Afghanistan should be the end of the road for the two foreign policy paradigms that have directed U.S. relations with the rest of the world for the last two decades: neoconservatism and internationalism.
Neoconservatives see U.S. interests all over the globe. They regard the U.S. serving as the guarantor of an international order as a national benefit, not a burden. The U.S., in their view, should exercise muscular global leadership, acting assertively and inducing or bludgeoning other countries to follow.
Internationalists also sees U.S. interests all over the globe and believe that we should exercise global leadership. But we should do so by working through international organizations, such as the United Nations, relying more on diplomacy and less on muscular assertions.
Neoconservatives’ epic fail in Afghanistan, Iraq
Neoconservatives held sway during the George W. Bush administration. The initial involvement in Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attack was an act of national self-defense, justified by all but the purest of pacifist thinking about foreign policy.
That initial involvement, which chased the Taliban from power for continuing to harbor al-Qaida, was a low-intensity engagement. Basically, the U.S. sided against the Taliban in a preexisting civil war, using money, intelligence and air support. There was not a land invasion force.
What followed was a neoconservative exercise. The United States would midwife an exemplar of democratic capitalism in the Taliban’s aftermath, as a catalyst for broader regional reforms. We intervened in internal Afghanistan politics and governance. We invested hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure and establishing a domestic security force, as well as engaging in direct military actions of our own.
That endeavor was a colossal failure. Afghanistan never developed a security force willing to fight or a government worth fighting for. The neoconservative hubris was fully exposed, as it was in Iraq as well.
Internationalists’ efforts to curb China fail, too
Internationalism held sway in the Barack Obama administration, and President Joe Biden is an adherent.
The Donald Trump presidency raised doubt about the reliability of U.S. international leadership. Biden’s mishandling of the Afghanistan withdrawal has raised doubt about its competence.
The fatal flaw in internationalism is unrealistic expectations about what other countries are willing to do, irrespective of how respectful and skillful U.S. diplomatic blandishments might be.
China is the clearest, and most important, illustration.
The Biden administration envisions a coalition of industrialized democracies uniting to put pressure on China to adhere to democratic capitalist norms, at least with respect to trade. And to desist in attempting to achieve regional hegemony.
Even if such a coalition could be cemented together, it would fall well short of achieving those objectives so long as Chinese strongman Xi Jinping remains in charge. Xi has a…
Read More: Afghanistan proves why we need a new foreign policy approach