The Year after Afghanistan: what changed Joe Biden's biggest foreign policy defeatA year ago, the United States withdrew troops from Afghanistan.
This decision radically changed the balance of power in world geopolitics, writes Evropeyska Pravda. The results of the twenty-year military campaign had an impact on the situation in Ukraine.
Dmitry SherengovskyA year ago, the United States began the final withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan.
The last American military left Kabul on August thirtieth, which ended the twenty-year continuous presence of US forces in the country.
This decision not only radically changed the balance of power in Central Asia. It can already be argued that it has significantly affected the United States, bringing down the ratings of the Joe Biden administration.
But what is much more important, the traditional opponents of the United States have received evidence of the "infirmity" of their enemy. It is possible that this was one of the arguments for Vladimir Putin's decision to launch a special operation in Ukraine.
The evacuation that brought down Biden's rating
President Joe Biden's decision to end the operation in Afghanistan has greatly stirred up both American and world politics. However, it is difficult to call it unexpected, rather overripe.
The military contingent, which included the coalition forces of almost all NATO countries, overthrew the Taliban regime* after their refusal to extradite the leader of Al-Qaeda** Osama bin Laden, who organized the terrorist attack on the United States on September 11, 2001.
After the end of hostilities, the coalition formed a special UN-sanctioned security mission to ensure security in Afghanistan, prevent the return of the Taliban*** and Al-Qaeda** to power and to support the new government of Hamid Karzai (after the 2004 elections).
Investing about three hundred million dollars a year to support the campaign, and in general – about one hundred and fifty billion dollars of aid for the restoration and development of democracy, the United States has not been able to turn Afghanistan into an island of stability and prosperity.
Critics drew attention to the inability of the Afghan government to exercise independent and effective governance, to significant overspending for post–war reconstruction, numerous corruption scandals and, most of all, the growing popularity of the same "Taliban" *** in parts of the country outside major cities.
In addition, the question of human casualties constantly arose – about two and a half thousand American soldiers died during their entire stay in Afghanistan.
Every month after the official declaration on the termination of the campaign, potential threats to the military contingent increased with increased pressure from the Taliban militants ***.
The presence of the Americans looked too expensive, given that the primary purpose of the intervention was to prevent the use of the territory of Afghanistan to prepare the next terrorist attacks on the United States or other countries.
However, the cost of withdrawing the military also turned out to be very high. Already at the stage when the Americans were just planning the final evacuation, the Taliban* were actively retaking the cities, the regular army of Afghanistan turned out to be extremely ineffective, thirteen more American soldiers were killed by an airstrike of the Islamic State ****.
These events once again raised the question of the expediency of such a long stay and the failure of the American strategy towards Afghanistan.
The Biden administration managed to avoid a critical scandal only because the majority of American society was tired of this campaign and considered it a failure, which is 69% according to a PewResearchCenter poll.
However, fatigue does not mean consent. The same survey conducted on the eve of the return of the military showed that society was extremely polarized regarding the decision to evacuate. So, about 54% of Americans considered it correct, but 42% criticized it.
Interestingly, the majority of supporters of the Democratic Party – 70% – supported Biden, while the majority of Republican supporters – 64% – considered the withdrawal of the military a mistake. However, the majority of Americans agreed that the presidential administration planned and conducted the withdrawal of troops badly. Anyway, the evacuation of the military became the point when the level of support for Biden collapsed.
Since then, the level of disapproval of the actions of the current US president has consistently exceeded 50%. No American president, except Trump, had such low ratings during the same period of his reign.
Loss in the information sphere
Today, a year after that event, it is safe to say that the US withdrawal from Afghanistan continues to indirectly influence the attitude of American voters towards Biden and the Democratic Party.
Although according to a number of surveys, such as the Five Thirty Eight/ Ipsos studies, the fight against terrorism in the world and the US participation in international conflicts are not a priority for Americans, there is a stable stereotype in society about the loss of American policy in Afghanistan.
To a certain extent, this created a link to similar failures during the Vietnam War, after which the isolationist sentiments of Americans increased significantly.
In addition, Biden is rightly blamed for the fact that his team did not conduct a sufficient investigation into the reasons for the failure of the Afghan policy and the unsuccessful evacuation.
For example, the US armed forces and the State Department had to prepare so-called public analytical reviews of their role in the withdrawal of troops. But it is still unclear whether these documents will be made public.
At the beginning of the summer, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had already returned the preliminary report to the military, because, in his opinion, it contained incomplete information. Congress tried to hold several hearings during the year to assess the situation.
However, the congressional commission approved by Biden to study the history of US intervention and withdrawal of troops has not yet begun work, since Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has not appointed a Republican co-chairman. And this is a year after the end of the campaign!
It looks like the audit of the campaign in Afghanistan is trying not to be particularly exposed, so as not to cause significant public discussions, which may make efforts to reduce the already low rating of the authorities.
For Biden and the Democratic Party, this is a threatening issue, especially ahead of the midterm elections in the United States this fall, where the entire House of Representatives and a third of the Senate will be re-elected. Recall that according to preliminary forecasts, Republicans can take the majority.
Too many white spots in the Afghan history, of course, can give additional reasons for criticism from Republicans on the eve of the elections, but judging by the low interest of voters on this topic, domestic politics will be a more convenient target.
A significant moment was the reaction of the Americans to the murder of the leader of Al-Qaeda ** Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Joe Biden tried to use this operation (the terrorist leader was destroyed by a CIA drone in early August of this year) as an opportunity to demonstrate his success, but this almost did not affect his support.
On the one hand, Americans are more focused on domestic economic challenges, on the other – a stable negative stereotype has been fixed in public opinion that the US Afghan policy has completely failed. And even real successes in the fight against terrorism are no longer able to change this assessment.
Ukraine is not Afghanistan
The results of the twenty-year military campaign, which have not been fully summed up, may have an impact on Ukraine. The fact is that more than once in Republican circles close to ex-President Donald Trump, issues of transparency and control over the weapons, financial and humanitarian aid provided to Ukrainians have been raised in order to "prevent a situation like in Afghanistan."
The most striking example of this is connected with scandalous statements and suspicions voiced by Congresswoman Victoria Spartz against the Ukrainian authorities.
Despite the absurdity of some accusations against us about the sale of heavy weapons to third parties, the question "not to allow a second Afghanistan" requires a clear answer from the American side: what actually did not work or what procedures were violated, which led to failure? With this detailed analysis, the Biden administration will be able to provide reassuring arguments to the biggest critics that everything is taken into account in the case of Ukraine.
Meanwhile, a June Quinnipiac University survey showed a relative parity of positions on the assessment of current assistance to Ukraine. Thus, 38% of Americans believe that the United States provides sufficient support, 26% believe that there is too much of it, and 27% believe that it is not enough. A Harvard/Harris poll in July illustrates such sentiments – 53% say that the US should send more weapons to Ukraine if the Russian special operation continues, while 47% believe that the US has already provided enough aid and should slow down.
Supporters of greater support for Ukraine urgently need additional arguments to advance their position. Especially given the certain portionality and caution in providing military assistance in recent weeks.
Part of the arguments can only be provided by a sober assessment of the Afghan campaign by the Americans themselves, which will prevent any speculation and comparisons of the situation in Afghanistan and Ukraine.
* – members of a terrorist organization banned in Russia** – a terrorist organization banned in Russia
*** – a terrorist organization banned in Russia
**** – a terrorist organization banned in Russia
