Eurasia Press & News
In the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave assurances that America would deal with the tragedy by bringing those responsible to justice while protecting the world’s democracies.
“They will never be allowed to kill the spirit of democracy,” Powell said. “They cannot destroy our society. They cannot destroy our belief in the democratic way.”
President George W. Bush, who won office in 2000 as a candidate who would be cautious about committing U.S. troops to foreign wars, quickly made fighting global terrorism a top policy, and set about establishing an international “coalition of the willing” to carry out the mission.
The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan had the primary goal of punishing the Al-Qaeda terrorist network, which had been given refuge in Afghanistan and carried out the deadly 9/11 attacks. And once on Afghan soil, Washington quickly ousted the Taliban regime accused of sheltering Al-Qaeda from power.
Costly Campaign
But the U.S. experience in Afghanistan ultimately ended in failure, and with the hard-line Taliban group back in power. The nearly 20-year war ended with immense costs in terms of lives lost and money spent. And it made the U.S. public and politicians on both sides of the aisle in Washington reluctant to get involved in “forever wars” that could not be won.
“More than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan,” U.S. President Joe Biden said on August 31, 2021, in announcing the official end of the United States’ longest-ever war. “20,744 American servicemen and women injured, and the loss of 2,461 American personnel.”
In explaining to the U.S. public that he was “not going to extend this forever war,” Biden did not mention the estimated 70,000 deaths among Afghan security forces, more than 46,000 Afghan civilian deaths, and the deaths of more than 4,000 allied troops and U.S. contractors.
The withdrawal under Biden has become a lightning rod for debate ahead of the U.S. presidential election on November 5. Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump has blasted Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, who is running against Trump, for the “humiliation in Afghanistan,” with much of the criticism centered on the chaotic last days of the withdrawal, when 13 U.S. soldiers and 170 Afghan civilians died in a bombing by the Islamic State-Khorasan extremist group.
Harris’s campaign, meanwhile, has highlighted Trump’s role as president in signing the 2020 deal with the Taliban that paved the way for the withdrawal and provided a “virtually impossible” deadline.
But experts who spoke to RFE/RL stressed that multiple U.S. administrations, beginning with Democratic President Barack Obama’s from 2009 to 2017 — had come to the realization that what had begun as a fight against terrorism had become an overly costly and potentially “forever” endeavor.
“It was an extremely expensive war in a place that was probably least important to the United States,” said Vali Nasr, a professor of international affairs and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins University. “It was a war that the United States started to destroy Al-Qaeda, which it did very quickly, then to dislodge the Taliban from Afghanistan, which it did, and then it became something much bigger, like how to establish a democracy and a functioning government in Afghanistan and sustain it.”
The question asked by Obama, who initiated an exit strategy by reducing the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and later Trump, was whether there was a compelling reason to stay.
The United States “was becoming committed to a forever war, or a forever presence at the tune of billions of dollars a year and tens of thousands of troops, in a condition that the threat from Afghanistan had declined and the strategic value of the country was declining,” Nasr said.
And the economy and civil society established under the protection of the U.S. military, he says, was not something Afghanistan could sustain on its own.
“What the United States created is like a tree that never grew roots,” Nasr said. “So, at some point you’re going to say, ‘I’m going to stop watering it, and I’m going to take my hand off from trying to forcibly keep it upright.’”
No Good Outcome
Rajan Menon, an emeritus professor of international relations at the City College of New York and director of the Grand Strategy Program at Defense Priorities, said that “no matter how long [the United States] had stayed, I don’t see what a good ending could have been.”
The minimal good outcome, Menon says, would have been “a stable country with a government that may not have been democratic, but which could be counted upon not to serve as a platform for terror and which would have a positive relationship with the United States.”
But in attempting to realize that goal, what you are essentially “trying to do is engage in nation-building,” Menon said. Even a “very, very powerful military machine” like the United States has difficulties pulling that off, he said, and there “are no pretty exits.”
To avoid the chaotic type of withdrawal that took place in Afghanistan, Menon said, “you have to build institutions, political and military and civic in nature.” Without that, “once you leave and remove the military protection, the institutions will start crumbling, and that is exactly what happened.”
U.S. wars and democracy-building efforts were not isolated to Afghanistan during its nearly 20-year campaign there. There were others — most notably the costly war in Iraq from 2003 to 2011 — that former Secretary of State Powell argued was necessitated by an alleged Iraqi program to build weapons of mass destruction that was later determined to be nonexistent.
Prior to his death in 2021 just six weeks after the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Powell said that his arguments before the UN Security Council “was a great intelligence failure.”
Baghdad and the United States, which sent troops back to Iraq in 2014 to help fight the Islamic State (IS) extremist group, are still trying to repair relations. According to the Soufan Center think tank on September 9, the two sides reportedly have reached an agreement to transition from the United States leading the effort against IS to a bilateral partnership.
‘Forever’ Ending?
So is the U.S. era of “forever wars” over?
Many of the unique circumstances that accompanied the Afghan invasion — a direct attack on U.S. soil, counterterrorism becoming a focal point of U.S. policy, and the idea that nation-building is an effective solution — are unlikely to repeat themselves, Nasr says.
And the mood in the United States amid a hotly contested election campaign could indicate that it will at least think twice.
With both Trump and Harris there is “a little bit of a backlash against the so-called forever wars…and I think the American public probably will be much less supportive” of involvement in them in the future,” Menon said.
But Madiha Afzal, a fellow in the foreign policy program at Brookings, said in written comments that while “some of the lessons from the Afghanistan war” had started being discussed, particularly in the last couple of years of the conflict, “the disaster of the withdrawal…really focused the conversation in America on Afghanistan to be just about the withdrawal.”
The larger discussion about the war, Afzal said, “has been entirely obscured,” with much of the conversation becoming intensely partisan.
“I fear that the larger lessons of the 20-year war have been lost along the way,” Afzal concluded.
