 Welcome to this special long-distance Lowy Institute event focused on the fall of Afghanistan and what this means for the United States and the world. I'm Michael Fully Love, the Executive Director of the Lowy Institute. We've all been shocked at the speed with which the Taliban were able to capture Kabul and appalled at the images from Hamid Karzai International Airport in particular. I'm very pleased today to be speaking with two knowledgeable observers of both Afghanistan and Washington DC, Susan Glasser and Dr. Thomas Wright. We'll talk about what's happened over the past fortnight and what it means for Afghanistan, the Biden Administration and the United States and for the rest of us. Susan Glasser is a staff writer at the New Yorker where she writes a weekly column on life in Washington. Among her previous positions she was the Moscow Bureau Chief for the Washington Post from where she reported on the last Afghanistan War. Susan is the co-author with her husband Peter Baker of The Man Who Ran Washington, the Life and Times of James A. Baker III. Dr. Thomas Wright is a colleague of mine from the Brookings Institution where he serves as a senior fellow and director of the Center on the United States and Europe. He's also a non-resident fellow of the Lowy Institute and in October last year he wrote an influential paper for us about the 2020 US election titled The Point of No Return. Tom is the co-author of a new book Aftershocks, Pandemic Politics and the End of the Old International Order which is out this week. Thank you to both of you Susan and Tom for joining us today from the United States. Thank you. All right let me start with where we are today. Susan this morning President Biden gave a press conference in which he indicated he wouldn't be extending the withdrawal deadline beyond the 31st of August. Some of the Europeans are unhappy but the Taliban have also refused to allow an extended withdrawal describing this as a red line. So it looks like the nearly 20 year international commitment to Afghanistan will come to an end next week. How do you see things playing out between now and next Tuesday? Well of course Michael there's a moment of real maximum peril of course at the very end of the end. First of all there's now nearly 6,000 US military back who they had to surge back in to Afghanistan paradoxically to secure the evacuation of the 2,500 troops who were there when President Biden made the decision back in April 2 and the US military presence in Afghanistan. So you know as basically what happened is that Kabul fell the government fell in a way and with a speed that had not been anticipated as a result they sent thousands of US troops into Hamid Karzai International Airport to protect the airport in order to secure and to facilitate this extraordinary withdrawal and by the way it is an extraordinary withdrawal that the numbers that President Biden gave today were something like 70,000 people total have been evacuated so far now that includes US as well as allied flights and charter flights that are going out of the airport again secured by the United States it includes mostly Afghans as well as citizens of the United States and citizens of other countries. So it's a huge effort but I think there's enormous peril and risk in this final week of that is what it turned out to be the final week. First of all to get those US military and military from other countries out of there safely that has been the thing I think that really as bad as this is I had a senior person in the Biden administration make the point to me it's not the worst case scenario as terrible as it is because worst case would be that you start to have attacks on US personnel or US military you start to suffer casualties look at the incredible outcry over Biden's leadership and imagine what that would be like if they're actually successful attacks and they've been warning in recent days with increasing decibel levels of the possibility of a terrorist attack or ISIS in Afghanistan targeting the airport so it's I think a real worry what's going to happen. Alright Tom what scenarios do you think are likely to play out in the next week or so and in particular what do you make of this story that CIA director Bill Burns has met with the Taliban leadership in recent days what does that mean for the dialogue between the United States and the Taliban. Yeah thanks Michael so I guess this just picks up really where Susan left off but you know Bill Burns's visit was sort of greeted in the press here as about the August 31st deadline and whether that could be extended I have no sort of inside information on this but my guess is that that was more about the security sort of situation that Susan has described I mean there has been I think considerable concern over the last few days that there might be sort of an ISIS attack that they would sort of intervene really to you know just to sow sort of chaos maybe shoot down a plane or just anything really on the airport would shut down the evacuation and I think that's a major concern and I think that Taliban obviously security has a role there in preventing that I mean if that were to happen it might happen with their acquiescence or you know facilitated in some way by the security situation outside so my suspicion is that that's what the visit was about broader than necessarily extending the August 31st deadline I agree with Susan it could be you know worse as bad as it is and it is a if not unprecedented certainly extremely large scale sort of evacuation so I think that they of the administration wants to make sure whatever mistakes have been made to this point that they can actually execute this operation with no with no casualties no certainly no US or or allied casualties alright let me come back a little bit later to the the nature of the evacuation and some sort of assessments of how the United States has gone but let me let me stick with the next little while for a minute if I can Susan there are there have been anti-Taliban protests in different parts of Afghanistan and we know there's some continuing resistance in a number of locations especially in the Panshia Valley north of Kabul let me just ask you is this definitely over now has the Taliban definitely won we know that they have swept through with unprecedented speed but is there a chance that this story has another twist or are we looking at Taliban control of Afghanistan in in the medium term well Michael you know you're right to be wary this is Afghanistan after all war has been going on here since 1978 basically not just one generation but essentially multiple generations of people is a very young country after all and it's a safe bet to say that a civil war of some sort or another is always a likely bet and you know you're right to point out that the Panshia Valley that was the home of the Northern Alliance the home of Akhman Shah Masoud who was the the fabled resistance leader in fact the Shai Guevara of Afghanistan he was killed many people don't remember this but in a precursor event to 9-11 two days before 9-11 he was killed by an Al Qaeda operative disguised as a journalist in the Panshia Valley and that was really the signal to those who understood Afghanistan of momentous events that were to follow of course I was oblivious to this at the time as a Moscow correspondent for the Washington Post but to those people who had covered you know the Soviet war in Afghanistan they knew very well now Akhman Shah Masoud's son has taken up arms against the Taliban in Panshia Valley and declared the resistance along with Amrullah Saleh who was the first vice president of the now deposed Ghani government and interestingly enough he points out that the Afghan constitution which you don't hear a lot about from the American officials who by the way insisted upon the passage of this Afghan constitution this Afghan constitution actually would legally seem to put Amrullah Saleh as the actual legal ruler of Afghanistan at the moment but you know we live in a world of geopolitics where might determine who actually is in control of the country not lawyers but Saleh has joined with Akhman Shah Masoud's son to begin the resistance anew in Panshia Valley and then there's the the grassroots resistance around the country I can't oversee to people enough you know this is not the Afghanistan of 20 years ago that I and other correspondents entered completely you know just astonished at the almost medieval scenes of poverty and isolation that we encountered after 20 years again great waste colossal fraud and abuse but also 20 years worth of education of girls and women 20 years worth of integration with the world that had not existed in the previous 20 years and so it's just a different country and I do think that in cities around the country that's why you've seen some of the grassroots protests with you know people putting the Afghan national flag you know around their shoulders and and and defying Taliban fighters to you know parade around with it this is a this is a polarized society that is not yet reconciled to Taliban rule well Susan let me stay with you you make the important point that Afghanistan has changed in the past 20 years how much has the Taliban changed in the past 20 years if you listen to their spokesman there will be no revenge attacks against any Afghans who assisted Western forces women can retain some of their the gains they've made in the past 20 years and they can play a role in Afghanistan's life in accordance with Islamic war is this is this just a PR strategy or have the Taliban also matured given that they are going to be dealing as you say with a and trying to govern and rule a different Afghanistan well you know the advice I just gave someone before this conversation was you can save yourself some time and not read any story that begins with the headline is this a different Taliban or you know is this a kindler gentler Taliban I think you can skip those stories you know the thing that worries me and the the experts who which is not me but you know people who I know in respect to spent their entire lives following Afghanistan and the region you know what they've said to me in recent days and I have asked about this is no it's not your father's Taliban it's worse and why because of technology because the tools that are available to a would be autocratic theocratic dictatorship well just like next door in China which is already meeting with the leaders of the Taliban which has welcomed their return to power and the possibilities for an an autocratic medieval Taliban enabled and empowered by technology I think are truly chilling and if you look at what's been done with the Uighurs and the creation of a surveillance state in Central Asia there is now precedent there is now technology I'm very worried about that there are vast reams of data these embassies were burning information maybe about you know Afghan passport holders who were applying for visas but you know I just read an article this afternoon that had me thinking you know there's piles of data that have been left behind such as like the entire phone records of the Afghan telecommunication system you want to know who's in contact with the Americans you'll be able to find out in this new era of the Taliban. Tom the administration has said that notwithstanding the fact that US forces will be leaving Afghanistan they are going to hold the Taliban to account for their treatment of the Afghan people in particular women and girls and their approach to human rights but how will they do this what leverage will they have I think honestly it's the leverage is pretty limited but I would just sort of pick up I guess to answer your question Michael just somewhere Susan left off I don't you know I think it's very unlikely the Taliban has changed in any way I think Susan is exactly right that maybe the best case scenario is a more sort of Iranian style you know regime in Afghanistan as bad and as awful as that will be but I guess where I would just maybe add something is I think they do have some difficult governing choices to make right so Susan mentioned China I mean the Chinese are worried about the Taliban intervening you know in Xinjiang and providing support to to separate us there there's a variety of other things that I think worries Beijing you know lots of Pakistan not very happy about aspects of the Taliban's return to power then there's the Western dimension with sort of recognition or any type of you know economic engagement so I think that they you know have their work cut out for them and trying to figure out what type of what type of government they want to have and it's you know it's true that they have you know a very advanced techno authoritarianism template that they can avail of but you know that is also sort of difficult to pull off I mean Putin and Xi have really you know worked very hard at perfecting that and it's a it's a interesting combination of severe targeted repression you know with attempts at least at delivering certain things for parts of the populations of those countries so I don't know how it will you know play out but my my sense is that you know there really is from the US and European perspective we should definitely not be counting on them having changed or them having sort of an awakening of sorts or even being responsive to pressure but at the same time they will have to sort of navigate this and the final point is just so if you were going to come to it later or not but just on the terrorism and al-Qaeda side I mean that's one of the big you know questions it's not really an issue of whether or not they have learned and become enlightened it's really a question of like the child putting their hand on the hot stove you know and getting burned if they've had that sort of learning and knowing that you know support for al-Qaeda or giving al-Qaeda or ISIS safe harbor in Afghanistan could lead to another US invasion if there was a future attack so I think that's those are the sort of things you know I would look at you know in terms of their sort of incentive structure in a very sort of amoral just cost-benefit analysis from their perspective rather than if they you know have you know come to terms that they're sort of a you know that maybe they were wrong in past which I don't think they have and certainly the interviews they're giving would not suggest that and just to follow up on that Tom if you saw increased activity by by al-Qaeda or or ISIS K or other terrorists attacking Western interests in the US homeland from Afghanistan as a base in other words if the Taliban put their hand back on the hot stove can you imagine circumstances in which President Biden would redeploy forces to Afghanistan or are you looking more at airstrikes and other sorts of costs that would be exacted well I think it you know it depends on the severity of the attack I think certainly if there was anything approximating 9-11 yeah I think at that point all bets are off and you know it would depend on the circumstances at the time but I think any president would you know would would have all options on the table and you know President Biden is always said I mean agree or disagree with the decision you know he said the counterterrorism aspect of this is one that he remains committed to you now there's a big debate as we know about whether or not that's practical in terms of how they're outlining it but certainly if that's ready increased I think they will be looking for sort of additional options so I think that's something they would need to be from their from their perspective you know that that's that will be a possibility if they allied with these groups the other point though is just that I think Biden does make this point too is that you know it's a different situation than before 9-11 because it's not just Afghanistan you know the ISIS is in a lot of different places and so they have many different options in terms of and they've evolved in different ways so this is clearly something to be very concerned about but so is Syria so is parts of Libya you know so it's a it's a different world that it was 20 years ago Susan speaking of 20 years I'd like to step back and ask both of you but but first you Susan whether or not you a threshold question do you agree with President Biden's decision to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan was that the right decision for the United States 20 years after they were first deployed well you know look it's not for me you know luckily as a journalist right you know we get to criticize without having to be responsible and it's a terrible responsibility I think you know there's broad support for reason across the deeply divided country right now like the United States there's almost nothing that three-quarters or two-thirds of the country agrees upon and two-thirds of the country more or less desecrate upon this why because it's very hard to argue after 20 years you know that we've achieved any kind of lasting success and you know what Biden and his defenders have said and I think they have a point is the swift collapse of the government in Kabul if anything might tend to underscore that we had been building on a foundation of sand and you know that there was not an edifice that was capable of standing on its own here and so you know again I think that's one thing what I've been really struck by and really disappointed by I have to say Michael is that I've seen that this this partisan divide in the United States which now colors everything as you know from you know our public health response to the COVID crisis and I hope we'll talk about Tom's fantastic new book a little bit but you know a our partisan divide is such that we are divided over mask wearing of course we're divided over Biden's foreign policy and yet what's amazing is that it seems to have stopped our ability even to have a meaningful rational conversation in the middle of a crisis about how the administration is handling it or not handling it were they properly prepared all indications are not for the consequences of that pullout decision was there a long enough horizon why did they not understand that this scenario of a rapid collapse was one to plan more actively against you know and I will tell you I'm not an expert on Afghan history but there's a lot of Afghan history that suggests a collapse like this is not unprecedented the the opposing army has often chosen to melt away and to make deals when faced with an outcome that they think they can't change in fact that's exactly how the Americans walked into Kabul 20 years ago they didn't fight a decisive battle with the Taliban at the gates of Kabul the Taliban melted away because they knew they couldn't win that's literally exactly what happened so of course there was precedent for what happened here so again for me what I really noticed the most in the last couple weeks as we've you know all been horrified and and really deeply I think troubled and saddened by what's happened is that it's been exacerbated for me by the sense that here in the United States we're so divided that you know Democrats many Democrats for their part they cannot stand the idea of criticism of Biden and the Biden administration even when it comes to I think an important and legitimate set of questions about something they absolutely own which is the decision on how to withdraw and instead you see a lot of people say well my gosh it's George Bush's fault it's Barack Obama's fault it's Donald Trump's fault all of which is true in many ways you know when you fail over 20 years you know there are a lot of authors of that and just two points I want to make relative to Tom's excellent points there are a lot of authors of this and presidents Bush Obama Trump as well as Biden are some of them another author of this though it seems to me that has not been talked enough about is Pakistan because to anyone who has followed the region the terrible truth about this is that without Pakistan there is no Taliban not only 20 years ago there is no Taliban today and this would not be happening and yet it's really remarkable and it shows I think the death of serious you know kind of like reality-based policy conversation because we're so caught up in you know this sort of American political drama which president whatever that's an important aspect of this tragedy for the Afghan people but it's Afghanistan's neighbors as well as the people of Afghanistan as well you know who are the authors of this horrible tragedy that's playing out right now and remember it's not just a matter of the 300,000 estimated Afghans who helped or worked with Americans were supported in some way American organizations and allied and NATO organizations over the last two decades that's a big number 300,000 there's 38 million Afghans and millions of women and girls who are going to suffer as a result of a collective failure of catastrophic proportions and I for one it just really saddens me that we should reduce this into oh my god it's Trump's fault or oh my god it's Biden's fault. Alright Tom let me ask you the same question you're a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution so we can demand an answer from you. Was President Biden right to withdraw forces after 20 years and then perhaps you can also comment on some of the implementation difficulties that Susan has mentioned in terms of executing that decision whether it was an intelligence or the problems with intelligence or policy or military advice. Yeah so I can tell you what I thought before before all this happened which is I found it because I was asked about it before and I thought it was an incredibly difficult you know genuinely sort of torn over it and for exactly the reasons you know that Susan described I didn't you know foresee obviously exactly the way it unfolded although I did think there was a chance when they wanted to put out by July 4th that by September 11th we could have had a Taliban Afghanistan again so I think that was sort of a real possibility but I did support the decision to withdraw I mean I do think my confidence level and that I have to say is is modest you know because I think it's just such a difficult a difficult sort of question and even if it had gone smoothly and I agree it could have gone it definitely could have gone better you know there's no world in which there was not going to be a very high cost paid for that right and the question you know is I think is is the cost of it sort of worth it in terms of no longer sort of fighting sort of a very drawn out conflict that probably would have extended you know fairly indefinitely and probably at a higher level you know of troops so with that sort of cost and also the opportunity cost then as well of other threats and challenges so for those reasons you know I would say I definitely sort of struggled with it but for those reasons I did support it I think on the question of implementation look I think nobody and I'm sure you know in time when the administration reflects in this I'm sure you know knowing what has happened you know obviously people what would adjust accordingly to the knowledge for sure and that certain things turned out the way they did I think they had a set of assumptions which were not crazy you know but they were not slam dunks either to do with the longevity of the government believing they had time you know thinking they will be able to you know if they did make this decision early it was over the objections of the of the Afghan government to kind of precipitated this very issue obviously the chance of that is better than you know the certainty of what has happened but I think those were sort of assumptions that they that they believed and they operated accordingly and those assumptions did not turn out to be true and that's another the problem if you think of this in phases I mean the the first phase being the decision itself to withdraw you know that second phase of the military withdrawal and background and all of that and you know leading up to here and and the phase were currently in I mean clearly it was that second phase where those assumptions were were mistaken and then everything else sort of got baked into the cake so I think that's you know why it you know why it happened and they now obviously have an incredible as we talked about earlier just an incredibly difficult set of challenges that they need to you know that they need to address but I agree with Susan that for the administration I think you know and I think for any anyone sort of being objective about it that you know the reality it seems to me is as a non-Afghanistan expert is that the Taliban for a while has been much stronger you know than is generally appreciated I mean if they were able to move that fast and on that scale whether or not it was fighting battles or simply having the organizational ability to buy everyone off and to you know to ensure that they sort of melted away and to have allies in key places I mean that sort of tells me that they you know that they would have been able to move you know against sort of you know if 2500 American troops had stayed so this was going to be more of a battle and but many people people like deeply respect do believe you know that that would have been worth the cost that you know 5000 troops or whatever it took for an indefinite period is is a price we're paying and that's you know that's a very fair point but that's the that's the other side of the argument Susan Tom talked about three phases let me ask you about the third phase that we're in now the what the administration is keen to talk about the success the United States is having with the airlift you mentioned the the the figure of number of people who've been evacuated since the end of July today the White House spokesperson said this is on track to be the largest airlift in US history how impressive is that and how successful do you think the administration will be in shifting the debate onto that I mean could it could they make lemonade out of lemons if you like and could could it look better in a week or two than it than it does at the moment I mean you know that's that's what they're looking for and again you know I I find that to be almost probably a smart political argument but almost a debilitating one I find it to be really demoralizing honestly that we're you know having the White House press secretary john sake you I really admire and I think she's a very skilled communicator talking about how this is you know an unqualified success when there's still so much to happen when by their own admission they've only evacuated 4000 Americans and they they themselves have said that their estimate is there's as many as 15,000 Americans come on how is that an unqualified success I mean it's just and again I you know this is it speaks to the political environment that we're in no I'm not ready to pronounce judgment one way or the other I think it's incredibly impressive and it speaks to the enormous resources of the US military its capacity you know there's no other country in the world that could do this from frankly completely disorganized and standing start there are lots of tensions behind the scenes I think between the Pentagon and the State Department you know there's obviously we have our broken and sporadic immigration process I don't I'm really interested and I admit in somewhat of a personal way in what happens to these people who were airlifting out of there and if you'll notice there's not a lot of coverage of that I've been scouring the coverage of it looking for it because I had behind the scenes this incredible personal drama in the last few days my translator from the battle of Torah Bora back in 2001 resurfaced I hadn't been in contact with him in recent years he was a medical student at the time he risked his life to help me cover this battle for the Washington Post he definitely was was a wonderful and brave person he certainly probably saved my life he went back to medical school he became a doctor he has six children he owns a hospital in Chilalabad that was targeted by the Taliban in a battle last year because it was located next to a prison so he's immediately on their hit list now that they've taken back over the city he got in contact with me on Friday and through a series of miracles we were able actually to get him and his family out even though they had not previously applied you know for a visa or any of these programs what's amazing to me is that the Pentagon has a different interest here they want to put as many people on airplanes as possible and it was very clear to me in trying to help this family this one family in the midst of the horror of this war the Pentagon folks said to me you know if you can get them inside the airport we want to put the people on the airplanes you know and I think that's an important insight for people to understand is they're trying to figure out what's happening here the Pentagon doesn't want that number that's a great number of 70,000 absolutely they want to keep going they want 100,000 they want 150,000 they want to get the people on the airplanes okay well now this family is in Qatar I have no idea what's going to happen to him Joe Biden said today and he's correct that his predecessor Donald Trump broke you know the American asylum system that had existed that's part of the reason why they seem to have been so disorganized no applications were processed there were a backlog of something like 20,000 for this special immigrant visas so I'm very very skeptical about what kind of success it's going to be how long are these people going to languish in camps what are we going to do with them how quickly are the Republicans who've been castigating in a very hypocritical way Joe Biden for the botched rescue effort how quickly are they going to say oh those people we rescued no we don't actually want them to come to America you know if the past is any guide very quickly indeed thank you for telling us that story which reminds us of the the sort of the human cost of these huge political decisions and congratulations for the success you seem to have had it reminds me what a useful what a useful friend you are to have Susan I'm going to keep that in mind if I ever get into any difficulties I want to be clear like it was actually a miracle and really like it was just complete dumpy you know that this guy actually I wasn't in contact with him he put a Twitter message I wasn't even of course following him on Twitter I happen to see it I piggybacked off the hard work of some colleagues at conan asked who were already organizing a rescue of people who had spent years working for you know journalists and had raised the money for a whole separate you know rescue operation so it was literally a reminder that in war sometimes the fate is like if you you know what lists you end up on I mean you know you are student of American history I I've read a million books about World War II this week for me was like the list is everything you know and the random connection at the random moment is everything so it truly wasn't me as much as it was a sort of strokes of luck and also some colleagues who were really amazing actually still it's a lovely sliver of of hope to hear about let me go from that hope back to the grubby world of politics you mentioned earlier tensions between the State Department and the Pentagon just give us an overview of of the feeling within the administration what's the morale within the White House what are the tensions between the White House and the State Department and the Pentagon is the team sticking together are they throwing rocks at each other how is the Biden administration weathering this storm well I'm eager to hear what Tom has to say on this I mean I can definitely say that there is very notable tension between the Pentagon and the State Department that I have seen and you know they reflect the very different resources and composition of those institutions when the military wants to surge people they have a hell of a lot more people to surge then then then our civilian bureaucracy and that that's certainly part of it I think maybe there's a feeling that that the State Department planning was was not as far along or as as robust or useful as as that of the Pentagon which personally does know how to do evacuations like this even if it doesn't look pretty but again there's such a disparity between resources so yeah a lot of finger pointing we started to see some you know knives come out for some of the senior officials like Jake Sullivan the national security advisor here I I think Biden won't abide by that my guess is because unless there's an even bigger debacle because frankly it's Joe Biden who is accountable for this decision and I think everybody in Washington knows that this was his personal call over the objections and the instincts almost certainly probably including Jake Sullivan his national security advisor and certainly overruling his his Pentagon leadership and so you know I I think people understand that the person who made this call and in in some ways is responsible for this debacle of the evacuation with with Joe Biden all right Tom let me give you the opportunity to weigh into that if you like and also ask you about how President Biden's instincts will manifest in the next set of foreign policy decisions he makes and what I mean by that is it's clear that he wants the United States to do less in the Middle East does that mean that the you know does this free the United States up to do more in other parts of the world including in Asia we know a lot of people around President Biden want this does President Biden want that is that his vision that he can do more in other parts of the world or is the the pivot for President Biden really more of a pivot back towards the homeland yeah thanks Michael just just to follow on on Susan's point I mean I think she makes a really key point that you know this decision was a presidential level decision from the beginning and it was because you know Joe Biden has believed this for a very long time being reportedly believes that the US should have gotten out after killing bin Laden in 2011 he argued you know against the surge in Afghanistan during you know the Obama administration you know he basically has always believed that the US ought to have a more narrow counterterrorism mission and that the costs of long-term military engagement were far too high and I think this is something in his decisions about who to appoint when he appointed General Austin you know to this to the position of Secretary of Defense that was one of the reasons you know why he appointed him because he believed that you know they sort of saw eye to eye on this issue and some others and so I think that that makes it a different type of situation than where you might have an inexperienced president who is sort of huddled by advisors with their own agendas you know then finds themselves you know like Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs finds themselves in the situation they didn't sort of anticipate or didn't want to be in this is something you know that Joe Biden I think for as I was saying earlier I think for legitimate and good reasons you know wanted to do and I think there was always going to be you know significant you know bureaucratic push against that because for lots of sort of obvious reasons and and I think that that's something he was sort of determined to push through now the the the controversial part obviously is the implementation and I think we just I certainly don't know enough you know at this point as to why that happened in the way it did I think we need to learn a lot more and before we sort of attribute sort of blame or responsibility in terms of those decisions you know that were made among the other you know options were but I think he and especially given the way it's sort of functioning now I mean he's been pretty clear you know that he has confidence you know in his team and I don't think that that is going to change absent some major you know development that hasn't sort of occurred yet I think the question second question you asked about the impact I think is a really important one because already you know we see the global times in China and other sort of you know organs of the Chinese state say you know this shows the US you know doesn't care about Taiwan or you know the Russians making hay over and even in Europe calling it to question the credibility I think that is absolutely just analytically wrong about where Biden is you know I think for him Afghanistan is pretty su generous like he wants to leave Afghanistan because he disagrees with the continued you know prosecution of the war in Afghanistan I mean he's been very clear on that he is it's not like you might say Bernie Sanders was president and he made this decision that it had a consequence for all sorts of other commitments where President Sanders would have been ambiguous or may not have made up his mind and in fact in one of his speeches I think it was last Monday so about nine days ago when President Biden was speaking he actually specifically said you know in order to focus on the threats of 2021 and not the threats of 20 years ago you know this is why I'm doing it now one can disagree with him on that and argue that you know terrorism is still a very pressing threat today but I think he does basically believe you know that the threats of today and tomorrow come from you know major powers they come from the threats to democracy I mean he's spoken about this a lot and so I think it is actually again agree or disagree with the decision I think it's consistent with his you know if you want to call it a doctrine I think it's consistent with his doctrine it's consistent with his world view for better or worse and I think that they have absolutely no intention of sort of pulling back or you know retrenching from other commitments and I think it may be the contrary if other actors press them and test them on that because they believe that they are irresolute I think it will just ensure that they actually are even more resolute and sort of stand up there and that it could be a problem right I mean just in the way that plays out if other actors make that calculation you might be in for some rocky times and I think that's why you will see from the administration I expect sort of a pretty clear message you know that you know with Vice President Harris's trip to Asia this week and in Europe and elsewhere you know that that that will be a miscalculation by others if they were to complete that. Susan let me ask you a question about the same kind of topic one of our audience members Ian Kennedy asks what all this means for China and I guess the question is should a country like China be pleased that America looks weak at the moment or should it be worried that America will try to show its strength somewhere else in the world perhaps in Asia you've observed the the sort of the back and forth of US foreign policy over over many years there is a pattern sometimes where the United States sort of reacts to to a particular perception of itself or it the the the the tenor of its engagement with the world toggles sometimes what's your sense of of where the administration's head is where what will will they be looking to show strength in other parts of the world. No uh you know I I know that's a sort of flip answer but I if you want to know where the administration is toggling to look at Joe Biden's speech today four hours delayed it was supposed to be a speech on Afghanistan after a emergency meeting of the G7 with allies to talk about what to do what did he talk about instead he began the Afghanistan speech four hours after it was supposed to begin by talking about an incremental vote on his bipartisan infrastructure deal in the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill. Joe Biden's uh foreign policy right now is not what's driving him uh despite his years of experience and interest in the world and his genuine commitment to some of the things that Tom's talking about this is an inward looking moment at the United States uh and uh Biden uh it has an enormous enormous struggle at home the crisis of democracy that he's concerned about is the crisis of democracy inside the United States and I frankly I find that you know that's part of what's been so painful uh about listening to some of the administration's rhetoric in the last couple weeks because you know yeah sure you know they say well we America's back in the world and we care about our allies and you know Joe Biden without in that same speech that Tom cited without any sense of ironing whatsoever said we need to put human rights and democracy at the center of our foreign policy well what about the human rights of these Afghan women that we're walking away from because we wouldn't keep 2,500 soldiers there who didn't suffer any casualties for 14 months 70 years we've kept 25,000 soldiers in South Korea so you know I know that this has been caricatured as if like you know it's like hawkish like commentators like endorsing the forever war whatever I'm not in favor of war or against the war those are policy decisions I don't envy the people who've had to make them but you know I think there's been a lot of dishonesty uh and uh moral smugness from Democrats uh you know I've known being in Washington for a long time that uh you know you make a mistake if you assume that um you know sort of him hypocrisy is only the preserve of the other side you know all politicians whatever their ideology tend to be opportunistic in the face of the very real challenges that are thrown at them when they're in office so you know I it's understandable to me uh but um I would be very very careful to anybody who thinks that your Biden's foreign policy is based on a doctrine of promoting democracy and human rights around the world I don't see that happening I don't see them uh you know overcorrecting and uh getting into provocative confrontations with China at the moment uh not at all I think that there is a genuine uh and very smart and strategic approach to the challenge of a long-term competition with China I think that uh you know they have made some moves uh that are very interesting in that regard but the primary analysis and critique that the Biden team has had of foreign policy in the last few years right has to do with the almost willful uh flouting of alliances and partnerships by the Trump administration which they believe are necessary uh to engage in a long-term confrontation with China and Russia and uh great other great powers and yet take that Afghanistan template um sure the public words are we want to stay on the same team you know alliances matter uh ask our european allies Tom knows this uh better than I do they don't feel that they were adequately consulted either about Joe Biden's decision to withdraw in April or about the way that it's been handled ever since and in fact behind the scenes they were pleading with him for more time than this august 31 self-imposed deadline to get their people out so uh you know there was one european put in the times I noticed uh just yesterday saying you know this is not this is more um policy by diktat than it is uh consultation with the allies and so what does that tell you about this approach toward China that's supposedly going to be based on reinvigorating American alliances again I would just be skeptical about creating overly um broad conclusions from this particular uh very sad episode just I don't really disagree with Susan but just maybe a couple of points of divergence I mean I think that I don't think they're going to set out and try to overcorrect somewhere else right the point I was making is that if other countries conclude from this you know that they would also you know disengage from Taiwan in a crisis or in the end I agree with that and they are making a mistake and I think the administration will not you know do that and so I think they will probably try to send signals just to disabuse China Russia and others of any general conclusions and I wouldn't have necessarily thought there were other countries were going to do this except the the language coming out of Chinese state media in the past sort of week 10 days has been a little bit alarming in terms of drawing very explicit conclusions for Taiwan which I think are not there um I also agree that I think you know there's a there's a tension probably between the political imperative which is you know try to be sunny optimistic put the best sort of spin on something versus you know the fact that this is an incredibly you know sad situation that even if you agree with the decision there's an enormous trade-off and cost to it and the best approach in my opinion is just strategic frankness about that and it's not to try to sugarcoat it or or or say that it doesn't you know exist and I think the allies point you know I think especially in Europe what this should underscore is they they got to talk about the important things now you know they have to talk about their differences and you know I felt in the June trip to Europe you know it was a successful trip but it was largely sort of a sugar high of you know we're back we're returning and Europeans and that's great it's terrific and if you talk to both the administration and to the European allies privately they would be frank that oh there are issues here but those weren't sort of addressing in the trip right so I think what we need to do with future summits and meetings is really have a frank conversation with Europe in particular about trying to ensure that they are more capable and autonomous to deal with problems when their interests are more threatened by certain challenges than maybe the US's interests are and that's been a long-running thing but no administration has really embraced the notion of European sort of strategic capability and independence whatever we call it and I think that may be something you know that the Biden administration will have to look at pretty pretty closely in coming months because I think there will be you know they're they're they're this will have an effect this is a big event obviously and you know will affect the transatlantic relationship. Susan obviously one of the challenges that European leaders worry about is Russia you're a longtime observer of Vladimir Putin how would Putin and the Kremlin feel about developments in the last couple of weeks obviously in the last couple of years they've they've returned to the Middle East with a vengeance we now see them starting to play a bit of a power broker role perhaps in Afghanistan what does this mean for Russia's behavior internationally. Yeah absolutely I mean look you know Russia as you know fought its own version of you know Vietnam essentially in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s but has always seen Afghanistan and Central Asia essentially as a part of its extended neighborhood it's not the Middle East to Russia it's you know Central Asia is literally its own backyard and you know there have been increasing evidence really in the last few years of Russian you know sort of ill will and acting against American troops on the ground remember there was the issue of the Russian bounties that were allegedly you know paid to fighters in Afghanistan that was piece of intelligence much disputed in the 2020 election and the question of whether or not former President Trump took that seriously you know regardless of that particular issue right it's clear that Russia views geopolitics in a very zero-sum way still when it comes to the United States and that is to say when the U.S loses and suffers an embarrassment like this Russia sees that quite simply to its benefit Vladimir Putin was very quick in the aftermath of the unhasty fall of the Ghani government to say there will be no deals with the Central Asian countries to base you know U.S forces there even temporarily even for counter-terrorism fighting after 9-11 is when I was based in Moscow as a correspondent and it was really a kind of shocking development for many in the region that Putin who was early in his tenure acquiesced to an American presence at bases and that wasn't entirely his say those are independent countries of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan some of the countries that that are nearby or neighboring to Afghanistan and there were U.S forces there there was something called the Northern Distribution Network that was negotiated painstakingly during the Obama administration to get supplies into the government in Afghanistan Putin essentially has shut that off on the front end and really laid it down in a way that makes very clear you know that he sees himself and Russia as being the only beneficiaries here of this sudden shift in regional power. All right we're almost out of time I want to give you the final question Tom because as I mentioned you have a new book out this week on COVID unfortunately for you this is the first week in the past 18 months where COVID has not been the biggest news story in the world so we want to do our bit by giving you an opportunity to speak about some of the themes in the book. When President Biden defended his withdrawal he said this I'm adamant that we focus on the threats we face today in 2021 not yesterday's threats. In your new book you say the pandemic marked the end of the post 9-11 moment in foreign policy so what era are we entering and what will it mean for America's global role? Thanks Michael it's very kind of you to mention it and yeah it's a tough news week to launch a book on COVID but I'm sure it will come back in the in the weeks and months ahead unfortunately. The book is you know it's about this extraordinary moment where we had a global crisis in an age of nationalist governments, geopolitical rivalry with no international leadership where many world leaders didn't even speak to each other and how that sort of turned out. You know it is a glimpse into you know our very recent past but also possibly our future as we face crises and transnational threats like climate change future pandemics and other you know challenges and really there's no cooperation no G7 moment no G20 moment so we try to tell the story of that we talk to a lot of officials try to sort of tell some of the untold stories from that period but I think to your question in terms of where we're headed I think what the pandemic really shows is that the major powers are just not on the same page even when it comes to threats that they share in common and that we should try in the future to work with China, work with Russia, work with others and these challenges but we also need a backup plan you know if that cooperation does not come to fruition because we are in a world really where we have you know near worst-case scenarios on transnational threats of climate pandemics and on great power competition simultaneously and so we have to prepare to deal with those transnational threats with the world that we have right which is a world beset by sort of nationalism and rivalry and possibly more in the future depending on what happens here politically and that I think is a challenge that you know President Biden has and that other world leaders including obviously in Australia have as well. Well thanks for finishing with the worst-case scenarios I must say the best-case scenario for me is having both you guys on the screen to help explain what's happening to us so thank you very much Susan Glasser and Tom Wright for joining me today from the United States I've learned a lot and I'm really grateful for your time. Thank you Michael it was great to be here. Thanks so much Michael it's wonderful to be with both of you. In the coming weeks the Institute will continue to explore these issues and will mark some forthcoming anniversaries including the 20th anniversary of 9-11 and the 70th anniversary of ANZUS. Let me also put in a plug for my podcast the Director's Chair. I'm pleased to say my guests on the next two episodes of the Director's Chair will be former Australian Prime Ministers who both prosecuted the war in Afghanistan, Julia Gillard and John Howard. So thank you again Susan and Tom for joining me and thank you ladies and gentlemen for joining us today for this long-distance Lowy Institute event.