Much commentary on the Afghan tragedy is badly overheated, making bold points rather than offering wider context. Example: "For the US the flight from Kabul is a strategic defeat. And for Europe it is a jolting description of the world as it has become"
ft.com/content/b97f9c…
"Strategic defeat"? Ending a war the US (+ EU) promised to end many times (by 2014), and made a deal in 2020 to depart? This is a tragedy, to be clear, and a "loss." But winning distant wars (esp irregular ones) has never been essential to the strategic position of great powers
"The world as it has become"? Which is what, limits to US power? Reality of extremism? Others using US/allied losses for political gain? None of that is new. US GDP, domestic renewal plans, pledge to NATO, policy toward China, or climate + pandemic threats aren't changed by this
We won't know the true effects of this moment for a long time. Not for the people of Afghanistan, though we may fear the worst. Certainly not for US power or world politics. I can see the 2022 FT headline now: "A year after the Afghan debacle, US foreign policy is back on track"

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mike Mazarr

Mike Mazarr Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @MMazarr

16 Sep
Much more to find out about AUKUS and the process by which it came about. But the more detail + official reactions emerge, the more one wonders: Did we have to alienate *the* major European advocate for a stronger EU role in Asia in order to get this trilateral connection?
Australia's frustration with the French deal had been brewing. It may have been headed for an exit anyway. But to engineer that outcome in a way that infuriates the French, *on top* of other US-EU economic + geopolitical disputes, seems gratuitous ...
politico.eu/article/why-au…
... and *on the very day* that the EU announced its new Indo-Pacific strategy. That strong statement should have been an unqualified win for the US. Instead it lands w/a thud + an echo of resentment. The timing seems almost calculated to embarrass the EU
reuters.com/world/europe/a…
Read 9 tweets
15 Sep
A couple of profound lessons the United States should learn from the Afghanistan experience--one that go well beyond CT and COIN and corruption and nation building, to the broader principles of a post-primacy foreign policy acutely aware of America's shifting global position
1. Stop being infuriated with others for having different interests + perspectives on issues and refusing to accede to US demands. Often we "blame" others for behavior that we could easily have anticipated (and often did). That's on us, not them
thediplomat.com/2021/09/the-us…
Whether it's Pakistan's view of Afghanistan, or China's interests in DPRK, or India's view of Russia, or EU's of Iran: We need to work around others' divergent perspectives rather than trying to bully them into our lane. One lesson: Stop w/the sanctions, especially secondary
Read 6 tweets
15 Sep
Many complex aspects here. But it's interesting that we just spent months berating senior officials for sitting by + doing nothing amid the self-deceptions of the Afghan war. And now some are berating a senior officer for *not* standing by + doing nothing when risk of war loomed
If we want a system able to correct itself in real time, we must accept the risk--and it is a risk--of officials sometimes stepping outside their lane. The alternative to conformism isn't always tidy procedure. It can require bureaucratic rebellion that breaks rules
To those who say, "Follow the rules + work w/in the system," I'd reply: That's what George Ball did in 1965. It's what Powell did in 2002. It's what people using "official dissent channels" do. Mostly, *it doesn't work*: The system grinds on; path dependence + conformism win out
Read 4 tweets
14 Sep
Important essay in FA which hints at a very plausible route to a collapse of US policy toward Iran. First: more evidence that the bullying approach just doesn't work. US "maximum pressure" didn't cause back-down + deepened IRGC economic role in Iran
foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/…
Then, on future: Space for grand bargain is gone. Tehran doesn't see value of abandoning JCPOA but feels no urgency to fully revive it. Potential = public Iranian claims of willingness to renew while demanding US concessions (sanctions) + slow-motion expansion of nuke capability
This NYT story has been rightly criticized as alarmist + too simple, but it does highlight a seemingly clear underlying trend. An actual time frame of 6 months vs 1 won't reassure the US, Israel or others
nytimes.com/2021/09/13/us/…
Read 6 tweets
3 Sep
For those hardy few interested in professional military education: Another misleading take on the role of war colleges in producing national tragedies. I get the idea and agree w/their ire at jargon + abstract guidance. But many problems w/this thesis
city-journal.org/putting-the-wa…
1: Generals don't set national strategy. Blaming the "graduates of this [PME] system" for Iraq and Afgh. presumes that bad military strategy was the source of failure. Instead it was the choice to go to war combined w/fact that the conflicts weren't resolvable by military means
No magic PME curriculum will generate strategists able to overcome the problems the US faced in Afghanistan. We do need military leaders more willing to state openly that a given mission isn't feasible--but that's an issue of service culture + civil-mil relations, not PME
Read 19 tweets
23 Aug
Someday we'll know the full story of what the US told its allies and when, how much time it gave them to react. Many reports do make it seem like this was terribly botched. But the general narrative of US unilateralism + European victimhood is too simple
asiatimes.com/2021/08/bidens…
Take 2009: Obama decides to surge; US military knows it needs more troops than he'll give them. The appeal goes out to NATO, and: NATO leaders "gave a tepid troop commitment to President Obama’s escalating campaign in Afghanistan ...
nytimes.com/2009/04/05/wor…
... mostly committing soldiers only to a temporary security duty. ... Despite a glowing reception and widespread praise for Mr. Obama’s style and aims, his calls for a more lasting European troop increase for Afghanistan were politely brushed aside"
Read 13 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(