Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Calamitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was a crisis of Biden’s own making
Joe Biden has been looking for a way out of Afghanistan for decades, and regardless of how ugly things get, he's not turning back. After Trump reached a deal with the Taliban in 2020 to end the war, Biden decided to stick with the arrangement, overruling his own generals. Ian Bremmer explains that while he agrees with Biden's decision to get out, he did not foresee the incompetence of the execution. In that sense, the last few weeks have constituted the greatest foreign policy crisis for President Biden to date, and one that was largely self-imposed. Ian looks at four key failures led to this disaster on GZERO World.
Watch the episode: Afghanistan, 2021: Afghan & US military perspectives as the last soldier leaves
- Afghanistan: Four key failures - GZERO Media ›
- Can Biden recover from his Afghanistan debacle? - GZERO Media ›
- Biden's mistakes in Afghanistan were not "dereliction of duty ... ›
- What does a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan actually mean ... ›
- US has set the stage for Afghanistan’s humanitarian disaster, says Hina Khar - GZERO Media ›
Afghanistan: the potential pitfalls of an unconditional US troop withdrawal
For two decades we've wondered how and when America's longest war would end. Now Joe Biden has announced that all US troops will be out of Afghanistan by September 11, 2021. While it's a political victory with obvious benefits, there are real risks involved in President Biden's decision. Afghanistan could quickly fall back into the hands of the Taliban, which would be a disaster for the citizens of that country and a danger to the US.
Watch the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer episode.
Afghanistan’s next generation: a student shares her perspective on the US withdrawal
Shaista is a 22-year-old university student in Kabul, Afghanistan, and since she was two years old, her country has been occupied by American forces. Although she was fortunate to grow up in a relatively privileged situation with the ability to get an education, she says that nevertheless "the fear of losing my life has always been there." She shares her thoughts on the US troop withdrawal announcement and how worried she is about a Taliban takeover of her country.
Watch the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer episode.
- How education has improved women's lives around the world ... ›
- "Next 9/11 is on Biden's watch”: Rep. Mike Waltz on US leaving ... ›
- The slow US retreat from Afghanistan - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: Rep. Mike Waltz's case against ending the war in Afghanistan ›
- Is the US abandoning NATO in Afghanistan? - GZERO Media ›
Trump's military exit ramp
CNN and the New York Times reported on Monday that before he leaves office on January 20, President Trump will order the withdrawal of nearly half the US troops still serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nearly all who remain in Somalia.
If he follows through, this will be the president's final step toward ending the costly US commitment to fight terrorism and bolstering the stability of fragile governments in these countries.
The plan has drawn plenty of fire from within the US government. Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper not long after Esper had informed the White House that he and Pentagon top brass believed that security conditions had not been met for a troop drawdown.
In addition, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned this week that "a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan now would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm." He compared the idea with "the humiliating American departure from Saigon in 1975."
The debate over this plan gets at the heart of President Trump's attempt to redefine the US role in the world. Before 2017, all post-World War II US presidents had argued that an assertive US global leadership role serves the US national interest.
Trump has challenged this orthodoxy, both before and during his presidency. Too often, he's argued, his predecessors have pushed US soldiers into endless commitments to the security of other countries and allowed selfish "allies" to free-ride at the expense of US taxpayers.
There are strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Here are the most notable:
Against withdrawal
Critics of Trump's plan say that Bush and Obama administration drawdowns of US troops from Iraq (2007-2011) enabled the emergence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, a problem that proved costlier and more dangerous than the US troop presence.
On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned against a "premature withdrawal" from Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban have become more aggressive in recent months, particularly against Afghan government forces, and October was the deadliest month for Afghan civilians in more than a year.
Abandoning the fight against terrorists in vulnerable countries signals to US allies (and potential allies) that Washington is not to be trusted.
For withdrawal
For how many years will withdrawal from these countries remain "premature?" Must US troops wait for the day when Afghanistan has a stable government capable of controlling all of Afghan territory? If the goal is more modest than that, why hasn't it been achieved in the 19 years that US and NATO forces have been there?
Must Washington wait until al-Qaeda and ISIS renounce terrorism, and Iran withdraws support for militias in Iraq? Or until Somalia becomes a stable country?
By remaining in these countries all these years, doesn't Washington allow its allies there to believe that they don't really need to prepare to function without US help?
In Somalia, much of the recent US military effort has focused on training and backing a Somali commando unit of 850 troops that has scored major wins against al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. Critics of Trump's plan say this force can't function without active US involvement, but why should Somalis prepare to survive without US help as long as they believe the Americans will stay?
So why not withdraw all the troops? President Trump tweeted on October 7 that all US troops should be brought home from Afghanistan by Christmas. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a small number of remaining troops will allow the US to launch counterterrorism strikes from a single command center. US forces will also remain in Kenya and Djibouti, allowing for drone attacks on al-Shabab inside Somalia. The plan leaked to the press this week looks like a compromise.
Give Trump's arguments their due. Americans need to debate these questions, and past presidents have too often fallen back on bromides about "America's responsibility to lead."
What is America's proper role in the 21st century world? What do you think?
Trump's foreign policy report card
Back in 2016, presidential candidate Donald Trump presented his vision for an "America First" foreign policy, which symbolized a radical departure from the US' longtime approach to international politics and diplomacy.
In electing Donald Trump, a political outsider, to the top job, American voters essentially gave him a mandate to follow through on these promises. So, has he?
Trade
"A continuing rape of our country."
On the 2016 campaign trail, candidate Trump said that the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a 12 country trade deal pushed by the Obama administration — would "rape" America's economy by imperiling the manufacturing sector, closing factories, and taking more jobs overseas.
While President Trump swiftly delivered on his promise to quit the TPP, it's clear that Trump's signature move has not had its desired effect.
Trump's protectionist policies — including an ongoing trade war with China — have in fact caused manufacturing factories to shutter in many US cities, resulting in the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs. In the crucial swing state of Michigan, for example, there were 10,200 fewer manufacturing workers in February 2020 than the previous year. Nearly 1,800 factories — many in important swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin — were forced to shut their doors between 2016 to 2018 as automation ramped up.
To be sure, the pandemic-induced recession has pummeled America's economy across the board, but a recent report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics concludes that even before the health crisis, US manufacturing was on track to lose nearly 450,000 jobs by 2029, the most of any sector.
Meanwhile, the US trade deficit, an indicator Donald Trump repeatedly cited in the lead-up to the 2016 election to justify provoking China, has ballooned under his watch: in August of this year, the US' overall trade deficit was $67.1 billion, the highest on record since 2006. In addition, US exports to China continue to fall behind the benchmark set under the "phase one" trade deal signed by Beijing and Washington earlier this year.
Foreign conflicts and troop withdrawals
"I will never send our finest into battle unless necessary...The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies."
When candidate Trump announced his bid for the White House, withdrawing troops from conflicts in far-flung places around the world — particularly in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan — quickly emerged as a key campaign promise. And polling shows that this pledge resonated deeply with a war-weary American public.
Has Trump delivered? Somewhat. In 2017, he sent an additional 3,000 troops to war-torn Afghanistan. Today, there are still 8,600 American soldiers there, though President Trump recently tweeted that he hopes to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by Christmas, a pre-election forecast that reportedly delighted the Taliban and caught the Pentagon completely off-guard.
In Syria and Iraq, meanwhile, President Trump followed through on his campaign promise to "beat ISIS" by continuing the Obama administration's military campaign against the militant group. This was followed by the hasty withdrawal of around 700 US troops from northern Syria in 2019, which many observers said would endanger America's Kurdish allies, causing the US Defense Secretary to resign in protest.
Treaties
"[I will] dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran."
From the outset, candidate Trump made clear that the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal would have a short shelf life under his administration, calling it "the worst deal ever negotiated." And in 2018, President Trump followed through by walking away from the accord that was negotiated with American allies including France and Germany, and slapping fresh sanctions on Iran. On the face of it, it was a promise kept.
Similarly, having long referred to climate change as a "hoax," candidate Trump vowed to walk away from the Paris Climate Accords, signed by 200 countries, which he said would stifle American economic growth. Again, President Trump made good on a longtime pledge — but the official exit only occurs on November 4, a day after the US election, and Joe Biden has vowed to rejoin should he win.
Love him or hate him, when it comes to foreign policy Donald Trump is a... politician. While he has failed to deliver on some campaign promises, in many instances, President Trump has done exactly what American voters sent him to Washington to do.
What does a US troop withdrawal mean for Iraq?
Earlier this year, in response to diplomatic confusion over reports of an abrupt US withdrawal from Iraq, Mark Esper, the US Secretary of Defense, said decisively: "We have no plans to leave Iraq."
Now, eight months later, the Trump administration says it will reduce the number of US forces in the country to 3,000 in the coming weeks — a reduction from the 5,200 currently there. What does the US troop drawdown — and potential eventual full withdrawal — mean for Iraq, the region, and the US?
For Iraq...
Shiite dominance: Some analysts fear that amid ongoing regional tumult, Iraq's fragile democracy might collapse without a sustained US presence there.
The US has played a key (albeit very flawed) role in propping up Iraq's democracy — broadly viewed as a kleptocracy — and some observers warn that a US troop drawdown will pave the way for hardline Shiite groups to take center stage within an already deeply divided and corrupt political system. Inevitably, this would also exacerbate sectarian tensions by sidelining minority Sunnis and Kurds.
Indeed, this was the case in 2011 when the US withdrew troops deployed for the 2003 invasion. Shiite domination and subsequent clashes over power-sharing arrangements poisoned Iraq's already troubled politics and helped set the stage for the Sunni-supported rise of the Islamic State in 2014.
An economy in need of rescue: Even before the coronavirus pandemic, Iraq's economy was in freefall. Now, plunging oil prices and cratering demand for the commodity — Iraq's main export — have pushed the country's economy to the brink. Hunger and poverty have deeply penetrated the middle class, and the Iraqi government has no social support system to help unemployed Iraqis weather the COVID storm.
Now, an even more fragile Iraq could leave the country's economy vulnerable to deeper exploitation by international and regional powers. There is precedent for this too. For years, Iran has tried to gain leverage within Iraqi politics, and bolster its trade relations with Baghdad in order to evade crippling US sanctions. Last year, Iran's President Hassan Rouhani said his goal was to increase bilateral trade between the two countries to $20 billion annually, up from $12 billion.
Similarly, Turkey has sought to take advantage of Iraq's vulnerability to strengthen bilateral trade, and it's widely believed that Ankara could try and fill the void left by US military contractors in the future.
It's important to note that when oil prices plummeted in 2014, the IMF doled out $4.5 billion in aid to help Iraq weather the storm. But amid the current pandemic, Iraq is just one of many crisis-stricken developing countries pleading with the IMF for urgent assistance — and Baghdad will need help from wherever it can get it.
The region...
An ISIS resurgence: The US military's role in training thousands of Iraqi security forces in recent years has helped quash the Islamic State, which now holds little of the territory it once occupied. (At its peak, ISIS held 34,000 square miles of land across Iraq and Syria.)
However, ISIS has exploited COVID-19 lockdowns in recent months to launch fresh attacks in urban areas like Baghdad and Kirkuk, killing scores of Iraqi soldiers.
The violent surge coincided with the Iraqi government's struggle in filling the security void left by the US decision earlier this year to withdraw its own troops because of concerns about the pandemic, and as part of a planned phased withdrawal of troops. Indeed, without US military support and training programs, Iraqi forces might struggle to fend off an offensive by newly emboldened ISIS fighters, analysts say.
The US...
For President Trump, following through on his longstanding promise to reduce the number of American troops stationed in far-flung war zones has renewed urgency now that polls show him trailing his Democratic opponent Joe Biden in his bid for re-election.
That also could be part of the reason for the Pentagon's seemingly ad-hoc announcement on Wednesday that it will cut the number of American troops in Afghanistan by early November too, despite the current delicate phase of intra-Afghan peace talks. (With apologies to Carl von Clausewitz, sometimes war really is just the "continuation of politics by other means.")