Revisiting the First MAGA President

Oct 1 2024

Ronald Reagan campaigned on a slogan to “Make America Great Again” and ushered in a new era of conservatism in America. That was more than forty years ago, and his Republican Party today looks very different with Donald Trump at its helm. Does the Reagan legend — a tax cutting, government shrinking, Cold War winning optimist — stand up to close scrutiny? And how did Reaganism pave the way for Trumpism? This week’s guest is Max Boot, who’s just written an authoritative, wide-ranging biography of the 40th President of the United States.

Killing of Nasrallah is a key prize for Israel, but it’s too early to write off Hezbollah, CNN.com

Killing of Nasrallah is a key prize for Israel, but it’s too early to write off Hezbollah

Analysis by Peter Bergen, CNN
4 minute read
Published 12:00 AM EDT, Sun September 29, 2024

On Saturday, Hezbollah confirmed that its leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is dead after Israel announced he was killed in an airstrike in Beirut on Friday.

His death marks a major moment in recent Middle East history, but the long-term consequences are uncertain. It raises a key question: Do “decapitation strikes” killing the leaders of terrorist groups cripple them? The short answer is not really.

Israel should know from its own history that such strikes don’t always succeed in crippling a militant group. In 2008, Israel killed Hezbollah’s military leader, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus, Syria, yet the group only gathered strength in the years that followed.

Four years earlier, Israel killed a founder of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, in an airstrike. Yet, the group did not collapse, and almost two decades later it still carried out the October 7 attacks in Israel, killing some 1,200 Israelis in a single day.

More recently, in July, Israel said it killed one of the October 7 masterminds, Mohammed Deif, a key Hamas military commander, yet the militant group fights on in Gaza.

The US has its own history of killing terrorist leaders in the hope that it will cripple its foes. When Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed in a US bombing raid in 2006, it was treated as a major breakthrough because al Qaeda in Iraq was significantly contributing to the civil war that was then tearing the country apart.

Yet eight years later, al Qaeda in Iraq eventually morphed into ISIS, which took over territory the size of Portugal and presided over a population of some eight million people in Iraq and Syria. ISIS also carried out devastating terrorist attacks in the West, for instance, in Paris in 2015 that killed 130 people.

What actually ended ISIS’s geographical “caliphate” was not a strike on its leadership but a ground campaign against the terrorist army from 2014 to 2019 waged by the Iraqi military and Syrian Kurdish forces backed by thousands of US troops and significant American airpower. ISIS’s base, the second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, was largely destroyed during this war.

In May 2016, then-President Barack Obama authorized a drone strike in Pakistan that killed the overall leader of the Taliban, Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour. Yet, today, the Taliban control all of Afghanistan.

Then-President Donald Trump ordered a strike in Baghdad, Iraq, in early January 2020 that killed Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Quds Force who was crucial to Iran’s relationships with its proxy forces in the region such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen and Shia militias in Iraq.

After Soleimani was killed, Trump said, “Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.”

Yet, his death had no lasting impact on Iran’s regional power and ambitions, and Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen have continued their attacks on Israeli targets and Shia militias continued their attacks on American targets in Iraq.

The United States has designated the Taliban, the Houthis, Hamas, ISIS and Hezbollah as terrorist groups.

What can disable a terrorist group?

What can cripple a terrorist group is a sustained campaign to take out as many of its leaders and middle managers as possible. A CIA drone campaign that was ramped up in 2008 in Pakistan’s tribal regions bordering Afghanistan killed many of al Qaeda’s leaders, according to New America, a research institution (where I am a vice president).

Documents recovered by the US Navy SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden in his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in 2011 show that al Qaeda’s leader regularly wrote to his followers living in the country’s tribal regions, urging them to move around only on cloudy days when the drones were less effective. As a result, bin Laden was planning to pull all his followers out of the tribal region and resettle them in other parts of Pakistan.

Bin Laden’s death certainly significantly contributed to undercutting al Qaeda’s appeal to terrorists and its abilities to carry out attacks since it was bin Laden who had founded the group, had directed its most lethal operations, and members of the group had sworn a personal oath of allegiance to him.

Bin Laden’s successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, didn’t have the charisma or the organizational skills to resuscitate al Qaeda, and Zawahiri himself was killed in a US drone strike in Afghanistan two years ago. The UN estimates there are about four hundred members of al Qaeda living in Afghanistan today.

While al Qaeda is a relatively small terrorist group, Hezbollah has been in existence for four decades and is backed by Iran, which is a key player in the region and has an army of some 30,000 soldiers armed with an extensive arsenal, including some 150,000 rockets and missiles.

The killing of Nasrallah is a key prize for Israel as part of its larger wave of attacks on Hezbollah that intensified earlier this month with its covert action exploding thousands of pagers and walkie-talkies followed by massive airstrikes that have taken out infrastructure and other senior leaders.

But it’s too early to write the militant group off, though it’s clearly in disarray. History suggests it will reorganize and appoint other leaders to continue its long fight against Israel.

How Modern Autocrats Keep Each Other in Power

Journalist and historian Anne Applebaum has been observing and writing about the rise of authoritarianism for years. And she’s sounding the alarm about a growing trend: how strongmen from Russia to Venezuela are collaborating with one another in an effort to maintain their power and undermine the influence of democratic countries like the United States. So, is there anything democratic nations can do about it?

Soul by Soul: The Evangelical Mission to Spread the Gospel to Muslims book event online w Adriana Carranca

[Online] Soul by Soul: The Evangelical Mission to Spread the Gospel to Muslims
Event

U.S.-born Protestant evangelicalism has gone global to an extent of which many might be unaware. In doing so it has become part of the story of the global reverberations of the post-9/11 era. In Soul by Soul: The Evangelical Mission to Spread the Gospel to Muslims, journalist Adriana Carranca tells the story of American evangelicals’ mobilization to proclaim Christianity “to the ends of the Earth,” a movement that triumphed in the Global South, challenged the Vatican, and then turned east after 9/11 to spread the Gospel among Muslims. As the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq set off a wave of anti-American attacks, increasing the risks for missionaries from the United States, thousands of disciples, particularly from Latin America, carried on the missionary work. Soul by Soul follows the pilgrimage of one such missionary family from Brazil to Afghanistan.

Join New America’s Future Security Program as they welcome Adriana Carranca, author of Soul by Soul, to discuss the book and the evangelical movement’s experience in the Muslim world. Carranca is a journalist whose writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Atlantic, Granta, and other publications. She is the recipient of the Overseas Press Club Scholars Award and has five books published in Portuguese, including Afghanistan after the Taliban and Iran under the Chador, and has spent a decade reporting from the field along Christian-Muslim faultlines in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, where contemporary religious wars are being silently fought. The conversation will be moderated by New America Vice President and Arizona State University Professor of Practice Peter Bergen.

Join the conversation online using #SoulbySoul and following @NewAmericaISP.

PARTICIPANTS

Adriana Carranca
Author, Soul by Soul: The Evangelical Mission to Spread the Gospel to Muslims

MODERATOR

Peter Bergen
Vice President, New America
Co-Director, Future Security
Professor of Practice, Arizona State University

When
Oct. 9, 2024
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm
Where
Online Only
RSVP
New America
740 15th Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

The General Who Told Trump What He Didn’t Want to Hear

H.R. McMaster, a decorated lieutenant general in the U.S. Army and an historian, served as the second national security advisor to President Donald Trump. He recently published a non-partisan yet blistering account of his time in the White House. Hear what McMaster says Trump got right on foreign policy, where things went wrong, and what he thinks Trump’s character would mean for a second term.

Analysis: The US withdrawal in Afghanistan was in focus during the debate. Here’s key context to know, CNN.com

From CNN’s Peter Bergen

During the debate, former President Donald Trump pinned the blame for the botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan three years ago on the Biden-Harris administration during which 13 American servicemembers were killed by an ISIS suicide bomber along with some 170 Afghans on August 26, 2021.

There is some merit to Trump’s argument, after all, the Biden Harris administration was in charge when the Afghanistan withdrawal happened and during the debate Vice President Kamala Harris said that she endorsed the withdrawal.

Yet, as Harris also pointed out, it was the Trump administration that had negotiated the US withdrawal agreement with the Taliban in 2020, an insurgent group, rather than with the elected Afghan government.

The Taliban did not observe the terms of the withdrawal agreement; neither negotiating in good faith for power-sharing with the Afghan government nor did they separate from terrorist organizations.

For his part, Trump had no problem pulling out of the Obama administration’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal, even though this agreement was negotiated together with American allies, not with an insurgent group. So, the idea that Biden-Harris administration was bound by Trump’s agreement with the Taliban as the administration has claimed makes no sense.

We can, however, expect to hear more on this issue as the presidential campaign continues, after all, some 800,000 American men and women have served in Afghanistan; many of whom will surely be voting in this close election.

Trump’s claim terrorists are pouring over southern border does not stand up to scrutiny CNN.com

Peter Bergen
Analysis by Peter Bergen, CNN
4 minute read
Published 1:00 AM EDT, Sun September 8, 2024

At a Fox News town hall on Wednesday, former President Donald Trump previewed some of the themes that we will likely hear more from him on the campaign trail and during his September 10 debate with Vice President Kamala Harris.

Discussing the US southern border, Trump asserted that “more terrorists have come into the United States in the last three years. And I think probably 50 years.”

As we approach the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, this seems like an odd claim to make when 19 Arab hijackers, none of whom had crossed the southern border into the US, killed almost 3,000 people, the vast majority of them in Trump’s hometown of New York City.

And if it were really the case that jihadist terrorists were pouring across America’s southern border during the past three years as Trump claimed, wouldn’t there have been, you know, some terrorist attacks in the US as a result? Or, at the very least, a lot more terrorists being arrested in the US during that same time frame?

In fact, there have been no reported terrorist attacks in the US during the past three years carried out by jihadist terrorists crossing the southern border.

Indeed, the most recent lethal terrorist attack by a jihadist terrorist happened when Trump himself was in office in 2019 when a Saudi military officer killed three American sailors at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, and he had arrived legally in the US as part of a Pentagon training program.

Meanwhile, during the past three years, 22 people have been murdered in the United States by far-right domestic terrorists in places such as Buffalo, New York, and Allen, Texas, according to data collected by New America, a research institution (where I am a vice president.)

The ordinarily voluble Trump typically doesn’t have much to say when far-right domestic terrorists perpetrate terrorism in the United States.

At the Fox town hall, Trump also claimed that there were no acts of “radical Islamic terror” while he was president. Yet, the Pensacola terrorist attack happened on Trump’s watch, as did the attack in Manhattan in 2017 by an ISIS-inspired terrorist who killed eight people using a truck as a weapon.

The ‘terrorists crossing the southern border’ trope is a 2024 remix of Trump’s call for a Muslim ban during the 2016 election campaign, which conflated Americans’ widespread concerns about immigration with their fear of terrorism, which since the 9/11 attacks has been imprinted on many American’s minds.

To be sure, there are reasonable concerns about the southern border, like the fact that, as CNN reported in June, eight Tajikistan nationals in the US who had crossed the southern border were arrested on immigration charges “following the discovery of potential ties to terrorism,” including possibly to ISIS. There was, however, no evidence these men were plotting a terrorist attack.

Also, FBI director Christopher Wray testified last year before the US Senate Judiciary Committee, “I am concerned that we are in … a heightened threat environment from foreign terrorist organizations for a whole host of reasons and obviously their ability to exploit any port of entry, including our southwest border … We have seen an increase in so-called KSTs, ‘known or suspected terrorists,’ attempting to cross over the last five years.”

It is the case that according to the US Customs and Border Protection’s most recent statistics, in 2024 so far, there were 43 “encounters” with people on the terrorism watch list on the southern border.

Also, in 2024, Customs and Border Protection Patrol had 281 encounters with people on the terrorism watchlist on the US border with Canada. Yet, Trump is not calling for draconian immigration enforcement for people crossing the Canadian border, even though so far this year around six times more people on the terrorism watch list tried to cross that border.

Also, being on the terrorism watch list doesn’t mean you are a terrorist; CBS News has reported that there are some two million people on it.

This is all a far cry from Trump’s claim on Fox that “more terrorists have come into the United States in the last three years. And I think probably 50 years” and that there was no Islamist terrorism in the US during the four years he was in office.

However, if past performance is predictive of future performance, Trump will likely make similar claims during the final weeks of the election campaign.

The Right-Wing Plan for Trump-Friendly Spies

Narrated by: Peter L. Bergen
Sep 3 2024
Length: 43 mins

Donald Trump’s relationship with the U.S. intelligence community during his time in office was often tumultuous. Now, former top Trump administration officials have put together a plan to reshape intelligence gathering should Trump return to the White House, taking aim at what they see as social engineering and a lack of loyalty to a conservative president’s agenda. Several long-time intelligence officials, including the first Director of National Intelligence, weigh the pros and cons of the right-wing plan to overhaul the intelligence apparatus.

Leader of Afghanistan’s resistance movement says he will defeat the Taliban ‘no matter the odds’ CNN.com

By Peter Bergen, CNN
14 minute read
Published 2:00 AM EDT, Sun September 1, 2024

Three years after the departure of the final US troops from Afghanistan, the situation in the country is bleak, with the Taliban tightening its grip as it introduces increasingly oppressive laws that restrict political freedoms and suppress the rights of women.

Most Afghans have had to acquiesce to the Taliban not because they embrace their misogynistic ideology but because they have all the guns. Still, there is a nascent resistance movement. I spoke to its leader, Ahmad Massoud, who said he’s engaged in “a fight for the soul and future of our nation, and we are determined to win, no matter the odds.”

He is the son of Ahmad Shah Massoud, who led the Afghan resistance to the Taliban more than two and half decades ago when the Taliban first seized power in Afghanistan in 1996.

Massoud is now 35, and he leads the National Resistance Front to the Taliban. In our interview, he asserted that his group has carried out 207 military operations around Afghanistan this year and that he has 5,000 soldiers under his control. Verifying this kind of information independently is nearly impossible as there are relatively few international journalists covering Afghanistan, while the Taliban have closed hundreds of Afghan media outlets. The UN put out a report in June that documented a surge of anti-Taliban attacks during the first six months of this year but put the number at 29 operations carried out by the National Resistance Front, while on the group’s X feed, there are claims of far more operations.

Massoud told me that “the Taliban’s true victory wasn’t on the battlefield; it was at the negotiating table,” a withdrawal agreement that was negotiated by then-President Donald Trump’s team and carried out by President Joe Biden.

Massoud lives in an undisclosed location in Central Asia directing military operations in Afghanistan from outside the country. We conducted our interview over email, and it has been edited for clarity.

BERGEN: The Taliban last week banned the sound of women’s voices outside of the home. This seems crazy, but the Taliban can do it with impunity. What does this say about their hold on power?

MASSOUD: This is a blatant display of ignorance and arrogance. The Taliban believe they can punish the people of Afghanistan, especially women, and yet they can also still gain international recognition. [Today, no government officially recognizes the Taliban, though several governments do have diplomatic relations with them.] This impunity is a direct result of the international community’s policy of appeasement of the Taliban over the past three years. If we hope to see a change in the Taliban’s behavior, we must alter our approach towards them. It’s that simple.

Within Afghanistan, our strategy for resistance is clear. The Taliban only respond to power and force. Diplomatic engagement with the Taliban has only emboldened them.

BERGEN: This is the third anniversary of the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan. What are your feelings on this anniversary after two decades of a US military and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan? Was this a betrayal of America’s Afghan allies?

MASSOUD: The hasty US withdrawal in 2021 caused us to lose many achievements that we had gained in the last 20 years. Afghanistan had started experiencing social and political transformations that it never had before. We had rights like freedom of speech, and a new generation, both women and men, was on the rise. Yet we lost all of this when the agreement with the Taliban was signed in 2020 and when the withdrawal abruptly happened in 2021. Now we are the only country fully controlled by terrorists.

BERGEN: What kind of military operations are you carrying out in Afghanistan?

MASSOUD: The National Resistance Front’s military activities started in August 2021 when the Taliban attacked us in the Panjshir Valley [in northern Afghanistan]. Since then, we have been resisting them. We started from two provinces in the north, yet now we have networks and operations in almost 20 provinces after three years of expansion. [There are 34 provinces in Afghanistan.] Our operations at the moment are unconventional and mostly guerrilla operations. Yet, the military wing of the National Resistance Front is based inside Afghanistan, our bases, and our commando units are all in the country, and as every day passes, we are increasing our recruitment and operational capacity.

BERGEN: Can you give us a sense of the strengths of your National Resistance Front?

MASSOUD: The National Resistance Front’s military wing is solely made up of the remnants of Afghanistan’s former armed forces. These forces joined us instead of abandoning the fight for democracy on August 15, 2021 [when the Taliban captured Kabul, the capital]. Today, we have more than 5,000 permanent forces scattered in some 20 provinces. We have been able to increase their capabilities even though we aren’t receiving any external support. To give you a sense of our strength, since January 2024, we have launched 207 operations around the country.

BERGEN: Your soldiers claimed an attack at Kabul Airport last month. Can you describe what happened?

MASSOUD: Operational security prevents me from disclosing specifics, but I can assure you that this operation and many others demonstrate the significant military and intelligence capabilities we’ve developed since 2021. Despite the risks and complexities, our forces, supported by our deep intelligence network within the enemy’s ranks, executed the operation precisely.

Also, I would like to make something clear. All our targets are and will be military targets. We only target where the Taliban and other terror groups reside and avoid civilian casualties.

BERGEN: Tell us about how you became the leader of the anti-Taliban resistance, and are there other resistance groups you work with?

MASSOUD: I started my political efforts back in 2018 by consulting Afghanistan’s people. I went to the furthest villages and valleys of Afghanistan, engaging directly with my people to formulate a strategic response to the imminent US-Taliban deal and withdrawal. On September 5, 2019, I received a clear mandate from our citizens, gathered at my father’s mausoleum, to lead a solution to this coming crisis. The critical moment arrived on August 15, 2021, when my people and some of the former armed forces of Afghanistan established the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, entrusting me with its leadership. This was not a choice but a call to duty that I answered without any hesitation.

BERGEN: You attended Sandhurst, the British equivalent of West Point, and studied in the War Studies department of Kings College, London. Was that helpful training for what you are doing now?

MASSOUD: My training at Sandhurst and education at King’s College provided me with a solid foundation. However, the burden of real-world conflict has been my true academy. The lessons I’ve learned leading our resistance these past few years far surpass any classroom instruction.

BERGEN: You won’t recall this, but I met you when you were only around 4 years old when CNN was interviewing your father, Ahmad Shah Massoud, in the Panjshir Valley in Afghanistan in 1993 during the Afghan civil war. I was very impressed by your father, his extraordinary charisma and his intelligence.

It must have been very difficult for you, aged 11 when he was assassinated by al Qaeda assassins two days before 9/11. How has your father’s assassination affected what you are doing today?

MASSOUD: The video of our first encounter, when you met my father during that CNN interview in the Panjshir Valley in 1993, is indeed part of our historical record. While I wish I had been older to fully grasp the gravity of those moments and learn more directly from my father, his legacy has become the cornerstone of my mission. My father’s assassination by al Qaeda, just days before 9/11, was a moment that shaped not just my family but the course of our nation. As I’ve detailed in my memoir “In the Name of My Father,” the impact was profound. However, it also ignited an unshakeable determination within me. At that moment, I vowed to continue his vision for a free and peaceful Afghanistan. His sacrifice wasn’t in vain – it’s the foundation upon which we’re building Afghanistan’s future. [Disclosure: I wrote the foreword to Massoud’s memoir, which I do not benefit from financially in any manner.]

BERGEN: When the Americans left Afghanistan three years ago, they left behind $8.5 billion dollars worth of military equipment, according to an estimate by the UN. That’s more than the defense budget of some European nations. Does this make your task of resisting the Taliban more difficult?

MASSOUD: The $8.5 billion worth of military equipment abandoned by the Americans has of course altered the battlefield dynamics, but it hasn’t dampened our determination and commitment. Yes, the Taliban are now better armed than ever before. However, military history is full of examples where determination and strategy overcame material advantages. The Taliban may have the weapons, but we have the will of the people – and history shows that’s a far more powerful force.

What’s more concerning is the Taliban’s transformation of Afghanistan into a black market for these weapons. We know that they are not just arming themselves; they’re fueling global terror networks. This isn’t just about our resistance; it’s about preventing Afghanistan from becoming a nexus of international terrorism.

BERGEN: When your father, Ahmad Shah Massoud, was fighting the Taliban before 9/11, he controlled some territory inside Afghanistan and could be resupplied from neighboring Tajikistan. You are not in Afghanistan, and it’s hard for you to supply your forces inside Afghanistan as you control no territory in Afghanistan. You do have a political office in Tajikistan, but no other countries support you; how does this lack of support affect your ability to fight the Taliban?

MASSOUD: Our current position differs strategically from my father’s era, but our determination remains unshaken. Since 2021, we’ve not only survived but expanded our influence, despite minimal external support. It is important to emphasize that we are not just fighting the Taliban; we’re engaged in a broader conflict against a coalition of regional and global terror groups. When al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban supply fighters to the Taliban, it’s clear that our struggle is an extension of the global war on terror.

However, let me be clear: to defeat these 20 terrorist organizations in Afghanistan threatening global security, we require international backing. It’s unrealistic to expect us to single-handedly neutralize this threat without resources. Our fight isn’t just for Afghanistan; it’s for global security. Any nation that perceives terrorism as a threat must recognize the strategic necessity of supporting our cause and efforts.

BERGEN: What support do you need?

MASSOUD: We need any kind of support that will allow us to defeat this group. We believe we have capable forces who were trained for 20 years to pursue counterterrorism. For this reason, we are asking for resources instead of foreign forces to liberate our country.

BERGEN: What do you say to those who say your resistance movement doesn’t have much of a chance against the well-armed Taliban and without financial and military support from other countries?

MASSOUD: Those who underestimate our resistance fail to grasp the lessons of Afghanistan’s history. Despite our current lack of external support, we’ve consistently grown in strength and numbers. The Taliban may control territory and possess billions in arms, but they lack the most crucial asset – the support of the people of Afghanistan. Our history proves that popular legitimacy, not weaponry, determines ultimate victory. Even the communist regime [which controlled Afghanistan from 1979 to 1992], which was far stronger than today’s Taliban, fell due to lack of popular support. Our resistance is expanding because we represent and embody the will of the people.

BERGEN: Will the Taliban still be in charge in Afghanistan a decade from now? If not, why not?

MASSOUD: The Taliban’s grip on Afghanistan is already slipping. Their lack of discipline, competence, legitimacy, and internal disunity makes their long-term rule ineffective. We don’t just hope for their downfall – we’re working to ensure it.

In Vienna, Austria, this year we initiated a political process, uniting Afghanistan’s diverse political and civil groups. This isn’t only opposition – it’s the foundation of a democratic alternative for Afghanistan’s future. We’re not waiting for the Taliban to fail; we’re building the system that will replace them.

The fractures within the Taliban are widening. Their implosion is not a matter of if, but when. When that moment comes – and it will come sooner than many expect – we’ll be ready. The democratic government we’re preparing will fill the void, representing all citizens and bringing stability to our nation.

A decade from now, Afghanistan won’t just be free of Taliban rule – it will be on the path to becoming a beacon of democracy in the region. That’s not wishful thinking – it’s our objective.

BERGEN: Has the Taliban created an “inclusive” government as they promised?

MASSOUD: The Taliban’s promise of an inclusive government has proven to be nothing but propaganda. The fundamentally reject the core democratic principle that political legitimacy stems from the will of the people and free elections. Their current power structure is a sham, with various factions of their terrorist organization vying for control and systematically marginalizing each other.

The very notion that this group could create an inclusive government is absurd when they can’t even maintain unity within their own ranks. Their internal power struggles and ideological inflexibility make any form of genuine inclusivity impossible. They’ve demonstrated time and again that their only interest is in consolidating power for their extremist vision.

A Taliban fighter stands guard as a woman walks past in Kabul, Afghanistan, on December 26, 2022.
A Taliban fighter stands guard as a woman walks past in Kabul, Afghanistan, on December 26, 2022. Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
BERGEN: Flawed presidential elections produced flawed Afghan governments. How culpable were Afghanistan’s leaders like President Ashraf Ghani for what transpired in Afghanistan?

MASSOUD: The government of Afghanistan was corrupt and flawed. The flaws in Afghanistan’s previous governments were systemic and deep-rooted. I consistently opposed these administrations precisely because of their corruption and ineffectiveness.

The root of the problem lies in the political system adopted after 2004, which was fundamentally unsuited to Afghanistan’s diverse demographic reality. Afghanistan is a highly diverse country without an ethnic majority. Its constitution concentrated excessive power in Kabul, essentially creating a presidential monarchy. This centralization was a primary factor in the government’s weakness and the marginalization of numerous communities.

The situation worsened dramatically during Ashraf Ghani’s presidency. His further centralization of power, limiting decision-making to only himself and a small circle of advisors, exacerbated the alienation of large segments of our population.

Recognizing this flaw, I advocated for the decentralization of power in a 2020 New York Times article. I firmly believe that Afghanistan’s path to peace and stability lies in the distribution of power. It is a strategic requirement for building a stable, resilient nation that can withstand internal divisions and external threats.

BERGEN: In all the discussions about the mistakes made in Afghanistan, sometimes it’s easy to lose sight of what went right. In addition to the rise of independent media and the provision of education to girls and jobs for women, what else worked? Programs like the National Solidarity Programme, which offered small grants for public works to local communities in consultation with those communities?

MASSOUD: Yes, despite challenges and setbacks in Afghanistan, it’s important to acknowledge the significant progress made during the two decades after 9/11. The rise of independent media was a cornerstone of this progress, giving voice to diverse perspectives and creating a more informed population. The expansion of education for girls and employment opportunities for women were transformative. Programs like the National Solidarity Programme were particularly effective.

BERGEN: What was the effect of the Trump administration’s 2020 Doha peace agreement with the Taliban and President Joe Biden announcing in April 2021 that he was going to go through with the total US withdrawal?

MASSOUD: The Trump administration’s 2020 Doha deal with the Taliban and President Biden’s later announcement of a total US withdrawal in April 2021 had detrimental effects on Afghanistan’s stability. These decisions legitimized the Taliban on the international stage while signaling the end of substantial Western support for the government of Afghanistan at the same time.

The Doha agreement, in particular, undermined the morale of our security forces and government officials. It created a sense of certainty about the Taliban’s return to power. Biden’s withdrawal announcement made it worse. It triggered a rapid loss of confidence in the government’s ability to stand independently. These policy decisions, which sought to end America’s longest war, sacrificed the hard-won progress of two decades and betrayed the trust of millions of our people.

BERGEN: Did the Taliban win at the negotiating table with the United States, what they couldn’t win on the battlefield from them?

MASSOUD: The Taliban’s true victory wasn’t on the battlefield; it was at the negotiating table. Prior to the negotiations, their territorial control was limited. The negotiation process itself became their launch pad to power. This diplomatic engagement legitimized a terrorist group. It turned them from insurgents to political actors. Had the US simply withdrawn without these negotiations, the Taliban wouldn’t be in power today.

The consequences were devastating – it demoralized Afghanistan’s armed forces, normalized relations with terrorists, facilitated the release of thousands of extremists from our prisons, and paved the way for the fall of our government.

This colossal mistake handed the Taliban a victory they couldn’t achieve through force of arms.

BERGEN: This year, you published a book, “In the Name of My Father: Struggling For Freedom In Afghanistan.” What was the main message of the book?

MASSOUD: My book is more than a memoir – it’s a manifesto for Afghanistan’s future and a testament to our ongoing struggle. I lay out my convictions on democracy, women’s rights and the role of Islam in our society. These are the foundational principles upon which we’re building our resistance.

BERGEN: What is your vision of the future? The Taliban control more of the country than they did before 9/11. They’re better armed. They’ve been fighting for 20 years. So, what’s the end goal here for you?

MASSOUD: Let me be very clear about our vision and end goal. We are fighting for a democratic, decentralized and pluralistic Afghanistan where every citizen, regardless of gender, ethnicity or religious belief, enjoys equal rights. This is our non-negotiable objective.

Yes, the Taliban currently control more territory and are better armed than before 9/11. But control of land and possession of weapons does not mean legitimate governance or popular support.

We’re not just resisting the Taliban; we’re building the foundation for a new Afghanistan. We’re creating a system that’s resilient against extremism and responsive to the diverse needs of all our citizens.

Make no mistake – we are prepared for a long struggle. This isn’t just a fight against the Taliban; it’s a fight for the soul and future of our nation, and we are determined to win, no matter the odds.

Gen. McMaster’s blistering account of the Trump White House, CNN.com

Analysis by Peter Bergen, CNN
7 minute read
Published 11:00 AM EDT, Sun August 25, 2024

Until now, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster has held his fire about his stint in the Trump White House. McMaster served with distinction in key American conflicts of the past decades: the Gulf War, the Iraq War and the war in Afghanistan, but as McMaster recounts in his new book, “At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House,” in some ways, his most challenging tour as a soldier was his last one: serving as the national security adviser to a notoriously mercurial president.

In his blistering, insightful account of his time in the Trump White House, McMaster describes meetings in the Oval Office as “exercises in competitive sycophancy” during which Trump’s advisers would flatter the president by saying stuff like, “Your instincts are always right” or, “No one has ever been treated so badly by the press.” Meanwhile, Trump would say “outlandish” things like, “Why don’t we just bomb the drugs?” in Mexico or, “Why don’t we take out the whole North Korean Army during one of their parades?”

McMaster’s book, which focuses on Trump’s tenure as commander in chief, comes at a particularly timely moment, just as many Americans start to really consider whether Trump or Vice President Kamala Harris would make a better commander in chief.

In her acceptance speech for her nomination to the presidency at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday, Harris spent some of her speech trying to demonstrate her national security credentials. She talked, for instance, about the war in Gaza, saying that as president she would stand firm on the US alliance with Israel to “ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself.” Harris also said that the Palestinians have “their right to dignity, security, freedom, and self-determination.” With this speech, Harris was trying to thread a delicate needle between Americans who strongly oppose the war — many of them in her own party — and those who back Israel wholeheartedly.

McMaster provides unique detail on Trump’s approach to foreign policy and — similarly to his successor in the national security adviser role, former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton, who wrote scathingly about the former president in a book published in 2020 — his account is likely to do little to reassure US allies about the prospects of a second Trump term.

In addition to being a highly decorated officer, McMaster also has a doctorate in history. His first book, “Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam,” recounted the dismal history of how the top American generals told President Lyndon Johnson only what they thought he wanted to hear about the Vietnam War, rather than giving him their best military advice about how the conflict was going and the full range of policy options that were open to their commander in chief.

‘Tell Trump what he didn’t want to hear’

McMaster wasn’t going to make the same mistake after Trump tapped him to be his national security adviser in February 2017. He writes, “I knew that to fulfill my duty, I would have to tell Trump what he didn’t want to hear.” This helps explain why McMaster lasted just over a year in the job. (Disclosure: I have known McMaster professionally since 2010, when he ran an anti-corruption task force in Afghanistan.)

One subject was particularly neuralgic for Trump: Russia. McMaster astutely observes, “I wished that Trump could separate the issue of Russian election meddling from the legitimacy of his presidency. He could have said, ‘Yes, they attacked the election. But Russia doesn’t care who wins our elections. What they want to do is pit Americans against one another… .’ McMaster writes that the “fragility” of Trump’s ego and “his deep sense of aggrievement” would never allow him to make this kind of distinction.

McMaster felt it was his “duty” to point out to Trump that Russian President Vladimir Putin “was not and would never be Trump’s friend.” McMaster warned Trump that Putin is “the best liar in the world” and would try to “play” Trump to get what he wanted and manipulate him with “ambiguous promises of a ‘better relationship.’”

The final straw that ended McMaster’s tenure in the White House seems to have been when he publicly said on February 17, 2018, at the Munich Security Forum — the annual gathering of top Western foreign policy officials — that the indictment of a group of Russian intelligence officers for their interference in the 2016 US presidential election was “inconvertible” evidence of Russian meddling in that election.

Trump soon tweeted, “General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians….” Once the commander-in-chief started publicly castigating him on Twitter, it was obvious that McMaster would not be long for the White House.

McMaster’s account of the Trump team is not pretty. Steve Bannon, Trump’s “chief strategist” early in the presidency, is portrayed as a “fawning court jester” who played “on Trump’s anxiety and sense of beleaguerment … with stories, mainly about who was out to get him and what he could do to ‘counterpunch.’”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis were often at odds with Trump, McMaster says. Tillerson, who had previously run Exxon, is portrayed as inaccessible to top officials in Trump’s administration, while Mattis is described as an obstructionist. McMaster writes that Tillerson and Mattis viewed Trump as “dangerous” and seemed to construe their roles as if “Trump was an emergency and that anyone abetting him was an adversary.” Trump himself also contributed to the dysfunction: “He enjoyed and contributed to interpersonal drama in the White House and across the administration.”

Also, McMaster wasn’t on the same page as his boss on some key foreign policy issues. McMaster enumerates those issues as “allies, authoritarians, and Afghanistan.” Trump denigrated American allies whom he saw as “freeloaders”; he embraced authoritarian rulers who McMaster despised; and while Trump largely believed Afghanistan was a lost cause, McMaster thought there was a path forward for the country, and he pushed for a more significant US commitment there, while simultaneously blocking a cockamamie notion by Bannon to turn the conduct of the Afghan war over to American private military contractors.

McMaster credits Trump on Syria and China

McMaster does give Trump his due for some sound foreign policy decisions. Unlike President Barack Obama, who had dithered over his own “red line” when the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians, Trump acted decisively when Assad used chemical weapons in early April 2017, killing dozens of civilians. Trump responded by ordering airstrikes against the Syrian airbase where the chemical weapons strike was launched from.

And on the most important foreign policy issue, China, McMaster concluded that Trump made the right decisions. McMaster oversaw Trump’s 2017 national security strategy document, which took a tougher public stance on China than previous administrations, calling the Chinese out for stealing US intellectual property every year valued at “hundreds of billions of dollars” while noting that China “is building the most capable and well-funded military in the world, after our own.” Briefed by McMaster on the new national security strategy, Trump responded, “This is fantastic,” and asked for similar language in his upcoming speeches.

The assault on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, seems to have marked a decisive break from Trump for McMaster, who, in a previous book published in 2020, “Battlegrounds: The Fight to Defend the Free World,” had avoided direct criticisms of his former commander in chief.

By contrast, in his new book, McMaster writes that in the aftermath of his 2020 electoral defeat, Trump’s “ego and love of self… drove him to abandon his oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution,’ a president’s highest obligation.” McMaster adds, “The attack on the US Capitol stained our image, and it will take a long-term effort to restore what Donald Trump, his enablers, and those they encouraged took from us that day.”

So, what might this all mean for a second Trump term, if there is one? The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 outlines plans for Trump loyalists to replace numerous career foreign service officers and intelligence officials. Those loyalists would likely tell Trump precisely what he wants to hear rather than give the president their unvarnished assessments of the national security challenges facing the US, which is the proper role of American national security professionals.

Trump has tried to distance himself from Project 2025, but the fact that CNN found at least 140 people who worked for Trump are involved in the project speaks for itself. And in a second Trump term, there would likely be no McMasters to tell Trump what he doesn’t want to hear; in fact, that’s kind of the whole point of Project 2025, which would replace as many as 50,000 workers in the federal government with Trump loyalists.