Don't confuse intra-Afghan talks with U.S. security—withdrawal is the priority; U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe are relics, useless, and should be removed.
AFGHAN PROBLEMS ARE NOT OURS
U.S. soldiers were used as leverage to jumpstart intra-Afghan talks—bring them home regardless of the outcome
Last week, U.S. officials announced the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan will fall to around 4,500 by the end of November, a nearly 50 percent decrease from current levels. [AP / Robert Burns and Zeke Miller]
President Trump also nominated as the next U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan William Ruger, a veteran of the Afghanistan War and a long-time advocate for ending the U.S. military deployment there. [Stars and Stripes / Phillip Walter Wellman]
In Qatar over the weekend, the Afghan government and the Taliban began direct negotiations. The two sides start the long-delayed talks far apart on a number of important issues, and a deal could take years, if one is ever reached. [NYT / Mujib Mashal]
The Taliban and Kabul do agree on one thing: Both requested to meet without the presence of U.S. officials, a decision supported by the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan. [WaPo / Susannah George]
The decision highlights an important reality: Afghans are responsible for determining their future. A resolution of their conflict is not necessary for ensuring U.S. national security. It is not the U.S. military's job to resolve the country's many political problems, nor is it possible. [Washington Examiner / Daniel L. Davis]
Preventing anti-U.S. terrorism can be done without permanent ground troops in Afghanistan—and leaving will end the pointless loss of American lives and the tens of billions of dollars annually in pursuit of fanciful nation-building objectives. [DEFP / Benjamin H. Friedman]
Washington should withdraw all U.S. troops from the country and maintain its counterterrorism capability—the intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities that allow long-range strikes. The ability to punish and deter the Taliban and others will prevent Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist base. [The Hill / Daniel DePetris]
It is an error to link the remaining U.S. military presence to the Afghan talks—they are separate, and the U.S. drawdown should continue on its own. In fact, due to outside powers' interests and those of local forces, terrorists will not be able to run amok there after the U.S. withdrawal. [DEFP / Christopher Mott]
COLD WAR RELICS
"Reconsidering U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe [DEFP / Mike Sweeney]
Nearly three decades after the dissolution of the USSR, the U.S. continues to deploy an estimated 150 B61 nuclear gravity bombs across Europe. But stationing the weapons on the continent today is an anachronism and a danger.
During the early years of the Cold War, U.S. defense planners viewed tactical nuclear weapons as a way to balance the USSR's superior conventional capabilities in Europe.
Whether or not that ever made sense, in the ensuing decades, the weapons have become functionally useless due to the difficulty of delivering them. The idea they aid deterrence has become increasingly tenuous.
In 1991, with the threat from the USSR gone, President George H.W. Bush unilaterally reduced the deployment of U.S. nuclear warheads in Europe, setting the stage for a decade of fruitful arms talks with Moscow.
Today, NATO is in an advantageous military position vis-à-vis Russia, which is a shell of the former USSR. Moreover, Russian military doctrine is largely focused on defending itself against a more powerful and militarily superior U.S. and NATO. Russia's costly nuclear modernization program is generally designed to deter aggression, not to provoke it.
Removing U.S. B61s from Europe could spur comprehensive strategic stability talks with Russia, driving both countries to focus on their limited and overlapping interests of preserving arms control arrangements and minimizing the prospects of a strategic escalation.
TRENDING
Americans support exiting Afghanistan
End endless wars, "or we'll find someone who will"
Injecting a dose of realism in the U.S.-UAE relationship
Burden-shifting in Europe, regardless of who is in the White House
Pragmatic engagement with DPRK reduces risks of war
The U.S. should have more communications channels with China, not fewer