>> AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN
THE PROGRAM, THE UNITED STATES
HAS ENDED ITS 20-YEAR WAR IN
AFGHANISTAN.
PRESIDENT BIDEN CLAIMED SUCCESS
WITH THE MISSION OF AIRLIFTING
MORE THAN 100,000 PEOPLE OUT OF
THE COUNTRY EVEN AS IT COST THE
LIVES OF 13 U.S. SERVICE MEMBERS
AND HUNDREDS OF CIVILIANS IN
RECENT DAYS.
THE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGED THE
WHITE HOUSE WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD
BY THE SWIFT SURRENDER OF AFGHAN
FORCES TO THE TALIBAN.
>> THAT ASSUMPTION THAT THE
AFGHAN GOVERNMENT WOULD BE ABLE
TO HOLD ON FOR A PERIOD OF TIME
BEYOND MILITARY DRAWDOWN TURNED
OUT NOT TO BE ACCURATE.
>> AND JOINING US NOW IS IVO
DAALDER, PRESIDENT OF THE
CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL
AFFAIRS AND FORMER U.S.
AMBASSADOR TO NATO FROM
2009-2013.
IVO DAALDER THANK YOU FOR COMING
BACK ON "CHICAGO TONIGHT."
GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> MY PLEASURE GOOD TO BE BACK.
>> IN THE DIPLOMATIC COMMUNITY,
IS THIS WITHDRAWAL AND THE
ENDING OF THIS WAR AND THE
EXECUTION OF IT, SEEN AS A
SUCCESS AS THE PRESIDENT SEES
IT?
>> WELL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO
MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT LEVELS.
FIRST OF ALL ON THE DECISION OF
WHETHER OR NOT TO WITHDRAW.
I THINK LARGELY PEOPLE AROUND
THE WORLD ARE SEEING THAT
DECISION AS THE RIGHT DECISION A
DECISION THAT WAS IN FACT LONG
IN COMING AND PROBABLY SHOULD
HAVE BEEN TAKEN A LOT EARLIER.
IT IS PROBABLY A DECISION THAT
WOULD HAVE BENEFITED FROM MORE
CONSULTATION WITH OUR ALLIES AT
NATO WHO HAVE BEEN WITH US IN
THIS MISSION FROM DAY ONE UNTIL
THE VERY LAST DAY.
BUT OVERALL, THE IDEA THAT THE
UNITED STATES AND ITS ALLIES
SHOULD END THIS MISSION IS
SOMETHING THAT FINDS WIDESPREAD
SUPPORT AMONG ALLIES AND AMONG
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.
THEN THE QUESTION ON EXECUTION
AND ONE HEARS RUMBLING FROM
ALLIES, PARTICULARLY IN EUROPE
THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH
CONSULTATION NOT ENOUGH
INFORMATION BEING SHARED ABOUT
HOW THE WITHDRAWAL WAS GOING TO
HAPPEN.
I THINK LOOKING BACK AT SOME OF
THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE ONE
CAN SAY THERE IS A REASON TO BE
CRITICAL AND ONE COULD HAVE DONE
A BETTER JOB.
OVERALL WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT
ANY EVACUATION PARTICULARLY ONE
THAT TAKES PLACE IN A HOSTILE
ENVIRONMENT IS GOING TO BE
EXTRAORDINARILY DIFFICULT AND
EXTRAORDINARILY COMPLEX AS AN
OPERATION.
AND WITHIN THAT BACKGROUND NO
ONE HAS EVER TAKEN 122,000
PEOPLE OUT OF A COUNTRY IN WHICH
IT NO LONGER CONTROLS THE GROUND
LET ALONE OR MUCH ELSE.
>> CERTAINLY THAT HAPPENED IN A
SWIFT AMOUNT OF TIME.
BUT THE PRESIDENT KEEPS SAYING
THAT CONSENSUS WAS THAT AFGHAN
SECURITY FORCES WOULD HOLD
LONGER WERE THERE ANY VOICES IN
THE UNITED STATES OR AMONG U.S.
ALLIES THAT SAID THE OPPOSITE
THAT SAID THE U.S. SHOULD
PREPARE FOR A SCENARIO WHERE THE
TALIBAN TAKES OVER IN THE BLINK
OF AN EYE?
>> I MEAN THERE WERE NO DOUBT
SOME VOICES HERE AND THERE.
THERE'S BEEN INTERNAL REVIEWS OF
THE AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES BY
MEMBERS OF THE INSPECTOR
GENERAL'S GROUP IN THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE THAT HAVE
WARNED THAT PERHAPS THESE FORCES
WERE NOT AS STRONG AS PEOPLE HAD
HOPED.
CLEARLY THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION
ITSELF AND PRESIDENT HIMSELF
LONG BELIEVED THAT THE
GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN WAS
CORRUPT THAT IT WOULD BE UNABLE
TO STAND ON ITS OWN TWO FEET FOR
ALL THAT LONG.
THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY.
THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEHOW IT
WOULD STAY IN CONTROL FOR LONG
ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO LEAVE ON
THEIR OWN WAS PROBABLY A WRONG
ASSUMPTION.
PROBABLY HAVE TO BE RELOOKED AT
AS ONE TAKES AN AFTER ACTION
REVIEW.
BUT NO ONE AS FAR AS I CAN TELL
INCLUDING THE INTELLIGENCE
COMMUNITY WAS SAYING THAT THE
TALIBAN WILL BE ABLE TO TAKEOVER
IN THE END WAS A MATTER OF DAYS
OR WEEKS ALL OF THE DISTRICT
CAPITALS LET ALONE KABUL.
AS IT DID ON THE 15TH OF AUGUST.
>> ASSUMPTION AMONG HAWKISH
VOICES THERE WAS A MIDDLE GROUND
WHERE THE U.S. COULD MAINTAIN A
SMALL TROOP PRESENCE IN THAT
COUNTRY AND IT WOULD HAVE
REMAINED MORE STABLE THAN IT IS
TODAY, I GUESS IN PERPETUITY.
IS THAT A REALISTIC ASSUMPTION?
>> YEAH, I'M WITH THE PRESIDENT
ON THIS ONE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT OPTION
WAS A REAL OPTION.
THE IDEA TO SOMEHOW THE STATUS
QUO AS IT EXISTED ON JANUARY 20,
2021 WHEN JOE BIDEN BECAME
PRESIDENT COULD BE PROLONGED IN
PERPETUITY WITH THE CURRENT
FORCES ON THE GROUND.
REMEMBER JUST 2500 U.S. FORCES
TO 8,000 TOTAL TROOPS WITH THE
SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
CONTRACTORS AS WELL.
THOSE FORCES WERE THERE UNDER AT
ASSUMPTION AND THE SITUATION
THAT EXISTED IN THE COUNTRY WAS
BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE
UNITED STATES AND ALL FOREIGN
FORCES INCLUDING CONTRACTORS
WERE GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN BY
MAY 1, 2021.
THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT THAT
FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP
NEGOTIATED WITH THE TALIBAN IN
FEBRUARY OF 2020 IN RETURN FOR
THE TALIBAN NOT ATTACKING U.S.
FORCES AND NOT DOING LARGE SCALE
CARNAGE AGAINST THE AFGHAN
CIVILIANS.
WE WOULD WITHDRAW.
THE QUESTION THAT THE PRESIDENT
HAD BEFORE HIM WHEN HE BECAME
PRESIDENT WAS EITHER TO FULFILL
THAT COMMITMENT IN ONE FORM
OTHER ANOTHER.
OR TO SAY NO, WE NEED TO GO BACK
AND STAY IN AFGHANISTAN.
BUT STAYING IN AFGHANISTAN WOULD
HAVE BEEN TAKING ON THE TALIBAN.
THE TALIBAN BY THAT TIME HAD
BEEN IN THE STRONGEST MILITARY
POSITION INCLUDING CONTROLLING
MAJOR PARTS OF THE COUNTRY SINCE
THE WAR IN 2001.
5,000 TALIBAN PRISONERS HAD BEEN
RELEASED AT THE BEHEST OF THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AS PART OF
THIS DEAL.
OTHERS HAD FLOWN ACROSS THE
BORDERS IN ANTICIPATION OF THE
WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES
AND OTHER FORCES.
WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THOSE ON
WHETHER THAT WAS TENS OF
THOUSANDS MORE TROOPS OR NOT, I
DON'T KNOW I HAVE NOT SEEN THE
ANALYSIS.
BUT THE IDEA THAT YOU COULD HAVE
KEPT SECURITY IN THIS COUNTRY
WHEN THE TALIBAN WAS ON THE
VERGE OF VICTORY WAS 2500 TROOPS
DOESN'T STRIKE ME.
>> AND THE PRESIDENT SAID THE
ALTERNATIVE WAS INDEED GOING TO
BE AN ESCALATION.
WHAT IS NEXT FOR AFGHANISTAN
UNDER TALIBAN RULE?
>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL THE
TALIBAN IS NOT IN FACT RULING IN
TERMS OF GOVERNING THE COUNTRY.
IT IS IN CONTROL SOLE CONTROL OF
ALL THE MAJOR CAPITALS MUCH OF
THE RURAL AREA.
BUT IT NOW HAS TO DO TWO THINGS
ONE IT HAS TO TAKE CARE OF A
COUNTRY OF 39 MILLION PEOPLE.
HALF OF WHOM ARE LIVING IN
SUBSISTENCE AND BECAUSE OF
DROUGHT AND THE ECONOMIC CRISIS
ARE FACING HUMANITARIAN CRISIS.
THEY HAVE TO FIND WAYS TO
DELIVER FOR THEIR PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN SECURITY.
THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN AN
ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT IN CONTRAST
TO THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM THEY HAD
WHEN THEY WERE IN CONTROL IN THE
LATE 1990s IS NOW INTEGRATED
WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY.
DO THEY HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW
THE FINANCIAL MARKETS WHO KNOW
HOW TO DO TRADE AND KNOW HOW TO
RUN A COMPLEX SYSTEM?
THAT IS CHALLENGE NUMBER ONE.
CHALLENGE NUMBER TWO, OF COURSE,
IS THAT THEY MAY HAVE WON THIS
PARTICULAR BATTLE IN A
LONGSTANDING FIGHT WITHIN
AFGHANISTAN BUT WHETHER THEY CAN
WIN THE WAR IN THE LONG-TERM IS
TO BE SEEN.
ALREADY WE ARE SEEING OPPOSITION
FORCES MARSHALLING IN PARTS OF
THE COUNTRY AND WE MAY WELL SEE
UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE PEOPLE OF
AFGHANISTAN MORE FIGHTING, MORE
CONFLICT TO DECIDE WHO GETS TO
CONTROL WHAT PART OF AFGHANISTAN
FOR HOW LONG.
>> WE HAVE A COUPLE SECONDS IS
THERE SOUL SEARCHING THE UNITED
STATES IS DOING NOW IN TERMS OF
THIS NOTION OVER THE LAST 20
YEARS OF EXPORTING DEMOCRACY TO
A PART OF THE WORLD THAT HAS NOT
HAD ANY EXPERIENCE WITH
DEMOCRACY AND EXPORTING IT VIA
THE SWORD?
>> I SURELY HOPE SO AND I THINK
THE STRONGEST PART OF THE
PRESIDENT'S REMARKS WERE
DIRECTED AT THIS.
THIS IDEA THAT SOMEHOW WE CAN GO
INTO COUNTRIES WITH LARGE
MILITARIES AND SOMEHOW TRANSFORM
THE SOCIETIES FROM THE INSIDE
OUT IN A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT
WAY WE'VE TRIED IT.
IT DOESN'T WORK.
IT HASN'T WORKED IN AFGHANISTAN.
WE SPENT TREASURE IN LIVES AND
IN CASUALTIES, IN MONEY, AND IN
THE END WE END UP WHERE WE
STARTED WITH THE TALIBAN IN
CONTROL OF THE VERY COUNTRY THAT
WE INVADED ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO.