The Encouraging Afghanistan Withdrawal and the Oncoming Dose of Political Pressure
President Biden's plan and reasoning for a withdrawal from Afghanistan is surprisingly awesome, but can it sustain itself through five months of establishment pressure and beyond?
When identity politics were being used to rationalize the presence in Afghanistan, it seemed like the longest war in American history was set to continue. This was all because it smelled like the same old hypocritical crap that amounts to no progress, the kind of crap that is too normalized in Washington: the media went out of their way to champion women's rights as a reason to stay in Afghanistan, but simultaneously ignored the social issue in regards to our relationship with the Saudis.
However, just when you think you have things figured out, you are often left surprised.
Last week, President Biden announced his plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 11, and the move has surprised many and has rattled others. The decision was made after thoughtful debate between civilian leaders and the military's top brass.
Biden rationalized that, in the first place, we went there in response to 9/11 and to crack down on the terror threat that was flourishing there. Now, with Osama Bin Laden dead and with terror no longer heavily concentrated in that sole area, the reason for sticking around is not clear and thus not convincing. In his own words, Biden rationalized it this way:
"With the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and to our leaders. We can not continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result.
"I’m now the fourth United States president to preside over American true presence in Afghanistan; two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth. After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the vice president, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world. I concluded that as time to end America’s longest war. It’s time for American troops to come home."
Biden's history with the Afghanistan War
One of the things about this move, in regards to the president himself is that it is not surprising that this would be his intention. Both his desire to work with all sides on the issue and his overall skepticism regarding the role of the United States in Afghanistan clearly highlighted where the president would lean.
As Vice President in the Obama administration, Biden was a vocal skeptic of the situation in Afghanistan. The circumstances were a little different at the time: the 9/11 attacks were fresher in the nation's collective memory and the matter involved a young, unproven leader. Obama was very malleable because of this, and his abandonment of his activist base lead to an ability for military and Pentagon officials to corner the inexperienced president.
That isn't to say Biden was side by side with Obama on the willingness to succumb to the pressures pertaining to the Afghanistan issue. At the time, Biden advocated for just a small military presence focused solely on counterterrorism. Sure, Biden had a major hand in the orchestration of the Iraq War and he's in no way anti-war, but he always showed backbone when it came to the matter in Afghanistan.
Biden had warned the then-president, according to Obama himself, not to "let them jam you."
"Maybe I'm I’ve been around this town for too long, but one thing I know is when these generals are trying to box in a new president," Biden told Obama early on.
It is also noteworthy that Biden's son Beau, who passed away in 2015 due to brain cancer, was an active duty service member in Iraq. George Packer described a moment in his book "Our Man" of when Biden commented on how he was "sending my boy back there to risk his life on behalf of women's rights, it just won't work, that's not what they're there for."
In relation to his son's military service and the visceral connection he has with these sorts of foreign policy decisions, Joe Biden also highlighted the fact that he understands how a withdrawal could be "premature," indicating that he really believes that now, in 2021, is the right time to leave. "I don't want [Beau] going," Biden said at the Vice Presidential debate in 2008. "But I tell you what, I don't want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years, and so how we leave makes a big difference."
"The Pentagon is not making these decisions"
What was surprising was that this was done after consulting Pentagon officials, and that the final decision signaled the administration had bypassed the pressure from the defense sectors.
According to Politico, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security advisor Jake Sullivan are "running the Pentagon."
A lawmaker briefed on the discussions expressed it in a curious manner: "The civilian leaders essentially overruled the generals on this."
The president didn't really overrule anything— in the end, it was the president's call. What the administration simply did was hear out all the arguments for and against, and avoided succumbing to the intense pressures from defense officials like Obama and Trump did.
There's no doubt that President Biden and his administration deserve credit for this plan— moreover, for their ability to withstand heat from the Defense Department— but whether or not it plays out as expected is more than uncertain. And as is the case with national politics, the pressure will be turned up.
Pressure's on
Of course, this announcement was very popular with populist factions on both sides of the spectrum: progressives on the left, and "America First" subscribers on the right. Where those two ideological factions overlap, the establishment hacks on both left and right overlap in opposition. Bernie Sanders applauded the decision, and even former President Donald Trump regarded the move with positivity. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham said it was a mistake, while Democratic Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Robert Menendez expressed concern.
The reason for the stark split on the matter not being partisan is because those who advocate to maintain a presence often have a vested interest for doing so. Establishment Republicans like McConnell and Graham are predictably against a withdrawal. The reason for some Democrats opposing the move is just as predictable. According to Open Secrets, Shaheen and Menendez are recipients of significant donations from the defense industry— and anyone who waves their arms in caution over the president's plan should have their donor list looked at for the same reason.
But lawmakers are far less influential to the politically engaged as pundits on mainstream news and opinion writers from legacy outlets. Already, in a little less than a week after the announcement, it has been raining pro-war opinion editorials and urgent cautions from former military and intelligence officials from coast to coast.
There have been plenty of opinion pieces, pundits, and formal officials who have applauded the decision, but there is a wave of forewarnings and fear peddling that is swelling, on top of almost five months for the plan to be altered or shelved. Anti-interventionist sentiment is clearly going to be challenged by war advocates (of course, they wouldn't call themselves that, but they certainly profit from wars by sitting on the board of companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, and they advocate for foreign intervention as a result, even if they explicitly try to hide it).
Never underestimate the will of some of these sectors and officials. The revolving doors in and around Washington D.C. make the future of this decision very difficult to forecast. All influential ties between defense industries and lawmakers is a corrosive aspect of our nation's politics, and it also happens to be one of the biggest drivers of major decisions.
All it takes is for one major terror incident, or something along those lines, for pressure to hit Biden in terms of the withdrawal. In that hypothetical case, Biden would be stuck between folding on his plan, or sticking with it while having his "patriotism" questioned.
If things seem like smooth sailing, that's because the pressure has only begun to mount.
Still, there's little shelter from Washington fishiness
It is safe to say that the Biden administration wants out of Afghanistan, and that's a positive notion. At the same time, they are in no way influential anti-interventionists in that administration.
While Biden may pull the troops out of one country, there is no reason to believe that there hasn't been thoughts about maybe moving some troops and strategies used in Afghanistan somewhere else.
Secretary of State Blinken along with former Pentagon official and military investor Michèle Flournoy (who was considered for Secretary of Defense) founded WestExec Advisors in 2017, a firm of advisors determined to fill the gap between tech companies and the Department of Defense.
Flournoy is also a partner for Pine Island Capital Partners, an investment fund comprised of "deeply-connected and accomplished former senior government and military officials." The fund is largely seen as a legal way to peddle influence. It's also noteworthy that Secretary Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin were both advisors prior to getting cabinet positions.
Last year, Flournoy said this in a virtual discussion:
"So if you think about longterm security interest, I do think rebalancing more of our attention and our capabilities to the Indo-Pacific is strategically wise. But we can’t abandon the Middle East. We have vital interesting [sic]. We have important interests and allies and friends there. So I think it’s really a question of how do you reestablish deterrence at more modest levels of continuous presence in the region?"
As of now the plan seems to be moving in the right direction, but that cannot fix the fact that nothing is for certain. What happens will happen, but don't take your eye of this one. Sure, the days of deployment in Afghanistan may be numbered, and that victory deserves every bit of credit, but there are plenty of other regions of particular focus in the eyes of the Pentagon— to them, maybe a battle is lost, but the war isn't over.
While The Huxleyan intends to remain free to the public, there are paid subscription offers (which would be more of a donation than receiving access to anything in particular) at $5/month, or $45/year. As always, donations are welcome and appreciated via Venmo (@john-pongratz). Again, as those are just options, everything remains free. Thank you for reading and be sure to subscribe, comment, and share!