When word came down last week that President Biden was going to withdraw all American forces from Afghanistan--by September, on the 20th anniversary of 9/11--there was what the papers call "mixed reaction."
Which is to say, some people were put out. Because the commander-in-chief's order was to bug out. No matter the situation on the ground. And not everybody thinks that the wisest course:
"The U.S. has sacrificed too much to bring stability to Afghanistan to leave w/o verifiable assurances of a secure future," Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire tweeted. "It undermines our commitment to the Afghan people, particularly Afghan women." NB: Sen. Shaheen is a Democrat.
CNN's columnist on the subject said the president was "making a major mistake."
The New York Times featured this headline Wednesday: "Will Afghanistan Become a Terrorism Safe Haven Once Again?" In the style of the paper of record, its subhead was even longer: "Not likely, at least in the short term, intelligence officials assess. But stopping terrorist groups over the long term could be more difficult."
And this headline over an opinon piece in The Washington Post: "History will cast a shadow over Biden's decision to withdraw from Afghanistan."
You'll note that CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post aren't Fox News, Breitbart or OAN. Even the leftist media has questions about this idea of giving the Taliban, al-Qaida & Sharia Law Co. a timeline for the surrender of the United States. And surrender it is.
"We've been pretty successful since 9/11 in suppressing the terrorism threat," U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff told The Times. But, he added, "we haven't removed it. And at any moment you can have another attack that suddenly makes it a very different calculus."
And that's a United States representative of the president's party who's in favor of the pull-out.
A forever war in a meat grinder like Afghanistan is not something most Americans wanted. Or want. The problem is the alternative. What is it? Is there more than one?
If you're able, put aside what Sharia Law means for women and girls in Afghanistan. That is, a return to head-to-toe coverings, little schooling, and needing to have a male relative pay a bus driver before you can board public transportation. If you're able (and we're not), put that aside.
If you're able, put aside an almost assured civil war coming to Afghanistan after an American pullout, as the Afghan government tries to hold ground against the Taliban. Put aside, if you're able, the Taliban declaring victory and rounding up all those who have worked with the Americans over the years. (As a diplomat named Henry Kissinger once noted, it can be dangerous to be America's enemy in this world, but it can be fatal to be her friend.) Put aside, if you're able, what brutes and paisans around the world will think of American will and stamina.
Think of something more local: What becomes of Afghanistan when it becomes a failed state again, and its vipers start leaving the cave? As they did in the days before Sept. 11, 2001.
So what's it going to be otherwise? A forever war? Another 20 years in Asia? Constant news of lost blood and treasure?
Back in February, the American head of Central Command, Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie, said conditions on the ground had to be a part of any deal for American troops to leave Afghanistan. Which is exactly the opposite of what President Biden's administration has indicated it intends.
The New York Times quotes the general from only two months ago: "Since 9/11, our strategic objective in Afghanistan remains to safeguard the homeland from attacks, and preventing them from using Afghanistan as a base and safe haven.
"We all agree that the best path is going to be a negotiated political settlement among the Afghans. No one debates that essential point. However, you have to take a conditions-based approach."
Such an approach is being ignored by the new president, who as a vice president for eight years saw reports of this same war each day and is very familiar with the arguments and briefings. Joe Biden will never be able to claim that he was a neophyte when he made this decision.
This is a surrender. To which some may say: Good. We need out.
But let's not forget that the enemy gets a say on when to end a war. Just because the United States walks away in one time zone doesn't mean the enemy won't attack in another.
Speaking of Dr. Kissinger, weren't he and Le Duc Tho awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for their work in "ending" the Vietnam War? If memory serves, Comrade Tho refused the award, because the war wasn't over.
As if to prove him right, his side continued fighting after the Americans left, Saigon fell in April 1975, and allies of the United States fled in terror, becoming "boat people" or corpses.
There are no good options in Afghanistan. Not in staying. Not in leaving. But the worst option is still on the table: Leaving now, surrendering all holdings and friends now, and having to go back later. Which is what's likely to happen if a festering Afghanistan produces another Sept. 11, 2001.