Afghanistan: President Joe Biden Did The Right Thing

By Agbada S. Agbada Esq.

President Joe Biden has come under lacerating criticism for his
implementation of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
This has no doubt been exacerbated by the swift takeover of the
country by the Taliban and the images of the chaotic and
heart-wrenching scenes from Afghanistan in the aftermath of the
withdrawal. The sense of empathy and solidarity with the Afghans
whose lives and fates now hang in the balance under the rule of the
Taliban has overwhelmed any objective analysis of the situation and
the reactions have been motivated more by emotions than reason.
America was expected to continue to keep the peace and protect
vulnerable Afghans from the wrath of the Taliban and Biden was
never to betray this faith in its might and generosity. But this
expectation is nothing but idealism in its purest form. It does not
accord with reality. It is an expectation that springs from a
confusion in the motivations that dictated the invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan and the objectives of that the
invasion.

America’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was never
dictated by a quest for proselytization of democratic ideals and
protection of human rights. America embarked on this war for
national security reasons after 9/11. Afghanistan was the
operational base of al-Qaeda from which the 9/11 attack was plotted
and executed. Afghanistan was the cradle of al-Qaeda which was
formed after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in 1989 and the
Taliban provided cover for Osama Bin Laden to undertake his
atrocious activities. Reason therefore dictated that except the
Taliban was overthrown and al-Qaeda routed from their safe haven,
defeating them would have been herculean. The invasion and
occupation were therefore to prevent Bin Laden from launching
another attack on the US and to defeat al-Qaeda. This much was
acknowledged by Condoleezza Rice (who was the National Security
Advisor to President George W. Bush in 2001) in her Memoirs, No
Higher Honour when she wrote on page 96 that:

“Finally, with the planning done, the President went before the
American people on October 7, 2001, to announce what had long been
expected: the United States of America was declaring war on the
Taliban because it had refused to meet our demands
to surrender al-Qaeda’s leaders and close terrorist training
camps.”  Underlined for emphasis.

The aim of the invasion was thus the defeat of al-Qaeda. The
protection of human rights was a secondary consideration that was
only incorporated into the war strategy to give the invasion a
popular appeal. It was not the lives and livelihoods of Afghans
that underpinned the invasion, but national security and the US has
long achieved the objective of the invasion. The Taliban was
quickly overthrown, and al-Qaeda was routed from their sanctuary
and decimated. And the coordinated and sustained efforts of the US
delivered the ultimate victory against al-Qaeda with the killing of
Bin Laden in 2011.

With the defeat of al-Qaeda, the US could have immediately
withdrawn. But an immediate withdrawal was made impracticable by
the Taliban who waged a war of attrition against the US in their
sustained bid to regain control of the country. There are no easy
wars and war takes a life of its own once commenced.  So it
happened that the US, like the Soviets, were bled into exhaustion.
Hoping to keep the Taliban at bay after a withdrawal, the US had
pumped trillions of taxpayers’ dollars into Afghanistan to
strengthen the Afghan government, and train and equip the Afghan
military. The US has also lost thousands of servicemen and women in
the war. These are grave costs that do not appear to hold or yield
commensurate benefits to the US. The continues stay in Afghanistan
was therefore not advancing the national interest of the US. In the
circumstance, withdrawal, and not troop surge was the most prudent
option. Joe Biden recognized this reality early enough and
expressed his misgivings about the war as Vice President, when the
Obama administration was faced with a request from the Pentagon to
send in more troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama testified to
Biden’s reservations about a long drawn war in Afghanistan on page
318 of his Memoirs, A Promised Land when he recorded that:

“Among the principals, only Joe Biden voiced his misgivings. He
had travelled to Kabul on my behalf during the transition and what
he saw and heard on the trip – particularly during a contentious
meeting with Karzai – had convinced him that we needed to rethink
our entire approach to Afghanistan. Whatever the   mix of
reasons, he saw Afghanistan as a dangerous quagmire …”

The deployment of additional troops was approved by the Obama
administration in 2009. But there was no doubt that an indefinite
war in Afghanistan was not sustainable, and withdrawal was accepted
as the best option by both Democrats and Republicans. The question
was when?

Obama had reeled out a withdrawal plan, but implementation was
delayed and consequently shelved. The argument against withdrawal
then, as it is now, was that the timing was wrong. In order to
implement the US withdrawal, Donald Trump did not only strike the
Doha Agreement with the Taliban with clear commitments for
withdrawal but had also answered the “when question” by pegging the
withdrawal date as 1 May 2021. This framework aligned with Biden’s
long known desire to end the war in Afghanistan and had
strengthened his hand to bring America’s longest war to an end.

To underline the bipartisan consensus on the withdrawal, Trump
described Biden’s decision as “a wonderful and positive thing to
do”.[1] Trump’s only grouse with the decision was the
timeline of 11 September 2021 that had been announced by Biden. He
wished “. . . Joe Biden wouldn’t use September 11 as the date to
withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, for two reasons.” Because
“first, we can and should get out earlier. Nineteen years is
enough, in fact, far too much and way too long.”[2]
Obama equally supported Biden’s decision.

The position of most of the critics, as I see it, is not on the
propriety of the withdrawal, but on the timing. But the Afghanistan
situation shows that there is no perfect time. Perfect time in this
case would have meant eternity because there is no certainty that a
withdrawal in the next 5, 10, 20 or 50 years would have produced a
better outcome. Neither the extremism nor the resolve of the
Taliban would have ebbed with a further delay in withdrawal. There
was also no guarantee that the Afghan government would have become
more effective to govern the country. There was, indeed, no
assurance that the unpleasantness of the outcome would have changed
with the passage of time. Perhaps, the situation would have
unraveled even faster with more malignant consequences with a
further delay. It is also possible that the consequences would have
been benign with a further delay. But that is the contingency of
history. No one can tell for sure, how a delay would have doused or
aggravated the outcome. The only thing that is certain with a
further delay is the further loss of US lives and dollars. That is
not a situation to be encouraged or perpetuated.

The other argument from the critics is that Biden handed over
American military hardware to the Taliban. Biden is therefore being
accused of arming an extremist group with the potential to cause
havoc in the Middle East and beyond with American weapons. This
argument does not also stand to scrutiny. The argument begs the
question whether Biden was expected to strip the Afghan military of
American military hardware and place them completely at the mercy
of the Taliban. Would the criticism not have been sharper if the
victory of the Taliban had resulted from such weakening of the
Afghan military? With the level of training and equipment of the
Afghan military, could it have been reasonably expected that the
military will fall so easy? In any event, why would anyone
reasonably expect the US to keep fighting for Afghans when their
own government and military will not? While I appreciate the
arguments about protection of human rights and transformation of
the country to become a more stable society, I know that these are
altruistic goals that do not constitute the bedrock of foreign
policy. The overarching underpinning of foreign policy is national
interest and not altruism. Human rights and nation building are
peripheral issues that only burnish foreign policy. Besides, the US
did not invade Afghanistan to make it a perfect society by removing
all threats or vestiges of instability and Obama was honest enough
to admit this when he said in 2014 that “we have to recognize that
Afghanistan will not be a perfect place, and it is not America’s
responsibility to make it one. The future of Afghanistan must be
decided by Afghans.”[3]

I agree that Afghans needed to decide the faith and future of
their country and America needed to steel the courage to hand the
country back to the Afghans. The withdrawal was always going to be
a controversial and thorny affair and the procrastination of
implementation attests to this fact. No one could have anticipated
and provided for all the possible scenarios. But a decision had to
be made one way or the other, and there was no easy or neat way
out. The backlash from an unpalatable outcome was also glaring and
the decision required courage – courage that has been demonstrated
by Biden. Biden could have buckled under the weight of uncertainty
and the possible dent a catastrophic outcome would cause his
political career and delayed the doomsday, or even passed the buck
to his successor. But he chose the part of bravery by standing by
his conviction to end the war and to honour the commitment of his
predecessor in this respect under the Doha Agreement.

Politicians and humans in general are wont of avoiding tough and
unpopular decisions. As expected, the unpopularity of the
withdrawal has garnered a load of negative commentary from
politicians and pundits. But the solidarity of the majority against
the withdrawal does not make it wrong or inopportune. And the
critics are yet to provide a prescription on the opportune time to
withdraw.

Joe Biden did the right thing and should be applauded for his
bravery and decisiveness, not vilified.

[1] Jason Hoffman^[1] and Devan
Cole^[2], Donald
Trump calls Afghanistan withdrawal ‘a wonderful and positive thing
to do’ and criticizes Biden’s timeline – CNNPolitics^[3]

[2] Ibid.

[3] Mark Landler, Obama Holds to Afghanistan
Withdrawal Deadline, The New York Times, August 19, 2014. Obama
Holds to Afghanistan Withdrawal Deadline – The New York Times
(nytimes.com)^[4]

Written By Agbada S. Agbada Esq.,
Stephen.agbada@yahoo.co.uk

By Agbada S. Agbada Esq.

President Joe Biden has come under lacerating criticism for his
implementation of the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan.
This has no doubt been exacerbated by the swift takeover of the
country by the Taliban and the images of the chaotic and
heart-wrenching scenes from Afghanistan in the aftermath of the
withdrawal. The sense of empathy and solidarity with the Afghans
whose lives and fates now hang in the balance under the rule of the
Taliban has overwhelmed any objective analysis of the situation and
the reactions have been motivated more by emotions than reason.
America was expected to continue to keep the peace and protect
vulnerable Afghans from the wrath of the Taliban and Biden was
never to betray this faith in its might and generosity. But this
expectation is nothing but idealism in its purest form. It does not
accord with reality. It is an expectation that springs from a
confusion in the motivations that dictated the invasion and
occupation of Afghanistan and the objectives of that the
invasion.

America’s invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was never
dictated by a quest for proselytization of democratic ideals and
protection of human rights. America embarked on this war for
national security reasons after 9/11. Afghanistan was the
operational base of al-Qaeda from which the 9/11 attack was plotted
and executed. Afghanistan was the cradle of al-Qaeda which was
formed after the withdrawal of the Soviet forces in 1989 and the
Taliban provided cover for Osama Bin Laden to undertake his
atrocious activities. Reason therefore dictated that except the
Taliban was overthrown and al-Qaeda routed from their safe haven,
defeating them would have been herculean. The invasion and
occupation were therefore to prevent Bin Laden from launching
another attack on the US and to defeat al-Qaeda. This much was
acknowledged by Condoleezza Rice (who was the National Security
Advisor to President George W. Bush in 2001) in her Memoirs, No
Higher Honour when she wrote on page 96 that:

“Finally, with the planning done, the President went before the
American people on October 7, 2001, to announce what had long been
expected: the United States of America was declaring war on the
Taliban because it had refused to meet our demands
to surrender al-Qaeda’s leaders and close terrorist training
camps.”  Underlined for emphasis.

The aim of the invasion was thus the defeat of al-Qaeda. The
protection of human rights was a secondary consideration that was
only incorporated into the war strategy to give the invasion a
popular appeal. It was not the lives and livelihoods of Afghans
that underpinned the invasion, but national security and the US has
long achieved the objective of the invasion. The Taliban was
quickly overthrown, and al-Qaeda was routed from their sanctuary
and decimated. And the coordinated and sustained efforts of the US
delivered the ultimate victory against al-Qaeda with the killing of
Bin Laden in 2011.

With the defeat of al-Qaeda, the US could have immediately
withdrawn. But an immediate withdrawal was made impracticable by
the Taliban who waged a war of attrition against the US in their
sustained bid to regain control of the country. There are no easy
wars and war takes a life of its own once commenced.  So it
happened that the US, like the Soviets, were bled into exhaustion.
Hoping to keep the Taliban at bay after a withdrawal, the US had
pumped trillions of taxpayers’ dollars into Afghanistan to
strengthen the Afghan government, and train and equip the Afghan
military. The US has also lost thousands of servicemen and women in
the war. These are grave costs that do not appear to hold or yield
commensurate benefits to the US. The continues stay in Afghanistan
was therefore not advancing the national interest of the US. In the
circumstance, withdrawal, and not troop surge was the most prudent
option. Joe Biden recognized this reality early enough and
expressed his misgivings about the war as Vice President, when the
Obama administration was faced with a request from the Pentagon to
send in more troops to Afghanistan. Barack Obama testified to
Biden’s reservations about a long drawn war in Afghanistan on page
318 of his Memoirs, A Promised Land when he recorded that:

“Among the principals, only Joe Biden voiced his misgivings. He
had travelled to Kabul on my behalf during the transition and what
he saw and heard on the trip – particularly during a contentious
meeting with Karzai – had convinced him that we needed to rethink
our entire approach to Afghanistan. Whatever the   mix of
reasons, he saw Afghanistan as a dangerous quagmire …”

The deployment of additional troops was approved by the Obama
administration in 2009. But there was no doubt that an indefinite
war in Afghanistan was not sustainable, and withdrawal was accepted
as the best option by both Democrats and Republicans. The question
was when?

Obama had reeled out a withdrawal plan, but implementation was
delayed and consequently shelved. The argument against withdrawal
then, as it is now, was that the timing was wrong. In order to
implement the US withdrawal, Donald Trump did not only strike the
Doha Agreement with the Taliban with clear commitments for
withdrawal but had also answered the “when question” by pegging the
withdrawal date as 1 May 2021. This framework aligned with Biden’s
long known desire to end the war in Afghanistan and had
strengthened his hand to bring America’s longest war to an end.

To underline the bipartisan consensus on the withdrawal, Trump
described Biden’s decision as “a wonderful and positive thing to
do”.[1] Trump’s only grouse with the decision was
the timeline of 11 September 2021 that had been announced by Biden.
He wished “. . . Joe Biden wouldn’t use September 11 as the date to
withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, for two reasons.” Because
“first, we can and should get out earlier. Nineteen years is
enough, in fact, far too much and way too long.”[2]
Obama equally supported Biden’s decision.

The position of most of the critics, as I see it, is not on the
propriety of the withdrawal, but on the timing. But the Afghanistan
situation shows that there is no perfect time. Perfect time in this
case would have meant eternity because there is no certainty that a
withdrawal in the next 5, 10, 20 or 50 years would have produced a
better outcome. Neither the extremism nor the resolve of the
Taliban would have ebbed with a further delay in withdrawal. There
was also no guarantee that the Afghan government would have become
more effective to govern the country. There was, indeed, no
assurance that the unpleasantness of the outcome would have changed
with the passage of time. Perhaps, the situation would have
unraveled even faster with more malignant consequences with a
further delay. It is also possible that the consequences would have
been benign with a further delay. But that is the contingency of
history. No one can tell for sure, how a delay would have doused or
aggravated the outcome. The only thing that is certain with a
further delay is the further loss of US lives and dollars. That is
not a situation to be encouraged or perpetuated.

The other argument from the critics is that Biden handed over
American military hardware to the Taliban. Biden is therefore being
accused of arming an extremist group with the potential to cause
havoc in the Middle East and beyond with American weapons. This
argument does not also stand to scrutiny. The argument begs the
question whether Biden was expected to strip the Afghan military of
American military hardware and place them completely at the mercy
of the Taliban. Would the criticism not have been sharper if the
victory of the Taliban had resulted from such weakening of the
Afghan military? With the level of training and equipment of the
Afghan military, could it have been reasonably expected that the
military will fall so easy? In any event, why would anyone
reasonably expect the US to keep fighting for Afghans when their
own government and military will not? While I appreciate the
arguments about protection of human rights and transformation of
the country to become a more stable society, I know that these are
altruistic goals that do not constitute the bedrock of foreign
policy. The overarching underpinning of foreign policy is national
interest and not altruism. Human rights and nation building are
peripheral issues that only burnish foreign policy. Besides, the US
did not invade Afghanistan to make it a perfect society by removing
all threats or vestiges of instability and Obama was honest enough
to admit this when he said in 2014 that “we have to recognize that
Afghanistan will not be a perfect place, and it is not America’s
responsibility to make it one. The future of Afghanistan must be
decided by Afghans.”[3]

I agree that Afghans needed to decide the faith and future of
their country and America needed to steel the courage to hand the
country back to the Afghans. The withdrawal was always going to be
a controversial and thorny affair and the procrastination of
implementation attests to this fact. No one could have anticipated
and provided for all the possible scenarios. But a decision had to
be made one way or the other, and there was no easy or neat way
out. The backlash from an unpalatable outcome was also glaring and
the decision required courage – courage that has been demonstrated
by Biden. Biden could have buckled under the weight of uncertainty
and the possible dent a catastrophic outcome would cause his
political career and delayed the doomsday, or even passed the buck
to his successor. But he chose the part of bravery by standing by
his conviction to end the war and to honour the commitment of his
predecessor in this respect under the Doha Agreement.

Politicians and humans in general are wont of avoiding tough and
unpopular decisions. As expected, the unpopularity of the
withdrawal has garnered a load of negative commentary from
politicians and pundits. But the solidarity of the majority against
the withdrawal does not make it wrong or inopportune. And the
critics are yet to provide a prescription on the opportune time to
withdraw.

Joe Biden did the right thing and should be applauded for his
bravery and decisiveness, not vilified.

[1] Jason Hoffman^[1] and Devan
Cole^[2], Donald
Trump calls Afghanistan withdrawal ‘a wonderful and positive thing
to do’ and criticizes Biden’s timeline – CNNPolitics^[3]

[2] Ibid.

[3] Mark Landler, Obama Holds to Afghanistan
Withdrawal Deadline, The New York Times, August 19, 2014. Obama
Holds to Afghanistan Withdrawal Deadline – The New York Times
(nytimes.com)^[4]

Written By Agbada S. Agbada Esq.,
Stephen.agbada@yahoo.co.uk