President Joe Biden’s abrupt announcement to terminate his presidential re-election campaign upended the U.S. political landscape just a few months before the November election. While foreign policy rarely features prominently in a presidential campaign, the start of his political downturn can be traced to the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. As we approach the third anniversary, the horrific scenes of chaos and confusion in Kabul will be revisited, and this unfortunate chapter in American foreign policy will torment his political legacy long after he leaves office. 

Although Biden enjoyed a “honeymoon period” at the start of his presidency, his approval rating noticeably dropped after the Afghanistan withdrawal, falling from 49 percent at the start of August 2021 to 43 percent a month later, according to Gallup polling. One year later, his approval rating plunged further to the 38 percent line, where it has languished since then. To be clear, Afghanistan was not the only factor affecting public opinion. The administration’s COVID-19 recovery policies created a sharp rise in inflation that compounded economic fears, intensified the (already fraught) political tensions in Washington, and exacerbated the sour mood of the country. Nevertheless, this foreign policy blunder provided an opening for his critics and political rivals to exploit during his re-election bid.

As I have written previously, President Biden deserves credit for ending America’s longest war. He concluded (correctly, in my view) that “nearly twenty years of experience has shown us that the current security situation only confirms that ‘just one more year’ of fighting in Afghanistan is not a solution but a recipe for being there indefinitely.” There was no clear path to “victory,” and the costs of continuing military operations in Afghanistan exceeded the benefits, especially given competing national interests in Europe (Russia) and the Indo-Pacific (China). Moreover, Biden inherited the flawed Afghanistan Peace Agreement from his predecessor, which included an infeasible deadline for withdrawing all U.S. forces by May 1, 2021. Although he subsequently extended the deadline, this did not provide nearly enough time to plan, coordinate, and execute an orderly retreat, as the administration would come to learn with horrendous consequences.

Some argue that President Biden should have maintained a small, enduring military footprint in Afghanistan (approximately 2,500 troops). Unfortunately, the Taliban would have likely viewed this as an abrogation of the agreement and created a daunting force protection challenge for U.S. troops remaining in the country. In fact, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley recently testified that he thinks “the probability is greater than not that the Taliban would have reinitiated combat operations.” In the White House, Biden described the choice in starker terms: “There was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, and lurching into the third decade of conflict.” Shortly after the last U.S. troops departed Afghanistan, he took “responsibility for the decision” to terminate military operations in a war that “should have ended long ago.” While his words are commendable, Biden also deserves criticism for the conduct of the withdrawal itself.

Congress is investigating the botched withdrawal operation that resulted in the deaths of thirteen U.S. service members, including numerous interviews and hearings on the subject. Veterans testified about the “organizational failure at multiple levels,” a sentiment shared by senior leaders including Milley and former CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Mike McCaul (R-TX) bluntly concluded that “what happened in Afghanistan was a systemic breakdown of the federal government at every level—and a stunning, stunning failure of leadership by the Biden administration.” More recently, Gold Star family members appeared on stage at the Republican National Convention, where they criticized the chaotic withdrawal—and Biden—in a genuine display of emotion that captured the human costs of foreign policy decisions going awry. 

While these events keep Afghanistan in the public eye (and collective memory), they also raise a question of whether there is time for Biden to notch any major foreign policy “wins” on his scorecard to offset the withdrawal fiasco before he retires from office. Two obvious possibilities come to mind: the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

To his credit, Biden quickly pivoted from the debacle in Afghanistan by proactively responding to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and galvanizing international support to blunt President Vladimir Putin’s territorial ambitions. In addition to coordinating tough multilateral sanctions and increasing diplomatic isolation against Russia, his administration established the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a coalition of some fifty nations that has provided over $100 billion in foreign assistance and support to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty. 

Russia’s aggression also provided NATO with a renewed sense of purpose. The alliance just celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary in Washington, DC, where President Biden proclaimed that “today, NATO is more powerful than ever” while emphasizing the importance of collective security to confront autocrats who “want to overturn global order.” Alarmed by Putin’s belligerence, previously “neutral” countries Finland and Sweden have joined the alliance. Moreover, twenty-three NATO member states are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2 percent of GDP in defense, compared to only three allies in 2014.

Despite dire predictions that Russia would seize Kiev in days or weeks, the war continues two years later. Additionally, Biden overcame months of stiff resistance from some Republicans in Congress to provide Ukraine with the resources to continue the fight. That said, Moscow retains a formidable military force in Ukraine with a resilient economy and deep resources. As a result, the situation remains a stalemate, with the stakeholders looking to November’s U.S. presidential election as a significant indicator of conflict resolution.

Notwithstanding intense domestic criticism (including members of his own political party), President Biden has maintained steadfast U.S. support for Israel following Hamas’s monstrous attacks on October 7, 2023, that killed 1,200 people and took some 240 people hostage. During his recent speech to a joint session of Congress, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed gratitude that “[Biden] came to Israel to stand with us during our darkest hour, a visit that will never be forgotten.” That said, the two leaders have clashed over the conduct of the nine-month-long war in Gaza. Biden reportedly pressed Netanyahu to accept a ceasefire agreement during their subsequent meeting at the White House.

Meanwhile, in Gaza, the Israeli Defense Force continues military operations to defeat Hamas militants, and civilians suffer the devastating collateral effects of the war. While ongoing diplomatic efforts to achieve a ceasefire might succeed, a long-term political solution remains frustratingly elusive. Moreover, the situation in the Middle East remains tense, and events such as the appalling rocket attack in the Golan Heights that killed twelve children and Israeli retaliation against Hezbollah could provoke a wider expansion of the conflict.

The next president of the United States will inherit a wide array of foreign policy challenges that will require difficult choices and tradeoffs. Although national interests and strategy can (and should) guide these decisions, the Afghanistan withdrawal serves as a reminder they also produce political consequences. While President Biden’s emotional address to the nation formalized the end of his political re-election campaign, his political misfortune began years earlier with the calamitous events in Afghanistan and the associated stigma of “strategic failure” after nearly two decades of conflict. Although his foreign policy legacy can be framed by an unwavering support for democracy and the global order, as well as an enduring commitment to alliances and partnerships in a time of tremendous strategic uncertainty and conflict, he will always be associated with this tragic episode in U.S. history.

Jim Cook is a Professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are entirely his own and do not reflect those of the U.S. Naval War College, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government. Follow him on LinkedIn and X @jlcookri.

Image: Jonah Elkowitz / Shutterstock.com.