Tragedy in Afghanistan

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Eli Lake joins Jonah for a thorough discussion of the tragic situation ...

By

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Eli Lake joins Jonah for a thorough discussion of the tragic situation in Afghanistan. Is President Biden’s leadership to blame for the catastrophe? Did Biden ignore warnings that withdrawal would result in a Taliban takeover? And how did the Afghanistan war go from being celebrated on Saturday Night Live to such a tragic conclusion? Things aren’t all doom and gloom, however, as Eli is sure to end on a note of optimism. The American experiment has endured challenges on the global stage in the past, but rejuvenation has also been accomplished. Besides, America’s adversaries have plenty of their own problems to contend with.

Show Notes:

–Eli’s page at Bloomberg Opinion

–Eli’s review of Jonathan Rauch’s The Constitution of Knowledge

Create a free account
Access additional articles and newsletters for no cost, no credit card information needed. Continue ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (92)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    For all the claims that we supposedly were wasting large sums of money in Afghanistan (yes, there was waste and I’m not defending it - waste is bad), it was a rounding error on the terrible COVID relief package or the “infrastructure” bills that are working their way through Congress. And more than half of the COVID unemployment payments were frauded.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Dusty

    I wasted way too much time in the past 24 hours arguing with people on this site, basically making the same arguments that Jonah and Eli make here. But they make it better than I do, so I’m just going to slap the table and disengage.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Hrodland

    Except for a very few Republicans, and even fewer Democrats, every national US politician is tarred with this debacle. CNN estimates between 5 and 10,000 Ameicans are STILL IN Kabul.

    If we build the Afghan forces in one way, using plenty of air power (which worked pretty well for Putin in Syria) and then take all the US contractors that support it out of country, what do you expect?

    This is a bi-partisan, self-inflicted wound. And until we can claw our way back, every US posiiton overseas is in jeopardy.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Narwhal

      Syria already had an Air Force and Russia just augmented what already existed. They didn’t need to build one from scratch in a country where most people were illiterate.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Hrodland

        The point is, Afghanistan had one last year.

        Once the US left, they didn't.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Narwhal

          Exactly. Syria didn’t need Russia to have an Air Force. Afghanistan needed the US to have one. And the Taliban can capture planes but they can’t service and repair them any better than the Afghan government did, especially since around 80% of the Afghan government budget came from foreign aid.

          The effort to build up the AAF was a fool’s errand. We should have focused our efforts on ensuring that the Afghan grunts had good quality, properly fitted boots and that their superiors paid them on time and in full.

          The AAF was responsible for a lot of needless civilian deaths in the last five or so years. This is well documented. That didn’t help the Afghan government become seen as more legitimate. It didn’t help it gain more popular support.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Hrodland

            Sorry you're using contradictory logic here.

            The Syrian and Russian air forces didn't worry too much about civilian casualties. Indeed, they were deliberately targeting hospitals. They also defeated the rebels. Moreoer, our Afghans took tens of thousands of casualties during the fighting. They did fight and die. But when they lost their trump card, it was the end.

            Saying that you don't need an air force in modern warfare is just ludicrous. I can't find any other words.

            Ask the Armenians.

            Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Narwhal

    At around 19:03 in the podcast Jonah and Eli are discussing the AirPower advantage that the Afghan government had over the Taliban. Eli says something like, “the Taliban don’t have helicopters” and Jonah replies, “they didn’t” and then he chuckles. Eli then talks about how the withdrawal of US logistical support for the AAF partly resulted in the collapse of the Afghan military against the Taliban.

    Even if the Taliban has trained helicopter pilots, and they might for all I know, are we to believe that they have a greater supply of skilled technicians and mechanics to service, repair, refit, and refuel what helicopters they now posses than the Afghan government did? The Afghan government and air force was dependent on the US for the overwhelming majority of their skilled technicians and mechanics as well as all of the spare parts, munitions and aviation fuel.

    “The United States committed in the U.S.-Taliban agreement to reduce and eventually withdraw “private security contractors” and “supporting services personnel.” TAAC-Air assessed in January 2021 that without continued contractor support, none of the AAF’s airframes (UH-60, MD-530, etc.) can be sustained as combat effective for more than a few months.” (Page 20)

    Jonah and Eli can’t have it both ways, either the withdrawal of US logistical support rendered the AAF ineffective and inoperable which resulted in the Taliban victory or it didn’t.

    “According to a recent Overseas Development Institute (ODI) report coauthored by the World Bank’s lead economist for Afghanistan, in 2018 (the most recent year for which full data is available), Afghanistan received at least $8.6 billion in foreign aid, representing almost 80% of the nation’s $11 billion in public expenditures (estimates for total on-budget and off-budget assistance).”

    “Afghanistan’s unprecedented aid dependence has shaped Afghanistan’s political system and economy.“ (Pages 23-24)

    https://www.sigar.mil/pdf/spotlight/2021-High-Risk-List.pdf

    Anyone who claims the Taliban will have greater success operating an Air Force is full of it and they know it. Will they be able to operate some helicopters for around six months? Maybe. Will that look bad? Yes. Will it have any lasting effect on the situation in Afghanistan? No.

    There are no refineries for aviation fuel in Afghanistan. The Taliban government will very likely lose around 80% of their previous government’s aid revenue which funded the bulk of its expenditures. The US will not being supplying spare parts for airframes. The US will not be supplying munitions for airframes. And the Taliban does not have skilled technicians, mechanics, and trainers to help operate those airframes even if they have a handful of helicopter pilots.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Hrodland

      Well, they do have helicopters now.

      They just can't fly them.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Narwhal

        Or service them, or repair them, or refit them with munitions, or refuel them for long.

        And Afghanistan is one of the most difficult places to fly helicopters due to the elevation, dust, and terrain.

        Collapse
        1. Richard Fulmer

          They can't service or repair them only if you assume that China, Russia, or Iran won't be willing or able to supply technicians or parts.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Narwhal

            Sourcing parts for Blackhawks and finding technicians skilled at servicing and repairing Blackhawks won’t be a simple, easy, straightforward task for any of those countries.

            Now, could they fill the role we played for the AAF by providing the funding and manpower to service and repair the aircraft as well as supply them with their own domestically produced aircraft? Sure, but that probably takes Iran out of the possibility given the costs involved.

            They will still face the same obstacles we faced trying to stand up then AAF. Maybe more so, the typical Taliban member wasn’t one of the people getting an education in the last twenty years. Illiteracy is higher among their members.

            Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Anne W (Raw5254)

    There are so many arguments for and against leaving, and a lot of views I find impossible to keep up with. The one thing we should be able to agree on is that the handling of this withdrawal is a complete mess, and I’m tired of Biden acting as though he’s willing to take the heat while turning around and blaming everyone else, including the Afghans.

    Collapse
  6. DJ

    Lake's claim that the alternative to leaving was an uneasy stalemate is complete nonsense. He makes the fallacy of assuming tomorrow will be like today. If we reneged on the Trump deal, the Taliban would've resumed attacking American troops, we'd have more wedding parties being droned, and in 2024 Trump would be running against "Democrats' endless wars."

    The appeals to "credibility" and "honor" are especially rich. Like anyone will give a crap about any of that in a years' time.

    In 2001 Osama Bin Laden's calculation was that the US would not commit to a decades-long fight. His rationale was how quickly we left Somalia.

    And his specific grievance was American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Persian Gulf war. So, yeah, Biden was *right* that we should not have launched the Persian Gulf War.

    Neocons are terrible at foreign policy. The smartest thing Reagan ever did was to get out of Lebanon after the suicide bombing that killed over 200 marines. Eli and Jonah would've been harumping about "credibility" rather than being glad more troops weren't dying.

    Collapse
    1. Richard Fulmer

      They will give a crap in a year's time - or five year's time - when we desperately need an airbase in the region, or when Afghanistan-based terrorist organizations are coordinating attacks on the West, or when the Taliban destabilizes a nuclear-armed Pakistan, or when an emboldened Russia decides to take over Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Hrodland

      So your alternative in 1991 would have been to let Saddam keep Kuwait's oil? That's sort of like saying we shouldn't have beaten the Soviets in Afghanistan.

      Ingenious.

      I guess it would have been better to face a superpower armed to the teeth for the last thirty years, and a psychotic Iraqi regime with enough cash to fight any number of wars.

      At any given time in foreign affairs you have a choice between a less bad option and a more bad option.

      Get used to it.

      Collapse
      1. DJ

        Maybe? Saddam only invaded because Bush's advisor April Glaspie gave him ambiguous pushback. She never indicated American force was on the table as a response.

        And he didn't invade Kuwait for the oil. He had plenty of oil. He invaded it for the seaports. Take a look at a map of Kuwait and Iraq and their Persian Gulf ports sometime.

        And LOL Iraq has never been a "superpower."

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Hrodland

          The Soviets WERE a superpower. And you yourself admit Saddam would have been stronger.

          Regardless of the causes, I don't think anyone is foolish enough to think we should not have taken on Saddam in 1991. Dittto for defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan.

          Losing in Vietnam eventually brought the Soviets into Afghanistan, and the Mullahs into Iran.

          Losing in Afghanistan will have similar consequences.

          Get used to it.

          Collapse
          1. DJ

            Cold war geostrategic thinking is not the operative model any more. My money is on Afghanistan meaning nothing in the long run. The basic lesson is, if you harbor foreign terrorists, make sure they don't plan catastrophic attacks in the US.

            I mean, Sudan harbored Osama Bin Laden for a while but then expelled him after missile attacks and sanctions. It's still really bad in Sudan but no one is arguing we should put troops there.

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Bill

    I wouldn't be surprised if one reason the Afgan military was ill-prepared to "be the batteries" is that the US military was unwilling to share the "secret sauce" needed to maintain our air and land-based machinery. Part of the rationale may have been that our military sees its knowledge of how to run an effective warfighting logistics chain as a competitive advantage that it is not willing to give away to those who very well may become an adversary in the future. Another part may have been that training the Afgans to maintain the equipment would have required revealing too many secrets about the underlying technology.

    Collapse
    1. Icarus213

      I don't think this is the case. The secret sauce of running (and, more importantly, integrating) the machinery so that all the systems interact effectively is a solid military culture, which is precisely the hardest thing to train in a new army. I would compare it to training up a brand new sports team: it isn't that there is a "secret" to playing really well that isn't already obvious. It's developing the habits to do it over and over, again and again. That takes a lot of time, and oftentimes, an underlying culture that favors military values.

      Collapse
  8. Rob

    I thought you guys glossed over the failure (deliberate?) of our military leaders to prepare the Afghan military for being an independent fighting force. I'm happy you at least brought it up, Jonah. I'm a civilian but I always assumed they were doing this! You don't have to be a 'deep state' conspiracy theorist to imagine that, perhaps, just maybe, our military leaders, for years, deliberately did this. If not, then it appears that they were just incompetent as was everyone making key decisions about Afghanistan. So, why would they do this deliberately? Well, as I hear a lot of 'America skeptics' saying these days - follow the money. I don't think it is that simple. But, especially to younger people who I think are pretty smart and aware of the way the world works, I can't make a strong case to pay no attention to that man behind the curtain - i.e. the good old 'Military Industrial Complex'. There seem to be a lot of revolving doors between the Pentagon and the *defense* contractors, including people like Austin, Mattis, and on and on. What I clearly get when I read some of these younger writers is a sense of total disgust with what our military and political class created (or did NOT create) in Afghanistan over the last 20 years. They have a very serious lack of confidence in our leaders, both political and military, and I think they have a fair point. So, go ahead and feel 'rage' and talk about the 'tragedy' in Afghanistan but please start addressing in more detail our leadership failure - specifically the defense department/military. Direct some of your outrage in their direction, please.

    Collapse
    1. Icarus213

      I know I'm monopolizing this comments thread, but I really don't think this is what happened in Afghanistan.

      First, the people actually training the Afghani Army were lower level people, mainly sergeants and captains: they formed the teams that were embedded with the Afghani units and were working with them side by side. These are guys who are mostly in the Army for only 4 or 6 or 8 years - they aren't being Machiavellian about their future careers in defense, and aren't thinking so far ahead as to be concocting some plan to undermine the mission they are doing now. They were all doing their best. Also, it would take a lot of unusual foresight to spend a year training a force while simultaneously thinking "but I don't want them to be TOO successful, because I don't want this war to end!" I don't think anyone was thinking that.

      Second, the high level officials you are thinking of (i.e. generals) have already made their careers and will do just fine after they leave the Army or Air Force, whatever they do, in wartime or in peacetime. The idea that they need to sabotage the mission to make more money as contractors is silly. They are mainly thinking about not looking bad to the higher ups and not getting blamed for anything going wrong, as far as they are being political.

      The Military Industrial Complex does exist, but it basically looks the same as any other kind of rent-seeking in government: people in a profession that is funded by the government of course think that profession is really really important and needs a lot of money to fund it, and of course switch effortlessly from one organization inside the sector to another, but always fundamentally loyal to their network of people in that field as a whole. But the idea that this "causes" wars simply for money is simplistic, because decision-makers don't really think that way; they just inhabit a world where everyone thinks the same: Defense is Important and America Must be Strong and The World Is Dangerous, and so they just act out of that worldview. It works similarly to, say, the Educational Industrial Complex (where education is crucial and critically underfunded and therefore should really be free!) in that regard.

      Collapse
      1. Rob

        A final thought. And this is the core of my complaint. If I'm someone who supposedly knows how to establish a fighting organization, who is trying to establish a government and populace who can defend themselves as free and independent people, wouldn't I create a military that could fight without the need for 'American contractors' to service their equipment? Helicopters, planes, etc? American soldiers? From what I can see, just like with the USSR, the Taliban are succeeding like the Mujahadeen did - with rifles and determination. Throw in a few RPGs and machine guns. Shame on any military leader who advised anything other that the obvious to our politicians. The Afghan 'military' did not need sophisticated equipment (which costs a lot of money, to the benefit of American corporations). They needed allies who actually were prioritizing their independence and success. That did not happen.

        Collapse
        1. Icarus213

          So I suppose I'm committing the fallacy of appealing to my own authority on this subject, but I spent a year on a MiTT Team in Iraq when I was an Army officer, and the MiTTs there work on the same model as the ones in Afghanistan (the teams whose mission it is to train the allied army). The "independence and success" of the ANA was *always* the goal of the military, and the idea that the commanders said "nah, let's not make them better, let's just keep them dependent on us so we never have to leave the country and our contractor friends can get that sweet sweet money" is fairly absurd. It just wasn't what anyone who was executing the mission was thinking.

          It sounds like you see the military as the shadowy evil Other who doesn't make decisions for the same reasons as civilians do. I assure you they were intending to succeed and weren't sabotaging the mission on purpose. The Afghanistan Papers showed that the dishonesty was about trying to make the ANA sound stronger and more ready than it was, and I totally understand where that sentiment comes from- it comes from wanting the mission to succeed, not wanting it to fail ("they are coming along! making great progress lately!") It doesn't excuse it, and you are welcome to your outrage, but it would be a lie to say that it was really all about the money.

          Collapse
      2. Rob

        We've been lied to over and over and over and over and over again, if you believe this story - and I do. I'm tired of it. I still think Jonah and David and Steve give short shrift to this. It's like they think - well, yeah, our leaders are going to lie to us about the situation on the ground. We need to trust them because of the larger picture. Fine. You they think that. But, there a lot of people, especially the young and skeptical, who seem to be calling bullshit on that attitude. They decry the role that the military and the defense contractor industry play. We can ignore it but I would ask you to look at who is making money from all of this.

        Collapse
      3. Rob

        I hear you. But, I think you're missing the trees for the forest. Check this out if you get a chance. Personally, and I think I reflect the thoughts of many who are younger and more skeptical of the reasons for our involvement in Afghanistan beyond wiping out Al Queda and Bin Laden, I just have little faith in the establishment anymore and I'm 57 years old. What I am reading, from sources I respect and trust, is the the military was LYING to us, as were the politicians.

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2021/08/10/afghanistan-papers-book-dick-cheney-attack/

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    This was a comprehensive conversation of the Afghanistan debacle. Had it been about a less disheartening topic it would have been enjoyable, so necessary will have to suffice. Thank you.

    Collapse
  10. Matt F

    I share the anger and frustration of Jonah and Eli. I grow tired of the usual tropes of media criticism and elites as the catch-all though. It was an hour gripe session ( and cathartic for them both) and I hope we can have a conversation on how over twenty years we came to this point. How those who believe in this mission lost consensus of the American people and their will to commit. I stopped hearing the pro-case for being there years ago. The messages of counter terrorism, human rights, and nation building lost their appeal to the American people who didn't see the value.
    Maybe I'm too close to the moment but this seems like a tipping point change in our role in the world - and for the worse.

    Collapse
Load More