The Biden administration’s “off-horizon” strategy in Afghanistan raises serious questions for lawmakers and counterterrorism experts, as the withdrawal from the United States changes calculations about threats and capabilities.
Leading the news: Tensions escalated at a Aug. 27 conference call between top national security officials of President Biden and senators from both sides, sources familiar with the talks told Axios.
- With the 20th anniversary of 9/11 back and Secretary of State Antony Blinken to testify this week before House and Senate committees, more public questions await.
The overview: Critics tell Axios that Biden and his team have not yet provided sufficiently detailed plans or explanations about their counter-terrorism strategy to lawmakers overseeing them.
Details: The so-called capabilities of the horizon that Biden has repeatedly asserted turn terrorists into identifiers and strikes with air surveillance and drones launched from outside the country as the backbone of the US post-withdrawal counterterrorism strategy.
- But some experts warn to rely solely on these capabilities in the current conditions.
- In all countries where the United States has deployed elements of an off-horizon strategy, such as Yemen, Somalia or Iraq and Syria, there is an intelligence network, a nearby air base and some kind. of local partner.
- In the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, where the CIA has evacuated its sources, the nearest air bases are in the Gulf and the local security partner is a terrorist the FBI wanted.
Behind the scenes: At around 1pm on August 27, the day after the bombing of Kabul airport that killed 13 US service members and dozens of Afghan civilians, some of Biden’s top national security officials they held a conference call with senators from both sides.
- Reports included Blinken, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas and the Vice President of the Joint Chief of Staff, General John Hyten, according to three sources in the call.
- Sources, who read aloud the notes taken during the call, said the conversation intensified especially when Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asked, “Considering the fuel being dumped in the fire terrorism, what plans do you have to carry out the war on terrorism? … Although we seem to have surrendered, they [the terrorists] do not have.”
Colin Kahl, Undersecretary of Defense for Politics, He told McConnell, “What remains of al-Qaeda does not pose an imminent threat to the homeland,” according to notes shared with Axios. This account was confirmed by two more sources.
- “We have relocated forces in the Gulf to provide an indicator and a warning. We keep planes and authorities on strike to do so. We must remain vigilant in the face of the threat in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere.” . Then Biden’s team moved on to the next question.
- Republicans in the call said they were frustrated by the response and what they saw as Kahl’s dismissal, given the rapidly deteriorating security environment in Afghanistan and what had been revealed to be incorrect in recent guarantees of the administration on the situation on the ground.
Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said in a statement to Axios: “While we will not talk about the details of our discussions with members of Congress or internal deliberations, we absolutely maintain the ability to conduct strikes off the horizon against threats that may threaten the homeland or our interests.
- “As Secretary Austin said, there is not a part of the Earth that we cannot reach if necessary, and we do not always need a presence on the ground to attack effectively. It is more difficult, of course, but it is not impossible. , as we have shown elsewhere, “Kirby said.
- “We will continue our work with the administration and with Congress to ensure the security of the nation.”
Even before the call, lawmakers were asking questions.
What they say: On August 26, Senate Vice President of Intelligence Marco Rubio (R-Florida) and two committee members, Mr. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) And Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Van send a letter to Biden asking him how the US will rebuild lost intelligence and counterterrorism capabilities.
- Rubio told Axios on Friday that they had not gotten what they were looking for. “We haven’t heard anything from President Biden’s team that looks like a real plan because the horizon is rhetoric, not strategy,” Rubio said. “Maybe that will change this week, but at this point, everything being discussed has severe limitations.”
- Senator Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) told Axios: “If the horizon worked, there would be no ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Then they told us the same thing … we could use drones and horizon capability. to stop the accumulation of terrorists. ” (After leaving Iraq in 2011, former President Obama sent troops there in 2014 to fight ISIS, which had filled the void left by abandoned U.S. troops).
The White House declined to comment on the details of the Aug. 27 briefing.
- The National Security Council addressed Axios in a speech on the administration’s most anti-terrorist strategy delivered by National Security Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall last week.
- Sherwood-Randall said the United States “has already established” and added to its options off the horizon and stressed the importance of “diplomacy, development and prevention efforts” to expand the set of counterterrorism tools.
- The speech did not directly address the concerns raised by experts about the unique challenges posed by a strategy on the horizon in Afghanistan.
Between lines: It’s not just Republican lawmakers who are skeptical that Biden’s strategy might work.
- General Frank McKenzie, who heads the U.S. Central Command, told Congress in April, “I don’t want to do [over-the-horizon] sounds easy. It will be extremely difficult to do so, but it will not be impossible. “
- Seth Jones, a counterterrorism expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it is “absolutely unrealistic” to think that a strategy off the horizon may be enough for anything more than “strikes.” .
A Democratic aide to the House Foreign Affairs Committee noted a Aug. 27 drone strike in Nangarhar province, Afghanistan, that the Pentagon says killed two ISIS militants as an example of how effective the horizon can be.
- But two days later, another drone attack killed ten civilians after aerial surveillance confused water containers with explosives, according to a New York Times investigation, which tragically captured the limitations of long-range intelligence in the last hours of U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
- “The U.S. Central Command continues to evaluate the results of the Aug. 29 airstrike,” Kirby told Axios. “While we will not advance this assessment, the strike was made to avoid an imminent threat at the airport. We work very hard to avoid civilian casualties and we would be deeply saddened by any loss of innocent lives.”
What we are seeing: The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Mark Milley, recently warned that there is a “very good chance” that Afghanistan will fall into a wider civil war, which he said could “lead to the reconstitution of Al-Qaeda.” Qaeda or the growth of ISIS or countless other terrorist groups. “
- “You could see a resurgence of terrorism coming out of this general region in 12, 24, 36 months,” Milley told Fox News.