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. Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Sed quid attinet de rebus tam apertis plura requirere? Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Odium autem et invidiam facile vitabis. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Simus igitur contenti his. Sed quid minus probandum quam esse aliquem beatum nec satis beatum? Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Ac tamen hic mallet non dolere.
Ille enim occurrentia nescio quae comminiscebatur; Et nemo nimium beatus est; Age nunc isti doceant, vel tu potius quis enim ista melius? Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim? Sed venio ad inconstantiae crimen, ne saepius dicas me aberrare; Ille enim occurrentia nescio quae comminiscebatur;
Possumusne ergo in vita summum bonum dicere, cum id ne in cena quidem posse videamur? Ita ne hoc quidem modo paria peccata sunt. Quis enim est, qui non videat haec esse in natura rerum tria? Nam cui proposito sit conservatio sui, necesse est huic partes quoque sui caras suo genere laudabiles. Est enim effectrix multarum et magnarum voluptatum. Ad corpus diceres pertinere-, sed ea, quae dixi, ad corpusne refers? Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Sin te auctoritas commovebat, nobisne omnibus et Platoni ipsi nescio quem illum anteponebas? Hoc non est positum in nostra actione. Non modo carum sibi quemque, verum etiam vehementer carum esse? Mihi, inquam, qui te id ipsum rogavi?
Ut pulsi recurrant? Immo istud quidem, inquam, quo loco quidque, nisi iniquum postulo, arbitratu meo. Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Quicquid enim a sapientia proficiscitur, id continuo debet expletum esse omnibus suis partibus; At ille pellit, qui permulcet sensum voluptate. Septem autem illi non suo, sed populorum suffragio omnium nominati sunt.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quod mihi quidem visus est, cum sciret, velle tamen confitentem audire Torquatum. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Est, ut dicis, inquam. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum.
Deinde qui fit, ut ego nesciam, sciant omnes, quicumque Epicurei esse voluerunt? Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Age nunc isti doceant, vel tu potius quis enim ista melius? Itaque mihi non satis videmini considerare quod iter sit naturae quaeque progressio. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Negabat igitur ullam esse artem, quae ipsa a se proficisceretur; Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Ita prorsus, inquam;
Quae tamen a te agetur non melior, quam illae sunt, quas interdum optines. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia? Quos quidem tibi studiose et diligenter tractandos magnopere censeo. Nec vero alia sunt quaerenda contra Carneadeam illam sententiam. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Ita ceterorum sententiis semotis relinquitur non mihi cum Torquato, sed virtuti cum voluptate certatio. Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Nos quidem Virtutes sic natae sumus, ut tibi serviremus, aliud negotii nihil habemus. Nihil opus est exemplis hoc facere longius. Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem;
Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quare conare, quaeso. Quamquam id quidem, infinitum est in hac urbe; Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem;
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Vide igitur ne non debeas verbis nostris uti, sententiis tuis. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quam ob rem tandem, inquit, non satisfacit? Quicquid enim a sapientia proficiscitur, id continuo debet expletum esse omnibus suis partibus; Satisne vobis videor pro meo iure in vestris auribus commentatus? Quibusnam praeteritis? Nam ante Aristippus, et ille melius. Gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Re mihi non aeque satisfacit, et quidem locis pluribus. Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Nullus est igitur cuiusquam dies natalis.
Satisne ergo pudori consulat, si quis sine teste libidini pareat? Hoc est dicere: Non reprehenderem asotos, si non essent asoti. Duo enim genera quae erant, fecit tria. Cur iustitia laudatur? Et hercule-fatendum est enim, quod sentio -mirabilis est apud illos contextus rerum. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. Haec et tu ita posuisti, et verba vestra sunt. Quod ea non occurrentia fingunt, vincunt Aristonem; Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Expectoque quid ad id, quod quaerebam, respondeas.
Te ipsum, dignissimum maioribus tuis, voluptasne induxit, ut adolescentulus eriperes P. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose. Ergo, si semel tristior effectus est, hilara vita amissa est? Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Sed ille, ut dixi, vitiose. Quae cum dixisset, finem ille.
Scisse enim te quis coarguere possit? An tu me de L. Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Vitiosum est enim in dividendo partem in genere numerare. Atque haec coniunctio confusioque virtutum tamen a philosophis ratione quadam distinguitur. Bonum integritas corporis: misera debilitas. Nam ante Aristippus, et ille melius. Nos paucis ad haec additis finem faciamus aliquando; Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis;
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ait enim se, si uratur, Quam hoc suave! dicturum. Tu quidem reddes; Tum Triarius: Posthac quidem, inquit, audacius. Me igitur ipsum ames oportet, non mea, si veri amici futuri sumus. Quasi ego id curem, quid ille aiat aut neget. Nihil illinc huc pervenit. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Tamen a proposito, inquam, aberramus. Summum a vobis bonum voluptas dicitur.
Apud ceteros autem philosophos, qui quaesivit aliquid, tacet; Et quidem, inquit, vehementer errat; Compensabatur, inquit, cum summis doloribus laetitia. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost;
Ad eas enim res ab Epicuro praecepta dantur. Cum praesertim illa perdiscere ludus esset. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Et hunc idem dico, inquieta sed ad virtutes et ad vitia nihil interesse. Quod si ita sit, cur opera philosophiae sit danda nescio. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici.
Hic, qui utrumque probat, ambobus debuit uti, sicut facit re, neque tamen dividit verbis. Primum divisit ineleganter; Qui bonum omne in virtute ponit, is potest dicere perfici beatam vitam perfectione virtutis; Post enim Chrysippum eum non sane est disputatum. De maximma autem re eodem modo, divina mente atque natura mundum universum et eius maxima partis administrari. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam?
