Having now read the full article, I have two major comments. First, fear took the US to war in 1941 as well, when Pearl Harbor was attacked. That did not prevent the ensuing gargantuan US & allied effort from producing flourishing democracies in Asia, Europe & elsewhere. 1/10
The issue was never fear or even rage as motivating factors, nor 'nation-building' as either deliberate or incidental goals, but rather war strategy: we had a plan to fight 'Taliban' in Afghanistan, but never a strategy to deter or defeat the actual aggressor, Pakistan. 2/10
The US was in fact re-joining a war that had been underway for nearly three decades, as Pakistan's generals sought strategic depth in Afghanistan to compensate for the loss of East Pakistan/Bangladesh in 1971, & increasingly turned to global jihad in pursuit of this goal. 3/10
Thanks to Kissinger/Brzezinski, the US joined this war over 1979-89, leaving many blind spots with regard to Pakistan among US policy-makers. Al Qaida (1989), the Taliban (1993), TTP (2007) & IS-K (2014) were Pakistan's 'coping mechanisms' after that first US abandonment. 4/10
So the 'hubris' was not support for Afghanistan's institutions -- many of which advanced smartly for a decade or more, as Kagan notes. The insanity was to expect such institutions to survive withering, continuous, large-scale attacks by armed proxies of a another state. 5/10
The painful truth is that policy reviews by all four administrations since 9/11 -- even the @washingtonpost's own 'Afghanistan Papers' -- have down-played, under-estimated or missed altogether the world's 6th-largest military's role in creating & fielding the Taliban. 6/10
Kagan quotes Ryan Crocker in 2016 arguing the only option "would have been to make clear that there was no calendar for withdrawal." But there was a simpler option: treat Pakistan as a belligerent, guilty of gross acts of aggression in Afghanistan, & sanction them. 7/10
It is hard to fathom why this was not done in 2011, when Bin Laden was found living a few hundred yards from Pakistan's West Point, in the city where General Kayani, by then army chief, had been Baloch regiment colonel commandant when the AQ chief took up residence. 8/10
But the Obama administration was hard set on talks with the Taliban & over-indulgent of Pakistan. Far from 'hiding the truth', they seem to have ignored or not known it. Trump & Biden only gave Pakistan's military the opening they craved to go in for the kill. 9/10
Pakistan's proxies won't kill Afghanistan. The question now is whether we're ready, at long last, to use sanctions & other leverage to protect Afghanistan from aggression (& end Pakistan's 'forever war') -- as we have been doing for Ukraine & Belarus. 10/10
"Biden contends his decision to (...) concede Afghanistan to the Pakistan-backed Taliban is one of realism & geopolitics (...) so that America can focus on China. This (...) misjudgement (...) has allowed China to gain a strategic foothold in the region."
"Pakistan’s policy of 'strategic depth,' obsessively undermining India from Kabul to Kashmir, finds perfect symmetry with China’s Belt & Road Initiative, which obsessively imposes its authoritarian model for economic development."
Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) DG "Hameed serves his masters in Beijing well, & China exploits Pakistan’s status as an ally of the United States & NATO, re-purposing the vestiges of Pakistan’s Cold War relationships with the West as an instrument to defeat the West."
"It started with Pakistan’s 1970 general election, which triggered unrest in East Pakistan that Pakistan’s army then violently repressed."
Instead of urging restraint, then president Richard Nixon & his National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger — then relying on Pakistan as a back-channel to China — responded with 'deafening silence.'"
More on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, including his time planning the 9/11 attacks while in Karachi, Pakistan: newyorker.com/magazine/2010/…
On Osama Bin Laden’s years in Abbottabad, Pakistan, living a few hundred metres from the gates of the Pakistan Military Academy: google.ca/amp/s/www.wsj.…
1. Reading these remarks has been an acutely painful experience for me. The falsehoods, the callous inhumanity, the pusillanimity of this ham-fisted bid to dress up disaster as 'necessary unpleasantness' are truly shocking, presaging new calamities.
2. At bottom, this ill-tempered screed is a new manifesto for isolationism. For @JoeBiden, the US has not role 'remaking' other countries. It won't defend the basic principles of the UN Charter. Democracy isn't even mentioned. This is Trumpism re-branded for WaPo/NYT readers.
3. It's also a reprise of the 2011 @benrhodes doctrine, eagerly championed by VP Biden, that threw Syria to the wolves, hoping Putin would choke on the carcass. Instead we got escalating genocide, invasion, proxy wars, polarization, refugee crises & the retreat of democracy.
Ten years' ago Osama Bin Laden was killed in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan -- a stone's throw from the Pakistan Military Academy, their version of West Point. The statement below mentions Afghanistan three times; Pakistan not once. Why? 1/4 whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
By May 2011 Bin Laden had been living in Pakistan for over nine years. He founded Al Qaida at Peshawar, Pakistan, in 1988 in response to a previous US withdrawal from the region. The terrorist group responsible for 9/11 & countless other attacks is still based in Pakistan. 2/4
The whole world was shocked to learn Bin Laden had lived comfortably for so long as a guest of Pakistan's military, whose proxy war in Afghanistan through Al Qaida, the Haqqanis & Taliban has cost the lives of over 3,500 NATO & coalition soldiers -- 2/3 of them American. 3/4
A first-rate opinion piece outlining the strategy we should all pursue in relations with China: "Our goal should not be to dictate to China how it is governed, but to embolden & enable those Chinese who want change to achieve it."
"(...) the Communist regime is not authoritarian, but totalitarian. Historian Robert Conquest defined a totalitarian state as one that recognizes no limits to its authority in any sphere of public or private life, & extends that authority to whatever length feasible."
"(...) this totalitarian regime is outwardly strong but inwardly weak,& (...) much of the Chinese elite is deeply opposed to the course to which Mr. Xi is committed. They recognize that economic reform without political change has created problems that damage China (...)."