Deeper Look: The Chaotic Exit From Afghanistan

Trump blames Biden, but a deeper look reveals a complicated scenario set in motion by the Trump administration's signing of the Doha Agreement

Not a day goes by in campaign 2024 that we don’t hear mention by Trump and his surrogates of the disastrous U.S. pullout from Afghanistan in 2021. That this happened on Joe Biden’s watch means he cannot escape some degree of ownership of the disaster. But are the attacks fair? A key factor that is generally downplayed is that the whole withdrawal was carried out as a result of the agreement negotiated by the Trump administration in 2020, calling for the US to withdraw according to a calendar-specific schedule. It cannot be denied this was a major contributing factor - but even so, did Biden truly blunder? Or is the criticism just election year scapegoating? Following is a deeper look at the withdrawal and what actually happened.

The Doha Agreement: Context and Details

The roots of the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan lie in the Doha Agreement, officially known as the “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan,” which was signed on February 29, 2020, between the United States and the Taliban. This agreement was negotiated under the Trump administration, with the primary U.S. negotiator being Zalmay Khalilzad. It was the culmination of extensive negotiations that began in 2018 and were conducted mostly in Qatar.

Negotiation and Announcement:

The agreement outlined a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. and allied forces from Afghanistan, with the expectation that the Taliban would engage in intra-Afghan negotiations with the Afghan government and commit to preventing terrorist groups from using Afghan soil to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.

Key Provisions:

1. Troop Withdrawal: The U.S. agreed to reduce its forces from approximately 13,000 to 8,600 within 135 days and complete a full withdrawal within 14 months, contingent on the Taliban fulfilling their commitments.

2. Counterterrorism Guarantees: The Taliban committed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in areas under their control.

3. Intra-Afghan Negotiations: The Taliban agreed to engage in direct negotiations with the Afghan government, which were expected to lead to a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire and political roadmap for Afghanistan.

4. Prisoner Exchange: A significant provision was the exchange of prisoners, with the Afghan government agreeing to release up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for 1,000 Afghan security forces held by the Taliban.

Criticism of the Agreement:

• Unilateral Concessions: Critics argue that the agreement gave the Taliban significant concessions with little in return. The withdrawal timeline was fixed regardless of the progress in intra-Afghan negotiations or the Taliban’s adherence to counterterrorism commitments.

• Exclusion of Afghan Government: The Afghan government was notably excluded from the negotiations, which undermined its legitimacy and position in the subsequent intra-Afghan talks.

• Weak Verification Mechanisms: The agreement lacked strong mechanisms to verify Taliban compliance with the counterterrorism provisions, raising concerns about the potential resurgence of terrorist activities in Afghanistan.

• Taliban’s Ambiguity: The Taliban’s commitments were often seen as vague and unenforceable, particularly concerning the prevention of terrorist groups operating in Afghanistan.

Impact on the Outcome:

The Doha Agreement played a critical role in shaping the events leading to the eventual collapse of the Afghan government and the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in August 2021. Key points of impact include:

1. Demoralization of Afghan Forces: The agreement signaled to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) that U.S. support was waning, leading to a significant decline in morale and combat effectiveness. Many Afghan soldiers and police, uncertain about their future, began negotiating surrender agreements with the Taliban.

2. Strengthening of the Taliban: The Taliban used the agreement to gain international legitimacy and increase their influence across Afghanistan. The prisoner exchange bolstered their ranks, and the withdrawal timeline allowed them to prepare militarily for a full-scale offensive once U.S. troops left.

3. Failure of Intra-Afghan Talks: The intra-Afghan negotiations failed to produce a meaningful peace agreement. The Afghan government, weakened by the Doha Agreement and facing an emboldened Taliban, struggled to negotiate effectively.

4. Hasty Withdrawal: The Biden administration, inheriting the agreement, adhered to the withdrawal timeline. Although they extended the deadline slightly from May to August 2021, the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban’s swift takeover led to a chaotic and deadly evacuation process.

The Withdrawal: What Happened?

The actual withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan in August 2021 was marked by a rapid collapse of the Afghan government, a swift takeover by the Taliban, and chaotic scenes at Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport. The withdrawal process has been heavily criticized for its execution, with various commentators and experts offering differing views on what could have been done differently.

Timeline of Events:

• April 2021: President Biden announced that the U.S. would adhere to the withdrawal plan, with a final exit date set for September 11, 2021 (later moved up to August 31). This was an extension of the May 1 deadline set by the Doha Agreement. (Comment: Critics could argue that. Biden didnt have to adhere to the agreement or could have instituted something other than calendar-based milestones. He chose not to do this and he owns that aspect of what happened.)

• May to August 2021: The Taliban launched a major offensive, rapidly capturing large parts of Afghanistan. Afghan security forces, demoralized and often without U.S. air support, crumbled under the pressure.

• August 15, 2021: Kabul fell to the Taliban, leading to the rapid evacuation of U.S. and allied personnel, as well as thousands of Afghan civilians seeking to escape the new regime. The scenes at Kabul airport, with desperate crowds, a suicide bombing, and frantic evacuations, became emblematic of the chaotic withdrawal.

Critical Blunders:

1. Intelligence Failures: The U.S. intelligence community reportedly underestimated the speed at which the Taliban could capture territory and overestimated the Afghan government’s ability to hold out. This miscalculation left little time to plan an orderly evacuation.

2. Evacuation Planning: Critics argue that the evacuation was poorly planned, with many questioning why it wasn’t initiated earlier, given the deteriorating security situation. The U.S. military’s initial plan to rely on the Afghan government for security at Kabul airport proved to be a major miscalculation.

3. Bagram Air Base Closure: One of the most criticized decisions was the closure of Bagram Air Base, which was handed over to Afghan forces in July 2021. Bagram was a more secure and logistically capable facility than Kabul’s airport, and its abandonment limited evacuation options and increased reliance on a single, less secure point of departure.

4. Inadequate Communication with Allies: The rapid pace of the withdrawal left some NATO allies and other partners unprepared, leading to disjointed efforts to evacuate personnel and vulnerable Afghans.

5. Reliance on Taliban for Security: The U.S. was forced to coordinate with the Taliban for security outside Kabul airport, a situation that culminated in a deadly ISIS-K suicide bombing that killed 13 U.S. service members and nearly 200 Afghan civilians.

What Could Biden Have Done Differently?

• Delay or Conditions-Based Withdrawal: Critics argue that Biden could have delayed the withdrawal further or made it conditions-based, requiring certain benchmarks to be met before pulling out. This could have included a more gradual withdrawal or maintaining a small counterterrorism force to support the Afghan government.

• Retaining Bagram Air Base: Keeping Bagram Air Base operational could have provided a more secure location for evacuations and allowed for a better-coordinated withdrawal.

• Earlier Evacuation Efforts: Initiating the evacuation of U.S. personnel, Afghan allies, and vulnerable civilians earlier could have avoided much of the chaos seen at Kabul airport. More proactive planning might have prevented the last-minute rush and the security lapses that occurred.

• Stronger Support for Afghan Forces: Providing sustained air support and logistical assistance to Afghan forces during the withdrawal period might have slowed the Taliban’s advance, giving more time for an orderly evacuation.

Role of the Doha Agreement

The Doha Agreement set a clear timeline for the U.S. withdrawal, which critics argue hamstrung both the Trump and Biden administrations. This must be regarded as one of the major blunders of the withdrawal, it is owned by Trump, or should be. The Taliban were able to exploit the fixed withdrawal date, launching a major offensive after U.S. forces had begun to draw down. The agreement’s lack of enforceable conditions on the Taliban’s behavior further complicated the situation, as the group violated many of its commitments while facing minimal consequences.

The calendar date withdrawal, as stipulated in the agreement, put pressure on both the Afghan government and U.S. planners to meet deadlines regardless of the security situation on the ground. This contributed to the rushed and chaotic nature of the final withdrawal, with little room for flexibility.

That said — the Biden administration was slow to react to the disintegrating situation and made a series of poor choices under the circumstances. Some of those choides — such as the closure of Bagram Air Base — clearly rise to the level of somethign that Biden would have participated in.

Conclusion

The American withdrawal from Afghanistan “programmed to fail” due to the rigid timeline set in the Doha Agreement. But while President Biden faced significant constraints due to the pre-existing agreement and the deteriorating situation on the ground, critics credibly argue that more proactive planning, better communication with allies, and different decisions regarding the withdrawal’s timing and logistics could have mitigated the chaos and human suffering that ensued.