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.   

 

BIDEN ABROAD: RESETTING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

In our October 28, 2019, post one of us saw “repair[ing] our alliances around the world thereby protecting our national security in a way consistent with our values and those of our allies” as a major task of any Democrat elected president in 2020. We’ve consistently emphasized the importance of demonstrating America’s global leadership after the decline caused by the Trump administration’s

dysfunctional foreign policy.  With Joe Biden just back from his first foreign trip as president, now seems a good time for looking at 46’s progress on that task of restoring American preeminence in the world.

 

The Man and His Team

Biden arrived in the White House superbly

qualified for taking on foreign policy challenges. He served as chairman or ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 12 years. Foreign policy comprised a major part of his portfolio during his eight years as Barack Obama’s vice president. He’s on a first name basis with many foreign leaders.

Biden picked an experienced foreign policy team. State Secretary Antony Blinken had key foreign

policy jobs in both the Clinton and Obama administrations and served as Democratic staff director for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Defense

Secretary Lloyd Austin, a respected retired four star U.S. Army general, commanded troops in Iraq and led the U.S. Central Command. Jake Sullivan

served on President Obama’s staff and was Biden’s national security advisor as vice president. United Nations Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield

worked for 35 years in the State Department.  If experience matters, Biden’s team passes the test.

 

To This Point

Despite raging domestic problems like the covid pandemic, its resulting economic dislocation, and

his agenda on infrastructure, climate, and racial justice, Biden moved quickly on some important foreign policy fronts:

·    Emphasizing alliances – Trump disdained NATO, ridiculed the joint defense aspects of the Atlantic alliance, and managed to have nearly all the major European leaders laughing at him in public at international meetings. Biden has pledged his backing for NATO, most importantly reaffirming the mutual security aspect of the NATO treaty that makes an attack on one NATO member an attack

on all. European leaders like England’s Boris Johnson, Germany’s Angela Merkel, and France’s Emmanuel Macron welcomed the new American president with open arms.

·    Resetting the relationship with Russia – Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Both said it wasn’t unpleasant or confrontational, but Biden clearly aimed to let Putin know he won’t find the same coziness and acquiescence he found with Donald Trump.        

·    International organizations and cooperation – Biden put the U.S. back in the Paris Climate Accords, stopped the American withdrawal from the World Health Organization, and returned the

United States to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Participation in these  organizations assures the U. S. a voice on major international issues and helps prevent other nations from taking actions that affect the U.S. when we’ve had no say.

·    Getting out of Afghanistan – Americans of all political persuasions want an end to our military

presence there. We went there in 2001 in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We spent $2 trillion. About 240,000 people lost their lives. The only real debate has been over timing of withdrawal. Trump pledged we’d get our remaining 2500 troops out by May 2021. Biden did a review of the situation and announced we’re leaving by September 11. Maybe it’s the right thing to do, maybe it’s not. It apparently will happen with the agreement of most Americans.

·   Fine tuning American policy – Biden has changed many of Trump’s policies, but not all of them. On

China, for example, Biden will  keep in place tariffs Trump imposed and continue diplomatic pressure on the Chinese over alleged atrocities committed against Uyghur Muslims.  In the Middle East, however, he’s resuming financial aid for the Palestinians that

Trump cut off. He’s reaffirmed American support for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a longstanding U.S. policy Trump essentially abandoned. Biden also ended American backing for the Saudi-led war in Yemen. 

·    Launching a global anti-corruption effort – The Biden administration’s first National Security Study Memorandum established fighting corruption as a core national security interest. The memorandum ordered that federal agencies prioritize efforts at confronting financial crimes. Cybercrimes and “strategic corruption” by foreign entities and governments will receive new attention.    

 

What it Means for Americans

Biden believes ordinary Americans have a stake in foreign policy beyond simple national security. “He’s always seen foreign policy as part of the overall interest process of our country,” says

former defense secretary and Republican  Senator Chuck Hagel, a long-time Biden friend.  “It’s something that is very much a part of who he is ….” International trade, the pandemic, and basic economic concerns motivate Biden. He sees a robust American role in the world as part of his effort to hold on to the working-class voters who helped him get elected. In that sense, Biden’s foreign and domestic policies are bound up with each other.

The G7 meeting and the face-to-face with Putin

represent steps in Biden’s early efforts at returning the U.S. to its premier place in the world. He’s been in office five months. Five  months will

neither undo all the damage Trump did nor accomplish Biden’s long-term objectives. He has made a promising start, and for that Americans can rest a bit easier.

SOCIAL DISTANCING: THE WAY WE ARE AND WILL BE FOR AWHILE

Millions of Americans find themselves under some kind of social distancing order. Many

cities and counties, and some states, have imposed shelter-in-place requirements as a way of fighting the coronavirus. Some political leaders and media pundits have cast the need for social

distancing in patriotic terms, invoking John F. Kennedy’s “…ask what you can do for your country” language as a way of inspiring compliance with social distancing orders or requests.

                  

                                                         JFK delivering inaugural speech, 1963

There is a lot going on in the world now and a lot we could talk about. Today, we explore social distancing and its current and future influence on life in America. How are people coping? What does this practice mean for the nation going forward?

We’re All Day-to-Day

Sports teams describe players with injuries that leave the player’s status uncertain as “day-to-day.” It means the player might or might not make the next practice or game. Whether he or she participates depends on

healing, rehab, pain toleration, the player's mental attitude, etc. Given the uncertainty brought on by the coronavirus pandemic, many people are feeling day-to-day about life.

Much uncertainty exists about what contracting the disease means. A minor

irritation akin to the common cold? Severe illness and hospitalization resembling pneumonia? A death sentence? The answers depend on age, overall health, availability of medical care, and some unknowns. There’s a lot we don’t know about this disease, as the absence of a vaccine demonstrates.

               

That brings us to another problem. The United States lacks sufficient medical resources for fighting a massive outbreak in

which huge numbers of people require hospitalization. Health officials cry out for ventilators for patients and for masks and other protective gear for medical workers. Many people justifiably fear contaminated medical providers and equipment. 

          

                                          Ventilator & Protective Gear needed for Covid-19 care

Another thing creating uncertainty lies in the fact no one knows when this situation will improve. Projections of the duration run weeks, to months, to a year and a half, the earliest we’ve heard we might expect a vaccine.  In the meantime, we suffer loss of human contact, sports, and other things that make us whole. Neither men nor women live by adequately stocked grocery stores alone.

How long must we stay home, avoid friends and neighbors, forsake bars, restaurants, and other gathering places?  How long before we can give a friend or business colleague a firm handshake or big hug expressing our joy

at greeting them? How long before we see live sports played on television again? All three of us sorely miss March madness. Henry and Rob lament the absence of the Masters Golf Tournament this spring. Woodson faces withdrawal symptoms with no NBA playoffs in reasonable sight. 

              

The New Normal

After the September 11 attacks people asked when we’d get back to normal. The truth is

that it didn’t take long, but it never happened. Yes, by October we returned to work, flew again on airplanes, and shopped in stores, things people questioned if we’d do anytime soon after those bleak days in September 2001. Life got going again, but with big differences.

We put up with things – intrusive airport security, metal detectors, and bag searches

at sporting events, massive camera surveillance on public streets – we never thought we’d stand for. We accepted, in the form of the Patriot Act, censorship and other limits on civil liberties many of us abhor. We haven’t felt much of that law’s sting lately because we haven’t had another attack approaching the magnitude of September 11. Those provisions remain in place, however, and the government will trot them out in the event of another calamity. America usually lives with a “New Normal” after tragedies and the coronavirus will probably produce its own. Like what?  Start with economic dislocation.

Even if this ends before summer, the The United States will face significant economic problems going forward. Despite the stimulus package, some small businesses –and many

jobs – will disappear. Unemployment may remain high for months. Even industries getting federal help could have a rough time recovering.  Sooner or later, we must pay for the stimulus

funding. If we don’t, we’ll have limited growth for a long time or face significant inflation or both.

What about replenishing and restocking the

medical supplies being used up in this pandemic? Is this a warning about our health care system in general? We won’t debate Medicare-for-All v. some other approach here. But, doesn’t this crisis make clear we must tackle the entire health care issue with the objective of getting every American insured?

At a social level, how soon will Americans

feel comfortable attending sporting events, patronizing theaters, eating at restaurants, and showing up at other places where large crowds gather? Since many houses of worship coped with the virus crisis by putting services online, could that become the new way we do church in America? Could corporate worship services become obsolete and won’t this new approach affect church

giving? How about shopping? Will more and more of it happen online? Will brick and mortar stores become a thing of the past? What’s

the long-term impact on voting? Did the pandemic make a definitive case for voting by mail?  Will personalized political gatherings go extinct, since campaigning for office likely will change?

We are in uncharted territory. Americans are resilient, as demonstrated in past calamities. Everything in our history says we’ll bounce back. It will, however, take some time and some things may forever look different.