Top US generals contradict President Joe Biden

Top US military officials told lawmakers on Tuesday that they had recommended 2,500 US troops remain in Afghanistan, contradicting comments made by President Joe Biden earlier this year.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of US Central Command, and Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, each acknowledged during public congressional testimony that they agreed with the recommendation of Army Gen. Austin Miller that 2,500 troops be left in the country, though they denied to detail what they advised Biden directly.

Biden announced his decision to end US military involvement in Afghanistan back in April.

“I won’t share my personal recommendation to the president, but I will give you my honest opinion, and my honest opinion and view shaped my recommendation. I recommended that we maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan. And I also recommended earlier in the fall of 2020 that we maintain 4,500 at that time. Those are my personal views,” McKenzie told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday under questioning from Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the panel’s top Republican.

McKenzie said it had been his view that the full US withdrawal would lead to the collapse of Afghan forces and government.

Milley said he agreed with that assessment and that it was his personal view dating back to last fall that the US should maintain at least 2,500 troops in Afghanistan to move toward a peace agreement between the Taliban and Afghan government. Milley declined to comment directly on his specific discussions with Biden when questioned by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

Asked whether Miller discussed his recommendation with Biden, McKenzie told lawmakers he believed his opinion “was well-heard.”

Republican lawmakers repeatedly raised the matter in the context of an interview Biden gave to ABC News in August during which he denied that his top military commanders recommended he leave 2,500 troops in Afghanistan.

“Your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on this timeline. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops,” ABC’s George Stephanopoulos said to Biden in the interview.

“No, they didn't,” Biden replied. “It was split. That wasn't true.”

“Your military advisers did not tell you, ‘No, we should just keep 2,500 troops. It's been a stable situation for the last several years. We can do that. We can continue to do that’?” Stephanopoulos later pressed.

“No one said that to me that I can recall,” Biden replied.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted Tuesday afternoon that leaving 2,500 troops in Afghanistan would have escalated the conflict due to the Trump administration’s deal with the Taliban to withdraw.

“As @POTUS told ABC, ending the war in Afghanistan was in our national interest. He said advice was split, but consensus of top military advisors was 2500 troops staying meant escalation due to deal by the previous admin. @SecDef, the Chairman, and GEN McKenzie all reiterated,” Psaki tweeted.

Psaki further defended Biden's past comments during an afternoon press briefing, saying he was given a range of advice and that remaining in Afghanistan would have necessitated a further troop increase while risking lives of US service members. 

“The president is always going to welcome a range of advice. He asks for candor. He asks for directness. And in any scenario he’s not looking for a bunch of 'yes' men and women,” Psaki told reporters, adding that it is up to Biden to ultimately decide “what's in the best interest of the United States.”

Milley said during the hearing that the US would have been back at war with the Taliban if forces had stayed beyond August 31, 2021.

Military generals unanimously recommended that Biden stick to the August 31 withdrawal date on August 25, Milley said, when Biden was considering extending the deadline to accommodate the evacuation mission.

Asked about the ABC News exchange on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin called Biden an “honest and forthright man.”

“Their input was received by the president and considered by the president, for sure,” Austin told Cotton when asked if Biden’s statement to ABC was true. “In terms of what they specifically recommended, senator, as they just said, they’re not going to provide what they recommended in confidence.”

Later during the hearing, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) grilled the witnesses on whether Biden made a false statement in the interview.

“That was a false statement, by the president of the United States, was it not?” Sullivan asked.

“I didn’t even see the statement, to tell you the truth,” Milley replied, adding, “I’m not going to characterize a statement of the president of the United States.”

In April, Biden ordered the full US military withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11, 2021. US forces completed the withdrawal by August 31, capping a chaotic exit and evacuation mission from the war-torn country after the Taliban gained control of Kabul earlier the same month.

Miller appeared before lawmakers for classified testimony earlier this month. Tuesday's hearing was the first time that top military officials have testified publicly since the August withdrawal.

Afghan debacle to cast shadow over transatlantic security

In February, President Biden declared, “We would repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.” Seven months later, his bungled Afghanistan pullout has left US alliances bruised and battered. Repairing the damage will not be easy. 

The sudden US withdrawal showed callous disregard for its allies. This was compounded by the administration’s Pollyannaish response to the international deluge of criticism that followed.

It is being said openly that the US administration failed to comprehend the ownership stake which many European allies retained in a secure and democratic Afghanistan. The Germans, for example, deployed 150,000 soldiers to Afghanistan from 2002- 2021, many for repeat tours. Berlin’s decision to join the US-led effort was not easy. For historical reasons, Germany is extremely cautious about overseas military deployments, and getting the mission extended year over year was tortuous and politically taxing.

Yet the Germans and other allies stood with the US year over year. Last year, NATO’s Resolute Support (RS) mission to train and equip the Afghan National Security Forces counted 16,000 troops from 38 allies and partner nations.

Yet Biden decided to pull all US forces from Afghanistan unilaterally, leaving allies – many of whom had recently committed additional troops to RS at the behest of the US – feeling as though the rug had been pulled out from under them.

Some allies, such as Italy, Turkey and the United Kingdom, reportedly sought to sustain a presence in the country but were unable without US support, in particular American air support. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson tried desperately to find out what the US was doing, but the White House ignored his calls for 36 hours. If the administration didn’t bother to talk to Britain, something deeply dysfunctional was happening.

Biden’s precipitate action created a crush of desperation at Hamid Karzai International Airport, leaving Europeans stranded and allies like France and the UK resorting to dangerous, clandestine rescues of their own citizens from the streets of Kabul.

Now, many analysts say, Taliban are back in charge and flush with billions in abandoned western equipment and weapons. Afghanistan will soon be a haven for transnational terrorists once more. Even Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledges, “you could see a resurgence of terrorism coming out of that general region within 12, 24, 36 months.”

The allied reaction has been scathing. Armin Laschet, leader of Germany’s Christian Democratic Union, called the Afghanistan withdrawal “the greatest debacle that NATO has seen since its foundation.”

Calling it “the biggest foreign policy disaster since Suez,” Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee added, “We need to think again about how we handle friends, who matters and how we defend our interests.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “For those who believed in democracy and freedom, especially for women, these are bitter events.”

Europe’s disillusionment and anger with Biden and the US is understandable. They remember how President Obama’s Iraq withdrawal led to a flood of refugees, the rise of ISIS and years of terror attacks. They are bracing for a repeat.

Last week, the EU began quickly drawing up plans to boost aid to neighboring Iran and Pakistan in hopes of holding back the tide of refugees.

Rotting credibility may lead adversaries to wonder whether an attack against the NATO alliance would be met with full US resolve and commitment. In some corners of Europe, the inability to sustain an independent European force in Afghanistan is already leading to renewed calls for an autonomous EU military.

Staunching the damage requires a sustained effort to get beyond trite speeches and show that our alliances matter. The Biden administration should reverse its requested defense cuts, which just further erode US credibility.

The US has to establish a permanent presence in Eastern Europe. It will have to invest in desperately needed Arctic capabilities. To improve NATO it will have to go back towards basics, collective defense of the member states. Unleash the power of the market through the Three Seas Initiative to help infrastructure blossom in Eastern Europe, while drowning out Russian and Chinese efforts to make inroads.

These are just a few of the many steps that should be taken to restore allies’ faith in the US. The US needs to shore up its European alliances. It has tools to do that and just show the will to do and stick to it.

Takeaways from Wilson Center Seminar

The withdrawal of US and coalition forces from Afghanistan, the rapid deterioration of the Afghan government and military, and the return of the Taliban will have profound implications for the future of South Asia. 

At Wilson Center in the latest event in its “Afghanistan: Hindsight Up Front” initiative participants discuss the future of the region with leading journalists, former diplomats, and thought leaders from India and Pakistan. Following are selected quotes:

David Hale

"I’d like to comment first on Afghanistan. Our leverage remains real…it’s limited. The Taliban, in my opinion, do not crave international legitimacy so much that they will compromise on their core principles or change their true colors. Their statements, the ones that we're hearing now, are to be expected, while their behavior, which we're seeing now, demonstrates that they've not really changed since 2001. And when they say governance will be guided by Sharia, they mean their version of the Sharia, which will make Saudi Arabia look a lot like the city of San Francisco."

"We must apply pressure, even if chances of it altering behavior are limited. We can build a coalition that will take the measures we have already taken, and more. I am speaking of freezing assets, stopping cash transfers, withholding diplomatic recognition, continuing UN sanctions, while of course communicating to the Taliban, how to ease these pressures, which would be on their part, suppressing ISIS and Al Qaeda, protecting human rights and humanitarian access, and allowing the processing of refugees, among other goals."

Maleeha Lohdi

"While there is no daylight between various members of the international community on what the expectation is of the Taliban. If you look at the Security Council statement, if you look at the OIC communiqué, you look at the Human Rights Council statement of two days ago. They all say the same thing, so do not underestimate the power of collective opinion, this is extremely important. I also think it's unprecedented. Never have I seen—I've served at the UN for five years—never have I seen so much solidarity, in terms of expectations. So, I don't think it would be correct to say that the Russians and the Chinese want something else, and the Americans everybody wants, top of the agenda, as David Hale says, top of the agenda for everyone, is combating terrorism, there is no question about that."

Nandan Unnikrishnan

"A stable Afghanistan, under Taliban rule—oppressive or not, I'm not getting into that—would distinctly increase China's role in the region. China's BRI would definitely then move ahead and Central Asia, West Asia, and of course, parts of South Asia, would come under increasing influence of the Chinese. From an Indian perspective, given our current relationship with China, it is not necessarily the best scenario. But, at the same time, as I said, it is probably better than the second scenario, where Afghanistan is unstable. I think Ambassador Lodhi has very eloquently described what happens to the region, not only us, but even, let's say, Central Asia and other areas….It is a danger, not just to Pakistan, it's a danger for everyone."

Huma Yusuf

"No, I think this does get at the point that I was trying to make right at the outset, which is that, I think a lot of this, this myth of Pakistan’s leverage, or so-called, control, or puppet mastery of the Taliban, this is outdated and inaccurate and is certainly not rooted in what's to come. A lot of that will have to do with the dispensation that does emerge in Afghanistan and the level of control that a Taliban-led regime based in Kabul would have over the rest of the country, and on the sort of numerous militant groups that are operating in that area, and the fact that, we know that there will never be that kind of neat, centralized control, and we also know that, as activities happen and fingers are pointed here and there, that all groups will constantly try and refer to this idea of plausible deniability, that actually what I see emerging is a scenario where there is more potential for two sovereign states, Pakistan and Afghanistan, to find themselves at odds, and so there's this notion that Pakistan will be the leverage, Pakistan will speak to the Taliban, on behalf of the rest of the world, I just think that that's an outdated notion."

Venkateswaran Lokanathan

"The other question that I think requires a fair deal of deliberation is whether the US will accept a more proactive role for Russia and China in Afghanistan and the region moving forward. Russia has already started playing a more active role in neighboring Central Asia. President Putin has expressed concerns over the spillover of radical Islam into the region. Simultaneously, the presence of certain groups like the ETIM, which is sympathetic to the UYGHER cause in Xinjiang, also raises concern for China, and hence China is also now becoming more actively involved.  It has already begun diplomatic engagement with Taliban, and President Xi, and President Putin, have also agreed to cooperate with developments in Afghanistan, and more importantly against foreign interference. "

Mark Green

"In 2020, Congress created a blue-ribbon panel of experts called the Afghanistan Study Group. Its purpose was to create new recommendations on Afghanistan for policymakers. I was a member of that study group. Our final report called “A Pathway for Peace,” concluded that the best American approach for Afghanistan, required a new overarching regional strategy. The report stated that Afghanistan lies in the middle of a region beset with rivalries and low levels of trust. It saw the potential for a fragile, but real regional consensus, behind a stable and neutral Afghanistan, that is neither a haven for terrorists, nor a fiefdom of the Taliban. We found that a stable Afghanistan would create the potential for regional economic cooperation that could benefit all countries in the region. But we also warned that an unstable Afghanistan risks destabilizing the region, to continue trade and illicit drugs, the attraction of extremist ideologies, and the possible exacerbation of the rivalry between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed powers."

Kamala Harris getting ready to visit Asia

US Vice President, Kamala Harris's trip to Singapore and Vietnam starting on Sunday will show that the United States is in the region "to stay," a senior administration official said, as Washington seeks to bolster international support to counter China's growing global influence.

Harris will be the most senior US official to visit the region since President Joe Biden took office in January promising to shore up alliances, which the United States considers key to checking Chinese expansion.

A senior White House official told Reuters earlier this month that the vice president's focus would be on defending international rules in the South China Sea, strengthening US regional leadership and expanding security cooperation in the region.

"The administration is ... making clear that we have an enduring commitment to this region, that we're part of the Indo-Pacific and in the region to stay," the official said.

The trip coincides with chaos in Afghanistan following Biden's decision to withdraw US troops after a 20-year war, the planning of which has been criticized at home and abroad.

The official said Harris would continue to work on issues tied to Afghanistan while on her Asia trip.

"It's been an overwhelming focus and priority of the whole team including the vice president ... at the same time; it is also true that Southeast Asia and the Indo-Pacific are really important. And that's why she's going," the official added.

Harris is due in Singapore on Sunday. She will be the first US vice president to visit Vietnam and arrives in the country on Tuesday and departs next Thursday.

During her trip, Harris will meet Singapore's President Halimah Yacob, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and deliver remarks on a US combat ship visiting Singapore. She will also hold a meeting to discuss supply chain issues with representatives from the private sector and government.

In Hanoi, Vietnam, Harris will meet with leaders including President Ngyuen Xuan Phuc and Prime Minister Pham Ming Chinh and lead the US delegation in launching a regional office for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The visit to Southeast Asia will be Harris' second foreign trip as vice president. In June, she went to Guatemala and Mexico for meetings on the "root causes" of the migrant crisis at the US-Mexico border.

United States admits its failure in acquiring airbase near Afghanistan border

The US military has already started conducting over the horizon operations as it withdraws from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said Thursday. 

Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Austin declined to confirm a report in The New York Times that the military is considering continuing to provide air support to Afghan forces if Kabul or another major city starts to fall to the Taliban after US troops leave.

But he said that capabilities such as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) have already started to be flown into Afghanistan from outside the country during the withdrawal.

“In terms of our efforts to establish over-the-horizon capability, I would just point to the fact that, as we have retrograded a lot of our capability out of country, we are doing a lot of things over the horizon now,” Austin said. “ISR is being flown from Gulf countries. A lot of our combat aircraft missions are being conducted from platforms in the Gulf. And so we have the capability now to do that.”

As all American troops withdraw from Afghanistan in line with President Biden’s order to be out by September, US officials have insisted the military will be able to keep terrorism threats in check through what’s known as over the horizon operations, or those launched from outside the country.

But plans for exactly how those operations will work and where those troops could be based are still being crafted.

The United States does not have any basing agreements with Afghanistan’s neighbors, and various geopolitical concerns, such countries’ relations with Russia, appear to make any such agreements unlikely.

Pentagon officials have touted the military’s presence elsewhere in the Middle East, such as the Gulf region, as being able to provide over the horizon capabilities, but Gen. Frank McKenzie, the top US commander in the region, has also warned that means longer flying times to and from Afghanistan, which in turn means less time for assets to be over the country.

At Thursday’s hearing, Austin said the military is looking to shorten the distance for those over the horizon forces.

“What we are looking for is the ability to shorten the legs going forward by stationing some capability in neighboring countries. That is still a work in progress,” he said, adding he does not have a timeline for when the plan will be done.

Another open question as US troops withdraw has been the fate of Afghans who helped them and are at risk of being hunted down and killed by the Taliban.

Lawmakers and outside groups have been pushing the Biden administration to evacuate those Afghan allies to a safe location such as Guam amid slow processing of their requests for Special Immigrant Visas.

Pressed on the issue Thursday by Sen. Angus King, neither Austin nor Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Mark Milley specifically committed to evacuating Afghans, but vowed, as they have before, to “keep faith” with those who helped the United States.

 “In terms of specific actions, Department of State has the lead on the Special Immigrant Visa program and some other programs with respect to those Afghans that have supported us,” Milley said. “That planning is working through the system right now, but I can commit to you that it's my belief that the United States government will do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety and protection of those that have been working with us for two decades.”

King replied that “the term working through the system is what gives me some concern,” to which Milley responded, “I understand.”

“This is very important to us and we're pushing as hard as we can on our end to move as fast as we can,” Austin added.