Media Search:



An alternative strategy for Democrats to secure the midterms – The Hill

With just eight weeks until the midterm elections, things are starting to look up for Democrats.

They now lead the generic vote after trailing Republicans for months: nearly one-half (47 percent) of registered voters say they would vote for a Democrat, compared to 44 percent for a Republican, per recent Wall Street Journalpolling.

Further, gas prices are on the decline, President Bidens signature spending bill passed, and voters in Kansas a state Trump won by15 percentin 2020 resoundinglyrejecteda Republican-led abortion ban, indicating that protecting abortion rights could be a motivating issue for voters in November.

Democrats are also outperforming expectations in special elections across the country. This week, Democrat Mary PeltoladefeatedSarah Palin for Alaskas vacant House seat, and last week,Democrat Pat Ryanwonan upset victory over Republican Marc Molinaro in New Yorks 19th Congressional District.

While these are encouraging developments for Democrats, it would be a mistake to say that the party is not still electorally vulnerable.Inflationcontinues to destroy Americans purchasing power,gas prices while they have steadily decreased remain high,gun violenceis terrorizing cities and Southern states continue to experience huge surges inillegal immigration.

Ultimately, in order for Democrats momentum to continue through November, the party needs to adopt a third-way agenda and specifically, demonstrate their ability to practice fiscal prudence and lead on both crime and immigration reform, while also continuing to advocate for abortion rights and gun safety.

Practicing fiscal prudence is a key component of a new Democratic approach. Rising prices and the high cost of living are weighing on American families, and Democrats cant afford to be dragged further to the left on economic policy. The party needs to communicate about how they will lower costs, secure Americas energy independence and avoid tax increases that strangle American businesses and families.

Further, as crime rates surge across the country with nearly 9-in-10 (89 percent) of Americans saying crime is a very or somewhat important issue to them, per Economist/YouGovpollingDemocrats should pledge ahead of the midterms to pursue a grand bargain with Republicans on criminal justice legislation in the new Congress.

This deal would involve funding and strengthening local law enforcement, while also making the criminal justice system fairer for Black Americans, who are disproportionately victims of police misconduct and are mistreated under the current system.

Beyond the necessity and practicality of such reforms, by prioritizing crime reduction, national Democrats can shield electorally vulnerable members of their party against GOP attacks linking Democratic policies to rising crime rates.

Critically, national Democrats also must make a concerted effort to reject irresponsible bail reform policies, which allow dangerous criminals to go free. This become a signature marker of the current class of liberal district attorneys and is emerging as a major vulnerability for Democrats in 2022.

Even in deep-blue New York City, nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of votersbelievethese bail reform policies have resulted in increased crime. As a result, the New Yorkdistrict attorney, as well as those in other liberal cities Los Angeles,San FranciscoandChicago, among them have faced significant national blowback, with some even facing recall elections because of these policies.

Immigration is another key issue that Democrats can double down on ahead of the midterms. Given the crisis in our country both at the border and in terms of the status of millions of hardworking undocumented immigrants Democrats need to make a visible effort to move to the center on this issue.

Over the past year and a half, Americans have been bombarded with news aboutrecord-highillegal border crossings and ICE detention centersover capacity. For their part, Republicans have been successful in tying the border crisis to the Biden administrations failed policies and to the broader national trend of rising crime.

At the same time, progressives haveslammedBiden for not making more of an effort to keep his campaign promises to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and protect Dreamers.

Thus, over the next eight weeks, Democrats can advocate for balanced, moderate and targeted immigration policies that secure the border, permanently protect Dreamers and create a pathway to citizenship for more than 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Last Thursday in aspeechto the nation, President Biden demonstrated for the most part the type of centrist, conciliatory leadership that Democrats need to practice if they hope to maintain midterm momentum.

Speaking to the current divisions in the U.S., Biden made clear that he was not seeking to demonize all Republicans by calling out the Trump-wing of the party for their attacks on democracy, and said that he hopes to work with the majority of the GOP to find common ground for the sake of the nation.

Now, I want to be very clear, very clear upfront. Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans are MAGA Republicans I know because Ive been able to work with these mainstream Republicans Im an American president, not a president of red America or blue America, but of all America, Biden said.

Later in the speech, he urged the country to build a future that does not dwell on the past, not on divisive culture wars, not on the politics of grievance, but on a future we can build together.

While other segments of President Bidens speech were less conciliatory, he largely struck the right tone by appealing to the non-MAGA wing of the Republican party and underscoring the importance of preserving American democracy.

Over the next eight weeks, it is essential that Democratscommunicate an uplifting vision for the future that is focused on addressing the nations most pressing issues inflation, crime and immigration while also advocating stanchly for protecting abortion rights, safeguarding gay marriage, strengthening gun safety laws and securing American democracy.

Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. His new book is The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.

See the original post here:
An alternative strategy for Democrats to secure the midterms - The Hill

Top Democrat says candidates ready to campaign with Biden amid renewed midterm optimism – Washington Times

The top Democrat in charge of the partys reelection efforts in the House said Sunday the partys candidates are ready to campaign with President Biden after several victories in Congress and at the ballot box.

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney of New York, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, pointed to the passage of several significant laws and special elections as evidence the party is poised to combat a Republican surge come November amid shifting momentum.

You better believe were going to stand with the president and say we passed in a bipartisan way better roads, better bridges, better health care for our veterans, Mr. Maloney told Fox News Sunday. Thats the kind of agenda that were standing in support of, and you see it working in the polls.

Despite Mr. Bidens poor approval rating in the polls and economic pains brought on by the highest inflation in four decades, the Democratic candidates in recent special elections in Alaska and New York proved triumphant over their GOP opponents.

Rather than a red tsunami, Democrats have become increasingly optimistic that they can stave off a Republican takeover of Congress. The GOP needs net gains of just one seat in the Senate and five in the House to capture control of the chambers.

Legislative victories, such as helping veterans exposed to toxins, boosting the domestic semiconductor chip industry, and a tax and climate spending bill aimed at lowering health care costs and spurring clean energy, are also buoying Democrats hopes.

SEE ALSO: Ukrainian immigrant runs as Republican to take down House Democrat in deep-blue Northern Virginia

You better believe Democrats are going to celebrate that, Mr. Maloney said. So are the voters, and thats why weve been winning in special elections from Alaska to New York.

Continued here:
Top Democrat says candidates ready to campaign with Biden amid renewed midterm optimism - Washington Times

What can Texas Democrats do to restore abortion rights? – The Dallas Morning News

Buoyed by the success of their counterparts in Kansas, Texas activists are determined to use Novembers midterm elections to kick-start the restoration of abortion rights.

But they have a much heavier lift than progressives in Kansas, where women voters powered the approval of a referendum in favor of abortion rights. Texas ballots wont include an up-or-down question on abortion, but there is a way to reverse the states ban: Fire Republican incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott and deliver the House and Senate to Democrats.

Thats unlikely to occur.

And unlike other states, Texas hasnt seen a wave of new women voters angry about the U.S. Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe vs. Wade.

Just over 309,100 Texans have registered to vote or updated their registrations since Aug. 15. Of that total, half are women. Residents have until Oct. 11 to match or exceed 544,000 the number of new or updated registrations in the 2018 midterms.

The unremarkable number of new registrations means abortion rights activists will have to persuade existing voters to toss out Republicans. Thats a tough task because the Texas electorate has more Republicans than Democrats, according to numerous analyses and election results. If Democrats want to restore abortion rights, theyll have to do so over time, instead of in one electoral cycle.

The political dynamic on abortion in Texas and Kansas is like night and day, University of Houston political scientist Brandon Rottinghaus said. Its hard to see the abortion issue directly mapping onto the Texas political landscape.

But he said Democrats have opportunities to make a major statement about the direction of the Lone Star State, where Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature and every executive office.

If there is a target on the abortion issue personified in a candidate, its Greg Abbott, Rottinghaus said. He was front and center for all of those battles and he definitely is going to get whatever rewards or benefits come from that.

Abbott is running for a third term against former U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke, D-El Paso.

Abortion rights activists also see opportunity in the attorney generals race, with a recent poll by The Dallas Morning News and the University of Texas at Tyler showing Democrat Rochelle Garza in a dead heat with incumbent Ken Paxton.

They certainly can blame the fact that we lost abortion rights on the existing leadership, said former Texas Sen. Wendy Davis, who in 2014 challenged Abbott for governor after a filibuster that temporary stalled a restrictive abortion bill.

Abortion opponents say Republicans will win on the strength of their anti-abortion policies.

I dont think youre gonna see anything similar to what we saw in Kansas, said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion group. But you are going to see in the governors race a real stark difference between pro-abortion voters and pro-life voters. And I think were going to show Texas is still strongly pro-life.

In anticipation of the Roe vs. Wade decision, Texas lawmakers passed a trigger mechanism that went into effect last month. The law bans all abortions, with exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.

The outcry against the high courts decision and state bans led to mobilization efforts across the country, with an Aug. 2 Kansas referendum the first major test.

According to a New York Times analysis, Kansas women made up 50% of new voter registrants after a draft of the Supreme Court decision was leaked in May, and nearly two-thirds in the weeks after the official ruling. The Times reported that of those who cast a ballot in the August primaries for governor, 38% were Democrats, up from 33% four years ago.

Kansas is one of 10 states that, according to the analysis, has seen broad increases in women registering to vote.

Texas is not on that list.

Still, activists and veteran Democrats say the Roe vs. Wade decision has generated enthusiasm that will be reflected in the existing electorate.

We are seeing a lot of energy in Texas, in both our support base and the everyday persons, said Drucilla Tigner, a deputy director at Planned Parenthood Votes. Were determined to elect pro-choice candidates up and down the ballot.

Davis also said shes seen a real movement with moderates and independent women.

The News and UT-Tyler poll revealed that relatively few voters, 13% of the 1,384 Texans surveyed Aug. 1-7, said abortion should be illegal in all instances, and 25% said the procedure should be legal in all cases. Respondents were split when asked about most cases, with 31% who said it should be illegal and 30% who said legal.

More respondents said they disapproved of the Supreme Courts decision than approved, but those who said they approved of the ruling were slightly more likely to say they will vote in the Nov. 8 midterm elections.

The lack of new voters in an electorate that leans Republican gives GOP candidates confidence that the abortion issue wont rally Texans to vote against them. And some Republicans say the notion that theres high-octane energy in the states abortion rights movement is hype.

Theres more sound than action in what were seeing from the pro-abortion people, said Denton County Commissioner and former Denton County GOP chairwoman Dianne Edmondson. I really dont think that theyre going to have the numbers put together or the motivation to have any effect on the election.

Most Texas Democrats concede that Republicans have firm control of the Legislature and the states congressional districts, with last years redistricting process resulting in few swing districts.

So the beginning of any restoration process starts with statewide contests, most notably the race for governor.

ORourke has made reproductive rights a focal point of his campaign against Abbott. His first two television commercials featured Texans decrying the loss of abortion rights.

The Democrat has held several rallies in support of abortion rights, including one the day the states trigger ban went into effect that attracted several thousand people in Houston.

Texas today is the epicenter for a maternal mortality crisis that plagues this country, and it has been made worse by Greg Abbotts attack on women, ORourke told a group of Black supporters during a virtual event this week. Not only do I want to overturn this total abortion ban and ensure that every Texas woman makes her own decisions about her own body, her own future and her own health care, but I want to invest in connecting Black women with the kind of care that will ensure that they can survive their pregnancies, that they do not have to fear interactions with the medical community or with doctors.

Abbott is also talking about the issue, blasting ORourke as being in favor of abortions in any circumstance.

He not only believes in abortion to the very last minute before a fully developed child is given birth, but he was even against a law that would require a doctor to provide a medical care to a baby who soon survives abortion, Abbott said during a recording of Lone Star Politics, the Sunday political show produced by The Dallas Morning News and KXAS-TV (NBC 5).

In response to Abbotts charge, ORourkes campaign said, Beto has long supported the standard set by Roe v. Wade, which for half a century prohibited states from outlawing abortion in cases where the pregnancy threatened the life of the pregnant woman.

That standard allowed for women and their doctors to make this personal and often painful decision later in the pregnancy if the abortion was necessary to save the womans life.

ORourke has criticized Abbott for not supporting exceptions to the ban for rape and incest. Abbott says Texas is leading the way with alternatives for abortion, including emergency contraception.

While Texas Democrats would need an electoral sea change, Davis, the former state senator, said she hopes Garza would ignore or not enforce the states anti-abortion policies if elected. District attorneys in Dallas and other counties have said they dont plan to pursue charges against anyone under the abortion ban.

We need Rochelle Garza to sanction that statewide, Davis said.

Emilys List, a national group that backs women candidates who support abortion rights, is also backing Garza. The former civil rights lawyer has fought for the reproductive rights of migrant teens in detention. Paxton, who is also closely associated with the debate over abortion rights, is suing the Biden administration over federal rules requiring hospitals to provide abortions if the procedure is necessary to save a mothers life.

The Texas AGs race is such a clear example of the contrast, said Christina Reynolds, a spokesperson for Emilys List. You have a candidate in Rochelle Garza who has said that keeping Texans safe means ensuring that everyone has access to essential medical and health care procedures, which includes abortion. And then you have a candidate who literally is suing to block lifesaving abortion care when necessary for the health of the mother.

The reason for the close race could be a result of Paxtons legal problems, including a 2015 indictment on securities fraud charges and an FBI bribery investigation. Paxton has denied wrongdoing.

Abortion rights advocates remain hopeful Garza will gain momentum. But her latest campaign finance reports show $450,000 in her bank account, compared to Paxtons $3.5 million. Analysts say Garza, unknown to most Texans, needs at least $10 million to compete.

Seago, the Texas Right to Life president, said Paxton and other statewide Republicans wont suffer a backlash because of the Supreme Court decision.

Republicans have been talking about this issue nonstop for the last decade. It was the Democrats that avoided this topic, he said. Protecting life is always one of the top three (issues) and so this has always been a motivation for Texas voters.

All sides agree that November is just a continuation of what could be a decadeslong struggle.

Theres no way that you can reform Texas government in one quick election cycle, Rottinghaus said. Its going to be a very long battle.

Davis agreed.

Right now we have to get in the position where things dont get worse, she said.

Read the original post:
What can Texas Democrats do to restore abortion rights? - The Dallas Morning News

Dont Believe the Generals on Afghanistan – The Atlantic

A T-shirt that was popular with veterans for much of Americas nearly 20-year war in Afghanistan showed a helicopter in flight with the caption We Were Winning When I Left. U.S. generals seem to be the only ones who didnt get the joke. On the first anniversary of our botched withdrawal, the military leaders most responsible for Americas disastrous outcome in Afghanistan have continued to loudly insist that the war was winnable when they were in charge, and that responsibility for the debacle must lie with someone else.

Retired Generals Frank McKenzie and Joseph Votel, the last two commanders of U.S. Central Command, which includes Afghanistan, recently made the case that America should have stayed indefinitely, arguing that the pullout was a mistake and that America could have defended its interestsand kept the Taliban at baywith a small residual force of a few thousand soldiers. And in The Atlantic, the retired general and former CIA director David Petraeus, who commanded the war in Afghanistan after presiding over the surge that helped bring temporary stability to Iraq, wrote that more than a decade ago we had finally established the right big ideas and overarching strategy. But the problem, he maintained, was that America did not have the stomach for a sustained, generational commitment.

A sustained, generational commitment? The United States spent more than $2 trillion in Afghanistan and sacrificed the lives of 2,461 service members over those two decades. And in that time, the top brass mostly got their way. President Barack Obama caved to his generals, agreeing to a substantial troop surge in a war he was trying to end. President Donald Trump did the same on a smaller scale, entering office on a promise to end the war but eventually agreeing to a mini-surge and deferring a full withdrawal to his successor.

From the magazine: My escape from Afghanistan

The outcome of Americas commitment was an Afghan government and military that couldnt hold out long enough even for U.S. forces to leave with a semblance of dignity. The right big ideas deployed by a generation of generals proved to be empty slogans: government in a box, money as a weapons system, ink spots. All of these were tactical approaches or overly simplistic frameworks that ignored the nuances of Afghan politics and the reality of attempting to modernize a fractured country that was mired in corruption and a continuing civil war.

This myth of a sustainable stalemate is contradicted by a mountain of evidence and experience. U.S. casualties in the Afghan Wars last years remained low because of the Doha Agreement, whatever its flaws. The Kabul governments forces that had to fight and win the war were losing gradually and then suddenly, as Ernest Hemingway described bankruptcy.

By 2017, Afghan army and police recruiting began to dry up, a result of high casualties, corruption, and mistreatment, as well as successful Taliban propaganda that capitalized on those failures. Later that year, the U.S. government classified Afghan security forces size and stopped collecting district stability data, a fraught but valuable metric of security. These were not the hallmarks of a winning campaign. General McKenzie admitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2018 that Afghan security forces were suffering unsustainable attrition. And when Afghan forces failed in battle with the tools and training we had given them, the answer from the generals was not to shift our approach but always to ask for more time and more money.

We both first deployed to Afghanistan more than a decade ago; our combined experience in the war covers the period from 2009 to 2014. What became clear during those deployments was that the war was a fundamentally doomed endeavor. Our efforts to build a national Afghan army in the image of our own military were not only ineffective; they also made the Afghan governments crisis of legitimacy worse. We both served alongside a range of Afghan government forces and saw firsthand how the model we were imposing on their military simply did not fit the country we were fighting in.

In June 2011, a full decade before last years total withdrawal, President Obama announced a major troop reduction in Afghanistan and a future responsible end to the war. Trump successfully campaigned in 2016 on a pullout promise; as president, he signed the February 2020 Doha Agreement that would deliver just that. President Joe Biden ordered an Afghanistan policy review, and then chose to delay the withdrawal but ultimately honor the Doha terms.

Read: The Afghanistan withdrawal: a potential disaster in the making

In the face of all these signals that the U.S. intervention was coming to an end, Americas generals seemed to think they could keep a small war in Afghanistan going forever. If the war didnt end, hard questions about the fundamental flaws in execution never had to be acknowledged. U.S. military leaders could continue to pretend that they had achieved something in the country.

As for the inevitable chaos of the withdrawal itself, the U.S. State Department deserves most of the blame for the shameful condition of the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa program, which prevented tens of thousands of our Afghan partners from getting out of the country safely, and the White House must own some final operational and timing decisions in Kabul. But the bulk of the blame for the failures of analysis, planning, and execution still rests on the shoulders of our military and its leaders. They built a house of cards in Afghanistan. As years of reporting and research have shown, whether it would come crashing down was never in doubt; it was only a matter of when and how.

Defeat is a bitter pill for any army to swallow. And unfortunately, blaming operational and tactical failures on politics at homea stab in the backis a long and dangerous tradition: You can find Iraq and Vietnam versions of that sardonic T-shirt. Plenty of blame can be spread around for Americas defeat in its longest foreign war. But dont let the generals fool you: We were losing when they left.

Excerpt from:
Dont Believe the Generals on Afghanistan - The Atlantic

Book Review: Ackerman, Chomsky, and Prashad on Afghanistan, America, and the Taliban – Foreign Policy

The betrayal of Afghanistan by the United States was inked on Feb. 29, 2020, when an emissary of then-U.S. President Donald Trump signed a bilateral deal with the unreconstructed terrorist-led crime gang known as the Taliban, which U.S. forces had spent the last two decades fighting. The agreement sealed the withdrawal of all U.S. military forces who had been supporting Afghanistans democratic experiment for those same two decades, in exchange for empty Taliban promises about breaking ties with terrorists. The deal essentially handed the Taliban the victory theyd so long sought.

But the betrayal wasnt completed until Aug. 30, 2021, when the last U.S. military transport plane left Kabul crammed with scores of desperate people who feared for their lives in a Taliban-ruled state. The final liftoff came after two weeks of pandemonium that followed the hurried flight of former Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and his circle.

There would be no Saigon moment in Afghanistan, U.S. President Joe Biden said of the departure from Kabul of American soldiers, diplomats, and Afghans who had worked with them, after he decided to abide by Trumps Taliban deal. But the terror, chaos, and violence of those last days were as bad as anything that led up to the last choppers on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon on April 30, 1975, as the United States cut and ran from South Vietnam. Young men clung to the undercarriages of planes as they taxied for takeoff from Kabuls international airport; some died as they plummeted to the tarmac. The horrific scenes, the capstone to Americas Afghan misadventure, were painfully reminiscent of the nameless silhouettes seen leaping from New Yorks blazing Twin Towers after al Qaedas terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001, the event that precipitated the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

With Americas departure from Afghanistan, its so-called war on terror had come full circle. The homeland was safe, and the troops were back home. Americas forever war, its longest, was over. Afghanistans isnt. Those left behind are emotionally and physically scarred and were left to their fate as vengeful, victorious extremists began their pogroms against perceived enemies, reprisals that continue today with impunity. Many millions of people are hungry, jobless, and penniless, some so desperate to feed themselves and their families that they have sold children and body parts for money to buy food. Many of those who need to escape from Afghanistan are in hiding; many more are waiting for the knock on the door that could spell interrogation, torture, or death. In Afghanistan, no one can hear you scream.

Even those who made it out are suffering: Hundreds of thousands of Afghans who were evacuated remain depressed and discombobulated by the disappearance of the lives they knew and wonder if theyll ever be able to go home again. Many are refugees for the second or third time, a testament to the vicious cycle that is countrys recent history.

Inside and out of Afghanistan, they ask why their country has been allowed to turn dark, their friends and families hunted down for their ethnicity, their religion, or their past affiliations with the government or its security forces. They ask why women are virtually locked indoors, girls all but barred from education, if not raped, killed, and forgotten. There are no answers to the question: Why?

A pair of recent books, from radically different perspectives, seek to grapple with the question, if not quite finding the answer. Betrayal is a theme that runs through both. The authors are under no illusion that this disaster in Afghanistan is of Americas doing. As soon as the United States began its troop drawdown to zero, upon the signing of Trumps deal with the Taliban, NATO partners began their own rush to the exits; the U.S.-trained Afghan army wasnt far behind in collapsing.

The Fifth Act: Americas End in Afghanistan, Elliot Ackerman, Penguin, 288 pp., $27, August 2022 The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Fragility of U.S. Power, Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad, New Press, 224 pp., $24.99, August 2022

The Fifth Act: Americas End in Afghanistan is a memoir by Elliot Ackerman, a former U.S. Marine and CIA operative, who grapples with the weight of his own involvement in a now-lost cause as he attempts to lend a hand in the evacuation process immediately after the Talibans takeover. Its a tome tinged with guilt, the guilt felt by many with a connection to Afghanistan who watched the human horror unfold far away, and the guilt they still feel as the pleas keep coming: Help me, Im desperate, I have no money, my children are hungry. I worked for the United States, for Britain, for Germany. Im gay, Im a journalist, Im a woman. Please help. Help is not on the way.

Less personally engaged, but no less angry, is The Withdrawal: Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the Fragility of U.S. Power. The book is a conversation between linguist, activist, and political gadfly Noam Chomsky and Vijay Prashad, who runs a left-leaning think tank. They discuss the origins and excesses of U.S. foreign policy since Americas post-World War II rise as global hegemon. Chomsky stays true to form with his critiques of the legacy of imperialism, whether British, Portuguese, French, or American, that has culminated this century alone in the disruption and destruction of societies in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistanand beyond. After a lifetime of telling us so, the book is Chomskys latest I told you so. Few listened.

Ackerman is thoughtful and regretful, a man who cares deeply for the people he believes he and his buddies in the Marines and the CIA fought for. His conscience was clouded by Americas wars for years, as he makes clear in the recounting of targeted killing campaignswhich Chomsky and Prashad call the worst terrorist campaign in the world by far. Ackerman believes those programs violated the U.S. prohibition on government-directed assassinations.

[L]awyers working for multiple presidential administrations had drawn up semantic arguments carefully delineating the difference between a targeted killing and an assassination, he writes. But when the picture of the person you were trying to kill sat on your desk, when you watched the predator [drone] strikes light up the night sky and then when you took that same picture and moved it into a file for archiving, it sure felt like an assassination. To the hearts and minds of the local populations living under that deadly rain, it surely must have, too, as they turned increasingly sour on the presence of foreign soldiers.

The heart of Ackermans narrative is the Afghan endgame, long after hed left the country. The fall of Kabul caught him on vacation in Italy, and the contrast between sunshiny days, rooftop restaurants, and his children playing at gladiators contrasted cruelly with the distress of those trying to navigate the chaos of Kabul for a desperate flight to freedom. Some, Ackerman could help; many, he could not.

Ackerman scours his WhatsApp and Signal threads in a vivid retelling of the failures and successes that provided the all-too-human dimension of the evacuation efforts. The tension and drama unfold like a movie script: a pacey, urgent, heart-in-throat, will-they-make-it-this-time narrative as he communicates with fellow Americans and veterans who are trying to get Afghans through the horrible gauntlet surrounding the airport entrances and onto planes that will fly them to safety. At one point, we are in the lobby of a fine Kabul hotel, standing among terrified Afghan friends and colleagues as the decision is made to board a fleet of buses to chance a run to the airport, before they turn back, hoping to try again tomorrow.

Across Europe, the United States, Australia, and all over the world, well-meaning people mobilized their contacts to collate and vet thousands and thousands of names that could otherwise become epitaphs to the Taliban takeover. They lobbied governments, politicians, activists, nongovernmental organizations, wealthy people with private jets, interest groups, human rights defenders, anyone at all who could potentially help get people out of hell before the Taliban found them. Operations like those that Ackerman was involved in were life-saving airlifts for anyone lucky enough to get on the right list, the right bus, arrive at the right gate, wave to the right soldier, know the right people with the right contacts to get them on a crowded plane headed somewhere, anywhere else.

Whereas for Ackerman, the story is personal, especially the awful endgame, for Chomsky and Prashad, it is intellectual. If Ackerman focuses more on the final act, Chomsky and Prashads quest for the source of betrayal focuses more on what they see as the original sin. The allied invasion of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan that began on Oct. 7, 2001, was illegal, Chomsky says, serving only as a warning to anyone who would challenge American supremacy. As if the 9/11 attacks had never happened, he says that it was unprovoked, it was an illegitimate aggression, and it was a severe atrocity. That cherry-picked history overlooks both the universal condemnation of al Qaedas attack and the immediate United Nations Security Council resolution that stressed that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable, an unequivocal reference to the Taliban then controlling Afghanistan who had hosted Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda as the attacks were planned and carried out. But Chomsky is right that those who paid the biggest price for the U.S. intervention were the people of Afghanistan, who themselves had nothing to do with 9/11 but have been paying for it for more than 20 years.

Washington repeatedly called on the Taliban to hand over bin Laden before and after 9/11, and it had been repeatedly rebuffed. But Chomsky and Prashad, like other scholars of the Afghan War, find fault with the George W. Bush administrations refusal to negotiate with the Taliban to that end. Carter Malkasian, in The American War in Afghanistan: A History, wrote that the Bush team was under pressure to ensure the United States was safe from future terrorist attacks, but it missed two opportunities to avoid a long warconvincing the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, and including the Taliban in the post-2001 political landscape. These were the signal mistakes that led to the 20-year quagmire and thousands of deaths, Chomsky and Prashad argue in a section titled The Godfather, comparing the United States to a mob family.

[T]he Taliban understood the gravity of a U.S. attack after 9/11 and made it clear on several occasions that it would be prepared to hand over Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network to a third country, Chomsky and Prashad write. Their plea for a settlement was rejected because, they add, When the United States wants war, it gets a war.

And what a war it got. Gangsters, murderers, and drug dealers exploited the local ignorance of the foreign forces to eliminate their own enemies, while a spigot of cash poured into the coffers of the corrupt appointees who masqueraded as a government. Of the trillions of dollars spent by the United States alone, billions remain unaccounted for, their disappearance logged by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, set up by the U.S. Congress to follow the money.

Chomsky and Prashad find fault in the endgame, too, blaming the vested interests of a military-industrial complex that serves to benefit the Western elite and multiply and secure its wealth. U.S. asset freezes on Afghan central bank funds that could today finance the Taliban are, for Chomsky and Prashad, just another theft. What possible benefit, Chomsky asks, could there be for the masters of the universe in battering the country to dust for 20 years and then robbing the Afghan people of their own money, condemning them by this cruelest of current crimes to imminent starvation?

For Chomsky and Prashad, the war in Afghanistan is just one more piece in the United States quest to put together its hegemonic jigsaw puzzle. For Ackerman, by contrast, the war helped achieve the essential objectives of the global war on terror by keeping the U.S. homeland safe. But he, too, ponders the cost of this successnot only in the thousands of lives lost or ruined, but also in the financial cost to the American people who have barely noticed the grim toll on their democracy of a long war fought by a volunteer military and paid for on credit. He notes that 2001 was the last federal budget passed by Congress that had a surplus. He fears, too, a creeping politicization of the military, warning that history from Julius Caesar to Napoleon Bonaparte shows that when a republic couples a large standing military with dysfunctional domestic politics, democracy doesnt last long.

As we mark the first anniversary of the Talibans return to power and the final act of Americas betrayal, genuinely reasonable people watch slack-jawed while the Islamists squabble violently among themselves as they further brutalize a long-brutalized population. The neighboring states that cheered the departure of the United States now despair of transforming their problem child into a credible, responsible creature.

On Aug. 14, 2021, just hours before the Taliban entered Kabul and declared the war over, Biden told the people of the United States that the point of the war had already vanished 10 years earlier, with the death of bin Laden. Now, he said, its time for the Afghan people to take responsibility for themselves; the United States, he warned, would hold the Taliban accountable for its promises to stop cooperating with terrorists. And it has: At the end of July, a U.S. drone strike killed bin Ladens successor, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was living as a guest of the Taliban in a Kabul villa. From beginning to even after the end, the United States put homeland security first. Ackerman fought for it. Chomsky resents it. And the Afghans?

Almost exactly a year after Biden made that speech, this Aug. 13, brave young women marched through the streets of Kabul carrying banners that mourned a black day as they demanded their now-vanished rights to work, to learn, to be free. Taliban gunmen fired over their heads, beat them, and detained them. They, like a lot of American hopes and promises, are lost in the Talibans Afghanistan, where no one can hear them scream.

Go here to read the rest:
Book Review: Ackerman, Chomsky, and Prashad on Afghanistan, America, and the Taliban - Foreign Policy