Peter Michael McKinley: The U.S. can't continue to extend its military presence, and it's time to go home

[Text/Peter Michael McKinley Translated/Observer Network by Guan Qun]

The decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan can be made years earlier or years later: there was never a perfect time, but the time has come, and President Biden made the difficult but correct choice at a time of historic shift in global geopolitical realities.

Since 2001, successive U.S. administrations have prioritized the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global "war on terror" in the greater Middle East when implementing their foreign policies, and have looked at diplomatic issues from a war perspective. By the time Washington has focused all its attention on these issues, China has grown into a global "strategic competitor" while Russia is vying for influence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The United States has focused more on promoting NATO's involvement in "extra-regional" issues such as Afghanistan and the Middle East than on addressing the issues plaguing its European partners. At a time when the world is undergoing profound economic and social change, the United States has not invested in upgrading the U.S. economy, infrastructure, health, and education systems, but has spent more than $3 trillion on these conflicts and sent more than 2 million young Americans to the battlefield to die.

This article was published in foreign affairs magazine

Yet, if the voluminous volume of articles and reactions to the president's statements over the past few months can show a certain bias, there are still many in Washington who believe that Afghanistan is vital to U.S. national security interests. But this is not the case. Others suggest that the United States has a moral responsibility to remain in Afghanistan — a view that ignores the enormous sacrifices Americans have made over the past 20 years. Too many citizens reject the reality that the United States has reached the limits of its military capabilities.

Few who advocate the continued presence of U.S. forces in Afghanistan can say how much the international environment and Afghanistan's international standing have changed since the conflict began. Their arguments are outdated.

An untenable view

If, as many have argued, the United States should remain in Afghanistan indefinitely to prevent another 9/11 incident, then we have reason to ask why we are not adding troops in other "uncontrolled" areas: the Sahel, Somalia, and Iraq are all closer to the United States, where the al-Qaida branch and islamic State (or "Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria") are clearly more powerful than the remaining terrorists in Afghanistan. In fact, the United States has been extremely successful in reducing the immediate threat of terrorism from Afghanistan, and that is why we sent troops to Afghanistan in the first place.

If the point of contention is that the Afghan security forces are still unable to contain the Taliban after receiving nearly $100 billion in funding, 20 years after their establishment, shouldn't we ask why they cannot contain the Taliban? The United States can deliver on its significant commitment to continue to provide financial assistance to the Afghan armed forces. But that doesn't mean U.S. soldiers should continue to defend the country's national security, costing the U.S. billions of dollars a year in the extra cost and killing Americans.

There may be another view that the United States needs to have troops in Afghanistan to support the Afghan reconciliation process. But then the question is why, 20 years later, Afghanistan's political leaders are still unable to build consensus to unite forces against the Taliban, a force that most Afghans hate. If the Afghan government is still unable to unite because of political differences at this time of life and death, or a year after the United States signals that it will withdraw its troops in 2021, the U.S. military will not unite the Afghan forces even if it is permanently stationed in Afghanistan. Whether or not U.S. troops are stationed in Afghanistan, it is up to the Afghans to decide what they should do.

Finally, some argue that the United States has an obligation to defend Afghanistan's social and democratic gains. But the United States has poured more than $40 billion into Afghanistan in development assistance, and U.S. military operations in Afghanistan have cost the United States more than $800 billion. The United States can do nation-building and humanitarian assistance on this scale in other parts of the world, and in some areas it is even closer to the United States, but the United States has not done so because the United States cannot make such investments in the long term. The United States could continue to provide development aid to Afghanistan, but it needed to better manage that money to prevent fraud, waste, and mismanagement. Since 2009, these actions have cost the United States more than $19 billion.

Support doesn't have to be military

I am not writing this article as a neutral observer: I was U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan from 2014 to 2016, and I was serving as senior adviser to the U.S. Secretary of State when the U.S. decision to negotiate with the Taliban in 2018-19. I know that if the Taliban return to power without being bound by a peace agreement, it will bring disaster to Afghan women, education and the entire country. I know the future is uncertain.

I also know that we have been fighting for 20 years without using military means to resolve the Afghan problem, and that even another 10 years will not be possible. Washington should not have the illusion that if U.S. forces stay, U.S. forces will be targeted, as will U.S. diplomatic resources on a larger scale. By then, those who are now critical of the president's decision to withdraw will instead ask the president why he did not withdraw his troops earlier — as they had previously questioned when the number of U.S. casualties increased. And, no matter how many analysts believe the United States has the ability to impose a political deal on Afghanistan, the United States cannot actually do so. Washington has not been able to stop some regional countries from revolting, and these countries will continue to do so.

President Biden, however, did not make an either-or decision. The United States does not have to leave Afghanistan because of the withdrawal of troops. Washington can still play a key role in the Afghan peace process, working with all countries that support it. Some even argue that the announcement of the withdrawal decision could prompt Afghan political leaders to form a more united government.

U.S. Secretary of State Blinken visited Afghanistan on April 15 and reaffirmed that U.S.-Kabul relations are a "security partnership." The withdrawal of United States troops should not prevent the United States and its partners from continuing to assist and support the Afghan security forces, and the United States should pay particular attention to protecting the achievements of afghanistan in the development of women and children over the past 20 years. In addition, it should be possible for the United States to increase the scale of its development assistance, which was actually reduced by the previous administration at the Afghan Donor Conference in November 2020. The United States can continue to fight terrorism and other potential threats in the region. All countries in the region, including Iran, do not want to see Afghanistan collapse or allow Al Qaeda to take advantage of it. The stability of Afghanistan has a great impact not only on Afghanistan's neighbours, but also on our adversaries.

However, sacrificing the lives of more Americans (which would mean such an outcome if the troops were to remain in Afghanistan) did not seem right. A coalition of numerous veterans' organizations recently wrote to the president that, as it says, we should not "demand that our men and women in the military continue to be involved in conflict without a clear military objective or prospect of victory." "When I was in Kabul, even as I attended a ceremony to mourn the fallen American and Coalition soldiers, the Taliban continued to make progress on the battlefield, and this sentiment could easily spread among the crowd.

We will debate the president's proposed nodal plan, but we will not be able to extend the military presence any longer. The former Republican administration acknowledged this reality when it set May 1 as the time for a complete withdrawal. The United States must now shoulder other, more pressing domestic and international responsibilities, the importance of which has not been seen since 1945. Yesterday's conflict (and yesterday's perception of national security threats) will not help our country to move forward. Regardless of where the United States goes in the future, it should not be on the path of continuing a "permanent war."

(Observer.com translated by Guan Qun from the United States Foreign Affairs)

This article is the exclusive manuscript of the observer network, the content of the article is purely the author's personal views, does not represent the platform views, unauthorized, may not be reproduced, otherwise will be investigated for legal responsibility. Pay attention to the observer network WeChat guanchacn, read interesting articles every day.