The fall of Kabul is a serious disaster

It is a grave disaster for the people of Afghanistan, who from now on will have to live in a theocratic regime that represses the most basic freedoms, ruthlessly punishes dissidents and prides itself on oppressing women. It is a grave disaster for tens of thousands of Afghans who assisted Western journalists and diplomats in their quest to build a better country, watched helplessly as promises to protect them were shamefully forgotten, and now face the deadly wrath of the Taliban. It is a serious disaster for many countries in the region, which will have to grapple with the deeply destabilizing consequences of another huge refugee crisis. It is a serious disaster for the credibility of the West,whose promises to guarantee the safety of allies threatened by authoritarian rivals like Russia and China now seem even more hollow. And it is a grave disaster for the United States, whose security will be much less guaranteed now that the Taliban have released a considerable number of al Qaeda members and may once again allow the training of terrorist groups in Afghanistan.

More information

• Editorial |

  Bitter departure from Afghanistan

• Lessons learned in Afghanistan?

  None

• Let's not let this happen to Afghan women

Amid these horrors, it stands to reason that a more indirect consequence of the past few days has gone unnoticed: America's humiliating failure in Afghanistan is also the pointing finger against a theory that forms the basis of President Joe's foreign policy. Biden.

In recent years, leading Washington politicians, concerned about the popularity of Donald Trump's criticism of US commitments abroad - including its presence in Afghanistan - have joined the idea of ​​a "foreign policy for middle class". To win public support for their country's role as guarantor of the liberal international order and to prevent other authoritarian populists like Trump from winning elections, they said, it would be necessary to abandon unpopular missions such as Afghanistan and focus on measures whose benefits went directly into the pocket of ordinary citizens.

Well, the first time this policy has been put to the test, it has failed. Rather than lessen the chances that such figures as Trump will win again, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan has dangerously reinforced the impression that the country's traditional ruling classes are too weak and incompetent to entrust them with power. If the Biden administration wants to avoid other similar catastrophes in the coming years, it will have to abandon the prism in which it currently frames its foreign policy.

Trump's foreign policy was incoherent chaos. During the 2016 campaign, he repeatedly criticized Xi Jinping and issued constant warnings about the danger posed by China. Then he met Xi and suddenly began to rave about praise. "He's already president for life," he said in 2018, "and it's great." Trump's assessments of other heads of state, whether they were democratically elected leaders like Emanuel Macron and Shinzo Abe or autocrats like North Korea's Kim Jong-Un and Egypt's Abdel Fatá el Sisi, suffered the same kinds of swings, apparently depending on how much. they praised him.

But it would be a mistake to let Trump's personal whimsy hide from us the cool coherence of his essential convictions about the world. Broadly speaking, his ideas about foreign policy are based, like those of many other populists around the world, on three simple principles. First, he believes that political leaders must at all times place the interests of their country above all other considerations. Second, he believes that the prolonged and costly US military presence in other countries is rarely in his national interests. And third, he believes that protecting those interests often requires the United States to violate the formal and informal rules of international politics.

This view was reflected in Trump's attitude toward Afghanistan. During his first election campaign, he frequently criticized the mission. The United States was paying too high a price for the allies' presence in the country, it claimed, in lives and money. As he said in a tweet: "We must leave Afghanistan immediately ... Let's rebuild America first." Once in the presidency, Trump did not keep his promise. Although he initiated the procedures for the withdrawal from Afghanistan, a small but crucial contingent of US troops remained there.

Traditional foreign policy circles in Washington, unsettled by Trump's victory, took some of his criticism seriously. Schools had long been concerned about the unpopularity of the "international liberal order" and the lack of public support for the presence of US troops abroad. And Trump's triumph seemed to be proof that the old ways were untenable. What was the solution?

Senior foreign policy makers thought that what Trump had forced them to ask themselves was how to protect the fundamental international norms that guaranteed America's prosperity without fostering a populist backlash that threatened to destroy national alliances and the survival of its institutions. Many of those who today direct the foreign policy of the Biden Administration - among them ,. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan — agreed on a concrete answer to that question. They began to think that the voters were convinced that the foreign policy of the United States had not protected national interests. And they concluded that, to compete with Trump,Democrats were to abandon the unpopular presence of troops in other countries and explain that the country's commitment to international standards was an effective way to protect the economic interests of voters. They had to focus on a "foreign policy for the middle class."

This idea has not remained a mere slogan, far from it, but has shaped Joe Biden's foreign policy in the first six months of his tenure. It has served as a guide for his first international successes, such as the agreements to guarantee a minimum tax rate for large multinational companies. It explains some measures that might seem puzzling, such as recent attempts to pressure OPEC countries to increase their oil production quotas. And it also provides insight into Biden's determination to get out of Afghanistan at irresponsible speed.

In the polls, Americans have always been overwhelmingly in favor of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan. The presence of the United States there had not had any significant economic benefit. The outcome was not seen. From the point of view of a "foreign policy for the middle class", Afghanistan was clear. With the troop withdrawal, Biden could show that he was willing to take public opinion into account, that he was not going to get entangled in costly adventures abroad, and that he would dedicate his country's efforts to initiatives that have tangible benefits for Americans. It seemed that everyone would win.

However, the hasty withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan has not only had tragic consequences for the country and the entire world, it has not even served its intended purpose.

Designed to weaken the arguments of populists like Donald Trump, it has only served to make their comeback more likely.

The images of helicopters pulling American diplomats out of the embassy in Kabul and of Afghans hanging from American planes in a desperate attempt to flee from the Taliban will undoubtedly become a symbol.

They will be the symbol of a new era of American weakness and will help define Biden's foreign policy performance.

Many Democrats seem to disagree with this diagnosis. Still on Sunday, confident that the fall of Kabul would not cost them so much, several senior officials in the Biden government assured reporters that "the Americans want the troops to return home." But while it is true that most Americans had said they supported the return of the soldiers, that was before they understood the poor results that policy would bring, and now they are likely to judge Biden harshly for the scenes of national humiliation that everyone can see on television and through social networks.

So far, criticism of Biden calling him old and hesitant has not found much echo outside of the right-wing media; voters had no reason to believe that he was incapable of running the country. But the videos arriving from Afghanistan offer a visceral image in keeping with a line of attack that will undoubtedly intensify in the coming months. Rightly or wrongly, they link what Republicans say about the president to a real catastrophe during his term.

Criticism could become even stronger if there are another terrorist attacks in the United States in the coming years. According to early news, the Taliban have already released a significant number of Al Qaeda members. Terrorist cells may be allowed to train or hide in the country again, now that it is under their control. If any future attacks appear to be related to Afghanistan, the government's absurd decision to link the withdrawal of troops with the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 could backfire.

By the fall of 2022 or 2024, many Americans will most likely have completely forgotten about the Afghan people. But even when the original events fade from memory, the impression of weakness and incompetence of the government will surely persist. And that opens up a whole range of opportunities for a populist who, like Trump, has always campaigned by bragging about his ability to restore US power and promising to reduce the country's commitments abroad.

The purpose of withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan was to make it clear that Biden had heeded voters' concerns and placed their well-being first. Instead, it is reinforcing the elite perception of weakness and failure that fuels populist leaders. The lesson that he leaves us, among many others, is that the consensus of the political class on how to react to what Trump represents has completely failed.

Foreign policy is not the most effective instrument for raising wages for metalworkers in Michigan or nurses in Georgia. The idea that the government, during the G-7 or United Nations negotiations, could do something that would transform the well-being of the normal American enough to change the vote was always a pipe dream. No matter how many advantages foreign policy had for the middle class as a theory, as a political strategy it has always been naive.

But the fall of Kabul also highlights a second flaw in that idea. In polls, Americans may say that they prefer a foreign policy that favors national interests and helps improve their standard of living. But they tend to judge their rulers harshly when the decisions they make dramatically humiliate the country or fail to protect it properly. And it turns out that what it takes to avoid national humiliation and protect the security of the country is often precisely what many voters see as moving away from defending their immediate interests.

This does not mean that American leaders have to ignore public opinion or set out in search of the kind of foolish military adventures that have sapped the country's prestige in recent decades. But voters deserve to be told the truth. And the truth is that, properly understood, America's interests are defended by showing true loyalty to its allies and, often, by making painful decisions to thwart the designs of the world's most dangerous forces; for example, by doing whatever it takes to prevent the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and killing many of America's most loyal allies.

Even after the dramatic images from Kabul, many American voters will still be reluctant to accept that sometimes the policies that contribute the most to their security and prosperity seem to have a very indirect bearing on their lives.

But that is a lesson that leaders must learn by heart to avoid new humiliations as dangerous as the ones we are experiencing these days.

Yascha Mounk

is a professor at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the author of

People Against Democracy

(Paidós).

Translation by

María Luisa Rodríguez Tapia.