IN DEFENSE OF JOE BIDEN: SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION

 

These have not been the best of times for

President Joe Biden’s administration. One crisis or another pops up every few days – the Afghanistan exit, surging COVID-19 infections, immigrants clamoring at the border, the debt ceiling. Then

there  are the potential catastrophes looming over the horizon – a divisive war over abortion, threats of inflation, potential failure in Congress of the

infrastructure bills, and, above all, a voting rights disaster that could help fuel a Republican takeover of Congress in 2022.

Not unexpectedly, Biden has drawn increasing fire from the right. The heaviest attacks have come from the usual suspects in the right wing

punditry like Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, a Trump apologist who recently railed about Biden’s “unprecedented string of self-inflicted disasters.” Moderate conservatives like The New York Times columnist Bret Stephens have also unleashed torrents of criticism. Stephens wrote that he voted for Biden in 2020 in the belief he would “restore dignity and prudence” to the White House but now sees him as “headstrong but shaky, ambitious but inept.”

Meanwhile, the president’s approval rating has dropped 14% since he took office to 43%, his lowest to date (Trump averaged 41% during his four years). Though presidential approval ratings often dip during the first year, we think the piling on hasn’t been right.

 

Unfair, Off the Mark, Unjustified

Stephens began his column with a critique of

America that seemingly blamed Biden for “a diminished nation.” He observed that the country couldn’t keep a demagogue out of the White House, couldn’t win or avoid losing a war against a “technologically retrograde enemy,” can’t conquer a disease for which safe and effective vaccines exist, and can’t bring itself to trust government, the media, the scientific establishment, the police, or “any other institution meant to operate for the common good.”

While this list offers literary flair, it bears little relationship to anything Biden caused or has failed in dealing with. The fact Trump got elected president certainly wasn’t Biden’s fault. Biden hardly lost or didn’t win the Afghanistan war. His three immediate predecessors get credit for that. He got out  as he promised and

as the American people clearly wanted. No one has promoted vaccines as the answer to the pandemic more vigorously than Biden. Development of a stubborn resistance to vaccination, mostly rooted in a group of irresponsible obstructionists in the opposition party, lies at Biden’s feet? Hardly. The lack of trust in institutions began a long time ago. Stephens and others launching such criticisms should recalibrate their artillery. They’re off the mark. A great deal of what they say is unfair and unjustified by the facts.

 

Bad Optics Don’t Mean a Bad Job

Much of the criticism leveled at Biden and

his team stems from the Afghanistan exit.  Yes, it looked bad, but how likely was a neat and tidy disengagement from a 20-year military involvement the planners had at most a few weeks to pull together? It’s true American intelligence overestimated how long
the Afghanistan government would survive without U.S. military support. Even with better intelligence, however, the exit likely would have looked ugly.  The bad optics – especially people hanging off airplanes – didn’t mean the United States failed, given the circumstances presented. After all, the American military evacuated 82,300 people in 11 days.

                                       

             

                  PhotoCredit: @adityaRajKaul/Twitter

Republican critics harped on the idea Biden “left behind” some Americans and Afghanis who helped the United States. People get left behind in military evacuations. Every student of the Second World War knows the 1940 British exit from Dunkirk, hailed as a  masterful

exercise in military logistics, left many behind. Britain’s leader, Winston Churchill, became a hero partly because of that operation. Movies got made about it. The British, however, “left behind” one allied soldier for every seven they got out. That’s the nature of the beast. Exits from war get messy. Anyone who says they don’t either has an agenda or hasn’t thought through the difficulty of such enterprises.

 

What’s Been Right?

Despite bad headlines and carping columnists, Biden has gotten things right in his eight

months and change in office. Start with the COVID relief package that provided a path breaking child tax credit from which millions of Americans can reap significant benefits. That administration-backed legislation also gave relief for health care workers, help for schools in dealing with the pandemic, and even funeral-expense assistance for those who lost loved ones to COVID. 

Meantime, the administration has undertaken foreign policy initiatives aimed at restoring the American position in the world following the isolationist, go-it-alone  approach of the Trump

years. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, long seen as a Trump ally, recently called Biden “a breath of fresh air.” Johnson likely had in mind the president’s reengagement with the NATO alliance and his decision that the United States would rejoin the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Accords.

A great deal of work remains for this administration. Sniping by critics like Stevens illustrates the difficulty inherent in politics now. No president has much margin for error. Any criticism can so easily take off like wildfire. So many seek something they can jump on. Biden operates in an environment poisoned by the efforts of former President Trump and his right wing allies to undermine democracy because it no longer serves their cultural and economic

interests.  We offer a simple caution. Let’s at least understand the facts concerning what mistakes, if any, this president has made and recognize what he’s done right.          

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.