Dear Dartmouth,

It is no stretch to argue most Americans voted with domestic concerns in mind this November.  With the devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic highlighting our failure to confront systemic racism, socioeconomic inequality, and climate crises, Americans poured their attention inward.  These simultaneous upheavals forced the Trump presidency’s “America First” agenda from public view, which leaves tricky international relations with China, North Korea, and Iran (to name a few) for Biden to inherit.  According to the pre-election survey conducted by The Dartmouth, most surveyed students felt the strongest disapproval towards Trump regarding his climate, COVID-19, and racial justice policies, but they had slightly more divided and less passionate opinions on foreign policy.  Biden’s own campaign website speaks to our students’ concerns but has only one bullet point addressing war in Afghanistan, saying he will “end the forever wars” and withdraw troops.  Sure, that sounds good, but is that what is best for Afghans?

A quick debrief on America’s longest continuous military engagement: after nearly twenty years since an attempt to oust the Taliban and supplant a democratic government in Afghanistan, there is evidence for some successes and failures.  The Afghan government controls the majority of its provinces, and while the Taliban remains powerful and resilient, their claims are in rural and harder to control areas.  In February this year, representatives of the Taliban and the United States met in Doha, Qatar to reach a peace agreement.  The agreement can be summed up as follows: U.S. troops would be withdrawn in stages, as long as the Taliban follows through on their end of the agreement. They must prevent terrorist action against the U.S. and its coalition partners from organizing on Afghan soil and, in good faith, continue negotiations with the Afghan government.

After my research (for GOVT 50.02) on the subject, I concluded that the Doha agreement was a step in the right direction, but much too vague to be effective.  The limited number of negotiated settlements that lead to long-lasting peace contain specific, enumerated guidelines for both parties that include deadlines to meet and resultant punishments if parties neglect the guidelines.  These settlements are monitored by a third party mediator (the best example would be the 1992 Chapultepec Accords in El Salvador).  Although the United States could hardly be called a neutral third party mediator at this point, many fear that our withdrawal could mean even more risk for Afghans. The important question becomes: how will peace prospects shift during this transition from Trump to Biden?  Unlike on many domestic policies, where progressive members of the Democrat Party attempt to push Biden farther left, there seems to be a blurrier line on where Trump and Biden’s foreign policy ideas diverge.  Many Afghans hope that Biden will slow down the withdrawal timeline set by Trump and put more pressure on the Taliban to cease violent action. That has been the consensus from most think tanks and experts on the conflict in Afghanistan: if we withdraw too hastily in this fractured moment and let the Taliban take more territory, there is a great risk of complete collapse. USAID and the State Department, especially under their INL (Counternarcotics and Law Enforcement) division, plan to remain involved in Afghanistan regardless of troop withdrawal, providing aid for rural Afghans in alternative development and infrastructure.

But as we’ve all experienced these past four years, the president and their administration set the precedent and tone for how our relations proceed.  Biden must grapple with the internal politics, as the push and pull between appeasing progressives and toeing the line with Republican legislators will create fraught tensions in any major decisions. Of course, Biden must prioritize extreme dangers like COVID-19 and climate change first.  However, a quote from the 2018 film Vice sticks with me here.  The movie details former VP Dick Cheney’s career in politics, including his engagement with the Iraq War.  In the recreation of the debate between then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell about the incipient invasion in Iraq, Powell warns Rumsfeld against acting too rashly against Saddam Hussein’s regime.  He sums it up like this: “you break it, you bought it.”  The United States must be held responsible for its destructive actions, and if it destroys, it must put in the effort to support the rebuilding. You break it, you bought it.

Whether you ideologically support our 2001 invasion into Afghanistan or not, the U.S. certainly broke Afghanistan by taking down the official Taliban government and engaging in its civil war.  And we’ve bought it, time and time again, with estimates up in the trillions of dollars. Yet I would argue that means we can’t back down now, or all would be for naught.  Perhaps we continue troop withdrawal, but we cannot abandon our allies who are trying to create a more equitable and prosperous future for Afghanistan.  There is no quick and easy way to get out of the “graveyard of empires,” as millennia have proven, so we too must stick it out.

Featured Image by Abby Smith

Related Articles