Should Obama withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan?
America was supposed to leave behind a force several thousand strong to help Afghans provide security after 2014. But now...
With Afghan President Hamid Karzai meeting with President Obama in Washington on Friday, White House officials are saying for the first time that the U.S. might pull all of its soldiers out of Afghanistan after 2014 — the so-called zero option, which would come over the objection of military commanders. The Pentagon wants to leave up to 15,000 troops in Afghanistan to continue strengthening and training Afghan forces, and to keep al Qaeda from rebuilding in the war-torn country after the U.S. and its NATO allies withdraw at the end of 2014. (The U.S. has already reduced its troop strength to 66,000 from a peak of 100,000.) Should Obama push to keep some U.S. soldiers in the country to help ensure stability, or is it long past time we brought all the troops home?
It's smart to consider the "zero option": Karzai thinks he "holds all the cards," says David W. Barno at Foreign Policy, on the theory that the U.S. has no "workable option" other than leaving behind a sizable force to back him up. He's wrong. We're in a budget crisis, so perpetual spending on troops in Afghanistan is a "tough sell." Besides, we used the zero option in Iraq, and it "has not become an Iranian puppet state nor descended into chaos."
"A 'zero option' for Afghanistan"
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
But cutting Afghanistan loose would be disastrous: The "zero option" would be a huge mistake, says Max Boot at Commentary, as would leaving behind a token force of 3,000 (as some in the administration want). That's a force big enough to anger Afghans "but too small to be militarily effective." Our troops are an "essential bulwark" against the return of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Afghan forces simply aren't strong enough to "stave off disaster by themselves."
"White House considering the 'zero option' for Afghanistan?"
Afghans need the U.S. to leave: Obama and Karzai "have a mammoth agenda to sort out," says the United Arab Emirates' Khaleej Times in an editorial, but the bottom line is that "the time has come for the U.S. to disengage itself from the region" — for Afghanistan's sake, not America's. "Obama, who in his first term dispensed with his promise of ending the Afghan war, has a responsibility to hand over a free and stable Afghanistan back to its sovereigns."
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Harold Maass is a contributing editor at The Week. He has been writing for The Week since the 2001 debut of the U.S. print edition and served as editor of TheWeek.com when it launched in 2008. Harold started his career as a newspaper reporter in South Florida and Haiti. He has previously worked for a variety of news outlets, including The Miami Herald, ABC News and Fox News, and for several years wrote a daily roundup of financial news for The Week and Yahoo Finance.
-
5 wild card cartoons about Trump's cabinet picks
Cartoons Artists take on square pegs, very fine people, and more
By The Week US Published
-
How will Elon Musk's alliance with Donald Trump pan out?
The Explainer The billionaire's alliance with Donald Trump is causing concern across liberal America
By The Week UK Published
-
Netanyahu's gambit: axing his own defence minster
Talking Point Sacking of Yoav Gallant demonstrated 'utter contempt' for Israeli public
By The Week UK Published