Today’s Edition: Biden steps up.

August 17, 2021

          On Monday, President Biden delivered a speech in which he strongly defended his order to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan. Before discussing the speech, I want to acknowledge the strong response from readers to yesterday’s newsletter in which I wrote that Biden made the right decision in ordering the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by September 2021. Many readers criticized what they believed was Biden’s rash decision to order a hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan—rather than engaging in a “gradual” withdrawal.

          The perception that Biden did not engage in a gradual withdrawal fails to acknowledge the two decades of history that preceded Biden’s order. The US has been engaged in a ten-year withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. In 2010, there were 98,200 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In 2011, President Obama announced the end to hostilities and announced a complete withdrawal of US troops by 2014. The planned three-year withdrawal dragged on for ten years, until April 2021, at which time there were only 2,500 U.S. troops remaining in Afghanistan. In April of this year, President Biden announced that the United States would withdraw the remaining 2,500 troops by September 2021. (That was four months after the deadline for withdrawal Trump had agreed to with the Taliban.)

          A more “gradual” withdrawal of the remaining troops would have been risky.  When Biden announced the withdrawal of the remaining 2,500 U.S. troops in April, the Afghan army numbered 186,000 active-duty members. Its Air Force was 7,000 strong, with 400 pilots and 200 aircraft. If the withdrawal of the final 2,500 U.S. troops was enough to topple the Afghan government and defeat its army, it is difficult to see how the US could have ever left Afghanistan without resulting chaos. If the U.S. gradually withdrew the 2,500 troops, at some point, the remaining contingent would have been so small (500? 250?) that they would run the risk of being killed by the Taliban or captured as hostages. Completing the withdrawal when there were enough troops to stage an orderly and secure exit was a necessity. Biden set a hard deadline and stuck to it.

          Moreover, when Trump cut a deal directly with the Taliban in February 2020, he severely undercut the legitimacy of the Afghan government. Trump effectively declared the Taliban to be the legitimate “government in waiting” with whom the U.S. would negotiate the terms of surrender (and lifting of sanctions). Worse, the agreement Trump negotiated with the Taliban did not mention human or civil rights or protection of civilians who worked with the U.S. In effect, Trump gave the Taliban free rein over the Afghan population in exchange for a cease fire for U.S. troops to leave the country.

          As I wrote yesterday, if Biden unduly pressured military commanders in way that contributed to the chaos, he should bear responsibility for those actions. But the notion that the fall of Afghanistan (and attendant chaos) would have been avoided if Biden had only allowed 2,500 troops to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely flies in the face of history.

          Biden said as much on Monday. In a speech that was plain spoken and defiant, Biden defended his decision by arguing that the strategic interests of the U.S. are better served by fighting terrorism where it is found today—not where it was headquartered two decades ago. (“As President, I am adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021 — not yesterday’s threats.”) Biden then moved to the central question of whether delaying the withdrawal of 2,500 troops would have made a difference given the cost of additional American casualties. He said,

          The choice I had to make, as your President, was either to follow through on [Trump’s] agreement or be prepared to go back to fighting the Taliban in the middle of the spring fighting season.

          There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, lurching into the third decade of conflict.

          I stand squarely behind my decision.  After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.

          I know my decision will be criticized, but I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another President of the United States — yet another one — a fifth one.

          It was refreshing to hear a president assume responsibility for his actions. Biden then stepped up further by telling the American people what happened, reminding them he promised to always tell the truth. Biden said,

          But I always promised the American people that I will be straight with you.  The truth is: This did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated.

          So what’s happened?  Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country.  The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.

          If you doubt or criticize Biden’s decision, I urge you to read the entire speech. You can disagree with Biden’s decision over the timing of the withdrawal, but he has assumed responsibility and spoken truthfully in a way that is beyond reproach. That fact, of course, has not stanched the media frenzy to assign blame. As the Washington Post aptly noted,“[t]he Afghan debacle lasted two decades. The media spent two hours deciding whom to blame.” In a shameless display of cheap journalism, two Politico reporters spent the weekend calling current and former officials asking, “Who’s to blame?” See Politico, “Who's to blame for Afghanistan?(“[W]e asked U.S. officials, lawmakers and experts a deceptively complicated question: Who exactly is to blame for the swift collapse of the Western-backed Afghan government and the Taliban’s return to power after 20 years of war?)

          There are many important lessons to be learned from the swift collapse of the Afghan government after two-decades of support by American taxpayers and U.S. troops. Getting to the truth will not be helped by starting the inquiry with, “Who’s to blame?” That may be a good way to drive advertising revenue by generating clicks. It’s not a good way to learn from the past. Let’s hope that America can move past the simplistic exercise of assigning blame and address the deeper questions that may allow us to avoid repeating the same mistakes in the future.

More on Gavin Newsom recall.

          Several readers suggested that after voting “NO” on the effort to recall California Governor Gavin Newsom, voters should “write in” Newsom’s name on the second question on the ballot, i.e., “Who should succeed Gavin Newsom if he is recalled?” Writing in Newsom’s name on the second question is not a good strategy. As explained by SFGate, in “A very simple guide to voting in the Gavin Newsom recall election,”

          The ballot does contain a write-in section, but for a vote to count, the write-in candidate must have filed a statement of write-in candidacy. In other words, the write-in box mostly exists as a form of protest, so write-in votes for Newsom, Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis or any other prominent Democrat will not be counted.

          Ballots for the recall are now arriving at voter’s residences. If you haven’t already done so, you can track your ballot (when it is mailed, when it’s received once you vote, and when it’s counted) — by signing up here.

          Be sure you vote “NO” on the first question on the recall ballot. We do NOT want to recall Gavin Newsom.

Helping in Haiti.

          Yesterday, I asked for reader recommendations regarding organizations to help in Haiti after the 7.2 earthquake that struck on Saturday. I received several dozen responses and have not been able to vet them all. Below, I list organizations recommended by readers that are well known, were on the ground in Haiti before the earthquake, are focused on immediate medical needs, and are reviewed positively by readers based on their prior experience with the organization. If I can, I will continue to review reader recommendations and publish more links. Here are the first batch:

• Doctors Without Borders (“MSF responds to urgent medical needs in Haiti.)”

• Health Equity International operates St. Boniface Hospital in Haiti. See interview with the Director General of HEI on Good Morning America.

• Partners in Health has been on the ground in Haiti for years and is well-positioned to deliver emergency care. The organization describes itself as follows: We are a social justice organization that responds to the moral imperative to provide high-quality health care globally to those who need it most. We strive to ease suffering by providing a comprehensive model of care that includes access to food, transportation, housing, and other key components of healing.

• CORE (Community Organized Relief Effort). “CORE is Haiti’s premier, Haitian-led humanitarian organization. From relief efforts enacted after the 2010 earthquake . . . we continue to provide immediate relief and implement sustainable programs that better prepare communities for disaster.”

The above organizations are focused on general relief and emergency medical treatment. Readers recommended two smaller organizations in Haiti:

• Konbit Sante (“Working together for health.”) Konbit Sante is a Maine-based group of medical and non-medical professionals working to improve the public health system in Cap-Haitien, Haiti.  Rather than developing a parallel health system, Konbit Sante's mission is to help build local capacity for Haitians to care for Haitians.”

• HELO Haiti. HELO operates three homes for orphans in Haiti. “Providing Haiti’s children a loving home, proper nutrition and education, [so the] children will become self-confident, self-reliant adults who will leave HELO literate and with a trade to sustain themselves, [and] grow to be leaders of their communities.”

Concluding Thoughts.

          Among the many emails I received today from readers in response to yesterday’s newsletter, the most moving were notes from parents of U.S. soldiers who served tours of duty in Afghanistan. It is easy to engage in abstract debates about the right course of action in a country most Americans can’t locate on a map. It is quite another to wait in hope and fear as your son or daughter serves multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan to protect Americans from terrorist attacks on U.S. soil.

          The decisions by prior presidents to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan made a significant difference in the lives of those parents who waited anxiously for the return of their loved ones from Afghanistan. As we stare in disbelief at the pictures of chaos, let’s not forget the thousands of families who will be able to welcome home their soldiers from a foreign war. As Biden said in his speech today,

          How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghans in Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not?  How many more lives—American lives—is it worth? 

          In displaying the courage to make a difficult decision that will be second-guessed forever, Joe Biden acted to protect the sons and daughters of America. In that, he is above reproach.

          Talk to you tomorrow!