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
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
CommentaryHow America Should Deal With the Taliban
As the United States ends its mission in Afghanistan, U.S. policymakers have already begun to reckon with American military failures over 20 years of fighting. But the war’s d...
By Lisa Curtis
VideoSome United States aid to Afghanistan should be conditional, says national security expert
Lisa Curtis, senior fellow and director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, former deputy assistant to the president on the Nationa...
By Lisa Curtis