In Episode 205 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Laurel Miller, Director of International Crisis Group’s Asia Program who previously served as deputy and then acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in the U.S. State Department. Laurel also held the position of senior foreign policy expert at the RAND Corporation and served as a Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Senior Advisor to the U.S. special envoy for the Balkans, and Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues during her previous time in government.
Today’s episode is meant to provide you with a comprehensive understanding of the situation currently unfolding in Afghanistan, the unique circumstances leading up to the collapse of the Afghan government, and the political and geopolitical implications of the reconstitution of a Taliban-led Afghanistan for the United States, its allies, as well as its competitors in the region.
The first hour of Demetri’s conversation with Laurel is about the specific events that transpired in Afghanistan over the last several weeks, specifically looking at the contributing factors that led to the seemingly sudden collapse of the Afghan army and the evacuation of the capital by President Ghani and other members of the Afghan government. What were the facts on the ground leading up to the collapse? Who was aware of those facts? And why did the Biden Whitehouse and the US State and Defense departments fail so astonishingly in planning for this contingency?
The two also discuss the history of America’s involvement in Afghanistan, if things could have turned out differently, and what could have been done differently in the context of what we knew then and the priorities and risks facing previous administrations going back to George W. Bush in 2001.
The second half of this conversation is spent looking forward at not only the various scenarios for how Afghanistan’s political and economic future is likely to play out under a Taliban regime, but also how the US’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan changes the geopolitical chessboard for other regional players like Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Iran, who have a complex set of competing security and commercial interests in Central Asia, along with an equally complex set of bilateral strategic relationships with Afghanistan’s neighbors, as well as with each other. Kofinas and Miller also discuss the political and diplomatic fallout stemming from how the Biden administration is perceived to have handled this withdrawal and its implications for the upcoming midterm and presidential elections in 2022 and 2024. Finally, the talk about how all of this impacts America’s strategic relationships with its allies, in particular its European partners like Germany and the UK, who played such an integral role in the mission to rebuild Afghanistan over the last two decades.
You can access the episode overtime, as well as the transcript and rundown to this week’s episode through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers gain access to our overtime feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.
If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:
Laurel Miller serves as Director of International Crisis Group’s Asia Program, where she leads the organization’s research, analysis, and policy advocacy about and in the region. She joined Crisis Group in January 2019.
Prior to joining Crisis Group, Laurel was a senior foreign policy expert at the RAND Corporation, 2017-2018 and 2009-2013. Her research and analysis at RAND covered a wide range of subjects including conflict resolution, democratization, institution-building, and anti-corruption in countries throughout the world. From 2013 to mid-2017, Laurel was the deputy and then acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the U.S. Department of State.
During previous U.S. government service, she was Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Senior Advisor to the U.S. special envoy for the Balkans, and Deputy to the Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues. She was directly involved in peace negotiations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Macedonia. Laurel also served as Director for western hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council.
Laurel was a senior expert at the U.S. Institute of Peace, where she focused on constitution-making, rule of law development, and transitional justice. She has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and an adjunct professor of law at Georgetown. Earlier, Laurel practiced law with Covington & Burling in Washington, DC, and Brussels. She was an International Affairs Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Laurel is a graduate of Princeton University and the University of Chicago Law School.
Laurel has been widely interviewed including by the BBC, CNN, The Economist, The New York Times, NPR, PBS NewsHour, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. She has published commentaries in Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Los Angeles Times, The National Interest, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and elsewhere.
Laurel edited and co-authored an extensive study of constitution-making processes, “Framing the State in Times of Transition” (USIP Press, 2010). Her RAND publications include “Envisioning a Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Afghanistan” (2019), “Democratization in the Arab World” (2012), “Building a More Resilient Haitian State” (2010), and “Overcoming Obstacles to Peace” (2013).
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam illud vehementer repugnat, eundem beatum esse et multis malis oppressum. Ita fit cum gravior, tum etiam splendidior oratio. Nec tamen ille erat sapiens quis enim hoc aut quando aut ubi aut unde? Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit?
Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Sed vos squalidius, illorum vides quam niteat oratio. Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; Hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus. Non enim in selectione virtus ponenda erat, ut id ipsum, quod erat bonorum ultimum, aliud aliquid adquireret. Atqui haec patefactio quasi rerum opertarum, cum quid quidque sit aperitur, definitio est. Hic Speusippus, hic Xenocrates, hic eius auditor Polemo, cuius illa ipsa sessio fuit, quam videmus. Omnium enim rerum principia parva sunt, sed suis progressionibus usa augentur nec sine causa;
Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus; Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi? Nam Pyrrho, Aristo, Erillus iam diu abiecti. Tu autem negas fortem esse quemquam posse, qui dolorem malum putet. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Illum mallem levares, quo optimum atque humanissimum virum, Cn. Quis istud, quaeso, nesciebat? Quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere?
Quod autem ratione actum est, id officium appellamus. Nam memini etiam quae nolo, oblivisci non possum quae volo. Eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia; Ita fit beatae vitae domina fortuna, quam Epicurus ait exiguam intervenire sapienti. Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Cum autem negant ea quicquam ad beatam vitam pertinere, rursus naturam relinquunt. Quo tandem modo? Hanc se tuus Epicurus omnino ignorare dicit quam aut qualem esse velint qui honestate summum bonum metiantur. Vide ne ista sint Manliana vestra aut maiora etiam, si imperes quod facere non possim. Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Atque hoc loco similitudines eas, quibus illi uti solent, dissimillimas proferebas. Minime vero istorum quidem, inquit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. A quibus propter discendi cupiditatem videmus ultimas terras esse peragratas. De illis, cum volemus. At iste non dolendi status non vocatur voluptas. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus?
Octavio fuit, cum illam severitatem in eo filio adhibuit, quem in adoptionem D. Miserum hominem! Si dolor summum malum est, dici aliter non potest. Quo modo autem philosophus loquitur? Quid est, quod ab ea absolvi et perfici debeat? Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia. Contemnit enim disserendi elegantiam, confuse loquitur. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Egone quaeris, inquit, quid sentiam?
Cur ipse Pythagoras et Aegyptum lustravit et Persarum magos adiit? Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. Itaque in rebus minime obscuris non multus est apud eos disserendi labor. Haec quo modo conveniant, non sane intellego. Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Torquatus, is qui consul cum Cn.
Si autem id non concedatur, non continuo vita beata tollitur. Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Primum quid tu dicis breve? Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego;
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur. An eum discere ea mavis, quae cum plane perdidiceriti nihil sciat? Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt. Hoc loco tenere se Triarius non potuit. Istam voluptatem, inquit, Epicurus ignorat? Omnium enim rerum principia parva sunt, sed suis progressionibus usa augentur nec sine causa;
Id enim volumus, id contendimus, ut officii fructus sit ipsum officium. Sic consequentibus vestris sublatis prima tolluntur. Eorum enim omnium multa praetermittentium, dum eligant aliquid, quod sequantur, quasi curta sententia; Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Atqui eorum nihil est eius generis, ut sit in fine atque extrerno bonorum. Quare hoc videndum est, possitne nobis hoc ratio philosophorum dare. Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Cui Tubuli nomen odio non est? Nam his libris eum malo quam reliquo ornatu villae delectari. Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis.
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia. Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Sed tu istuc dixti bene Latine, parum plane. Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum? An ea, quae per vinitorem antea consequebatur, per se ipsa curabit?
Hinc ceteri particulas arripere conati suam quisque videro voluit afferre sententiam. Idem iste, inquam, de voluptate quid sentit? Quae sequuntur igitur? Neminem videbis ita laudatum, ut artifex callidus comparandarum voluptatum diceretur. Sullae consulatum? Nobis aliter videtur, recte secusne, postea; Atqui haec patefactio quasi rerum opertarum, cum quid quidque sit aperitur, definitio est.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ego vero volo in virtute vim esse quam maximam; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Ea possunt paria non esse. Quid est enim aliud esse versutum? Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Mihi enim satis est, ipsis non satis. Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere.
Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Iam in altera philosophiae parte. Gerendus est mos, modo recte sentiat. Qui autem esse poteris, nisi te amor ipse ceperit? Deinde dolorem quem maximum? Sine ea igitur iucunde negat posse se vivere? Illis videtur, qui illud non dubitant bonum dicere -; Cetera illa adhibebat, quibus demptis negat se Epicurus intellegere quid sit bonum. Ita redarguitur ipse a sese, convincunturque scripta eius probitate ipsius ac moribus. Eam stabilem appellas.
Quamquam id quidem licebit iis existimare, qui legerint. Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Quod autem principium officii quaerunt, melius quam Pyrrho; Sed quod proximum fuit non vidit. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Itaque primos congressus copulationesque et consuetudinum instituendarum voluntates fieri propter voluptatem;
Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Primum Theophrasti, Strato, physicum se voluit; Unum est sine dolore esse, alterum cum voluptate. Ut in geometria, prima si dederis, danda sunt omnia. Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Aeque enim contingit omnibus fidibus, ut incontentae sint. An me, inquam, nisi te audire vellem, censes haec dicturum fuisse? Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris? Sed eum qui audiebant, quoad poterant, defendebant sententiam suam. Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius. Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur. Sint modo partes vitae beatae.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quid, si etiam iucunda memoria est praeteritorum malorum? Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Mihi quidem Antiochum, quem audis, satis belle videris attendere. Est igitur officium eius generis, quod nec in bonis ponatur nec in contrariis. Sed tamen intellego quid velit. Potius ergo illa dicantur: turpe esse, viri non esse debilitari dolore, frangi, succumbere.
Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Sin est etiam corpus, ista explanatio naturae nempe hoc effecerit, ut ea, quae ante explanationem tenebamus, relinquamus. Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. In quibus doctissimi illi veteres inesse quiddam caeleste et divinum putaverunt. Neque enim disputari sine reprehensione nec cum iracundia aut pertinacia recte disputari potest. Quid autem habent admirationis, cum prope accesseris?
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Videamus animi partes, quarum est conspectus illustrior; Ut proverbia non nulla veriora sint quam vestra dogmata. Varietates autem iniurasque fortunae facile veteres philosophorum praeceptis instituta vita superabat. Nam et complectitur verbis, quod vult, et dicit plane, quod intellegam; Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio.
Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Nam cui proposito sit conservatio sui, necesse est huic partes quoque sui caras suo genere laudabiles. Virtutibus igitur rectissime mihi videris et ad consuetudinem nostrae orationis vitia posuisse contraria. Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere.
Stay in the loop
Receive monthly insights from Demetri and exclusive updates.
