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 / In Afghanistan, less is more for the U.S.
Afghanistan

August 21, 2017

In Afghanistan, less is more for the U.S.

By Barry Posen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
August 21, 2017
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—In case you missed it, The Atlantic has featured an editorial by Ford International Professor of Political Science and Director of Security Studies Program at MIT Barry R. Posen in which the current states of affairs in Afghanistan is examined. According to Posen, from a strategic perspective, a dramatic reduction of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan—or even a complete drawdown—would likely realign regional behavior in ways that would drive current U.S. adversaries apart, force them to deal with difficult local problems, and encourage other regional powers to seek better ties with Washington. From an American perspective, it is a win-win.

As Posen explains in The Atlantic:

Afghanistan is a good place to create problems for America’s adversaries. And the best way to do that is to get out.

Those who instead advocate a dramatic increase in the U.S. commitment to Afghanistan would say that the best way to fight terrorists is to remain on the offensive. The problem with that argument is, of course, that America has been on the offense for 16 years in Afghanistan and elsewhere and victory remains elusive. Terrorist groups motivated by a particularly toxic interpretation of Islam remain strong, and in fact have emerged in new places. Nothing about this strategy, by the way, need prohibit U.S. raids on known terrorist hideouts in Afghanistan.

Some may also argue that Washington cannot afford to undermine its prestige by leaving Afghanistan in the lurch. Given the lives, money, and time that it has poured into building a stable Afghanistan, it is Afghans who have let the U.S. down, not the reverse—pouring more resources into a losing effort won’t enhance confidence in U.S. judgment or its staying power.

Read the entire editorial HERE via The Atlantic.

Author

Barry
Posen

Ford International Professor of Political Science, Security Studies Program

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

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