President Biden inherited a peace agreement requiring a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. Now he faces two unattractive alternatives: Leave by May 1, as the deal with the Taliban requires, and risk governmental collapse and civil war. Stay, with or without a negotiated extension, and face the outrage of a U.S. public exhausted by two decades of conflict. The domestic politics might seem straightforward, but as evidenced by the president’s announcement Thursday that it will “be hard to meet the May 1 deadline,” the situation is actually complicated.
Conventional wisdom holds that withdrawing from Afghanistan is popular. Polls show a majority of Americans, including veterans, favor bringing the troops home. Leaving Afghanistan is a priority for key Democratic constituencies and was backed explicitly by President Trump and his 2020 Democratic challengers. Mr. Biden himself promised during his campaign to end the “forever wars,” Afghanistan most prominent among them.
While the notion of ending the American role in Afghanistan resonates, and can even shift policy, it’s unlikely to move votes or affect candidates’ chances, presidential or otherwise.
Look closer, however, and domestic demand for an American withdrawal may not be strong as it seems. America’s cities aren’t roiled by protests against the war in Afghanistan the way they were during the Vietnam era. At the height of the war in Iraq, congressional majorities in both houses passed measures requiring an end to the American presence there. This time is different. In December, Congress passed a defense funding bill that blocked Mr. Trump’s order to pull 2,000 troops out of Afghanistan. A new Pew poll about Americans’ foreign-policy priorities finds that protecting against terrorist attacks, the central reason for staying in Afghanistan, remains near the top of the list. Reducing U.S. military commitments overseas came in 17th.
While the notion of ending the American role in Afghanistan resonates, and can even shift policy, it’s unlikely to move votes or affect candidates’ chances, presidential or otherwise. There have been moments in U.S. history when a candidate’s position on war determined his political fortunes. There have also been moments when presidents had to spend great political capital to maintain a war effort, as with Lyndon B. Johnson in Vietnam or George W. Bush in Iraq. This isn’t one of those moments.
Read the full article from The Wall Street Journal.
More from CNAS
PodcastFacing a Humanitarian Crisis and Renewed Terror Threat in Afghanistan
Financial Crime Matters talks with Alex Zerden about his time as Treasury attaché at the United States Embassy in Kabul, the worsening humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan and t...
By Alex Zerden
VideoLessons From Iraq, Afghanistan: Why The U.S. Got It So Wrong
Retired U.S. Army colonel Christopher D. Kolenda in conversation with StratNews Global Editor-in-Chief Nitin A. Gokhale about his just launched book ‘Zero-Sum Victory: What We...
By Christopher D. Kolenda
PodcastEconomic Crisis in Afghanistan
Alex Zerden, founder and principal of Capitol Peak Strategies discusses the economic crisis in Afghanistan. He spoke with Bloomberg's David Westin. Listen to the full convers...
By Alex Zerden
VideoDealing with Afghanistan Under the Taliban
CEO of the Center for a New American Security Richard Fontaine shares his take on the future of Afghanistan under the Taliban with NHK-World Japan.Watch the full conversation ...
By Richard Fontaine