A Case for Foreign Policy Reform

Now is a time neither for retrenchment nor redoubling.

By
17

The Taliban’s stunning victory has unsettled many in the United States and around the world. The speed with which the group took Kabul turned Joe Biden’s risky decision to withdraw completely from Afghanistan into an utterly embarrassing fiasco even before twin suicide bombings on Thursday killed 12 U.S. troops and, according to reports, 90 Afghans. And it is leading many to reexamine not only the war in Afghanistan, but also overall U.S. foreign policy. The question is whether to retrench, redouble, or reform.

For the retrenchers, the message is clear: Afghanistan is just one of many places from which Americans should retreat. These neo-isolationists recite the litany of American mistakes and failures in Afghanistan to make a broader point: American foreign policy leaders across both parties have for decades pursued unattainable goals through foolhardy methods as the country has deteriorated. 

As they see it, nation building in Afghanistan is the most emblematic of American failures. After defeating the Taliban, the U.S. attempted to create a heavily centralized national government in a country that had rarely been governed in such a manner. Still more ambitious, the traditional Afghan forums for developing consensus were expanded into a full democracy that would reconcile disparate ethnic groups while empowering women and the LBGT community. This new government was to be protected by a large military that would train and fight like the U.S. military, albeit with somewhat less technological sophistication. Every component of this strategy has failed abysmally.

Nation building is only one of a set of American mistakes, however. Many in this camp, conservatives included, think that Barack Obama was right when he called for nation building at home. Voters agree: Remember that George W. Bush ran on a largely domestic-policy platform and changed course only after September 11. And every successful presidential candidate this century has campaigned on pursuing a more restrained foreign policy. Some retrenchers  lament that the U.S. will still fight terrorists intent on attacking Americans and harming U.S. interests abroad; others that Washington has not yet ceded control of the Indo-Pacific to Beijing. To these self-styled “realists,” combating climate change or vanquishing internal political opponents are higher priorities than supporting a global balance of power that favors American interests.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
17
By
Comments (17)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Given that Miley reassured Congress recently that the Afghan army would hold out against the Taliban, if he tells Congress that China won’t attack Taiwan, I say we better move another carrier strike group near Taiwan and start loading up our surge sealift fleet with everything needed for a protracted war.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    What are we fighting for? If you can’t define Classical Liberalism or you don’t think it’s worth fighting for, you’re never going to be successful. That was the basic mistake in Afghanistan that all mistakes flowed from. And it was the basic mistake we made in Viet Nam, Iran, Central America, etc, etc.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jon Holmlund

    I bet Taiwan is next, while Biden is down...

    Collapse
  4. General Darden

    LBGT or LGBT?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Synchronize Your Dogmas (Bill B)

    I think the author should probably include a caveat against birfurcating our foreign policy along ideological lines. There is not nor should there be a "conservative" or a "liberal" foreign policy. We should leave that stuff at the water's edge.

    Collapse
  6. DJ

    Elevate diplomacy as a sacred service just as much as we do the military. Give medals to foreign service officers, have ambassadors toss the coin at NFL games, have a moment of silence for all the service members that didn't die in a war we chose not to intervene in.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Butch Earl

    Excellent piece, Mr. Watson. I thank you!
    In 2021, there exists a political symbiosis between the pacifist Left and isolationist Right and it is dominating American policy. There's an old saying, foreign policy is like plumbing; nobody notices it until something breaks. Unfortunately, Afghanistan is a huge torrential break in our plumbing and both fringes are ill equipped to do anything other appeal to their populist bases. This is about as useful as blaming the water for the flooded basement. Can we please concentrate on plugging this leak while everybody's attention is focused on Afghanistan before we spring another leaks somewhere else?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Paul Reichardt

      True pacifists are quite rare (it’s usually out of some kind of religious conviction) and true isolationists are pretty rare too (I suspect most MAGA types of appropriate age were among those most supportive of military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq in the early aughts).
      Surely there can be a spectrum of principles and opinion between strongly opposing the Afghanistan withdrawal and those of Charles Lindbergh circa 1940?

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kenton A. Hoover

    There is nothing “neo-“ about the neo-isolationists.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Jonathan M

    I would definitely rate Mike Watson on a scale of 1-10

    Collapse
  10. B. McCarthy

    Add to your list of foreign policy reforms the need for distinguishing the victory you would like from a victory that is achievable. Building a democratic state in Afghanistan was just wish list, as was relying on the Afghan army (for reasons that have been covered well here in the Dispatch) to hold out while we engaged in a leisurely withdrawal.

    Collapse
Load More