Rejecting the 'safe haven' argument
Speaking Security Newsletter | Advisory Note for Organizers and Candidates, n°73 | 22 March 2021
You can support this newsletter here (and SPRI, here).
Situation
There are about 3,500 troops and 6,000 American DOD contractors in Afghanistan, and we still don’t know whether the White House will withdraw these forces from the country by May 1.
It doesn’t appear likely, so Congress will have to pass a law (via standalone legislation or amendment to another bill) that orders withdrawal or defunds US military operations there.
The problem is that there are holdouts in Congress who reject withdrawing US troops out of concern that Afghanistan will turn into a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists to organize and launch attacks on the US. That’s the most common rebuttal I’ve heard/read so far, so what follows is a brief takedown of that defense.
US military interventions produce violence, not prevent it
Most US fatalities from terrorism since 9/11 occurred outside the United States, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan, the same places the US occupies to prevent them from turning into safe havens (the ones inside the US were largely by non-networked actors or far-right extremists).
To illustrate this point—that US military presence can create the problem it purportedly solves—here’s a chart comparing the number of deployed US troops in Afghanistan with the rate US troops were killed in Afghanistan (2001-14):
^Data via iCasualties.
This isn’t to say that transnational terrorism isn’t a thing. It’s that one can’t credibly claim the US military’s global footprint prevents it. If someone does, they’ve got it backwards: Take this study, which finds that stationing US troops in foreign countries increases the probability of terrorist attacks against the US. Or this study, which finds that “states experience more terrorism after they engage in military interventions.”
Thanks for your time,
Stephen (@stephensemler; stephen@securityreform.org)
Find this note useful? Please consider becoming a supporter of SPRI. Unlike establishment think tanks, we rely exclusively on small donations.