Republicans and Democrats weigh in on the consequences of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan
The repercussions of the abrupt U.S. withdrawal from the two-decade Afghanistan campaign continue to resonate, sending a clear message to America’s adversaries that it may not steadfastly support its allies, according to a member of the House Armed Services Committee.
‘Unprecedented’ Category 4 hurricane Idalia threatens Florida
Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., Chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and a decorated veteran with combat experience in Afghanistan as a Green Beret, emphasized that this decision had conveyed to the world that the United States might not stand by its allies. He stated, “If President Biden was willing to abandon American citizens and tens of thousands of Afghan allies who fought alongside us, why would China or Russia believe he wouldn’t make a similar choice concerning Taiwan or Ukraine? The consequences of this decision were significant.”
The Taliban seized control of Kabul and the entire country following President Biden’s rapid withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Afghanistan, which concluded on August 30, 2021.
The global security landscape has become increasingly unstable, notably with the Russian invasion of Ukraine occurring about six months after the U.S. Departure from Afghanistan.
According to Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., who also serves on the House Armed Services Committee and is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran with four tours of duty in Iraq, the “disastrous” nature of the withdrawal was entirely foreseeable, representing a failure in foresight and planning. Moulton stressed that the most experienced American personnel on the ground were not surprised by the turn of events but were overshadowed by decision-makers in Washington from both Republican and Democratic administrations. He argued that if the evacuation had begun several months earlier, more lives could have been spared, and the United States’ reputation might have remained intact.
A spokesman for the National Security Council (NSC) pushed back against claims that the withdrawal route had strengthened rival countries. Instead, they argued, “the United States would prefer our real strategic competitors—China and Russia—to continue pouring billions of dollars of resources and attention into Afghanistan indefinitely.”
The spokesman emphasized that President Biden faced a choice: “Intensify the war, put more American troops at risk, or finally end the United States’ longest conflict that has cost more than two decades and $2 trillion.” The administration consistently defended this argument in the two years following withdrawal.
The administration argued that a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan would “free up critical military, intelligence, and other resources, ensuring that we are better positioned to address current threats to international peace and stability.” These threats include “Russia’s brutal and indiscriminate attack on Ukraine, China’s increasingly assertive actions in the Indo-Pacific and globally, and terrorist threats in various regions around the world,” as expressed by an NSC spokesperson.
“We have also shown that there is no need for the presence of permanent forces on the ground to remain vigilant against terrorist threats or at the risk of rooting out the world’s most wanted terrorists,” the spokesperson noted.
Moulton echoed this view, stressing the “futile” nature of trying to understand the mindsets of Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping. However, he agreed with claims that “our withdrawal has damaged the credibility of our military and elected officials in the eyes of our allies and our adversaries.”
“We have seen how our relationship with our NATO allies has been strained and it is very reasonable to assume that they have left following our unilateral decision to withdraw,” Moulton commented. “Most importantly, though, just six months later, Putin was surprised by NATO’s swift and decisive response to the illegal invasion of Ukraine.”
Biden is fully committed to the military withdrawal plan, a plan first established after then-President Trump agreed on terms in a peace deal with the Taliban. At the time, the United States had about 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. The deal included a roadmap for the country’s future, linking the withdrawal to Taliban commitments to help with counter-terrorism efforts in Afghanistan.
The U.S. As the drawdown began, the Taliban seized the opportunity and began seizing territory from the Afghan government, eventually leading to a suicide bombing at Hamid Karzai International Airport.
The bombing killed 13 U.S. personnel, including 11 Marines, a Navy sailor, and an Army soldier. While service members died, 18 other U.S. Service members were injured. In addition, more than 150 civilians lost their lives due to the bombing.
Waltz expressed skepticism about the Taliban’s commitment to President Trump’s plan and their ability to “fulfill their end of the deal.” Ultimately, however, when President Trump’s advisers presented him with the facts, he decided to maintain a small force at Bagram Air Base.
Waltz emphasized, “For those who want to compare President Trump’s approach, it is important to note that, ultimately, he did not take the same approach as President Biden. He followed the advice of his military commanders.”
“Biden didn’t hesitate to reverse many of Trump’s policies on his first day in office,” he continued. “He scrapped the Keystone XL pipeline deal, removed sanctions on Nord Stream 2, completely overhauled border policies, reintroduced the Paris Agreement, scaled back the maximum pressure campaign on Iran, and tried to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal… and the list goes on. .”
“He faced no obstacles in reversing all these Trump-era policies in his first months in office. So, the notion that he is somehow powerless or constrained when it comes to Afghanistan? I find it hard to believe,” he asserted. “I think it’s unfounded.”
Moulton pointed out that Biden’s plan “has received support from the majority of Americans. Although both decisions contradict the advice provided by many military experts, it essentially echoes the same commitment as Trump.”
The lack of clarity regarding withdrawal continued to trouble the United States as rival countries, primarily China and Russia, pursued assertive foreign policies, ultimately leading to the invasion of Ukraine and ongoing posturing over the future of Taiwan.
Waltz pointed out a key difference between Afghanistan and Iraq: The United States has military bases and allies in countries like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel that could help counter the resurgence of ISIS. Additionally, the U.S. is likely to cooperate with Kurdish forces to strengthen its military efforts.
However, Afghanistan lacks these crucial elements. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley, and then-U.S. Military leaders, including General Kenneth McKenzie, head of Central Command, later testified. 2,500 U.S. troops remain at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan following the departure of the rest of the force. Recommends to President Biden to maintain a task force of troops.
Both Generals Milley and McKenzie, while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, did not delve into specific details of their conversations with the president. However, General Milley emphasized that he has consistently recommended keeping 2,500 to 3,500 troops in Afghanistan throughout the drawdown.
The lack of such a force would prevent the U.S. from conducting a full evacuation of all American citizens and many Afghan allies. Blocked, they are vulnerable to Taliban control. The situation led to the abandonment of billions of dollars worth of equipment, a situation Waltz argued “puts Biden, Blinken, Austin and his administration in a morally questionable position.”
A spokesman for the Department of Defense defended Secretary Austin’s dedication to honoring the memory of those who lost their lives in the Abbey Gate bombing. The spokesperson expressed deep gratitude to all soldiers who served in Afghanistan and recognized the contributions of every American involved in ensuring their safety and working for a better future for the Afghan people.
Furthermore, the weapons left in Afghanistan by the U.S. The spokesman clarified that the weapons and equipment, not military-owned equipment, were “collected and transferred to the Afghan government through a well-established and rigorous security cooperation program.”
“These items were owned and operated by the previous Afghan government,” the spokesman added.
At present, there is no substantial evidence of significant proliferation of this equipment from Taliban sources, and there are no reports from other relevant governments of the proliferation of heavy equipment such as ex-Afghan military armored vehicles, artillery, or aircraft.