glimpsed what can be. The Taliban may gain power, but they have to spill a lot of blood to hold it and they will have nothing to offer when the roads fail, the phones stop working and the hospitals run out of supplies.
If there is one thing the taliban is very skilled at...
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
644
Points
910
You can only be so ruthless for so long and the Taliban really don't have much else to offer. If they take over, other than poppies, where else are they going to get funding, China won't have that much interest once the west leaves, except to secure a few routes across the country for roads and pipelines and then they face the same issues as we did. Pakistan cannot afford to prop them up and as soon as the Taliban are in, the Iranians and they will start butting heads again.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
590
Points
1,010
You can only be so ruthless for so long and the Taliban really don't have much else to offer. If they take over, other than poppies, where else are they going to get funding, China won't have that much interest once the west leaves, except to secure a few routes across the country for roads and pipelines and then they face the same issues as we did. Pakistan cannot afford to prop them up and as soon as the Taliban are in, the Iranians and they will start butting heads again.
So Afghanistan fractures into multi-states, ruled by warlords/ideologies in their fiefs. Not inconceivable, but likely non-workable, in a long term sense either. At some point, neighboring countries will be forced to intercede, if only to quell regional domestic disturbances. And then we ratchet up to the grand strategic once again.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
294
Points
880
So Afghanistan fractures into multi-states, ruled by warlords/ideologies in their fiefs. Not inconceivable, but likely non-workable, in a long term sense either. At some point, neighboring countries will be forced to intercede, if only to quell regional domestic disturbances. And then we ratchet up to the grand strategic once again.
Somalia is a apt comparison.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
1,601
Points
1,060
So Afghanistan fractures into multi-states, ruled by warlords/ideologies in their fiefs. Not inconceivable, but likely non-workable, in a long term sense either. At some point, neighboring countries will be forced to intercede, if only to quell regional domestic disturbances. And then we ratchet up to the grand strategic once again.

Oh, I thought you were talking about Europe there for a minute ;)
 
Top