Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • Israel-Hamas
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
    • North Korea
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Afghanistan / Anything short of a full, speedy U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a mistake
Afghanistan

September 4, 2019

Anything short of a full, speedy U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan would be a mistake

By Benjamin Friedman

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 4, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—On Monday, media reports offered details of a tentative U.S.-Taliban agreement to draw down some U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Defense Priorities Policy Director Benjamin H. Friedman issued the following statement in response:

“The reported U.S. agreement with the Taliban to remove 5,400 U.S. troops within 135 days is progress, but it is insufficient to end the 18-year U.S. war in Afghanistan.

“The United States should not continue to expend lives and dollars fighting for the success of the Afghan government. If this agreement leads to the withdrawal of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it will be worth celebrating. The danger is that it will provide political cover for leaving a smaller but perpetual U.S. military presence, making an already long war permanent.

“This agreement, if implemented, would leave behind roughly 8,600 U.S. troops in Afghanistan—that would be 8,600 too many.
“Plans for full withdrawal have not been revealed and appear to be contingent on further talks with the Taliban or peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. That would be a mistake.

“The Taliban may refuse to strike a power-sharing deal with the Afghan government, and they might renege even if they do. U.S. troops should not be made hostage to the settlement of Afghanistan’s civil war, which has been ongoing, one way or another, for 40 years.
“The United States can best serve its interests by withdrawing all U.S. military forces—with or without Taliban cooperation.
“Combating anti-U.S. terrorism can be done remotely via long-range attack assets and local forces, without a permanent U.S. ground presence. Retaining a force of any size would only serve the failed nation-building mission that has trapped U.S. forces in Afghanistan for nearly two decades.”

Author

Photo of Benjamin Friedman

Benjamin
Friedman

Policy Director

Defense Priorities

More on Asia

op-edAsia

The Trump administration cools off India-Pakistan conflict — for now

By Daniel DePetris

May 13, 2025

op-edChina, Air power, Asia, Balance of power, Global posture, Land power, Naval power, Taiwan

China tariffs deal could backfire on Trump

By Jennifer Kavanagh

May 12, 2025

op-edAsia, Air power, Nuclear weapons

Will India or Pakistan resort to the nuclear option?

By Rajan Menon

May 8, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Air power, Asia, Balance of power, Global posture, Land power, Naval power

The Pentagon Is Ignoring Its Own Strategy

By Jennifer Kavanagh

May 7, 2025

ExplainerMiddle East, China, Europe and Eurasia

China can’t dominate the Middle East

By Rosemary Kelanic

May 5, 2025

In the mediaChina, Asia, Taiwan

Trump fires national security adviser, signaling new China line

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh

May 2, 2025

Events on Afghanistan

See All Events
virtualAfghanistan, Middle East

Past Virtual Event: One year later: assessing the Afghanistan withdrawal

August 30, 2022
in-personCounterterrorism, Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, Syria

Past In-Person Event: Ground truth about ground wars

November 5, 2019

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved