Former president George Bush
recently was interviewed
by a German outlet, Deutsche Welle.
And he was asked about
the withdrawal of US troops
from Afghanistan, something that
Joe Biden has actually committed
to and is executing.
All troops and
US personnel should be leaving
the country by August 31st.
But George Bush is not happy
about it.
In fact, it makes him very sad, and
he explains why in this clip.
Let's watch.
>> It's unbelievable how that
society changed from the brutality
of the Taliban and now all of
a sudden, sadly, I'm afraid Afghan
women and girls are going to suffer
unspeakable harm.
>> Is it a mistake, the withdrawal?
>> I think it is, yeah,
because I think the consequences
are going to be unbelievably bad.
And I'm sad.
Laura and
I spend a lot of time with Afghan
women, and they're scared.
And I think about all
the interpreters and people that
help not only US troops, but
NATO troops.
And it seems like they're
just going to be left behind to
be slaughtered by these very brutal
people, and it breaks my heart.
>> So it breaks George Bush's
heart, even though we've spent
a trillion dollars in Afghanistan.
We had been there for
20 years straight, and
there was really no end in sight.
So Daniel Bessner is here to help
me break down the story.
He's a historian and also a co-host
of the podcast American Prestige.
You can check it out anywhere you
get your podcasts.
And his first episode was
actually about Afghanistan.
Daniel, what's your first reaction
to the clip we just showed?
>> Well, I think the first thing
that it's important to appreciate
is that what Bush is essentially
advocating is a permanent
military force in Afghanistan.
That's essentially equivalent to
the so-called Indian Wars that
defined the United States' early
history.
And if you recall, even recently,
someone like Max Boot was arguing
that that's what essentially
the United States should do
in the world.
They should do permanent military
garrisons in the frontiers
of empire.
To what ends is a little bit
unclear.
Sometimes you hear the type
of liberal women's rights arguments
made by George W Bush.
Sometimes you hear the security
arguments that you need a base in
basically, Southwest Asia in order
to combat China.
And so there's a diversity of
explanations that are given.
I think Bush right there is trying
to appeal to people and
pulling their heartstrings, but
what he's essentially advocating is
a permanent military force.
That the United States becomes
the permanent imperial presence in
Asia now and forever.
And in 300 years, maybe there'll
be a liberal democratic regime that
will mirror what happened to
the United States 100 years ago.
Or what happened throughout
the North Atlantic countries in
the last hundred plus years in
terms of women's rights.
So I think that's important to
recognize and
not to get lost in what he's
literally saying as opposed to what
he's structurally demanding.
A type of permanent garrison
military force, an endless war in
Afghanistan to inchoate ends.
It's unclear when
women's freedom would be realized,
when the liberal political economy,
when the liberal constitution would
be actually working,
and things along those lines.
So I think it's important to
see what he's really saying there.
>> Yeah, you're absolutely
right about that.
And it's clear that the military
generals who had an incredibly
negative reaction to Trump wanting
to begin this troop withdrawal
certainly believed that a permanent
US presence there was
the right way to go.
But not only do the American people
refuse to support that,
from what I've read, the people of
Afghanistan also do not want that.
They saw the United States as
an occupying force and
that they wanted to get rid of.
And so
what is it with former presidents,
current US lawmakers,
who use various issues like women,
for instance, or
the treatment of various groups of
people as the reason for
invading or occupying a country?
When also,
simultaneously, the US has decided
to ally with all sorts of countries
who are awful to their citizens.
I mean, the example that's always
used is Saudi Arabia, because yeah,
yeah, Saudi Arabia should be used
as an example.
I mean, they ordered the murder and
dismemberment of a Washington Post
journalist in Istanbul, remember?
That was Jamal Khashoggi, and
Mohammed bin Salman was never held
accountable for that.
Biden said he would, he never did.
So why do they think they can
kind of get away with using these
kinds of talking points to garner
support for these forever wars?
>> Well, I think what you're saying
is exactly right.
It's an instrument and it's a
obviously a hypocritical argument.
And I don't think these leaders
really care about what's going on
in Afghanistan in relation to
the women there.
I think it's just an argument
made for other purposes.
And I think the reason that they
feel free to make these arguments
and frankly, aren't embarrassed by
them, is that they frankly have
a contempt for the American public.
There's no real interest
in listening to what
the American public thinks.
There's no real interest
in listening to what people in
Afghanistan themselves think.
And so it's just a profound
contempt for
the workings of democracy.
And this has been true in a lot
of American war making for
decades now.
Famously, of course,
the US Congress has not declared
war since 1942.
And of course, the United States
has intervened throughout the world
since that war was declared.
The statistic I like to give is
that the United States tried to
covertly overthrow regimes 66 times
during the Cold War.
And in, I believe,
44 of those cases,
it supported authoritarian forces.
And that comes from the book,
Covert Regime Change,
by the political scientist
Lindsey O'Rourke.
So the United States is not
a country that has demonstrated in
its actual actions any concern for
people on the ground.
And it's frankly a big reach for
someone like George W Bush to argue
this given what he personally is
responsible for in terms of
Afghanistan, the war on terror, and
the various violations of civil
liberties that engendered.
And of course,
the invasion of Iraq, which at its
maximum point probably deracinated
upwards of 37 million people.
So it's just a completely
hypocritical argument with no basis
in any actual politics that shows
contempt for regular Americans and
what they might think about
the world.
>> Do you believe that that
contempt for Americans and
just this refusal to listen to
their concerns about these forever
wars created an opportunity in
which Donald Trump can exploit
the failures of people like
George Bush to garner support
among Republican voters?
>> Absolutely, I mean,
throughout his campaign,
what Trump showed was that you
could criticize terrible foreign
policies like the war in Iraq and
essentially just get away with it.
I think that was a big,
not the sole reason, but
a big reason why he was so popular,
particularly during the Republican
presidential primaries.
It separated him from other
candidates. It made him seem like
he was actually telling the truth,
that he wasn't trying to BS them,
and I think that was a big part of
his appeal.
Now, of course, in actual office,
Trump really didn't do very much
different.
He maintained what I would refer to
as the imperialist status quo.
But certainly, the contempt that,
quote, unquote,
mainstream Republicans, and I might
add many mainstream Democrats,
displayed toward the American
people almost necessarily opens up
a space for charismatic demagogues
like Trump to come in,
tell a truth that everyone
recognizes is a truth, and to gain
the political benefits of that.
>> Absolutely, well,
even though Bush shows absolutely
no remorse for
that awful forever war, luckily,
Biden did follow through on this
commitment to withdraw troops.
And the US marked one of the final
phases of its drawdown on Monday of
this week with the departure of
General Scott Miller,
the top general in Afghanistan,
who was among the last of
the American forces in the country.
Now, going forward,
what can the people of Afghanistan
expect in terms of US involvement?
They have kept open the possibility
of using airstrikes in order to
keep the Taliban in check,
which is concerning.
So there is that caveat to keep
in mind.
Also going forward,
General Frank McKenzie, the head of
the US Central Command, will
oversee the mission in Afghanistan
from his headquarters in Tampa,
Florida, equipped to authorize
airstrikes against the Taliban in
support of Afghan security forces
through the end of August.
So as that story develops,
if there are any changes in US
foreign policy toward Afghanistan,
of course, we'll let you know.
But so far, it does appear that
Biden is following through on his
promises and
withdrawing the troops, and
I do believe that's a good thing.