The press and the foreign policy establishment: a love story

One of the things that drove me off the wall with respect to the media coverage of the Afghanistan withdrawal was the constant presence on TV and in newspaper editorials of people who, at one point, were in some position of power during our time there. Examples include people like David Petraeus, HR McMaster, John Bolton and Ryan Crocker, to name a few. What all of them share in common is that none of them made any progress while they were in charge and now they are decrying the situation over there. Many of them insisted that we were making progress for years even though they knew it was false.

It speaks volumes to the lack of accountability in foreign policy that any of these people were given a platform to speak from. It is bad enough that these people screwed up in Afghanistan. It is even worse that virtually all of them, including almost the entire foreign policy establishment, supported invading Iraq. From listening to the press coverage of the last few weeks, one could be forgiven for thinking it was the worst thing to ever happen. It is almost like everyone has just memory holed that we invaded Iraq.

Press coverage of the Afghanistan withdrawal was abysmal

I am not going to be a psychoanalyst and speculate as to why the press and the foreign policy establishment are so interwoven and speak with one voice on almost every issue. What I am doing is pointing out that it is there and it is not a good thing. It has really been something to see almost every reporter who covered the withdrawal drop any pretense of reporting and straight up editorialize. This link provides some good examples of that in case anyone reading this thinks I am just imagining things.

No, it is not a conspiracy or evil plot by the press in cahoots with the foreign policy establishment to undermine Biden. But it is clear that reporters opposed the withdrawal and either wanted us to stay there forever or believed that withdrawing was going to be costless and pain-free. I do not think many of them even realized how much they had veered off script from reporting to editorializing.

The number of bad arguments and implications I have seen are innumerous. Almost every reporter covering the withdrawal has basically said or implied that either we should have stayed there forever or there was some pain-free way to leave. The former is really the more honest position and I wish more reporters and foreign policy establishment types would come out and say that is what they think. The latter is delusional. Could it have gone better? Sure, but that is never not true. It could also have gone much worse. Managing to evacuate more than 100,000 people in two weeks is no small feat. Everyone seems to be thinking of the costs of withdrawing (which are real), but has given no thought to the costs of staying (also very real) and the costs of our 20-year occupation (extremely real).

Counterfactuals are by definition hard and unknowable with any real certainty. Still, it would have been nice to see some reporting that came with a little perspective. Tradeoffs are always there. Had we done the things reporters and others were saying, i.e., begun withdrawing refugees sooner, there would have been reactions by other players involved. Had we began withdrawing thousands of people earlier this year, I highly doubt the Taliban would have just sat idly and done nothing. Newton’s Third Law does not just apply to physics.

It would have been nice to see some reporters mention just how awful the government we helped prop up was. Check out this link from 2019 for a comprehensive report on the level of corruption. Is it any wonder it collapsed so fast? It did basically nothing for Afghans during its existence. The payroll system set up for the Afghan army did not even work. That made the Taliban’s job immensely easier as they were often the ones providing needed services to Afghans and gaining goodwill. As awful as they are, they are plenty smart and know what they are doing.

Bad arguments

This tweet lamenting our withdrawal is full of some really bad arguments, beginning with comparing our stay in Afghanistan to our presence in South Korea, Germany and Japan. I have seen that analogy made by many people in the last few weeks. For those who know little about foreign policy, I am willing to cut them some slack. The author of the tweet, however, is the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, arguably the epicenter of the foreign policy establishment.*

South Korea, Germany and Japan all have democratically elected governments that are seen as legitimate by their people. All three have been that way for more than 70 years. All three have strong institutions supporting democracy and economies that are developed and prosperous. All three are self-sufficient and their governments do not depend on having a foreign power there to survive. If we did leave now, none of those governments would collapse. In none of those places are we fighting insurgencies. Other than that, all three of them are exactly like Afghanistan. Any foreign policy “expert” who cannot figure that out needs to retire or find a new line of work.

The suggestion that there was a middle ground between leaving and occupying forever is basically false. The idea that “open ended presence” is different from occupation is just playing semantic games. Had we not left, we were almost certainly going to stay there forever. The small presence we had would absolutely have had to have been raised because it depended on the Taliban not attacking us in the understanding that we would be leaving. Had Biden reneged on the deal Trump signed in 2020, the Taliban would have started attacking us again and we would have had to increase our presence there.

Then there is the suggestion that our presence in Afghanistan was welcome. Welcome by whom? The government that collapsed even before we left? The same government that had no legitimacy from its people? The same government whose corruption made Trump look honest? The same government whose police and other members had underaged boys as sex slaves? If that government was the only source of our being welcome there, we were not welcome at all and should have left a long time ago.

I have no doubt some Afghans were unhappy to see us go, but I wonder how many were actually happy about what had been done for the last 20 years. More likely, I suspect those who are unhappy we are gone were not really happy with us. It is just that the Taliban is awful and will take everything many steps back. That sucks, but it is not our fight.

That is the cold, hard reality of Afghanistan. The result there from our leaving will almost certainly be bad and almost certainly was going to be bad no matter what. There are plenty of places around the world where awful things happen. That does not mean we should go invade and occupy. Not every single problem in the world is ours to solve, let alone solve with force. That, in a nutshell, is my biggest beef with the foreign policy establishment. While they may not literally believe that, that ideal is behind their hawkishness, especially as it pertains to the Middle East.

The foreign policy establishment is not all bad

When it comes to the Middle East, the foreign policy establishment has screwed up royally. From preaching invasion in Iraq, bombing in Libya, involvement in Syria and staying in Afghanistan forever, they have basically destroyed everything they have touched. The entire mindset around the Middle East is one of the US needing to be involved in every last thing that happens over there despite its total lack of strategic value.

That said, I think there are many things that crowd gets right. The need for alliances like NATO is critical. Free trade is and has been a good thing, with the exception of China. Being a country that is welcoming towards immigrants is a good thing. Human rights matter greatly as does democracy. Much of the foreign policy establishment believes in those things even if they are too eager to emphasize the use of force.

While there is plenty to criticize about them, the foreign policy establishment does have a cohesive worldview. It is heavily internationalist and emphasizes the positive role the US plays in the world. During the Cold War, there was a strong, bipartisan consensus around what that should look like and I think on the whole it was right, Vietnam notwithstanding. Capitalism and democracy are vastly better than communism and dictatorships. It has been since 9/11 where they have made the most mistakes.

Whatever their mistakes, bashing them only works if the person doing the bashing has better ideas. If not, then simply criticizing does only so much and is of limited help. I think my worldview and theirs probably lines up well with the exception of the Middle East. If forced to choose, I would take them over the Trumpist world view (such that it exists) in a heartbeat. While I favor leaving the Middle East, I do not think isolationism is good and dread the thought of the US trying to pretend the world does not exist. There is plenty of ground between militarism and isolationism.

As an aside, one thing I have to say that I have liked about the Afghanistan discourse has been the consistency of most people’s positions. Much to my surprise, I have seen very little partisan hypocrisy on it. The foreign policy establishment types and reporters who have flayed Biden have not spared Trump any criticism. The same goes with those who support withdrawal. I blame Trump for plenty of bad things, but Afghanistan is not one of them. Whether the deal he signed with the Taliban was the right one or best one available, it set in motion our withdrawal, which was good.

Thank god we have a free press

As much as I disapprove of the vast majority of the press coverage of our withdrawal, I am very glad that we have a free press. They are not enemies of the people. They are absolutely vital for democracy and accountability to thrive. Unfortunately, they are not always good about that, but I would much rather have them around than not.

While I think the editorializing done by the press lately has been bad and lacking any kind of perspective beyond the immediate moment, they have every right to do that. I would not have it any other way. Yes, they have been beating the war drums. Yes, they have learned nothing from our invasion of Iraq. Yes, they have never seen an opportunity to invade or bomb a place they did not like. Yes, they are sending a message that should a future president want to withdraw from a mess they will be disemboweled. Yes, they have given platforms to people who should never be heard from again.

So what? There is nothing anyone can do about it and thank god for that. I would never want laws passed to restrict what could be covered. That is flatly unconstitutional and a quick road to tyranny. While their coverage of the withdrawal has been bad, that is just a downside of having a free press. Every right has costs. I would never want to give up the Bill of Rights just because those rights can be used for bad things or produce a bad outcome.

There is not a single right that cannot be abused or sometimes produce a bad result. Free speech? Hate groups have the right to speak just as much as you or me. Free press? See the Afghanistan coverage. Unreasonable searches and seizures? Bad guys can get off because the police did not follow the rules. Confront witnesses in trial? If a witness will not comply, a bad guy could be set free. For a recent example of how rights can have costs, see Bill Cosby. The lesson in these situations is not to be mad about bad people having rights. It is to be glad that we have a system where those rights are enforced and upheld, including for the worst people. If you want to be mad, be mad at the public officials who screwed up and/or violated the rights of the people who got off.

*I don’t think the CFR is bad. They have plenty of people who are fine and they put on all kinds of events and have all kinds of speakers that are good. They are also an extremely insulated bunch and spend all of their time around fellow bubble dwellers and so you get the inevitable groupthink.

For clarity, when I use the phrase foreign policy establishment, what I have in mind is the thinktanks, advocacy groups, TV talking heads and current and former diplomats and high-ranking military officials. It is very much a bipartisan group and has wide sway in both parties and gets virtually unlimited press coverage. Almost everyone consulted by the press is part of the establishment. Groups that are not a part of the foreign policy establishment include the Cato Institute and the Quincy Institute. Both of those groups favor a reduced US presence abroad, especially in the Middle East.