Early last week, the Biden Administration announced publicly that all U.S. troops would depart Afghanistan by September 11, 2021, and that the departure would not be predicated on a “conditions-based” assessment, as had previous fits and starts toward packing up and leaving. The Sunday New York Times had a nice piece on some of the behind the scenes stuff and the debate over Afghanistan in the past three administrations. It appears Mr. Biden has made up his mind, and the United States is going to leave Afghanistan.
As a Seapower guy, I’ve spent much of the past twenty years in the backseat, carping about a lack of attention, watching American Seapower decline, and generally sticking to the things that I know and understand, which have not included land wars in Asia. To be honest, I have pretty much resisted intellectual inquiry into the nature of our engagement in Afghanistan, not because it wasn’t important, but because I thought I had little to offer, and because my interests were elsewhere.
When it comes to the Afghanistan question, I am surrounded by friends and colleagues who have a great deal of emotion invested, much of it the product of having served there. I stand in awe of what they tried to do there, and what they accomplished. And when we discuss the ongoing commitment, their positions are invariably tied to and influenced by their service. Because I have no experience there, my position tends to flow from a view of what a great power does, the generic responsibilities of great power, the historic conduct of great powers, etc. My detachment from the particulars of the war impact my views as much as their proximity to it has impacted theirs. I am not sure who is more poorly served by their biases.
I don’t agree with Joe Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan, and I don’t disagree with it either. To be honest, I don’t understand it. From my 40,000 foot view, the words of David French recently come as close as I can find to the way I see things:
If you’re older than, say, 40 years old, I want you to take a short trip down memory lane. As much as possible, remember your mindset on September 12, 2001. Smoke still poured from the gaping hole in downtown Manhattan. The Pentagon still smoldered. We hadn’t yet learned the details of the passengers’ heroic sacrifice on Flight 93, and many of us were hearing the name Osama bin Laden for the first time.
If I had told you then, at that moment, that the United States was about to embark on a military response that would, over the course of the next twenty years, 1) almost immediately depose the Taliban and ultimately kill Osama bin Laden, 2) defend our nation from enduring even a single further large-scale terror attack, and 3) cost fewer American combat fatalities in Afghanistan than were lost in a single day on 9/11, would you have thought, “sounds like we lost”?
No. Of course not. Because we haven’t lost. Because we aren’t losing. Our military measures since 9/11 have accomplished their primary, fundamental goal: defending our nation from jihadist terror. In fact, our military measures are so successful that homegrown, domestic terror has cost more lives in the United States than the jihadist threat. This would be unthinkable, astonishing to your 9/12 self.
The United States is a great power and great powers use their resources to do things that ultimately should serve that power and the security and prosperity it sustains. Some point to the enormous financial commitment that Afghanistan has consumed (upwards of $1T) over the past twenty years. And while a trillion dollars is nothing to sneeze at, this expenditure represents a little more than 3/10 of one percent of US economic capacity in that time. Some point to the fact that we’ve been there for 20 years. But we’ve been in South Korea for nearly seventy years and Germany for even longer.
To review, US combat losses in Afghanistan though tragic, have not been overwhelming, the expense associated with the mission has not been excessive, and the length of time there is relatively short in comparison to other commitments of military force we have seen fit to sustain. And as David French ably describes, the mission has been successful, at least the mission that initially brought us there.
So if what Mr. Biden is saying is that the he is bringing troops home because there is no more need for them there, then he should say this. He isn’t saying this, because 1) it isn’t true and 2) it would indicate that their withdrawal was indeed, conditions-based, and that those conditions had been met. No, it seems that we are leaving Afghanistan because we’ve lost interest in it, and we are tired of the responsibilities of leadership.
Dems and Taxes
President Biden has thus far in his presidency proposed a considerable increase in federal spending. It remains to be seen how the latest round (infrastructure) will be funded. There are almost certainly going to be tax increases on individuals and corporations. I would write “wealthy” individuals, but I’m not sure what you (worthy reader) consider wealthy.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wants to see the State and Local Tax deduction returned to (presumably wealthy) taxpayers, a deduction that was limited by the GOP when they passed their tax cut last time around. I haven’t formed an opinion about whether the SALT deduction should be restored, but I am indeed a fan of the same income not being taxed twice. It was interesting to see Rep. Nadler use the construction below, as I now await his opposition to inheritance taxes and capital gains taxes.
The Coming Collision on the Left
Every now and again I poke my head up from the things that interest me to listen to the world around me. Of late, I have heard a good bit of discussion from friends (white, not without means) and acquaintances about how difficult it is for their children to get into the colleges of their choice. We went through this in my house a couple of years ago, and it is clear that things are a good bit more competitive today than they were when I was applying. That said, the level of discussion is rising, even in the three years since we were in this ringer, and this New York Times story offers a glimpse into one factor that explains it.
It seems that elite colleges and universities have dramatically stepped up their recruitment of underserved minorities, and this is leading to more diverse (less white) entering classes. Here’s a bit from the article:
The easing of the reliance on standardized tests, which critics say often work to the advantage of more educated and affluent families who can afford tutors and test prep, was most likely the most important factor in encouraging minority applicants.
Only 46 percent of applications this year came from students who reported a test score, down from 77 percent last year, according to Common App, the not-for-profit organization that offers the application used by more than 900 schools. First-generation, lower-income, as well as Black, Hispanic and Native American students were much less likely than others to submit their test scores on college applications.
Schools had been dropping the testing requirement for years, but during the pandemic a wave of 650 schools joined in. In most cases, a student with good scores could still submit them and have them considered; a student who had good grades and recommendations but fell short on test scores could leave them out.
Most schools have announced that they will continue the test-optional experiment next year, as the normal rhythm of the school year is still roiled by the pandemic. It is unclear whether the shift foretells a permanent change in how students are selected.
It remains to be seen how the elite left reacts to this. Diversity and inclusion is great, but it will be interesting to see just HOW great parents think it is when Kaitlyn’s got to go to UMASS instead of Amherst after four years of Choate tuition….