Was Biden's Afghanistan withdrawal a success
Executive summary
The withdrawal ended a 20-year U.S. military presence and evacuated roughly 124,000 people in days, accomplishing a large-scale airlift while also producing a chaotic end that cost 13 U.S. service members and left the Afghan state to collapse rapidly [1] [2] [3]. Assessments remain sharply divided: Republican investigations call the operation “disastrous” and point to poor planning and avoidable failures [1] [4] [3], while some commentators and reviewers argue withdrawing troops after two decades was necessary and has been defended as ultimately justified [5] [6].
1. What “success” would even mean — strategic exit or orderly handoff?
Success can be framed two ways: achieving the stated policy goal of ending U.S. military involvement, or executing a safe, orderly transition that preserved Afghan security and protected civilians and allies. The Biden administration met the first definition by completing the withdrawal by the announced date and conducting a massive evacuation effort documented in White House and Defense Department materials [7] [6]. Critics say it failed the second: the Afghan government and security forces collapsed quickly and violence rose, outcomes central to the debate over whether the exit was competently managed [2] [3].
2. The evacuation: an operational achievement amid chaos
Congressional testimony and reporting emphasize the scale: U.S. forces airlifted tens of thousands — testimony put the number evacuated during the Kabul operations around 124,000 — in a compressed timeframe under threat [1]. Oversight hearings and inspectors-general reviews nonetheless describe operational choices and planning shortfalls that forced U.S. troops into the dangerous, last-minute airlift role critics call avoidable [1] [3].
3. Human cost and security consequences
The Abbey Gate bombing on August 26, 2021 killed 13 U.S. service members and more than 170 Afghan civilians, a single-day toll that Republican investigators and committee reports cite as evidence of a costly lapse in planning and a failure to anticipate a worst-case scenario [3] [4]. Oversight hearings framed the attack as emblematic of broader errors and raised concerns about rising violence and the return of safe havens for extremist groups [1].
4. Political and institutional responsibility: competing narratives
Republican-led investigations framed the withdrawal as “disastrous” and attribute avoidable failures to decisions by the Biden team, arguing in multiple reports that alternative choices could have produced better outcomes and that the administration proceeded “with or without” full contingency planning [1] [4] [3]. The White House and some analysts counter that the withdrawal was constrained by the prior Doha agreement negotiated under the Trump administration and that the ultimate decision to end a 20‑year war was defensible; the Biden report and defenders argue lessons were learned and later applied to other crises [6] [8] [9].
5. Longer-term judgment: vindication vs. stain on record
Some commentators say history has vindicated the decision to end the war and point to the impossibility of indefinitely sustaining U.S. nation‑building in Afghanistan after two decades [5]. Others — including congressional hearings and committee reports — say the manner of withdrawal inflicted lasting damage to U.S. credibility, military morale, and trust with partners, making the operation a lasting political liability [1] [4] [3]. Brookings and other analysts note the White House’s public defense appeared defensive and that the root causes of collapse were deeper than any single administration’s choices [9].
6. Humanitarian and resettlement fallout
Operation Allies Welcome brought tens of thousands of Afghan allies to the United States and created large temporary resettlement operations; that program later drew scrutiny and political criticism about vetting and logistics as incidents and political arguments arose in subsequent years [10] [11]. Congressional hearings and media reporting documented ongoing tensions over how evacuees were processed and how much blame to assign to the withdrawal itself [11] [3].
7. Bottom line and limits of available reporting
The withdrawal succeeded in ending U.S. troop presence and running a massive evacuation under fire, but it failed to prevent the rapid collapse of the Afghan government and produced tragic loss of life and political fallout; which of these outcomes dominates the label “success” depends on whether one prioritizes the removal of American forces or the manner and consequences of that removal [7] [1] [3]. Available sources do not mention whether alternative, detailed contingency plans that would have prevented the collapse actually existed inside the administration at the time beyond the general planning critiques (not found in current reporting).
Note on sources and perspectives: Republican congressional hearings and reports emphasize mismanagement and avoidable mistakes [1] [4] [3]. The White House’s own review and commentators sympathetic to withdrawal argue ending the war was necessary and that the evacuation was an operational feat under impossible circumstances [6] [8] [5]. Each side uses a different baseline of what counts as success; the record shows both a significant logistical achievement and consequential policy failures [1] [5] [3].