Skip to main content

Here's How to Stay in Afghanistan Forever: Listen to the WSJ Editorial Board

The WSJ has a plan for Afghanistan. It's the same plan with a new name.
  • Author:
  • Publish date:
Taliban Fighters stand Guard

Another Plan to Stay in Afghanistan Forever

The WSJ editorial board has an alleged "Rescue Plan" for Afghanistan. 

In reality, it's "Another Plan to Stay in Afghanistan Forever."

Mr. Biden would like to absolve himself of responsibility for this looming defeat, but he cannot. He could have withdrawn U.S. forces in a careful way based on conditions and a plan to shore up Afghan forces or midwife an alliance between regional tribal warlords and the government in Kabul. The President did none of that.

Even now, however, it’s not too late to stop or slow the slaughter. A display of even modest renewed U.S. support would boost Afghan morale and give the Taliban pause on its march to Kabul. Once a rout is stopped, the U.S. can then work on a strategy that assists Afghans who oppose the Taliban to set up a resistance. 

Sen. Lindsey Graham suggests reconstituting a version of the bipartisan Afghanistan Study Group to offer ideas for the Biden Administration. This would be an admission that Mr. Biden’s withdrawal was a mistake, but that would be a small price to avoid strategic disaster and perhaps a bloodbath that will stain America’s reputation and haunt his Presidency. Even the Democratic media has now picked up the Vietnam metaphor—“Biden’s Saigon”—that we warned about weeks ago.

So far Mr. Biden seems determined to stick with his hell-bent withdrawal, and perhaps he thinks Americans won’t care

Polling Data

For starters, Americans are sick of this war and mainstream media warmongering. 

The Hill cites a Politico-Morning Consult Survey

The survey found that a majority of registered voters — 59 percent — support Biden's plan to withdraw the troops, ending the longest war in U.S. history. In comparison, 25 percent said they are opposed to his plan and 16 percent had no opinion.

Golden Opportunity to Leave

US troops have been in Afghanistan since 2001. 

US special forces killed Bin Laden on May 2, 2011, not in Afghanistan but rather in Pakistan.

That was a golden opportunity to declare victory and get the hell out. The WSJ was against it then, against it now, and against it every step in between.

Obama Announced Leaving 

On June 23, 2011, Obama Announced Exit Strategy

President Barack Obama announced Wednesday night that all the 33,000 additional U.S. forces he ordered to Afghanistan in December 2009 will be home within 15 months. 

In a nationally televised address from the East Room of the White House, Obama said 10,000 of the "surge" forces would withdraw by the end of this year, and the other 23,000 would leave Afghanistan by September 2012.

"America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home," the president said.

Obama's reelection promise was to get out of Afghanistan. 

At the first escalation by the Taliban, Obama reneged on his promise.

Trump: US will be out of Afghanistan by Christmas

On October 7, 2020 Trump announced US will be out of Afghanistan by Christmas.

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise. 

Trump lied too.

Reflections on Leaving Right

Understanding the Setup

The WSJ warmongers want to "leave right".

Scroll to Continue


That is what Obama promised and failed, then Trump promised and failed. 

The WSJ feins concern over those we left behind. A Tweet by Dave Smith gets it.

"The people who claim to be gravely concerned about Al Qaeda returning to Afghanistan had no problem fighting wars on their behalf in Libya, Syria and Yemen. They have no concerns about starting new wars, just ending one."

On Military Force

The US should employ military force when it involves a vital national interest, when the objective can be attained, and with a strategy to depart after that objective is achieved. 

Afghanistan failed on all counts.

Afghanistan is not of strategic interest to the US. We never had a clear objective nor a plan to leave, Then the mission morphed into national building. 

On Human Tragedy

Afghanistan is humanitarian tragedy, but the United States cannot cure every such tragedy in the world – nor do we have much ability to even if we wanted as Afghanistan proves. 

There are many nations, many in Africa, where there are similar humanitarian tragedies, but the US cannot invade those countries as well.

War Mongering Mainstream Media 

Taliban Seize Control of Second Largest Afghan City, Kabul Is On Deck

On August 13, in Taliban Seize Control of Second Largest Afghan City, Kabul Is On Deck I made this easy-to-make prediction.

Expect Right wing media to blame Biden for this defeat. But this outcome was inevitable all along because as with Vietnam, support for the war in the US vanished.

Comparison to Saigon

Sure enough the WSJ pulled out the Saigon card.

The US had no legitimate business in Vietnam and other than the capture of Bin Laden had no legitimate business in Afghanistan either.

Instead of victory, this looks like defeat. This mess lingered for another 10 years at a cost in the trillions of dollars.

Whom to Blame?

Bush, Trump, Obama, neocons, and editorial warmongers on the Right and Left for perpetuating a mess we never should have been involved with in the first place.

Now the WSJ wants to stay in to leave right. It reminds me of Nixon's "Peace With Honor" speech in 1968. US troops finally left on March 29, 1973. 

At the peak, the US had 549,000 troops in Vietnam with 2.7 million serving. Yet, the US lost the war. Occupations always fail as the opponent cares more about the outcome, has the luxury of time to wait it out, is willing to pay a greater price and plays on its home court.

Saigon fell on April 30, 1975. 

The WSJ seems to wish we were still there. 

F that. I congratulate Biden on leaving, assuming he does.