GETTING INTO AND OUT OF AFGHANISTAN PART II: WAS THERE A BETTER WAY?

                 

As the headlines screamed the story of

America’s messy exit from Afghanistan, we decided we should focus on how the United States got involved there in the first place. What lessons can we learn from two decades there and the ultimate failure that precipitated the sloppy exit?

Our last post began that examination when we looked at the legal mechanisms for committing the United States to war and the history of skirting them. We noted that Congress doesn’t declare war anymore, even though the constitution gives it, and it alone, that power. We looked at the 1973 War Powers Act and its purpose in reigning in executive

power to make war without legislative authority. We observed how it’s been ineffective in preventing presidents from starting and

waging wars on their own.  We closed by suggesting Afghanistan perhaps demonstrated how presidents have violated the constitution and that statue.

War Fever

In the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror

attacks on New York and Washington, Americans were angry.  They wanted retaliation against those responsible. U.S. intelligence quickly pinned

the blame on Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda terrorists operating from safe havens provided by the Taliban in Afghanistan. President George W. Bush decided the U.S. would launch military operations against that regime.

Bush didn’t seek a declaration of war against Afghanistan. He asked for, and got, a resolution from Congress called an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It targeted anybody and everybody responsible for September 11. It passed Congress with one dissenting vote, California Congresswoman Barbara Lee.

That AUMF imposed no time or geographic limits. It’s still in effect. It’s been used to justify military action in all kinds of places. A lot happened that was never contemplated in either the language or the intent of that AUMF. We ask now if Bush violated the constitution and/or the War Powers Act in starting and prosecuting the Afghanistan war. What about the two presidents – Barack Obama and Donald Trump – who followed him and continued the war?

The Start

Bush and the legislators who supported the AUMF didn’t say much about how the president could use it, except that it provided the tools for avenging the deaths of the nearly 3,000 Americans killed on September 11. The public, as measured by polls, overwhelmingly supported use of military force in Afghanistan. Hardly anyone said anything except, “Go for it!”

The War Powers Act never entered into the discussion because of the AUMF. Even if Congress hadn’t declared war, even if Bush didn’t stop military action after 60 days, the AUMF seemingly gave him authority for whatever he thought necessary. The problem was that the war dragged on and on and the issues of why we went there and remained there became embroiled in the deadly combination of politics and patriotism.

Nation Building

After a while, some political leaders

questioned what the United States was doing in Afghanistan and how long we should stay. Joe Biden, as Obama’s vice president, argued that once the United States captured and killed Bin Laden, no reason existed for a continued American presence.  Among

Obama’s senior advisors, only Biden took that position. The rest either thought American interests, or Obama’s political fortunes, or both required staying. Let no president, especially a Democratic one, stand accused of being unpatriotic about U.S. military involvement in a war.

It became obvious the U.S. role was no longer avenging the September 11 attacks, or even deterring future attacks, given how the American military degraded Al Qaeda’s terrorism capacity. No, the United States became engaged in a massive nation building exercise. We tried making Afghanistan, a backward, tribal county with no history of a stable, central government, into a western-style democracy. For some Americans the war became a crusade for Afghan women and shielding them from the Taliban’s brutal interpretation of Islamic law.

It Wasn't Working

Gradually American public opinion soured on

the Afghanistan war – indeed on foreign interventions generally. Donald Trump got elected president – unexpectedly – for many reasons. One was that he pledged he’d end what he called “stupid wars” that were really about nation building. Some feared Hillary Clinton wasn’t on board with that. It may have been another of the factors that sealed her fate.

As Trump’s term wore on, he became increasingly determined to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. He too likely had concerns about the political price of an exit that might look very ugly. Trump, therefore, may simply have preferred leaving the departure to his second term, or his successor if he lost in 2020. Regardless, the public wanted out. Biden ran for president as the anti-Trump, but the two agreed the time for ending American presence in Afghanistan had come.

The way the U.S. got into Afghanistan played a role in how the country came to see the war. We got in amidst the fever generated by September 11. We accomplished the things Americans saw as reasonable objectives – catching Bin Laden and preventing Afghanistan from being used as a staging ground for attacks on the American homeland. With those done, it was time to go.

                                                      

Neither the AUMF nor the common understanding of American purpose in Afghanistan included nation building. We never debated that in the halls of Congress or on cable television, the place these things play out now. Because there was no such debate,many Americans finally saw little or no point in the war. Perhaps if we’d set limited objectives and stuck to them, we could have had a better entry and a better exit.   

 

THE U.S. GETS OUT OF AFGHANISTAN: FIRST, HOW DID WE GET IN?

 

The United States is out of Afghanistan. On August 30 the last transport plane carrying American military personnel and equipment, U.S. citizens, and Afghan allies lifted off from  Kabul

International Airport. After twenty years and at a cost of  2500 U.S. military lives, 1200 soldiers from allied countries, 3900 contractors, 111,000 Afghans (31,000 of them civilians), and $2 trillion, the United States is done.

The Biden administration took a lot of heat for the
exit. Future investigations will determine if could have been done better. Polls showed Americans in favor of leaving, but the president’s approval rating dipped in light of the grim pictures of civilians
exit. Future investigations will determine if could have been done better. Polls showed Americans in favor of leaving, but the president’s approval rating dipped in light of the grim pictures of civiliansclinging to U.S. military aircraft at the Kabul airport. Republicans pounced on the optics and slammed Biden for how he handled the end game, ignoring the fact former President Donald Trump, before leaving office, set a deadline for an even earlier American departure.

We think the exit presents a topic for another time.

Today, and in posts that will come later, we focus on the way the United States got involved in Afghanistan, how and why we stayed as long as we did, and what lessons the  experience teaches. The issue involves fundamental principles of constitutional law, foreign policy, and the American role in the world.

                                    

The Legal Framework for War

America’s constitution provides a specific process for going to war. Since the end of the Second World War, it’s never been followed. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare

war. Though Article II, Section 2 makes the president Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, Congress, not the executive, was supposed to have authority to involve the country in wars.

Why has this happened? First, Congress let

it happen. That’s what occurred with Afghanistan. President George W. Bush, after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, sought and received from Congress  what’s called an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). It wasn’t a

declaration of war against a specific country, but a grant of authority that the president could use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those who planned and carried out the attacks.

The measure passed 98-0 in the Senate and with 

one dissenting vote – California’s Barbara Lee – in the House of Representatives. Lee said she voted ‘no’ not because she thought a military response was unwarranted, but because she believed the broadly worded AUMF provided a blank check for endless conflict. The record shows her foresight. Besides being the 

basis for two decades

of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, by 2016, that AUMF had been cited 37 times as a justification for military actions in 14 countries and on the high seas. Presidents from both parties used it in justifying their actions -- Bush 18 times, Barack Obama 19 times.

 

An Old Movie

The story of how the U.S. got involved in, and stayed, in Afghanistan so long seems uncomfortably familiar. The Korean War was never declared. American troops participated as part of a United Nations “police action.”  Seventy years later, we still have 28,500 military personnel in Korea. We understand the South Koreans want us there and we recognize that perhaps we have strategic interests we didn’t have in Afghanistan. There was, however, no declaration of war and we’ve stayed a long time. Those are just the facts.

Vietnam was different, but in degree, not kind.

Congress didn’t declare war. It authorized the use of military force in response to an incident involving an American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. President Lyndon Johnson used that authorization as a basis for sending over half a million U.S. troops into a civil war that had been grinding on in South Vietnam for years. We stayed until we lost, at a cost of 58,220 U.S. military lives and $168 billion (a trillion in today’s dollars).

Our more recent involvements in the first Gulf War (Desert Storm) and the 2003 invasion of Iraq haven’t been different.  Those were presidential operations, accompanied by some kind of congressional authorization that amounted to a rubber stamp of what the president wanted. In neither case did Congress declare war. Desert Storm ended quickly, but Iraq dragged on and on. We still have 2500 troops there.

 

The Failure of Limits

As we’ll note in coming posts, Congress has tried reigning in the ability of presidents to wage war by themselves. In 1973, it passed the War Powers Act which seeks a balance between congressional oversight of the country’s involvement in war and

the commander-in-chief role the constitution gives the chief executive.  The president must tell Congress within 48 hours when he or she has ordered U.S. military forces into action and requires removal of troops from that involvement after 60 days if Congress hasn’t declared war or otherwise authorized the operation.  

This hasn’t worked. The statute has never ended a foreign military operation.  The 60-day time limit has rarely been triggered. Presidents from both ends of the ideological spectrum have ignored it -- Ronald Reagan in his El Salvador intervention, Bill Clinton in Kosovo, and Barack Obama in Libya.

How we got into and stayed in Afghanistan may well represent a case study in the way presidents violate both the constitution and the War Powers Act. We’ll dive into that question when we pick up this topic in our next post.          

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2020: THE LAST HURRAH

 

At long last, it’s here. One week from the date of

this post, the nation begins counting votes in the 2020 presidential election. Before that starts, we have things to say about the last days of the campaign and what’s at stake. We’ve been writing about the 2020 election for two years. On the eve of hearing the people speak, we offer an updated perspective.

The Race

Many things could happen, though they seemingly

fall into three broad categories: (1) a decisive Joe Biden win; (2) a historic Donald Trump comeback; or (3) chaos resulting from a too-close-to-call election that encourages ballot challenges and litigation initiated by Trump. With incredibly high stakes, the country sets sail on an unpredictable journey that will likely speak volumes about America’s future.

Not much has changed going into the final week from the situation we detailed on October 20. Biden enjoys a solid lead in the national polls and a narrower, but not insubstantial, lead in the key

battle ground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Trump, however, retains a precarious path to victory. No “October Surprise” that might shift the race has occurred and, as the clock ticks, one appears less and less likely.

The Last Debate

Trump and Biden faced off October 22 in their final televised debate. Under tight control by moderator Kristen Welker of NBC, Trump interrupted Biden much

less frequently than in the first debate and, for the most part, stylistically comported himself much better than on September 29. That doesn’t mean he didn’t lie and mislead as he’s done throughout his term. Fact checkers still had a busy night.

In post-debate ads and appearances, Trump tried capitalizing on Biden’s statements about transitioning from the oil industry in fighting climate change, especially in petroleum-rich states like Texas and Pennsylvania. The right- wing media claimed that would change the race.  Most mainstream pundits, however, lauded Biden’s performance. Biden won CNN’s instant poll, 53-39, with women rating him higher by 60-35. Trump didn’t close his gender gap.

       

CNN Instant Poll conducted by SSI's

Perhaps not unexpectedly for three lawyers,   

Left to Right: Rob Wiley, Henry Jones, Woodson Walker

among us concurring and dissenting opinions emerged. Woodson, though agreeing Biden did himself little harm, contended he missed opportunities for a clearer, more forceful statement on racial justice and a more cogent, better organized explanation of his coronavirus plan. Rob disagreed and thought the former vice president performed admirably in nearly all respects. Henry noted the inherent difficulty in standing on a stage alone before millions of people while facing a hostile, mendacious, adversary and a media-savvy moderator.

Henry’s observation suggests we ought not forget the notion MSNBC host and former senate staffer Lawrence O’Donnell reminds viewers of every chance he gets. The think-on-your-feet skills

needed for presidential debating bear little relationship to the capacity for deliberation and reasoned, data-driven decision making required of a president. On this score, the three of us agree. Biden wins hands down.

After the debate, the candidates, their running mates, and surrogates (like former President Barack Obama) hit the road, barnstorming the battle ground states and blitzing the airwaves with ads wherever they had money to buy time. Biden has

more money, so more people will see his ads in more places. Trump kept holding his signature rallies, virus or no virus. Vice President Mike Pence continued holding rallies though five members of his staff tested positive for the virus. Biden and running mate Kamala Harris continued their restrained approach to campaigning in the pandemic.

The Stakes

The horse race is what it is, and we’ll know the

outcome soon enough. What this election means transcends the contest. We accept the conclusions of those like the bipartisan group of over 500 national security experts, including 22 four-star military officers, who back Biden, the Republican-inspired Lincoln Project, and the

plethora of publications like USA TODAY and the New England Journal of Medicine that don’t usually endorse candidates but have done so this time. They’ve recommended that their diverse audiences support Biden because they see another four years of Trump as an existential threat to American Democracy.

      

We need not again list the current president’s sins. We’ve cataloged them and commented on them time after time in the nearly four years he has been in office. We have pointed out the ways in which his behavior disrespects the rule of law, denigrates our most significant

and important institutions, and undermines our standing in the world. Indeed, if Biden wins, coronavirus notwithstanding, he may face his biggest challenge in restoring America’s standing among nations, particularly our traditional allies in Europe and Asia.

Should Biden capture the presidency, we will have plenty to say about what tasks he should prioritize and about how he should navigate the difficult job of

putting the country back together again. For now, it’s enough to say we think it imperative the American people give him the job.

This is crunch time. Millions have already

voted,  navigating around the voter suppression efforts of Trump and his Republican cronies. The signs have been positive and turnout may break all kinds of records. But this isn’t done yet. As we write and post this, another week of voting remains. That time is too valuable for anyone not to make use of it.

Vote! We believe our democracy hangs in

the balance.

TWO WEEKS OUT: WHERE THE 2020 BIDEN-TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL RACE STANDS

 

                                   WEEKS

Let’s start with three basic truths about the 2020 presidential election two weeks from the day the vote counting starts (millions are voting early and have been for some time):

1.                        Democratic nominee Joe Biden enjoys a solid lead in the polls;

2.                        incumbent Republican President Donald Trump could win, but his path seemingly narrows every day; and

3.                        the factors that swung the 2016 election to Trump have not surfaced so far.

This is the universe in which both nervous Democrats and hopeful Republicans live as the race comes down the home stretch.

Biden’s Lead

As of October 20, two weeks before election day:

*Biden leads in fivethirtyeight.com’s national polling average by more than ten points and just under nine in the Real Clear Politics polling average.

*In the three decisive battleground states Trump won in 2016 by a total of 77,000 votes, Biden leads by five points or more in the 538 and RCP polling averages for Pennsylvania, by six in Wisconsin, and by seven in Michigan.

*Biden holds narrower leads in other battleground states Trump won in 2016 including Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona.

*Three states – Iowa, Texas, and Ohio – are essentially tied. Trump won them all last time and he likely has no path to a second term without at least two of them.

Should Biden hold his leads in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and win the states Hillary Clinton carried four years ago, he need not win any of the toss up states (Iowa, Texas, Ohio) or other battleground states. Right now, Trump doesn’t lead in any state Clinton won four years ago.

 

Trump Could Still Win

Nate Silver’s 538 forecast, based on computer modeling  using polls, gives Trump a 12%

chance of winning. On the eve of the election in 2016, with Clinton leading in the polls, that forecast gave Trump a 35% chance of winning. Trump still enjoys a structural advantage in the electoral college because of small western and southern states he seemingly can’t lose. If he could flip a few states where Biden now leads narrowly, he possibly could pair those with states like Arkansas, Wyoming, and the Dakotas where he’s likely to win by more than 15 points and perhaps cobble together an electoral college majority.

Trump also draws encouragement from the idea of the so-called hidden Trump vote. Supposedly a sizeable number of Trump supporters don’t reveal themselves to pollsters, but will turn out on election day and put him back in the White House.

Evidence that a hidden Trump vote exists is tenuous at best and results from myths that have sprung up about the 2016 election, especially the idea that the polls got  

everything wrong. In truth, the 2016 national polls forecast the popular vote accurately. Clinton held a three-point lead going into election day and won by about 2.3 points, well within the margin of error for any poll.

As Clinton pointed out in her book What Happened, not  many polls were in the field in

the final days of the campaign in states like Wisconsin. They didn’t measure there the drop in her support, seen elsewhere and likely caused by FBI Director James Comey’s reopening of the e-mail investigation.   

Biden’s lead has remained stable. It has endured since the spring and has grown, in part, because of Trump’s abysmal handling of the pandemic. Relying on a hidden vote seems like a fantasy now, but only counting the ballots can tell us if such a thing exists.

Maybe the Calvary Isn’t Coming

Whatever Clinton’s complicity in her loss, and we’ve been unsparing in our criticism of her,

the things that did her in haven’t happened to Biden to this point. First, there’s no Comey on the horizon. Trump’s efforts at creating an “October surprise” through investigations into Biden and his son Hunter, Clinton, and former President Barack Obama have, so far, fallen flat.

More important, demographic factors increasingly work against Trump. Take senior

voters. Trump won them, 52-45 in 2016, but some recent polling shows Biden leading among that group. Trump’s gender gap has only gotten bigger. He lost women, 54-41 2016, and is losing them now, 55-39. He’s not winning men by as much as he did last time. In 2016, Trump carried the male vote, 52-41, but right now leads only 49-45.

Turnout among people of color could decide the election. A decrease in black turnout for Democrats, when compared to 2008 and 2012, hurt Clinton in those critical upper mid-western states. She won almost 90% of the African American vote, 66% of Hispanics, and 65% of the Asian-American vote. Biden seems headed in the same direction, but turnout remains the issue. Early indications suggest a bigger turnout among people of color, though only the counting will tell us for sure.

Long line of African American voters during days of early voting Oct2020

All of this occurs with Republican voter suppression efforts as a backdrop. Trump’s railings about non-existent fraud with mail-in voting also complicate the picture. The country may have to work through all that after election day.

 We should keep in mind the admonition of the great American philosopher Yogi Berra that the game “ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” Fair enough, but Trump has only a few outs left, the game isn’t tied, and he doesn’t have runners on base.