If Biden sticks by Trump's U.S.-Taliban withdrawal deal, then he owns very little of the results, some of which won't be immaculate. Post-withdrawal, can talk about "concern" for any events as they unfold, reiterate commitment to hit terrorist groups with intent/capability... 1/

to harm U.S. and its interests, but generally practice benign distancing from internal politics of AFG. Can also say that he was fulfilling Trump's deal and the die was cast, even criticize it (and people like me) as needed for political reasons - but stick to plan knowing... 2/
...that he doesn't want to have to own an endless war he should know will remain a headache for US and a suck on resources better used elsewhere. 3/
4/ But if he reneges on the deal, the conflict becomes Biden's War. Whether based on some "conditions" or a "spirit" of the deal that isn't in the text for all to see, he'd have to make an active choice to return to what we've been doing - and not doing well at - for years.
5/ Then Biden owns the results. This will include continued violence, but this time with US/coalition forces in crosshairs. Deciding to remain won't wave magic wand & make things better than they were before the deal; conditions on ground still only "modicum of success" at best.
6/ Biden will open himself up to both valid criticism & partisan-motivated attacks. Trumpian R's will crush from sidelines just as Bush people attacked Obama over Iraq, but this time it will be "Trump had us on honorable path to end America's longest war; Biden sunk us back in."
7/ Far better to just let the deal play out and then use out of country strike capabilities as needed vs. any AQ/ISIS targets that emerge to signal he/we are serious (just as we ought to anywhere there are terrorists with intent/capability to hit US). Good policy; good politics.
8/ Biden should know it will be harder for uber-hawks in Rep party to hit him & have it stick if he keeps to deal b/c it was a Trump initiative. But he'll disappoint progs and stimulate even greater restraint opposition in R party when it becomes Biden's War.
9/ But unlike early-mid 1990's with Clinton (Somalia) & early 2010's with Obama (Syria), R party restraint that rises in opposition this time is likely to have greater stickiness given changes to nature of party after Trump and institutionalization of realism and restraint in DC.
10/ Plus Afghanistan withdrawal is a 70/30 issue working against Biden. Sure, he could provide (along with other primacists) elite cues that would shift public opinion, but guessing it will be hard to move it significantly absent some shock to rally support. At best, it ...
11/ ...turns for Biden to low simmer issue without much political salience. But that relies on there not being a shock in the other direction....and that could be hard to prevent without increasing troop levels in AFG beyond the 2500 he may keep. As always, enemy gets a vote.
12/ And this assumes that those resources aren't needed or wanted elsewhere.
13/ Caveat: analogies to peacetime Germany, South Korea, etc aren't good ones upon which to support an argument for a permanent troop presence. I've never been shot at or hit with mortars while serving in either of those countries. Won't be case in AFG and FOM will be limited.
14/ Trump's Withdrawal (warts and all) or Biden's War. Which is it going to be Joe?
Coda: if you got this far in the thread, you might also be interested in some of my other recent thoughts on #Afghanistan -

https://t.co/8vrXHVxjMv

More from Politics

This is partly what makes it impossible to have a constructive conversation nowadays. The stubborn refusal to accept that opposition to Trumpism and GOP nationalism is about more than simply holding different beliefs about things in and of itself. 👇


It's fine for people to hold different beliefs. But that doesn't mean all beliefs deserve equal treatment or tolerance and it doesn't mean intolerance of some beliefs makes a person intolerant of every belief which they don't share.

So if I said I don't think Trumpism deserves to be tolerated because it's just a fresh 21st century coat of cheap paint on a failed, dangerous 20th century ideology (fascism) that doesn't mean I'm intolerant of all beliefs with which I disagree. You'd think this would be obvious.

Another important facet. People who support fascist movements tend to give what they think are valid reasons for supporting them. That doesn't mean anyone is obliged to tolerate fascism or accept their proffered excuse.


Say you joined a neighborhood group that sets up community gardens and does roadside beautification projects. All good, right? Say one day you're having a meeting and you notice the President and exec board of this group are saying some bizarre things about certain neighbors.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.