Ex-U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan: ‘It’s a failure of American patience’ | Local News

Ryan Crocker is a professional diplomat who served the U.S. government across the Middle East, but his name and work are linked to two posts after September 11: Iraq from 2007-09 and Afghanistan from 2011-12.

He helped set up the US embassy in Afghanistan in 2002 and heavily criticized the US government’s decision to withdraw troops from the country 20 years after their arrival.

The 72-year-old Crocker, now retired, recently spoke to The New Mexican over the phone about America’s actions in Afghanistan and the possible consequences of his abrupt departure.

Question: What are the chances that ISIS or some other version of al-Qaeda could do what it did in 2001?

Answers: Our defenses are infinitely stronger than they were then; I think it would be much, much more difficult for any strategic adversary to carry out such an attack. But I can’t say we don’t have to worry about that anymore, especially given what we just saw in Afghanistan. The Taliban are back in control. … They never cut ties with al-Qaeda. … Instead, they have been in exile for 20 years and we are already seeing a return of al-Qaeda.

You’re putting the band back together, and that’s not a theoretical threat. These are the guys who brought us 9/11. Our defenses are better now, but we can count on a determined re-entry and they will try to figure out how to get in better.

And, of course, our ability to obtain information about our opponents’ plans suffers a great blow from our withdrawal from Afghanistan. We are no longer there, and our director of Central Intelligence has already said that this will cost us in terms of our ability to extract information.

The Taliban proclaim the defeat of the infidels by the band of brothers, who are only dressed in the armor of the one true faith. The psychological boost for violent Islamic groups is enormous. It could do wonders for recruiting and fundraising.

Question: Given its tribal character and weak history of democracy, do you consider Afghanistan a failure of politics, vision or simply an impossible mission?

Answers: None of the above. It is a failure of American patience. We didn’t go to Afghanistan to build model democracy. We didn’t go to make a lot of money. We went to Afghanistan because 9/11 came from there. … When we had the “wave” [there were] nearly 100,000 American soldiers on the ground, and the Taliban did not occupy any of Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals.

This force decreased in the following years. [There were] 13,000 if [President Barack] Obama left office and when [President Donald] Trump took over … with our troops cut almost 90 percent, the Taliban still did not occupy any of the capitals. Trump moved further to 5,000 and then back to 2,500 and the Taliban still did not occupy any of the 34 capitals.

And then we ran out of patience. We just decided we’re done, we’re gone. … That was the only strategic change in all these years, and now they occupy the whole country in a matter of days.

Question: The US military tried to get out of counterterrorism mode when Afghanistan collapsed and the world was changing, according to published reports. Is that wise now that Afghanistan is back in the hands of the Taliban?

Answers: I don’t think so. What President Biden has said very consistently is that we need to focus on security challenges around the world, not just like in places like Afghanistan. We need to focus on counter-terrorism in many different places because the world has changed since 9/11. I see him say we need to do more in many places. Yes, that’s right. But that doesn’t mean we should lose sight of Afghanistan.

Question: In your comment in the New York Times, you said that time and patience should be part of the US calculation in Afghanistan. Given the American mindset and the ability of our enemies to wait and see, should the US ever commit to long-term conflict?

Answers: We don’t commit to long-term conflict. … When they get long-term, we get nervous and look for the door. … We have created an atmosphere in which our allies worry about our commitment and patience, and our enemies count on that impatience. [The way we pulled out of Afghanistan] will heighten the fears of the allies and build the courage and confidence of our enemies.

Question: Are you making the disaster of the last few weeks Biden or Trump at the feet or at the gates of many?

Answers: There is good news and bad news. The good news is on a really important issue, which concerns our core national security. Two very different governments agreed on one point. The bad news was that it was a complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. … It’s a huge strategic mistake. [There is] much to blame. … It started with President Trump. He authorized negotiations with the Taliban and that was the beginning of the end. … The blame is clearly on Biden for making the decisions as president, but Trump left him a very, very bad hand to play with.

Question: What would you have done differently?

A: We had come to a point where we could support the Afghan armed forces with a minimum of strength. There are many problems in the world that cannot be completely resolved, but they can be dealt with, and this was one. … Again we went from 100,000 to less than 10,000 [troops in Afghanistan] without the Taliban being able to hold a major city.

It cost us very little blood and treasure and it was our insurance policy against another 9/11. I would argue that the premium on this policy was pretty cheap. We didn’t have to take the risk of a full move out; We could get along pretty well with a minimal force that is no longer there for direct combat.

Question: Are we back where we started 20 years later?

Answers: Yeah, and that’s a scary thing. It’s September 10th again.