The aftermath of the withdrawal from Afghanistan
Executive summary
The U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 ended a two-decade conflict but left a complex and contested aftermath: a swift Taliban takeover, a chaotic evacuation that moved well over 100,000 people, political and institutional inquiries in Washington, persistent humanitarian and resettlement challenges, and a reshuffling of regional influence that continues to reverberate [1] [2] [3] [4]. Assessments diverge sharply between those who argue withdrawal was a necessary end to a long war and critics who say the execution created avoidable human, strategic, and reputational costs — conclusions reflected in congressional investigations, Pentagon reviews, and public opinion surveys [5] [6] [7].
1. The immediate human and security consequences: evacuation, deaths, and collapse
The final weeks of August 2021 saw a rapid collapse of the Afghan government and security forces and a massive airlift that evacuated more than 123,000 people via Kabul airport as coalition partners raced to extract diplomats, foreign nationals and at‑risk Afghans [1] [8]. The evacuation was marred by the Islamic State attack at Abbey Gate that killed 13 U.S. service members and scores of Afghan civilians, an event central to later critiques of how the noncombatant evacuation operation was planned and protected [2] [6] [9].
2. Political and institutional fallout in Washington
The withdrawal triggered sustained political scrutiny: multiple congressional hearings and reviews by inspectors general and the Pentagon sought to pinpoint responsibility for planning failures and intelligence misjudgments, producing competing narratives about whether the withdrawal’s timeline was set by political imperatives or by prior agreements with the Taliban [5] [10] [6]. Republicans on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have emphasized leadership failures and security lapses [2], while official departmental reviews have focused on operational lessons and accountability inside the Defense Department [6].
3. The Afghan population and humanitarian/resettlement burdens
Beyond the airport, U.S. and international officials have faced the long, expensive task of resettling tens of thousands of evacuees and delivering humanitarian aid to a country whose institutions were dismantled during the collapse; the United States pledged and routed hundreds of millions in humanitarian funding and continues to assist evacuees, even as on‑the‑ground aid encounters diplomatic and operational constraints [3]. Evacuee resettlement, legal status adjudications and family reunifications have remained politically and logistically fraught in the years following the withdrawal [3].
4. Strategic costs, equipment losses, and military lessons
The drawdown involved the rapid removal or destruction of equipment and the handover of key facilities — notably the transfer of Bagram and related logistics nodes — which critics say hastened Afghan forces’ erosion of combat capability, while Pentagon and congressional reviews flagged the loss of material and questioned intelligence warnings about the speed of the Taliban’s offensive [11] [8] [6]. In 2025 the Pentagon ordered a “comprehensive review” to study casualties, lost equipment and lessons for future large‑scale withdrawals [9].
5. Global and regional power dynamics after the U.S. exit
With Western military presence gone and NATO cooperation suspended, regional powers moved quickly to assert influence: China and Russia expanded diplomatic and economic engagement with the new Kabul authorities and the broader region, prompting analysts to describe Afghanistan as a theater for shifting great‑power competition and a test case for influence via investment and diplomacy rather than conventional security partnerships [12] [4].
6. Public memory, politics, and the enduring debate over “right vs. execution”
Public opinion in the U.S. was split: a plurality thought withdrawal itself was the correct decision to end a long war, even as majorities judged the administration’s handling of the evacuation poorly — a dual judgment that feeds the enduring debate between those who defend ending a two‑decade intervention and those who fault the administration for the chaotic implementation and humanitarian fallout [7] [13]. Multiple sources underscore that the roots of the collapse trace back through decisions by several administrations and the 2020 Doha agreement, complicating simple attributions of blame [5] [8].