The Afghan Fiasco Will Stick to BidenAugust changed things; it wasn’t just a
bad month. It left a lingering, still headshaking sense of “This isn’t how we
do things.”We don’t make up withdrawal dates that will have symbolism for
photo-ops with the flinty, determined president looking flinty and determined
on the 20th anniversary of 9/11; we don’t time epic strategic decisions around
showbiz exigencies. We wait for the summer fighting season to pass; we withdraw
in the winter when Taliban warriors are shivering in their caves. We don’t
leave our major air base in the middle of the night— in the middle of the
night— without even telling the Afghan military. We don’t leave our weapons
behind so 20-year-old enemies can don them for military playacting and drive up
and down with the guns and helmets. We don’t fail to tell our allies exactly
what we’re doing and how we’re doing it—they followed us there and paid a price
for it. We don’t see signs of an overwhelming enemy advance and treat it merely
as a perception problem, as opposed to a reality problem. You don’t get the
U.S. military out before the U.S. citizens and our friends. Who will protect
them if you do that?The president’s people think this will all just go away and
are understandably trying to change the sub- ject. But the essence of the story
will linger. Its reverberations will play out for years. There are Americans
and American friends behind Taliban lines. The stories will roll out in
infuriating, sometimes heartbreaking ways. The damage to the president is
different and deeper than his people think, because it hit at his reputational
core, at how people understand him. His supporters have long seen him as
soft-natured, moderate—a sentimental man famous for feeling and showing
empathy. But nothing about this fiasco suggested kindliness or an interest in
the feelings of others. It feels less like a blunder than the exposure of a
seamy side. Does he listen to anyone? Does he have any people of independent
weight and stature around him, or are they merely staffers who approach him
with gratitude and deference?What happened with U.S. military leadership?
There’s been a stature shift there, too. Did they warn the president not to
leave Bagram Air Base? Did they warn that the whole exit strategy was flawed,
unrealistic? If the president was warned and rejected the advice why didn’t a
general care enough to step down—either in advance to stop the debacle, or
afterward to protest it?Did they just go with the flow? Did they think the
president’s mind couldn’t be changed so what the heck, implement the plan on
schedule and hope for the best? President Biden’s relations with the Pentagon
have been cool at best for a long time; maybe some generals were thinking: I
can improve future relations by giving the president more than he asks for. He
wants out by 9/11, I’ll give him out by the Fourth of July. It is important to
find out what dynamics were in play. Because it’s pretty obvious something went
wrong there.The enlisted men and women of the U.S. military are the most
respected professionals in America. They can break your heart with their
greatness, as they did at Hamid Karzai International Airport when 13 of them
gave their lives to help desperate people escape. But the top brass?
Something’s wrong there, something that August revealed. They are all so
media-savvy, so smooth and sound-bitey after a generation at war, and in some
new way they too seem obsessed with perceptions and how things play, as opposed
to reality and how things are.There has been a lot of talk about Mr. Biden and
what drove his single-minded insistence on leaving on his timetable. Axios
recently mentioned the 2010 Rolling Stone article in which Gen. Stanley
McChrystal and his staff made brutal fun of Biden. Former Defense Secretary
Robert Gates wrote in his 2014 memoir that President Obama told him, “Joe is
over the top about this.” Mr. Obama himself, in his presidential memoir, wrote
of Mr. Biden warning him the military was trying to “jam” him, “trying to box
in a new president.”People have been rereading George Packer’s great 2019 book
on the diplomat Richard Holbrooke, “Our Man” (great not only as history but as
literature). Holbrooke met with Vice President Biden one day during the first
Obama term and they argued about Afghanistan. Mr. Biden dismissed Holbrooke’s
arguments for protecting Afghan women’s rights as “bull—.” Their discussion
was, according to Holbrooke’s diary, “quite extraordinary.” Mr. Biden said
Holbrooke didn’t understand politics, that the Democrats could lose the
presidency in 2012 in part because of Afghanistan, that we have to get out as
we did from Vietnam.There was politics in President Biden’s decision, and
frustration. Mr. Biden had spent years in Afghanistan meetings, in the Senate
during the Bush years, and later in the White House as vice president. He would
have seen up close more than his share of military spin—contradictory
information, no one with a sustainable strategic plan, and plenty of that old
military tradition, CYA.Afghanistan was emotional for him, for personal
reasons. This would be connected to his son’s service in Iraq, and the worry a
parent feels and the questions a parent asks. And maybe the things Beau Bi- den
told him about his tour.And I suspect there was plenty of ego in it, of sheer
vanity. A longtime friend of his once told me Mr. Biden’s weakness is that he
always thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room. I asked if the rooms are
usually small, and the friend didn’t bristle, he laughed. I suspect Mr. Biden
was thinking he was going to be the guy who finally cut through, who stopped
the nonsense, admitted reality, who wasn’t like the others driven by fear of
looking weak or incompetent. He was going to look with eyes made cool by
experience and do what needed doing—cut this cord, end this thing, not another
American dead.History would see what he’d done. It would be his legacy. And for
once he’d get his due—he’s not some ice-cream eating mediocrity, not a mere
palate-cleanser after the heavy meal of Trump, not a placeholder while America
got its act together. He would finally be seen as what he is—a serious man. Un
homme sérieux, as diplomats used to say.And then, when it turned so bad so
quick, his pride and anger shifted in, and the defiant, defensive,
selfreferential speeches. Do they not see my wisdom?When you want it bad you
get it bad.This won’t happen, but it would be better for his White House not to
scramble away from the subject— Let’s go to the hurricane!— but to inhabit it
fully. Concentrate on the new reality of the new Afghanistan, the immediate and
larger diplomatic demands, the security needs. Get the Americans out, our
friends out, figure out— plan— what you would do and say if, say, next November
there is a terror event on U.S. soil, and a group calling itself al Qaeda 2.0
claims responsibility, and within a few days it turns out they launched their
adventure from a haven in Afghanistan.Don’t fix on “perception.” Focus on that
ignored thing, reality.DECLARATIONSBy Peggy NoonanIt hit at his reputational
core. He no longer comes across as empathetic, much less serious.
