How To Lose A War: Boldly Have No Plan, Bravely Run Away
I was just a kid when the Twin Towers fell. I was at a friend’s house and the family was evangelical enough to believe that TV was the devil. They managed to conjure one out of somewhere though. It was early morning and we squinted through the poor reception of the Television at repeating images of people’s grief and planes flying into the towers over and over again. We were supposed to go into town that day but plans were cancelled. What if somebody wanted to take out the sky tower next?? Nobody knew what was happening.
This fear, grief and uncertainty coagulated into The War On Terror, which was the title the US grandly used to brand the lashing out it would do over the next couple years at anyone they felt was responsible. George W. Bush drew a line in the sand; “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make,” he said in a national address. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”
Afghanistan was the prime target. It housed America’s greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The Taliban weren’t providing him on a silver platter for the States, so they made good on their promise and rolled in with all their military hardware in what they called “Operation Enduring Freedom”. The Taliban was forced out, and Osama bin Laden made good his escape into Pakistan, his freedom enduring. From here, America would remain in Afghanistan for the next twenty years. An entire generation would grow up only knowing their occupation. America had gone in with no strategy for what to do once they got there, let alone how they would leave. It’s this huge blindspot that would ultimately cost them the war.
In their time, there were 2,401 American Military deaths, with civilian contractor deaths and UK troops not far behind. The civilian count stands at 46,319, and closer to home, New Zealand lost ten people to the war.
As Biden mumbled, America’s total spend on the war overshadowed everyone else’s as well, ranging between $1 and 2 trillion, depending on how you like to cut it.
The War in Afghanistan lasted 19 years and 10 months, wrapping up hastily before the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks. It had endured three administrations, despite Obama himself promising to remove troops by 2014. By the end of his term in office, more troops were stationed there than at their beginning. “Nevertheless, the security situation in Afghanistan remains precarious,” Obama said. “Even as they improve, Afghan security forces are still not as strong as they need to be.”
In his 2020 memoir, A Promised Land, Obama wrote that “unlike the war in Iraq, the Afghan campaign had always seemed to me a war of necessity”. He noted that in a situation room briefing about adding more troops to the war, only Biden was leery of the idea, thinking the war a quagmire they wouldn’t be able to escape. After the meeting, he told Obama, “Maybe 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”.
But boxed he was, perhaps understanding that leaving the country would end in an inevitable collapse. He set out an arbitrary timeline on drawing down troop numbers based on Afghanistan being able to pick itself up and then called it a day.
This didn’t seem to be a caution that was shared by the next President in the oval office. Trump had his America First policy, and Americans dying somewhere in the Middle East didn’t sound anything like America coming first in anything. He wasn’t interested in anything that required a passport to visit. Numerous Tweets lambast the war for being “a waste of time”. With that said, Trump’s policy towards Afghanistan is conflicted. In 2017, he seemed all too aware of the consequences of ditching the war.
“First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives… Second, the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable… Third and finally, I concluded that the security threats we face in Afghanistan and the broader region are immense.”
By 2019, Trump’s opinion was galvinising toward just leaving despite Republican worries that the country would collapse and create the conditions that convinced them to invade in the first place. He got the cogs spinning, and Biden ran with it all too happily when he took office. Upon hearing this, Trump applauded the action saying that they would have had it done sooner. “Getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do. I planned to withdraw on May 1.”
Biden in a statement gave a rundown of the situation he was facing upon picking up the mantle.
“When I came to office, I inherited a deal cut by my predecessor—which he invited the Taliban to discuss at Camp David on the eve of 9/11 of 2019—that left the Taliban in the strongest position militarily since 2001 and imposed a May 1, 2021, deadline on U.S. forces. Shortly before he left office, he also drew U.S. forces down to a bare minimum of 2,500. Therefore, when I became President, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies’ forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country’s civil conflict. I was the fourth President to preside over an American troop presence in Afghanistan—two Republicans, two Democrats. I would not, and will not, pass this war on to a fifth.”
With maybe some relief that it wouldn’t be him with any egg-fallout on his face, Obama praised Biden’s “bold leadership” over promising to finally leave the country. We are currently unsure whether this admiration of bold leadership extended to Trump.
It appears that for America, the war was a bandaid that had to be ripped off at some point, and the wound they inflicted underneath had done nothing to heal. In 2019, a report investigating the failure of the war obtained by the Washington Post showed just how little strategy they had the entire time they were there. Douglas Lute, a three-star Army General put it bluntly, “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan—we didn’t know what we were doing… If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction.”
The Fallout
This dysfunction became all too clear with the messy evacuation of troops from the country. As they left, the Taliban would methodically take back territory.
In 2019, Nicholas Burns, former Undersecretary of State during George W. Bush’s administration, worried about what a quick exit would do to the country. “Go quickly and we risk giving away too much to the Taliban.” He probably didn’t imagine that two years later, the Taliban would have everything.
It became a spectacle on the world stage when, as the Taliban approached at the edges of Kabul, people started to realise they were being left behind by the retreating US forces.
Gen. Jim Jones, who served as National Security Adviser under President Barack Obama, was baffled by the exit. “When you do these kinds of things, however big or however small they are, the first thing you do is you get the civilians and families out, then you get the U.S. government personnel out if that’s required. And then the last people to leave is generally the military who are providing the security for the orderly evacuation. It appears to me that we did this exactly backwards and I don’t know why.”
Panicked scenes at Kabul’s airport show people storming the runway and holding onto taxiing aircraft carriers.
“I think both administrations bear blame for where we are today,” said Lisa Curtis, a Trump National Security Council official to politico. “The Trump administration for negotiating a very bad deal with the Taliban. The Biden administration for not reevaluating that deal and changing course.”
During the evacuation, a bomb went off, claimed by The Islamic State in Khorasan, killing 13 soldiers and 170 Afghans. In retaliation, an airstrike is carried out a few days later, going after a suspected plotter. The strike was later admitted to be a mistake by the Pentagon, killing seven children and three civilians.
New Zealand too was caught with its pants down. The RZAF scrambled as best they could to airlift out Afghans and Kiwis who had worked with our defence forces during their time there.
In a rare moment where no political point scoring was being attempted, National Party foreign affairs spokesman Gerry Brownlee said it was a “chaotic situation”.
“Intelligence clearly was that Kabul would not fall and there would be time for an arrangement with the Taliban.
“It is a horrible situation. I do not think we are able to say anything should have been done sooner, it is just a mess.”
Thousands of people have been left stranded in the now Taliban controlled country, giving the distinct odour of a fearfully beaten retreat, rather than an orderly wrapped up campaign.
Who are the real winners
There are three contenders for who would benefit the most from the USA’s diminished presence in the region. The EIU released a report breaking down who would be the big winners from Turkey, Russia and China.
Turkey
Of the three, Turkey has the least to gain, as it stands in a weakened position, probably not expanding its controls any further from what it has.
“In recent years, Turkey has dramatically increased its hard power in the region, through actively interventionist military policies, most prominently in Syria in 2016 and Libya in early 2020.
However, complex internal politics and the economic hit of the Covid‑19 pandemic make Turkey less likely to use financially costly hard power in the near term,” said the EIU report. “A key part of Turkey’s foreign policy revolves around securing access to gas reserves in the Mediterranean, which will require some dialogue with Egypt. As a result, Turkey’s near-term policy in the region is likely to focus partly on easing tensions with its main regional opponents—Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Israel and Egypt—rather than continuing its regional expansionism.”
Russia
The report noted that Russia is in a much stronger position to take advantage, having worked pragmatically across political lines
“The contrast of the US’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan with Russia’s successful intervention and continued presence in Syria will allow Russia to emphasise its reliability as a partner. The result is likely to be Russia playing a more active role in regional diplomacy, as a means of increasing its global standing. In addition, a recent announcement by Saudi Arabia and Russia also highlights that modest diversification away from dependence on the US could allow Russia to gradually increase its arms sales in the region.”
China
Ironically, considering both Trump and Biden’s new focus in terms of rivalries, China is the big winner. China isn’t particularly willing to play Mr. Big Boy with Gun, leaving regional security dominance to the US. The Middle East is a key player in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and is a vital chain in the link from Asia to Europe and East Africa, providing China’s oil supply.
“A significant medium-term pick-up in Chinese economic activity in the region is likely for two further reasons. First, China has thus far managed to maintain a neutral regional security stance (aside from its rivalry with the US). As a result, it is an important partner for many rivals, including both Iran and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. In a region where political disputes often influence economic decisions (the 2017 boycott of Qatar, for example), that neutrality is a considerable strength. Second, following the economic damage wrought by the pandemic and the 2020 oil price crash, financing an economic recovery and diversification away from dependence on oil are the most urgent priorities for most states at present. China is willing and able to offer much larger economic incentives than Russia, Turkey or the US to support those priorities.”
China indeed outspends Russia in the Middle East.
“Provided Iran secures US sanctions relief, Chinese infrastructure investment in Iran is likely to rise sharply in return for cut-price oil. At the same, the Gulf economies will build closer relations with China, while still balancing their alliances with the US, as a source of much-desired technology-sharing and external financing. Meanwhile, China’s growing influence will also put it in a prime position to secure reconstruction contracts in conflict zones like Libya and Syria. In the longer term, as its economic interests grow, geopolitical neutrality will become more difficult. But in the short to medium term, China’s interests in the Middle East will remain largely economic.”
The Bottom Line
So will we be seeing peace in the Middle East anytime soon? With so many players trying to shape the outcomes of the region, instability is pretty much assured unfortunately, no matter how many resources China or even the USA pours into the region. In the meantime, the country is adapting to life under a new/old regime and a full Islamic government. The Taliban is pledging to keep its end of the deal and not allow the country to become a hotbed for further attacks against Western countries. Long after America dusts the sand off its boots, it will be paying the literal price for the next fifty years. Both President Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson had temporarily raised tax rates for the wealthy by 92% and 77% respectively for their wars (Korean War and Vietnam). Bush decided to use the credit card to pay for Afghanistan, cutting the tax rate on the highest bracket by 4.6%. Interest costs for Afghanistan are expected to be $6.5 trillion by 2050.
But hey, at least they got Osama Bin Laden, right?
The War On Terror
So if they didn’t win the war in Afghanistan, did America at least win its even more vague goal of kicking terrorism in the teeth? Well, fortunately there’s no clear consensus on what terrorism even is, but much like porn, we know it when we see it. It’s primarily defined as something “intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants.”
While it would be difficult to track exactly how much terrorism has been globally stopped or encouraged by the War on Terror, we can at least use the Annual Terrorism Index to take a look at the hot spots of terrorism.
Despite throwing $2 trillion at the problem, Afghanistan tops the charts for terrorism. Maybe these numbers will shrink over the next year now that there are less Western targets to go after in their backyard. Since 2001, terrorism has grown three to five times higher annually around the world. Under the banner for the War on Terror, countries (not just the States) have had the opportunity to encroach on civil liberties and even participate in CIA black sites. In 2014, Poland was forced to admit that they did in fact host some of these secret detention centres which used torture, sorry, enhanced interrogation techniques on terror suspects.