在时任参议员乔·拜登(Joe Biden)与其同事一致批准在阿富汗发动战争后不久，他宣布这一努力需要地面部队，并预测如果美国不坚持到底，让“解放阿富汗的希望破灭”，世界将严厉评判美国。
20年后，拜登总统以同样的信心捍卫了他从阿富汗撤军的决定，称这是一项道德义务，同时强烈驳斥了对混乱的撤军和塔利班统治新时代的批评，后者导致数百万阿富汗人来之不易的自由几乎在一夜之间蒸发。撤军完成后，拜登称赞“这次任务取得了非凡的成功”
2021年8月31日，DC华盛顿，美国总统乔·拜登在白宫国宴厅发表结束阿富汗战争的讲话。
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images，文件
尽管拜登一直坚持自己的信念，但在大批撤离两年后，阿富汗撤军仍给他的政府蒙上阴影。虽然这一事件成为总统批评者攻击的素材，但也有迹象表明，退出给政府内部留下了持久的影响，以可见和不可见的方式改变了政府的外交政策。
“盲点”
在富兰克林·福尔即将出版的一本书中的摘录中出版《大西洋月刊》报道了2021年夏天白宫内部的动态，描绘了拜登以“决心，甚至固执”的态度对待撤军，并对媒体的负面报道感到“愤怒”。
现为捍卫民主基金会网络和技术创新中心高级主任的退休少将·马克·蒙哥马利说，他所称的拜登的短视做法导致总统对关键警告置之不理。
“面对高级军事顾问的强烈反对，他无视他们所有的担忧和建议，执行了一项绝对灾难性的糟糕政策，”他说。
“他显然有外交政策的诚意。但对于这位总统，有一个盲点，”蒙哥马利说，他认为这种态度现在已经渗透到士兵中。“我不认为他们愿意就问题所在展开公开透明的讨论。”
战略与国际研究中心跨国威胁项目高级研究员、国务院兼职高级顾问丹尼尔·拜曼说，许多官员认为他们已经翻过了这一页。
“我认为，在拜登政府内部，对这个问题的关注最多是有限的，”他说。“这不是占用高级官员的时间。”
Byman说，他们的关注点已经转向他们认为是“重大成功”的不同领域，包括政府的领域支持乌克兰并接近似乎准备入侵台湾的中国。
蒙哥马利说，阿富汗的灾难放大了美国在其他战场上取得成功的必要性。
“你真的可以把我们视为一个非常可疑的盟友，”他说。“如果你是台湾，如果你是日本或韩国，如果你是爱沙尼亚、拉脱维亚、立陶宛，你必须问问自己，美国愿意牺牲美国军人来履行其条约或对我们的义务吗?”
蒙哥马利说，通过支持乌克兰，政府恢复了一些地位，但不是全部——特别是在阻止对手煽动冲突方面。
“美国将派遣军事人员的可信想法确实威慑了中国。如果以上两届政府为基础，人们不得不质疑其可信度。“最终，我们不愿意让美国军队停留在我们的口头承诺上。”
政治成本
在国会山和竞选活动中，共和党人一直对拜登处理阿富汗问题的方式进行谴责，发起调查，并要求对他们认为可以预防的失败负责。
周二是在2021年修道院大门爆炸案中遇难的13名服役人员的几名金星家庭成员首次聚集在国会山表达他们的沮丧，反复呼吁拜登政府提高透明度，并追究他们认为辜负了他们孩子的决策者的责任。
“我对[拜登]说:辞职，”达林·胡佛，上士达林·泰勒·胡佛的父亲说。
海军下士温贝托·桑切斯(Humberto Sanchez)的母亲珊瑚·布里塞诺(Coral Briseno)补充说:“我们有权知道真相，以及政府为什么让我们的孩子送死。”
Milley本人提交了一份声明，在听证会开始时大声宣读，他说，金星家庭，“我们欠他们透明度。我们欠他们诚实，如果合适的话，我们欠他们责任。我们欠他们一个关于他们亲人遭遇的真相。”
“我们不喜欢在阿富汗发生的事情。我们不喜欢阿富汗的结果。我们有责任照顾这些家庭，”声明随后补充道。
出席圆桌会议的还有海军中士泰勒·巴尔加斯·安德鲁斯在众议院外交事务委员会作证他相信他的狙击小组在爆炸前就已经瞄准了自杀炸弹手，但是没有被允许开枪。
“这场悲剧是一场自残，不仅造成13名美国军人死亡，还造成170名无辜平民死亡，45人在大规模自杀式爆炸袭击中受伤，”众议院外交事务委员会主席迈克尔·麦克考尔(Michael McCaul)在周二的圆桌会议上说。“简单地说，这是人间地狱，最可悲的是，这一切本来是可以避免的。”
但是五角大楼对麦考尔的声明提出了质疑。
五角大楼周二在一份声明中说，“从战术层面的调查来看，修道院门袭击事件在不降低最大限度地增加疏散人数的任务的情况下是不可避免的，地面上的领导人遵循了适当的措施和程序。”。
圆桌会议后的第二天，金星家庭向北前往新泽西州的贝德明斯特，前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)周三晚上在那里举办了一场晚宴和圆桌讨论。特朗普在与塔利班达成有条件撤军协议时，首次提出了美军撤离的计划。
在社交媒体上发布的关于会议的消息中，共和党众议员迈克·华尔兹(Mike Waltz)说特朗普向他的客人承诺，如果他再次当选，他将“公布关于袭击的一切”。
共和党总统候选人指责拜登退出，参议员蒂姆·斯科特谚语他所说的“拙劣的撤军”是“我们国家和前驻联合国大使妮基·黑利的悲剧”谚语“人头应该滚动”在“修道院大门的阿富汗灾难。”
对许多人来说，拜登政府提高透明度的努力失败了。
今年4月，白宫在复活节周末之前发布了一份12页的总结报告，内容是围绕撤军的“决定和挑战”。它被广泛解读为防御性的——一系列旨在更直接地将责任转移到前任政府身上的论点，而不是从苦难中真正获得的东西。
还有瓦格斯·安德鲁斯证明3月，海军刑事调查局或联邦调查局没有与他面谈。
然后，在另一个假期的前夕——7月4日之前的星期五——国务院发布了公众版的期待已久的阿富汗行动后评估。调查结果更具实质性，并将责任归咎于拜登和特朗普，称两人都做出了“对阿富汗政府及其安全的可行性造成严重后果”的决定。
尽管如此，批评者指责政府再次试图掩盖信息，甚至政府内部的一些官员私下质疑推出背后的策略，并对延迟表示失望。
蒙哥马利说，他怀疑人们是否真的有兴趣从经验中学习，因为“总统认为他没有做错什么。”
Byman说:“毫无疑问，这不是政府想要关注的一个故事，所以他们试图掩盖它的事实对我来说一点也不奇怪。”
但是Byman和Montgomery都预测，对撤军的攻击最终不会得到选民的支持，主要是因为拜登似乎至少遵守了一个核心承诺:到目前为止，阿富汗没有再次成为恐怖分子的避风港。
“公众的注意力消失了。他说:“在民意调查中，这并不是一个主要问题。
历史会重演吗?
塔利班是否会再次允许阿富汗成为极端主义的温床仍然是一个悬而未决的问题。
尽管基地组织已经被制服，其他与塔利班结盟的组织——包括TTP塔利班运动——据信在该国东部有数千名战士——一直在扩大和升级他们的行动报告本月早些时候发表的美国和平研究所发现。
拜登说，他认为美国在反恐问题上“会得到塔利班的帮助”是正确的，但拜曼和蒙哥马利说，美国和国际社会对事实上的统治者的行为几乎没有影响力。
拜曼说:“塔利班一直明确表示，阿富汗的经济繁荣和阿富汗人民的日常福祉不是他们的首要任务。”。“因此，经济援助和认可的力度是有限的，但我们希望你能产生一些影响，并努力将最坏的情况降至最低。”
尽管如此，Byman说，塔利班在极端主义方面“可能会比以前统治时期更加谨慎”,美国可以采取行动应对威胁，这是有希望的。
他说:“美国确实有一些打击能力，但远不如两年前。”。
蒙哥马利则不太乐观，他说，政府只愿意瞄准阿富汗境内价值最高的目标。
他说:“想破坏美国的非国家行为者的基础——他们总是会在阿富汗境内发展壮大。”。“我们可能会像20年前一样面临挑战。”
2 years on, the withdrawal from Afghanistan continues to cast pall over Biden administration
Shortly after then-Sen. Joe Biden joined his colleagues in unanimously approving waging war in Afghanistan, he declared the effort required military boots on the ground and predicted the world would judge the U.S. harshly if it did not stay the course, allowing "the hope of a liberated Afghanistan to evaporate."
Twenty years later, President Biden defended his decision to withdraw from Afghanistan with the same level of confidence, portraying it as a moral imperative while forcefully rejecting criticism over the chaotic exit and new era of Taliban rule that saw millions of Afghans' hard-won freedoms vaporize virtually overnight. And upon completion of the withdrawal, Biden applauded the "extraordinary success of this mission."
But while Biden has stood ardently by his conviction, the Afghanistan withdrawal continues to cast a pall over his administration two years after the exodus. While the episode has become fodder for attacks from the president's detractors, there are also signs that the exit left a lasting mark on those within the administration, altering its approach to foreign policy in ways seen and unseen.
"A blind spot"
In an excerpt from an upcoming book from Franklin Foerpublishedby The Atlantic covering the dynamics inside the White House during the summer of 2021, Biden is depicted approaching the withdrawal with "determination, even stubbornness," as well as being "furious" over negative media coverage.
Retired Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, now the senior director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies' Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation, says what he called Biden's myopic approach resulted in the president shutting out critical warnings.
"In the face of significant pushback from the senior military advisers, he overrode all their concerns and recommendations, and executed an absolutely catastrophically bad policy," he said.
"He clearly has foreign policy bonafides. But with this president, there's a blind spot," Montgomery said, arguing that attitude has now seeped through the ranks. "I do not believe that they are willing to have an open transparent discussion of what went wrong."
Daniel Byman, a senior fellow with the Transnational Threats Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a part-time senior adviser to the State Department, says many officials feel they have turned the page.
"I think that there's a limited focus on this at best within the Biden administration," he said. "It's not occupying the time of senior officials."
Their focus, Byman says, has turned to different areas they consider to be "major success," including the administration'ssupport for Ukraineand approach to China, which seems poised to invade Taiwan.
Montgomery says the calamity in Afghanistan amplified the need for the United States to succeed in other theaters.
"You really could see us as a very dubious ally," he said. "If you're Taiwan, if you're Japan or Korea, if you're Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, you have to be asking yourselves is the United States willing to sacrifice American service members to meet its treaty or stated obligations to us?"
By backing Ukraine, Montgomery says the administration has restored some of its standing, but not all of it -- especially when it comes to deterring adversaries from inciting conflicts.
"The credible belief that the U.S. would commit military personnel does deter China. And one has to call into question the credibility if that based on the last two administrations," he said. "In the end, we're not willing to put U.S. troops where our rhetoric is."
The political cost
On both Capitol Hill and the campaign trail, Republicans have maintained a steady drumbeat of reproval over Biden's handling of Afghanistan, launching inquiries and demanding accountability for what they argue were preventable failures.
Tuesday marked the first time several Gold Star family members of the 13 service members killed in the 2021 Abbey Gate bombing gathered on Capitol Hill to voice their frustrations, repeatedly calling for transparency from the Biden administration and accountability for decision-makers they say failed their children.
"I say to [Biden]: Resign," said Darin Hoover, the father of Staff Sgt. Darin Taylor Hoover.
"We deserve to know the truth and why the government sent our kids to their deaths," Coral Briseno, the mother of Marine Cpl. Humberto Sanchez, added.
Milley himself submitted a statement that was read aloud at the start of the hearing, saying of the Gold Star families, "We owe them transparency. We owe them honesty, we owe them accountability if appropriate. We owe them the truth about what happened to their loved ones."
"We don't like what happened in Afghanistan. We don't like the outcome of Afghanistan. We owe it to the families to take care of them," the statement later added.
Also present at the roundtable was Marine Sgt. Tyler Vargas-Andrews, whotestified before the House Foreign Affairs Committeein March that he believes his sniper team had the suicide bomber in its sights before the explosion but was not allowed to take the shot.
"This tragedy was a self-inflicted wound that not only killed 13 U.S. service members, but also killed 170 innocent civilians and injured 45 people in a massive suicide bombing attack," House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said at Tuesday's roundtable. "Simply put, it was hell on Earth, and the saddest part is it all could've been prevented."
But the Pentagon disputed McCaul's statement.
"From the investigation at the tactical level, the Abbey Gate attack was not preventable without degrading the mission to maximize the number of evacuees, and the leaders on the ground followed the proper measures and procedures," the Pentagon said in a statement Tuesday.
The day after the roundtable, the Gold Star families traveled north to Bedminster, New Jersey, where former President Donald Trump, who first laid the plans for the departure of U.S. troops when he struck a conditional withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, hosted a dinner and roundtable discussion Wednesday night.
In a message posted to social media about the meeting, Republican Rep. Mike Waltzsaidthat Trump promised his guests that if he was reelected, he would "release everything" about the attack.
GOP presidential candidates have dinged Biden for the withdrawal, with Sen. Tim Scottsayingthat what he called the "botched withdrawal" was "a tragedy for our nation and former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haleysaying"heads should roll" over the "Afghanistan catastrophe at Abbey Gate."
For many, the Biden administration's attempts at transparency have fallen flat.
In April, the White House issued a 12-page summary of its report on the "decisions and challenges" surrounding the withdrawal just ahead of the Easter weekend. It was widely interpreted as defensive—a list of arguments aiming to shift blame more squarely on the previous administration rather than genuine takeaways from the ordeal.
And Vargas-Andrewstestifiedin March that he was not interviewed by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service or the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Then, on the cusp of another holiday -- the Friday before the Fourth of July -- the State Department released a public version of its own long-awaited After-Action Review on Afghanistan. The findings were more substantial and ascribed fault to both Biden and Trump, saying both men made decisions that had "serious consequences for the viability of the Afghan government and its security."
Still, critics accused the administration of once again trying to bury the information, and even some officials within the administration privately questioned the strategy behind the rollout and expressed frustration over the delay.
Montgomery says he doubts there's a real appetite to learn from experience because "the president thinks he did nothing wrong."
"There's no question this is not a story the administration wants a lot of attention on, so the fact that they're trying to bury it is not at all surprising to me," said Byman.
But both Byman and Montgomery predict attack lines on the withdrawal ultimately won't land with voters, primarily because Biden appears to have kept at least one core promise: so far, Afghanistan has not become a safe haven for terrorists again.
"Public attention is gone. It doesn't show up in polling as a major concern," he said.
Can history repeat itself?
Whether the Taliban will once again allow Afghanistan to become an incubator for extremism is still an open question.
Even though al-Qaeda has been subdued, other groups aligned with the Taliban -- including Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which is believed to have thousands of fighters across the eastern reach of the country -- have been expanding and escalating their operations, areportfrom the United States Institute of Peace published earlier this month found.
Biden has said he was right that the U.S. would "get help from the Taliban" on fighting terror, but Byman and Montgomery say the U.S. and the international community have little leverage the de facto rulers' behavior.
"The Taliban have always made it clear that the economic prosperity of Afghanistan, the day-to-day well-being of their citizens is not their top priority," Byman said. "So there are going to be limits to how much economic assistance and recognition can do, but the hope is that you'll have some impact and trying to minimize the worst."
Still, Byman says there's some hope the Taliban "may be more cautious" on the extremism front than the group was during its previous rule, and that the U.S. can take action against threats.
"The U.S. does have some strike capability -- not nearly as much as it did two years ago," he said.
Montgomery was less optimistic, saying the administration has only been willing to take aim at the highest value targets within Afghanistan.
"The base of nonstate actors to who want to damage the United States -- they're invariably going to grow inside Afghanistan," he said. "We could be facing a challenge like we did 20 years ago."
