With Only Four Exceptions, Senate Republicans Vote to Remain in Afghanistan

by | Jul 8, 2020

With Only Four Exceptions, Senate Republicans Vote to Remain in Afghanistan

by | Jul 8, 2020

Steve Daines, Official Portrait, 116th Congress

With Americans growing ever more divided amid national upheaval over racial inequality and a global pandemic, it has perhaps never been more apparent that the United States has no business trying to fix the world with so many problems on our own doorstep. Whatever his faults, President Trump at least seems to understand this.

Even though he hasn’t fully followed through on it, President Trump campaigned on an “America First” foreign policy and promised to end the United States’ decades-long military intervention in Afghanistan. While controversial in foreign policy establishment circles, the sentiment behind America First is straightforward enough: American foreign policy should focus on America’s national interest and security. It should not be preoccupied with spreading democracy across the globe, acting as the world’s policemen, launching military interventions based on humanitarian grounds, or any other fool’s errand that only distracts from and endangers national interest and security.

Applied to the Middle East, the America First framework is intuitive—our military misadventures in countries like Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan have cost the U.S. tremendously yet failed to further our interests. Once the party of hawks and idealists, Republican voters are now firmly in the America First camp. According to The Intercept81% of 2016 Trump voters support removing troops from Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, this shift in views has not been represented in Congress. Most Senate Republicans just explicitly voted against ending the war in Afghanistan.

On Wednesday evening, Sen. Rand Paul, a libertarian-leaning Kentucky Republican, introduced an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have brought our troops home from Afghanistan, given those soldiers who served a bonus, and repealed the authorization of force Congress passed in 2001. But in a 60 to 33 vote, the Senate shot it down, with only three Republicans in addition to Paul—Sens. Mike Lee, Mike Braun, and Steve Daines—backing the amendment.

“Our amendment [would] finally and completely end the War in Afghanistan,” Paul said on the Senate floor. “Over 4,000 Americans have died in Afghanistan and over 20,000 have been wounded. It’s time to bring our soldiers home.”

“It is not sustainable to keep fighting in Afghanistan generation after generation,” he continued. “In fact, we now have soldiers who were born after 9/11 serving in Afghanistan.”

“We’ve been there for 20 years,” the senator said. “How can we characterize withdrawal after 20 years, after we defeated the enemy, as ‘precipitous’? It’s crazy. The American people say, ‘Come home,’ and this is your chance.”

When weighing the Afghanistan conflict under the America First framework, we must consider the war’s staggering costs.

The U.S. has spent roughly $1 trillion on the conflict. That comes out to approximately $3,000 per taxpayer flushed down the drain on a fruitless intervention. Unsurprisingly, one report found that winding down our involvement in Afghanistan would save taxpayers $210 billion to $386 billion in future expenditure.

And, as Senator Paul noted, the conflict has had immense human costs as well. Sadly, the loss of life has been to little avail. I interviewed multiple veterans of the Afghanistan War for the Washington Examiner, and one, now an activist for foreign policy restraint, told me that “to say that [our troops in Afghanistan] died for something that is in U.S. interests is increasingly hard to say.”

In exchange for this investment and sacrifice, authorities misled the American people.

An explosive Washington Post investigation found that “senior U.S. officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.” As Daniel DePetris put it, “The pages reveal a concerted attempt at the Pentagon and the White House to downplay problems, stifle bad news, and spin a cockamamie narrative about success based on flawed metrics and reasoning.”

Even after our nearly two decades of involvement and so much sacrifice, the Afghan government we’ve installed still has not attained popular legitimacy. Afghanistan will never stabilize until we withdraw and let the Afghani people settle their own affairs. We need to cut our losses in Afghanistan and focus our resources on the myriad problems we have at home.

Unfortunately, if this latest Senate vote is anything to go by, only a few of our Republican representatives are actually willing to put America First.

Brad Polumbo is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. This article was originally featured at the Foundation for Economic Education and is republished with permission.

About Brad Polumbo

Our Books

latest book lineup.

Related Articles

Related

Last Weekend, Iran Changed Everything

Last Weekend, Iran Changed Everything

On April 13, Iran responded to Israel’s attack on its embassy compound in Damascus that killed seven Iranian officers, including a very senior military official, General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, by launching over 300 drones and missiles at Israel from Iranian soil. U.S....

read more
FISA Exchanges Real Liberty for Phantom Security

FISA Exchanges Real Liberty for Phantom Security

House Speaker Mike Johnson betrayed liberty and the Constitution by making a full-court press to get a “clean” reauthorization of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Act through the House. Section 702 authorizes warrantless surveillance of...

read more
Embracing Deflation

Embracing Deflation

In recent years, the specter of inflation has loomed large over the global economy, fueled by unprecedented monetary stimulus measures and supply chain disruptions. As prices have surged, concerns about the erosion of purchasing power and the threat of runaway...

read more
One Hundred Years of IRS Political Targeting

One Hundred Years of IRS Political Targeting

One hundred years ago, Senator James Couzens, a Michigan Republican, took to the Senate floor to denounce the Bureau of Internal Revenue for abusing its power and trampling innocent taxpayers. Couzens launched a sweeping Senate investigation of federal tax collectors....

read more