By Jaiee Ashtekar
Introduction
The United States withdrew its armed forces from Afghanistan in August 2021 concluding its two decades of military engagement in the region. The decision made by the Biden administration generated significant controversy leading to heated discussions on the timing, nature and potential ramifications of the United States’ withdrawal. This essay analyses the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan through the lens of two prominent international relations theories: Realism and Constructivism. Both theories, with their divergent viewpoints, significantly contribute to understanding the underlying forces behind the United States’ withdrawal and its broader international consequences.
Realism and the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan
Since the end of World War II, realism has evolved as a significant theoretical paradigm in the area of international relations. Realists have a pessimistic view of the dynamics of international politics, asserting that nation-states function within a global framework characterised by an absence of central authority, leading them to engage in power struggles and prioritise self-reliance in order to ensure their security (Morgenthau, 1948). Realism is a theoretical framework that centres on the primacy of power politics, whereby governments actively seek their national interests. Mearsheimer (2001) posits that realists assign more importance to military and economic capabilities as the principal factors influencing power dynamics while downplaying the relevance of international institutions, norms, and moral considerations in the realm of global politics. Realists argue that the distribution of power among states is primarily determined by the deployment of material resources, particularly military strength.
While economic power is undeniably a consequential element, realists prefer to assign more significance to the primacy of physical military capabilities. Waltz (1979) posits that nations deliberately use their available resources in order to exert influence on other entities and bolster their relative power position. Furthermore, advocates of realism contend that governments mostly use self-interested tactics in order to protect the national interest a notion that is understood in the context of power relations. Individuals often exhibit a proclivity for prioritising pragmatic factors and engaging in a cost-benefit analysis of their activities, rather than being strictly constrained by moral norms. In research conducted by Morgenthau (1948), it was shown that the influence of morality is limited inside a society characterised by anarchy. The basic principles of realism cover a set of core tenets that form the basis of this philosophical and artistic movement. State-centrism is a theoretical framework that posits states as the dominant actors in the domain of international politics.
This approach acknowledges the absence of a centralised authority in the anarchic international order, as described by Waltz (1979). The discipline of international politics focuses on the analysis of power dynamics between states in which countries use their capabilities to advance their own national goals (Morgenthau, 1946). According to the scholarly work of Waltz (1959), nation-states ascertain their national goals by considering power dynamics and undertaking a strategic evaluation to enhance their power capabilities. The impact of morals and ideology is negligible. The primary goal of governments is to ensure their security and maintain their autonomy as independent institutions (Waltz, 1979).
From a realist perspective, the United States’ withdraw from Afghanistan might be seen as a rational course of action aimed at ending a prolonged and costly battle that no longer corresponded with its national interests. Walt (2021) discusses that the United States effectively achieved its core aims of dismantling Al-Qaeda and apprehending Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, endeavours aimed at the establishment and development of a country have faced substantial impediments, resulting in a state of limited advancement. Therefore, it contends that the deployment of resources, including human lives and financial expenditures, in Afghanistan lacks sufficient rationale.
The withdrawal process allowed the United States to maintain its dominance by shifting its focus towards more pressing concerns, such as the geopolitical competition with China and Russia. The prioritisation of national security concerns shifted with the battle between China and Russia for great power status taking precedence over counterterrorism efforts. The allocation of resources in Afghanistan necessitated their reallocation to other locations. The presence of the United States’ occupation in Afghanistan contributed to the cultivation of Afghan animosity and facilitated the recruiting efforts of the Taliban. The act of departing eliminated the contributing factor to the presence of anti-American sentiment.
Withdrawal also enabled the United States to preserve its dominance and direct its attention towards pressing global matters such as China, Russia, and the ongoing geopolitical issues. Continuing to remain involved in Afghanistan was seen as a wasteful use of the United States’ resources and skills. Realists argue that the United States initiated military intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 with the objective of eradicating the terrorist menace presented by Al-Qaeda and dismissing the Taliban regime from authority. Proponents of the realism perspective contend that the United States’ continued involvement in Afghanistan’s internal strife is no longer congruent with its fundamental national security objectives given the significant weakening of Al-Qaeda and the emergence of other threats. It is said that as the expenses associated with the conflict increased, policymakers in the United States came to the conclusion that allocating resources towards defeating major adversaries such as China and Russia would be a more cost-effective approach. The Afghan government was seen to be an ineffective effort. The alleged dishonesty and perceived ineffectiveness of the Afghan administration rendered the United States’ endeavours in nation-building ultimately unproductive.
The subject matter under consideration pertains to the realm of domestic politics. There was a decrease in popular support inside the United States for maintaining involvement in Afghanistan. From a political standpoint, it is evident that both the Democratic and Republican parties expressed a preference for withdrawal (Mearsheimer, 2021). Moreover, supporters of the realist approach saw the shift as a recognition of the changing balance of power in the region. In light of the advent of new security concerns and the limitations on the United States’ capacity to exercise influence in the process of reconfiguring Afghan political dynamics, proponents of realism viewpoints argue that the choice to decrease the US military presence was a sensible one. The ideological implications associated with the Taliban’s ascension to power elicit concerns among observers.
However, realist approaches tend to downplay the strategic significance of the governing body in Afghanistan. Realist scholars contend that the United States should prioritise the maintenance of its authority until substantial security interests are at stake. In this context, they propose delegating the burden of defeating the Taliban to regional nations, including Pakistan, India, Iran, and Russia. The realist perspective which primarily emphasises material capabilities and security interests failed to take into account the moral reasons that may have played a significant role in shaping the United States’ choice to withdraw from Afghanistan. Moreover, the analysis fails to adequately acknowledge the possible ideological and symbolic ramifications associated with the resurgence of the Taliban.
Constructivism: Rethinking the U.S. Exit from Afghanistan
In contrast to the theoretical framework of realism, constructivism has focused on the importance of ideas, norms, and identities in the formation and implementation of foreign policy (Wendt, 1992). The constructivist perspective places emphasis on the process through which states collectively create and adopt shared meanings, hence encouraging the acceptance of common standards (Finnemore, 1996). By using this theoretical framework, one might read the withdrawal of the United States as being influenced by the shifting social principles and emerging norms pertaining to military action (Ruggie, 1998). Wendt (1992) also argues further that interests and identities are not just shaped by material capabilities but are also subject to the impact of ideas. The rise of constructivism as a dominant theoretical framework in the field of international relations has been seen since the end of the Cold War. In contrast to realist and liberal theories which largely focus on material power capabilities, constructivists assign importance to the role of ideas, norms, knowledge, and social interactions in shaping international outcomes (Wendt 1992).
Onuf (1989) posits that constructivists adopt a perspective that diverges from the notion of permanent identities and interests of states. Instead, they see these identities and interests as products of social construction, influenced by processes of contact, communication, and the development of common understandings. The analysis conducted under the constructivist framework is based upon many key ideas. Wendt (1995) posits that constructivists contend that actors within the international system are influenced by structures of identities, norms, and ideas, in addition to material capabilities. The interests and behaviour of states are influenced by the collective acquisition of knowledge and shared understandings, rather than only depending on objective calculations. Furthermore, proponents of constructivist theory claim that agents, namely states, and structures, such as norms and ideas, are inherently interdependent and shape one another. Wendt (1987) posited that agents actively participate in the construction of social systems, hence exerting an impact on the future shaping of their own identities and interests. The aforementioned process has a perpetual and ever-evolving quality. Advocates of the constructivist approach argue that anarchy and the system of states are social creations, rather than fundamental and immutable occurrences.
The influence of anarchy is dependent on the shared knowledge and norms maintained by countries, rather than being dictated by any inherent rationale (Wendt, 1992). In contrast to the realist viewpoint, proponents contend that cooperation and the creation of institutions may indeed be viable even in the absence of a centralised governing authority. Researchers who adhere to the constructivist perspective are actively involved in analysing the process by which norms come into being and are adopted within nation-states. This analytical framework places emphasis on the interaction dynamics that occur between individuals or groups that promote new norms and the governmental actors who play a role in accepting or rejecting these norms (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). The development of new norms via social construction has the potential to induce alterations in the interests and conduct of states throughout a temporal continuum.
Wendt (1987) also argued that agents and structures are mutually constituted. States, in their capacity as actors, have the responsibility for the creation and maintenance of societal frameworks, including norms and cultures. The aforementioned social institutions have a crucial role in influencing the identities and interests of the individuals involved. Further, he also claims that the perception and interpretation of anarchy are influenced by the acts and behaviours shown by states. The notion of anarchy however does not always imply discord since it may also include the possibility of cooperation, provided that there are shared ideas and collective identities across countries. Katzenstein (1996) posits that the development of state identities and interests is a consequence of social construction rather than being essentially predictable. Identities are formed via social interactions and language exchanges, rather than being inherent or intrinsic attributes.
Finnemore and Sikkink (2001) suggest that the formation of actors and structures is influenced by norms and shared concepts. Constructivist researchers are actively involved in analysing the mechanisms by which norms are established and their subsequent influence on the actions of governments. Guzzini (2000) posits that the focus is mostly on conceptual elements rather than only on tangible abilities. The concepts of power and interest are laden with subjective meanings that are rooted in abstract ideas. Applying this theory to the United States withdrawal, Shirkey (2011) believes that advocates of the constructivist viewpoint have argued for a decline in the American public’s tolerance and willingness to dedicate substantial resources and participate in military endeavours in Afghanistan over a span of two decades characterised by war.
Mattern (2005) analyses the existence of anti-war emotions throughout the general population, which resulted in substantial domestic political pressure with the objective of ending the United States’ involvement in the conflict. Moreover, advocates of the constructivist viewpoint contend that the diminishing advantages of the war compelled authorities in the United States to thoroughly assess the wisdom and moral ramifications of staying in an unproductive undertaking focused on the establishment of a country (Shirkey, 2011). The events of 9/11 prompted a substantial shift in the United States’ identity via the reevaluation of societal standards. According to Mattern (2005), the nation underwent a shift in its approach from assertively exerting worldwide influence and striving to build global order, to adopting a more cautious and internally-oriented stance.
In the same manner, constructivist theorists argue that the decision to withdraw may be attributed, in part to the changing international norms surrounding military intervention, which imposed limitations on the United States’ ability to act independently (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). The inadequacies of state-building endeavours with liberal ideologies in Iraq and Afghanistan contributed to a phenomenon known as a norm “cascade” which resulted in the widespread perception that extended foreign invasions are inherently illegitimate (McKeown 2009). As the global world internalised these norms against intervention, they progressively denounced the presence of the United States in Afghanistan as an unacceptable kind of neo-colonial involvement (Acharya, 2004). According to the constructivist perspective, Nye (2004) also argued that officials in the United States reached the point that withdrawal was imperative in order to preserve the nation’s character as a state that adheres to established norms, while also safeguarding its long-term influence via non- coercive means.
The focus placed by constructivism on ideational factors has the potential to obscure the material facts that are likely to have influenced the decision of the United States to withdraw, as argued by Walt (2018). The significance of anti-war sentiment may be exaggerated by constructivists, while the geopolitical considerations emphasised by realists may be downplayed (Mearsheimer, 2010). While constructivism provides valuable insights into the normative framework of decision-making, it is important to acknowledge that material interests cannot be disregarded (Walt, 2021). The constructivist perspective posits that the leaving of the United States may potentially give rise to unanticipated outcomes with regard to international standards and the identity of the United States. Constructivists anticipate a normative shift whereby the promotion of democracy is weakened, as the United States is seen to be relinquishing its support for the Afghan government that it had a role in establishing (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). The resurgence of the Taliban, regardless of the democratisation efforts made by the United States, may potentially strengthen authoritarian standards (McFaul, 2021). The reversal of the advancements achieved over the previous twenty years by the Taliban is expected to contribute to the erosion of norms pertaining to the safeguarding of human rights, particularly those pertaining to women’s rights (Hudson et al., 2021).
Furthermore, the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan has resulted in a decrease in its reputation as a dependable friend and advocate for human rights. This disorganised retreat has had a detrimental impact on the country’s standing as a global leader, as shown by the scholarly works of Wright (2021) and Slaughter (2021). The failure to honour its obligations to the rights of Afghans undermines the perceived integrity of its liberal regime. In general, constructivist scholars argue that the decision to withdraw from Afghanistan has led to significant changes in norms and the perception of U.S. identity. These changes are seen as detrimental to the United States’ determination and credibility. The ideational impacts will have an impact on the perception of the United States by other players, influencing their understanding of the acceptable behaviour that the U.S. is likely to permit.
Ending Note
The termination of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 marks the conclusion of a process that was initiated under the Trump administration, as a strategic endeavour to bring an end to the longest conflict in American history. Nevertheless, the method and repercussions of the withdrawal unveiled significant insights into the evolving goals and resources of the United States within the international arena. The decision to evacuate was determined by the agreement made between President Trump and the Taliban in 2020, which stipulated the complete removal of US soldiers by May 2021. In return, the Taliban committed to reducing destruction and severing connections with Al Qaeda.
President Biden opted to extend the aforementioned deadline to September 2021, while maintaining a steadfast commitment to terminating the United States’ military engagement. In August 2021, the United States executed a sudden and disorderly withdrawal, coinciding with the quick collapse of the Afghan government and security forces. The withdrawal’s nature was subject to criticism due to its perceived lack of strategic planning and execution. The rapid territorial expansion of the Taliban surpassed initial projections, leading to a situation where the United States and its allies were compelled to hastily organise evacuation efforts.
The re-establishment of Taliban authority has elicited concerns about the preservation of human rights, the potential resurgence of terrorism, and the continuation of heroin manufacturing. However, it also enabled the United States to allocate resources towards competing with China and Russia, rather than being engaged in protracted counterinsurgency efforts. On a domestic level, the aforementioned event gave rise to scepticism about the United States’ interventionist policies. However, it is important to note that, on the whole, it garnered significant public support.
Concluding the topic, the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan revealed a clear American tendency to shift attention and transfer resources to other unstable regions in the Middle East, although at the cost of damaging its image in the process. This event marked a notable escalation of the trend towards reduced United States engagement in the international arena, which started after the costly operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
References
1) Acharya, A. (2004). How norms spread: Whose norms matter Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58(2), 239-275.
2) Mattern, J. (2005). Why ‘soft power’ isn’t so soft: Representational force and the sociolinguistic construction of attraction in world politics. Millennium, 33(3), 583-612.
3) Finnemore, M. (1996). National interests in international society. Cornell University Press.
4) Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K.(1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887-917.
5) Kaplan, R.D. (2021). Afghanistan is lost. Foreign Policy.
6) McKeown, R. (2009). Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm. International Relations, 23(1), 5-25.
7) Mearsheimer, J .J. (2010). Structural realism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International relations theories: Discipline and diversity. Oxford University Press.
8) Mearsheimer, J. J. (2018). Great delusion: Liberal dreams and international realities. Yale University Press.
9) Morgenthau, H (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Alfred A. Knopf.
10) Nye, J. S. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. Public Affairs.
11) Ruggie, J. G. (1998). What makes the world hang together? Neo-utilitarianism and the social constructivist challenge. International Organization, 52(4), 855-885.
12) Shirkey, Z. (2011). Is this a private fight or can any body join in? The spreading of the anti-war norm amongst countries.
13) T. Risse, S. C. Ropp, & K. Sikkink (Eds.), The persistent power of human rights: From commitment to compliance (pp.223-240). Cambridge University Press. Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425 Walt, S. M. (2018). The hell of good intentions: America’s foreign policy elite and the decline of U.S. primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
14) Walt, S. M. (2021). The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
15) Guzzini, S. (2000). A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations. European Journal of International Relations, 6(2), 147–182.
16) Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security. In The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (pp. 1–32). Columbia University Press.
17) Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. 2001. Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics. Annual Review of PoliticalScience 4(1):391-416.
Acknowledgements
Phadke Journal of Strategic Studies sincerely thanks anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Additional Information
Publisher’s Note: Phadke Journal of Strategic Studies (PJSS) remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. All the views and opinions expressed are those of the author. Images may be subjected to copyright. Image Credit – CNBC.
About the Author
Jaiee Ashtekar holds a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in political science from the University of Mumbai. She holds a post-graduate diploma in international relations from the University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom (UK). She has done projects titled “Kashmir through Political Perception” and “Water issues between India and Pakistan.”
Competing Interests
The author declares no competing interests.
You must be logged in to post a comment.