My unsolicited two cents: the White House has been too focused on defending the policy logic of withdrawal and not focused enough on empathizing with and accepting responsibility for the human consequences—or laying out a way to minimize them moving forward.
There are strong counterterrorism and strategic cases for withdrawal, which the admin has made ably for months.
But even those who agree with them are now focused on the political and humanitarian consequences of how it was executed, which clearly exceed what was anticipated.
There are too many admin soundbites of overly optimistic projections about post-withdrawal Afghanistan to ignore. Nor does the U.S. appear to have effectively planned for this contingency.
The only thing you can credibly do is own those mistakes and examine why you made them.
Biden has also made too little use of what is his greatest strength: his capacity for empathy.
The images out of Afghanistan are hard for everyone to see. We need to acknowledge the human suffering that's taking place if we're going to move forward.
That's especially true for U.S. veterans, frontline civilians, and others feeling the psychological fallout of what's happening.
And it's true for Afghans and the international community, who need to know that we see their suffering and sincerely regret our role in it.
Finally, the admin needs to commit to a clear path for minimizing these costs moving forward.
While much has been lost, the U.S. can still help secure the safe exit of U.S. and allied personnel, as well as vulnerable Afghans and their families from Kabul airport.
Doing so means exercising all available leverage, including the threat of military force, in negotiations with the Taliban to keep the airport operating as long as possible.
It also means managing relations with the Taliban to keep diplomatic channels open.
It's a hard balance to strike, but the Biden admin appears to have had some success in this department thus far.
Focusing on those efforts will do much more to address immediate concerns than discussing a hypothetically resurgent al-Qaeda. There will be time for that later.
Some of the smartest and most committed people I know work on these issues in the Biden administration. And Afghanistan posed an unprecedentedly difficult set of circumstances.
The last few weeks haven't shaken my belief that they are up to adapting and finding a way forward.
I also understand the instinct to be defensive, especially when one's political rivals are trying to score political points while ignoring their own central role in teeing up the present tragedy.
But it's not going to move the country or conversation in a productive direction.
Steely-eyed realism is a useful way to view the world.
But it can be a bitter pill to swallow in our values-based democracy, especially if you don't soften its edges with some basic humanity.
Whatever criticisms one may have of the man, no one can summon more basic humanity than Joe Biden.
That's what our country needs from its leadership at this moment. And I'm hoping it's what we'll hear from him this afternoon.
The President's remarks remained too focused on defending withdrawal.
Only a vocal minority of elites are arguing with that decision. Public opinion is on that side. They've won.
The more meaningful criticism, including among Democrats and supporters of withdrawal, is how it has been executed. And there have been genuine mistakes there.
Insisting otherwise when there is strong evidence to the contrary is simply unpersuasive and uninspiring.
Also, the problem with blaming Afghans for the current predicament is that the very real failures were committed by Afghan elites, while Afghan civilians are the ones bearing the brutal consequences.
It reads as tone-deaf and insensitive.
Similarly, trying to argue that this outcome was inevitable rings hollow when just weeks ago you were arguing that it wasn't a serious possibility.
Obviously there was reason to think things could have played out at least somewhat less brutally.
There were good statements on the way forward at Kabul airport, which is important.
But they should have been up front, not hidden in the middle—especially as this is an area where the administration may actually be making progress, and public messaging plays a part in that.
There were hints of classic Biden in there, but not enough.
We need to acknowledge that it's tragic Afghan civilians are suffering, lament that we our actions have a hand in that, and focus on what we're going to do better moving forward.
If there are political consequences over this, it won't be over the decision to withdraw.
It will be over perceptions that the withdrawal was executed poorly, and that the admin was insensitive to the humanitarian costs and then failed to recognize missteps and adapt.
Part of that is still in the Biden administration's control, and I hope they begin to address it sooner rather than later.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Nor would this move necessarily mean recognizing the Taliban. The U.S. maintained a diplomatic presence in Afghanistan from 1979 until 1989, even though it did not recognize any party as the legitimate government.
People associate diplomatic relations with some sort of moral approbation, but that's not the case.
States sometimes sever diplomatic relations, but that's usually saved for circumstances where diplomacy is seen as no longer paying dividends, not just a sign of distaste.
Some observations on the Biden administration's response to recent attacks in Erbil and Baghdad, including last night's airstrike in Syria—all of which reflect a much needed return to a more considered and sustainable Iraq policy. ...
Threats from Iran-backed militias are a deadly reality for U.S. personnel in Iraq, and will be for the foreseeable future.
But how the United States deals with these threats has major ramifications for the bilateral relationship, and other U.S. interests there.
The Biden administration is clearly making it a priority to maintain and restore the conditions allowing for the U.S. and Coalition military presence in Iraq.
That's a good thing legally and politically, and a necessary corrective from the Trump administration's policies.
And the regime for designating Specially Designated Terrorist Groups (SDGTs) relies on IEEPA, which can only be used against threats that originate “in whole or in substantial part outside the United States.”
In Syria, the U.S. has previously claimed that the AUMF authorizes it to take defensive action on Kurdish allies’ behalf, specifically against the Assad regime and its partners.
First, states do not "sign on" to U.N. Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). UNSCRs are not treaties. Where binding, their terms apply to all U.N. member states by virtue of the U.N. Charter, regardless of whether they've consented to them specifically.
Second, the authors misattribute "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" to the preamble of UNSCR 242. In fact, the preamble of UNSCR 242 is simply "[e]mphasizing" this well-established principle, which is rooted in Art. 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.