Preet Bharara:

From Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network, welcome to Stay Tuned. I’m Preet Bharara.

Ian Bremmer:

The opportunities that the Americans in the coalition allies have spent little billions and billions of dollars to try to provide for young Afghans to give them a shot at the future, that’s gone. That was the holy expected and predicted outcome of the decision of the United States to withdraw.

Preet Bharara:

That’s Ian Bremmer. He’s the Founder and President of the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy and GZERO Media, which provides coverage of international affairs. Ian’s been on Stay Tuned a number of times. This week, I invited him back to the show so we could have a frank discussion about the situation in Afghanistan. October 31st marked the formal withdrawal of all US troops from the country effectively ending 20 years of US involvement in the war.

Preet Bharara:

Addressing the nation on Tuesday afternoon, President Biden said.

Joe Biden:

This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.

Preet Bharara:

The Taliban, who quickly regained power as US soldiers executed their withdrawal over the last few years celebrated the departure of US troops with gunfire. Ian and I had a candid conversation about the criticism of the withdrawal, and I hope you’ll find that it was a good faith discussion about what happened in Afghanistan and what the future may hold. That’s coming up. Stay tuned.

Preet Bharara:

Now, let’s get to your questions.

Preet Bharara:

This question comes from Twitter user, Chris Miller, who asks, “What is your take on the House January 6th Committee asking telecom and social media companies to retain fund records in social media posts related to the capital attack? Could that include members of congress?”

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s a great question, Chris. My initial reaction is good for the chair, Bennie Thompson. To get to the bottom of what happened on January 6th, you need information, you need documents, you need communications, and you can tell from the reporting of the requests that the ambient is pretty wide and pretty deep.

Preet Bharara:

In fact, according to a spokesperson for Bennie Thompson’s select committee, the panel issues preservation requests to 35 social media and telecommunication companies. That’s a lot of companies. That’s a lot of communications.

Preet Bharara:

As a general matter, I think that none of this would be particularly controversial. You’ve had committees, whether select or otherwise standing committees, in both houses of congress when they have subpoena power, they issue them, they get documents, sometimes there are motions to quash, and there are reasons why you can’t get all the material you asked for, but it’s not a particularly controversial subject or practice.

Preet Bharara:

What makes it complicated is the last part of your question, which was could that included members of congress. According to reports, yes it does because there’s a lot of reason to believe that certain members of congress were involved in the lead up to January 6th, you want to know what kinds of communications they were having on January 6th, which people were trying to tamp it down, which people were trying to provoke it further. Among the people who are apparently in the crosshairs of this preservation request are representatives like Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Jim Jordan, Andy Biggs, Madison Cawthorn, Matt Gaetz, and a few others.

Preet Bharara:

Now, the eventual issue on subpoenas or request for information from fellow members of congress makes this a little bit of a messy affair. As far as I know, there’s no precedent for that kind of thing. At the end of the day, if you were seeking information direction from a member or congress or testimony directly from a member of congress, who knows how it would turn out at the end of the day if they chose not to comply?

Preet Bharara:

Here, of course, the preservation request has been issued to third-party companies and eventually presumably actual information requests will go to those company, and it will be up to the companies whether or not to comply. Obviously, the members of congress have some legal recourse. They can ask for a protective order. They can ask for an injunction. They can do all sorts of things. Arguing, I don’t know if it will be credible or not, but arguing that this featured debate clause render some of their communications off limits.

Preet Bharara:

It’s unchartered territory. It would probably be a long legal fight, but that’s the proper course for this kind of thing to take. I believe since the time you asked your question, Chris, Republican minority leader, Kevin McCarthy issued a pretty blunt statement. He’s clearly not happy that members of congress could be included. Here’s what he said, “If these companies comply with the Democrat order to turn over private information, they are in violation of federal law and subject to losing their ability to operate in the United States. Get this. If companies still choose to violate federal law, a Republic majority will not forget and will stand with Americans to hold them fully accountable under the law.”

Preet Bharara:

That’s a pretty extraordinary statement from the sitting Republican leader in the House. There’s been a lot of debate in the few hours since he issued that statement. Does that constitute obstruction? I don’t know. I think there’s a plausible argument that it’s some obstructive conduct. I don’t know if you really make out the elements. I can say whether it makes out a proper case for obstruction, it certainly is unconscionable for him to be threatening specific action. Should there be a Republican majority in the future against telecommunication companies who, by the way, would be doing nothing wrong or illegal by complying with the select committee’s request? In fact upon request, I don’t think Kevin McCarthy’s office has provided any details about what law was violated, what statute has been breached because none has.

Preet Bharara:

This question comes Twitter user @LynnP27, who asks, “Is there any chance any of the Kraken lawyers will actually be disbarred or have any serious professional consequences? Thanks. #AskPreet.”

Preet Bharara:

Well, Joyce and I talked about this on The Insider Podcast this week, but it’s worth amplifying my thoughts on it here in response to your question. Of course, you’re referring to Sidney Powell and a number of other lawyers who represented Donald Trump in what a lot of people have called The Big Lie. In case after case, alleging there are all sorts of improprieties and bizarre outlandish interference with the election, none of which was proven to be true, and none of which was even justified based on the allegations that they were making.

Preet Bharara:

In one particular case in the Eastern District of Michigan, a federal judge in response to a request from the other side’s lawyers conducted a sanctions hearing and found that these individuals should be sanctioned among other things. Sidney Powell and her colleagues have to pay the lawyers’ fees for the other side, and among those folks are the lawyers for the city of Detroit, who had to defend the frivolous lawsuit brought by Sidney Powell and her colleagues.

Preet Bharara:

It will also be required to take continuing legal education courses in the standards repleting and in election law, and then getting to the point of your question, the judge found the conduct or misconduct so serious, the failure to investigate claims, the failure to verify any of the allegations made by people who they were putting forward, the failure to answer questions candidly from the court. She thought they were so serious that they should be referred for discipline.

Preet Bharara:

As Judge Parker says in the opinion, “This warrants a referral for investigation and possible suspension or disbarment to the appropriate disciplinary authority for every state bar and federal court in which each attorney is admitted.”

Preet Bharara:

Then, of course, the judge points to two specific violations of the Michigan rules of professional conduct, rule 3.1 and 3.3, one addresses the issue of meritorious claims and contentions, and the other addresses candor toward the tribunal. It’s a bit hard to say in advance what the relevant bar authorities in each of the jurisdictions will do with this referral, but I’ll say a couple of things.

Preet Bharara:

One, the referral is not being made by a good government group. The referral is not being made by the adversary. The referral is not being made by an ordinary citizen. It’s being made by a respected sitting federal district court judge. That carries weight and bar authorities will consider that. Two, it’s not being on the fly. It’s not being done on a whim. It’s being done after a very extensive record has been made. There were briefs. There were counter briefs. There was a very extensive hearing that I’ve talked about before and I’ve written about before.

Preet Bharara:

So, there’s a very lengthy extensive record combined with a very thorough rigorous opinion mandating these sanctions from the judge. So, there’s a lot for state bar authorities to work with. Arguably, a lot of the work has already been done. They’ll probably do additional investigation, but they have a very good grounding to decide whether or not to suspend or disbar.

Preet Bharara:

The other point I’ll make is this is only one instance in the Eastern District of Michigan. Similar contentions, not verified were made in other jurisdictions as well. So, it is possible that you will have not only the record made in the Eastern District of Michigan, but in other courts as well and a combination of those things may be difficult for the lawyers to overcome with respect to suspension or disbarment, but once again, we’ll have to wait and see.

Preet Bharara:

Stay tuned. There’s more coming up after this.

Preet Bharara:

This week mark the official end of US involvement in the war in Afghanistan, two decades two trillion dollars spent, hundreds of thousands of lives lost, and a heated debate about US foreign policy. Ian Bremmer, the Founder and President of the Eurasia Group, joins me to talk about the decisions Biden made and what it means to have a good faith debate.

Preet Bharara:

Ian Bremmer, welcome back to the show.

Ian Bremmer:

Preet, I’ve missed you.

Preet Bharara:

I’ve missed you also. You will recall that we have a nickname for you on the Stay Tuned Podcast. Do you recall it?

Ian Bremmer:

I did not recall that I had an explicit nickname, and you’re going to have to remind me.

Preet Bharara:

I call Regis Philbin. You’re my Regis Philbin because you have appeared on the podcast more than any other guests in the same way that Regis Philbin appeared on the David Letterman shows more than any other guests. So, how do you feel about that comparison? I asked you last time.

Ian Bremmer:

I feel like I’ve been slipping on my Prevagen.

Preet Bharara:

So, you and I are recording this on August 31st in the middle of the afternoon literally moments before our President is going to speak to talk about what the end of the US involvement, and I say US involvement in the war in Afghanistan because as you have pointed out and others have pointed, the war in Afghanistan is not over. It’s just the US is out. Can I stipulate a couple of things for this conversation?

Preet Bharara:

One of the reasons I’m excited to have you on is there’s a lot of anger about some of the actions taken, the withdrawal, the way the withdrawal was done, what it means for the future, who’s left behind, and there’s a lot of ranker in the debate and in the analysis, and some people I will say, and maybe we’ll get some mail about some of the things that you and I will talk about, some people have gone tribal either their guy can do no wrong or on the other side, Joe Biden can do nothing right.

Ian Bremmer:

Shocking.

Preet Bharara:

So, one of the reasons I wanted to have you on was to be methodical about the analysis and to be fair about the differences of opinion about various things. I will play devil’s advocate from time to time. I will say what I sometimes say in my law school class that you should assume I have no views and I’m just trying to facilitate the conversation. Can we stipulate that you, Ian Bremmer, a person of good faith?

Ian Bremmer:

Yes. Yes. Preet, you know me well.

Preet Bharara:

You have no regular dog in a fight.

Ian Bremmer:

I have other dogs, but this is not one of them.

Preet Bharara:

Look, and you have problematic views from time to time. Maybe some of your views about Afghanistan are problematic, too, but you come at them from a position of what you think is correct as opposed to trying to promote a particular partisan view. Is that fair?

Ian Bremmer:

I certainly hope that’s fair. I mean, I can’t imagine that the analysis of this for me is less important than any ideological baggage or backdrop.

Preet Bharara:

Do you make more money if you have one view versus another view?

Ian Bremmer:

It would be really hard to know that. I mean, it’s funny. It’s very clear that my organization did better under Trump, I mean, from a personal tax perspective, and from people that really concerned about the United States. So, let’s talk about geopolitics perspective. In terms of the view that I have, I’ve done everything I can over 23 years to try to build an organization where people value me and us because they truly think that I’m going to tell them what I really believe, not what they want to hear.

Ian Bremmer:

So, in that regard, to the extent that I’ve succeeded, I think that I actually probably made more money by being honest. Even if that’s not true, I think it’s true, which is maybe the most important thing because, otherwise, it just hurt you.

Preet Bharara:

We’ve now spent far too much time building up your credibility.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. Let’s do something about that.

Preet Bharara:

I apologize.

Ian Bremmer:

I can’t wait.

Preet Bharara:

Just one more stipulation before we get into the mess of this discussion, which has been I think for a lot of people very difficult no matter where you are on the spectrum, and I want to try to be fair about it, would you also agree, is it your view that the important staff and cabinet secretaries surrounding Joe Biden, whatever you think about their competence, whatever you think about the actions they’ve taken, that they are well-intentioned and are trying to do the right thing whether they succeeded or not?

Ian Bremmer:

I think I would probably say that about most of them. Sure. I think they try to do the right thing, but from a perspective and a context which is decidedly American, privileged, and involved in foreign policy establishment that’s not necessarily well or always aligned with that of the global interest or people in Afghanistan.

Preet Bharara:

Okay. That’s fair. We’ll get to some of that. Now, there’s a distinction that you make and that I make and a lot of people make, and I think it’s a distinction that gets conflated. Some people think there shouldn’t be a distinction, but I think it’s folly not to make the demarcation between two things, and that’s the withdrawal of troops, the decision to withdraw them and to exit versus the execution of that withdrawal.

Preet Bharara:

You have said as recently as 11 days ago and maybe even more recently, “The failure lies not in the decision to exit Afghanistan, but in the way the US went about leaving. Indeed, the decision to leave made initially by Trump and ratified by Biden remains strategically sound,” and then you say that carrying it out well is an entirely different story.

Preet Bharara:

Can we first just talk about the decision to exit? I think that the majority of the American public based on polling and lots of people on both sides of the aisle do agree there’s a consensus that exiting was good, but not everyone thinks that, and some of the people who got us into the war in Afghanistan in the first place don’t necessarily think that. So, can we spend a couple of minutes just at the initial phase of discussion? Just talk about the argument on the other side.

Ian Bremmer:

Sure.

Preet Bharara:

As I understand it, I’m oversimplifying it for the sake of time. There are people who have said and they have some credibility here. Look, we had a force of only about 2,500 to 3,500 troops in Afghanistan. American troops were not dying. It may not have been true of Afghan, but American troops were not dying. A general stability was in place in Afghanistan and in Kabul in particular, and it’s a not high price to pay to make sure that that country do not become, again, a haven for terrorism, and there was a good life or a better life for lots of the citizens of Afghanistan.

Preet Bharara:

Even though it’s the case that there was a consensus in the United States that we shouldn’t be in that country, we shouldn’t be continuing that war in whatever form, it’s not like people were out in the streets protesting. So, it was a low-cost solution to maintaining stability, which could have been maintained for some period of time. What do you say to the people who argue, “Well, we could have just stayed there instead of causing all this upheaval and mess”?

Ian Bremmer:

I think it’s a credible argument. I also think we should recognize that Biden was making that argument when he was vice president. You remember when Obama was arguing for the surge in what was in 2009 that Biden strongly opposed the surge, but Biden did not at the time support a US complete withdrawal from Afghanistan. He thought that a small, ongoing American presence and force helping to maintain intelligence, stability on the ground was a useful thing to do.

Ian Bremmer:

The model here is not Germany or Japan or South Korea. Allies of the United States were the US defending against external threat. The model is Colombia, where the United Stats has a relatively small presence, advisors, intelligence, some capabilities, but not doing direct military strikes, where the local government absolutely supports the US presence, but there are paramilitaries on the ground that are violent and threatening, domestic stability.

Ian Bremmer:

So, I think that there is a real argument that the United States could have maintained with our coalition partners a ongoing presence with relatively low cost and really very low, if any, threat to the US soldiers, servicemen and women on the ground.

Ian Bremmer:

Having said that, once President Trump gave the game away to the Taliban and you have thousands of Taliban fighters that are set free from jail and the Afghan defense forces losing significant territory and the Taliban getting stronger, I also accept fundamentally Biden’s argument that what he inherited as president was not do we stay with the status quo or drawdown, it is do we expand back to where we were or more or do we leave because where we are presently will not prevent the government from collapsing and the Taliban from taking over. So, that’s I think the way we should frame that decision.

Preet Bharara:

That’s an interesting point. So, I take that what you’re saying is it is a good faith argument and a credible argument, but not the best argument or the best approach for the US forces to have stayed in Afghanistan indefinitely, but the people who are making the argument in favor of staying are not necessarily acting in bad faith, except that some of the arguments that they make I wonder if you think they’re made in bad faith. You made the reference to the falsity of the analogy to American troops in German, in Japan, and South Korea.

Preet Bharara:

I mean, there are smart people who are saying this is like that as you pointed out I think very smartly a second ago. This is nothing like that. Are those arguments being made in bad faith?

Ian Bremmer:

No. I think a lot of people just don’t pay attention to context and they just say whatever they’ve just seen.

Preet Bharara:

Former generals and members of the council on foreign relations are not paying attention.

Ian Bremmer:

I think that when you wind people up in the heat of the moment, they say stuff. They post something. It is so easy to post, to tweet, and not think about context, and once it’s there, you don’t want to call attention to it and so you hope it just goes away if you make a mistake. I think that happens a lot.

Ian Bremmer:

Look, I think the bad faith arguments are about people that are saying that Biden has made this disastrous decision, and are unprepared to accept what he was given by what he was left with by the Trump administration. That’s bad faith.

Preet Bharara:

It is bad faith to argue that Biden owns all of this because there’s 20 … He’s only eight months into his presidency.

Ian Bremmer:

No, but not even that, Preet. I’m going farther than that. I’m saying it’s bad faith to say that the decision to leave is all on Biden because even if he had executed well on the decision to leave and he did not, but even if he had-

Preet Bharara:

We’re going to get to that.

Ian Bremmer:

… it was going to be a lot worse than it needed to be because of what the Trump administration had done over the previous year. Anyone that is unwilling to accept that is arguing in bad faith in my view.

Preet Bharara:

I think that’s a good point. One of the reasons people or some people because there are a lot of subgroups here and they overlap a little bit depending on the issue we’re talking about, si that the reporting is that most of the generals, most of the people in the Department of Defense were of the view and the made the recommendation to stay and keep the status quo, and that Biden overruled them. Fair to say if that’s true that he owns it?

Ian Bremmer:

Fair to say that he didn’t spend a lot of time getting advice from the senior generals in the Pentagon on strategy as opposed to on tactics. We’ve heard this from Jake Sullivan in the past days, I think quite differently from Obama and from Trump. I think in both of those administrations they ended up getting a lot of advice on strategy from the generals and that prevented them from ending the war. Biden really wanted to end the war.

Ian Bremmer:

They had conducted the internal Afghan policy review. Biden made the decision and the people around Biden who are very loyal and very capable, and they’ve been around him for a long time basically said, “We don’t need to make this decision more broadly than the small internal group.”

Ian Bremmer:

I think that there are a lot of generals that are going to be pretty animated that they feel like they should have been listened to more from Biden. I think that’s a fair point, but, again, does that mean that he owns the decisions around withdrawal? No. Look, I think there’s a very credible argument to be made, and that it’s a hypothetical, so we’ll never know.

Ian Bremmer:

If Trump had not engaged directly with the Taliban, sending Pompeo to meet with their leaders, inviting them to Camp David on 9/11, pushing the Afghan government to free these thousands of Taliban, and by the way, not engaging the Afghan government together with the Taliban. Again, everything about that engagement was not to ensure stability in Afghanistan. It was simply to facilitate the US troops leaving as fast as possible.

Ian Bremmer:

I think if that had not happened, it is very reasonable to ask why wouldn’t Biden had still had the same position he had back in 2009, maintaining the status quo. We’ll never know, but you have to give Trump credit for part of that decision making. This is at his feet, too.

Preet Bharara:

So, I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of the various arguments on both sides of the issue of withdrawing at all. So, now, let’s talk about the execution of the withdrawal about which you have been fairly withering. You said two weeks ago, and let me just read a couple of things and then give an opposing point of view and then ask for your reaction.

Preet Bharara:

You said, “Look, there’s plenty of blame to go around for how this war started,” as you mentioned in the last number of minutes, but then you say, you said this on August 16th, two weeks ago, “We have to look at the close at the staggering incompetence of execution to bring this war to a close, to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan,” and then you also say, “The execution has been an extraordinary failure.”

Preet Bharara:

My question to you, but you can’t answer it yet because I want to give an opposing point of view is, did you and others overstate the criticism 15 days ago? There’s a gentleman, David Rothkopf, who was mounting a fairly significant defense of all of Biden’s actions or many of Biden’s actions. He says in response to the argument that you have made and others have made that the evacuation was spangled, he says, “No. It started off badly, but turned out to be masterful. The administration and the military adapted quickly. The airlift is one of the biggest in US military history. About 114,400 people had been evacuated as of Sunday.” Do you want to revise your statement of catastrophe and failure?

Ian Bremmer:

No. No, I certainly accept David’s point that the evacuation has been enormously large and significant. Also, the fact that the US managed to engage with the Taliban having just taken over the country to help ensure over 100,000 Afghan civilians got out, that’s a big deal and that’s a positive, but I absolutely do not change my view that the execution of this withdrawal was calamitous. It was a debacle. I particularly am surprised about the mistakes they made given how capable Biden’s advisors and cabinets are.

Preet Bharara:

So, let’s talk about some of that. I presume and I’ve seen your writing on this. There are various failures. I think you identify four or five or six of them, an intelligence failure, a coordination failure, a planning failure, a communication failure, and I get all that. Let’s pick one of those, and there’s a whole bunch of things that people have been debating.

Preet Bharara:

On the intelligence military failure, the fact that Tony Blinken himself, so I see the point in your favor was saying, “We’re staying. Everyone is staying. The embassy is staying.” I think he said something like-

Antony Blinken:

Whatever happens in Afghanistan, if there is a significant deterioration in security, that could well happen. We’ve discussed this before. I don’t think it’s going to be something that happens from a Friday to a Monday.

Preet Bharara:

That’s exactly what happened. That’s exactly what happened.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s exactly what happened four weeks later. That’s incredible.

Preet Bharara:

On the other hand, the counterargument is if it is true, literally nobody saw, nobody foresaw the immediate collapse when the period of hours or days of the Afghan government and the Afghan army. I’m making a hypothetical argument, too. In a universe in which something was completely unforeseeable, can anyone be blamed for not seeing it?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah, I mean, I can’t imagine that the intelligence was really that bad as opposed to they didn’t want to hear it. I think we’ll end up finding out that those scenarios were described in intelligence assessments and were-

Preet Bharara:

Well, certainly, people are leaking out. I mean, this happens also as people point their fingers at each other in leaks. There has been some reporting that there were dire warnings about how quickly the government and the army would fall. I think even in retrospect, not in retrospect, in hindsight, it’s easy to see because it was so quick. Do you really think they deserve it? I mean, where in particular would you lay the blame?

Ian Bremmer:

Just a couple of days ago, I had a call with some friends. I don’t want to say who they are because it was confidential call, but I will say-

Preet Bharara:

You can tell me later.

Ian Bremmer:

I will. I will say and you know a lot of these characters, former foreign ministers, prime ministers, a few members of congress, and a lot of international affairs luminaries. About 20 of them on the call total, probably leaned pro-Biden 14:6 in part because it’s an international group. Asked them two days ago quick survey, “How do you think Biden has handled, scaled of one to 10, the withdrawal?”

Ian Bremmer:

We got one person said five. One person said one. The average was around a three. These are people that are out there that are generally quite sympathetic to Biden. This is absolutely not a Fox, OANN sort of group. I will say that of the mistakes that they made, the one that I am personally most disappointed by is the failure of coordination. It is the fact that when you as the United States fight together with your coalition allies, the Canadians, the Europeans, some of the former soviet states, Georgia, for example, Ukraine, Middle Eastern allies, they’ve all got boots on the ground.

Ian Bremmer:

For 20 years we asked them to do this. They fight with us. They bleed with us. Then you do an Afghan policy review by yourself. You don’t engage them. You decide that you’re going to leave by yourself. You tell them. You don’t ask for support. You don’t say, “Might we do this together?” You don’t say, “Are you guys interested in doing more?” No. You make the decision completely by yourself.

Ian Bremmer:

When it fails, Prime Ministry Boris Johnson, your special relationship calls you up personally, you don’t return the call for 48 hours. You got a G7 meeting. They say, “Please go beyond August 31st.” You say, “Absolutely not.” That is absolutely unconscionable.

Ian Bremmer:

I just think that for a president who wanted to put America first behind him to have such indifference to the perspective on this fight for allies, for whom the fall of Afghanistan matters a lot more than then United States from a refugee perspective, from a terrorism perspective, from a geopolitical interest perspective, all of those things, Afghanistan, very, very far from us, not far from a lot of the countries that were engaged in the fighting, that is where I really get upset.

Ian Bremmer:

That’s where as someone who had really hoped that the Biden administration was going to be much more interested in rebuilding trust and commitment with our allies, that they would have done a better job.

Preet Bharara:

So, I think the point, and when we get to future consequences and fallout of all the decisions made over the last few weeks and arguably for the last 20 years, I want to come back to that question, but putting aside how some allies might think of this at the moment, and I’m not denigrating that’s a very important point, and not withstanding being caught flat-footed at the outset two weeks ago, do you believe if there had been more coordination and better communication and some of the other things that you had criticized that as a substantive matter today in terms of how many people we have gotten out, both Americans and Afghans and allies, that we would be in a much more materially advanced position than we ended up being in?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, one, if we had engaged with the allies from day one and they had participated with us in the Afghan policy review, and the Brits and the French and the Italians had said, “Actually, this does matter more to us and we understand that it’s politically impossible for you to increase the troop levels, but we are willing to do so,” well, that would have been a wholly different conversation. Now, I have no idea, but I know that-

Preet Bharara:

That seems unlikely, no?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, Boris Johnson, when the US was pulling out, Boris Johnson was trying, went to the allies to see after the decision had been made whether others would be willing to stand up for the troops, and it appeared that he was willing to.

Ian Bremmer:

So, again, it’s a hypothetical. We’ll never know, but at the very least, we would have made that decision together. It’s like when we’re defending the Afghan airport and 13 American servicemen and women are killed by a suicide bomber and other countries are coming to us saying, “Please stay longer.”

Ian Bremmer:

Well, if we had been defending the airport together as a coalition, they wouldn’t be asking us to please stay longer. We would have been taking that decision collectively with the risks on us collectively. I mean, it’s obvious.

Ian Bremmer:

I will say to your point, Preet, I will say that assuming that the United States had still persisted with taking all the troops out at the same time in the same way once we engage with the allies, yeah, I don’t think that having the allies onboard would have made much of a difference in terms of the evacuation.

Preet Bharara:

Right. Well, that’s an important point. Concession you might even call it.

Ian Bremmer:

Absolutely. It’s a concession. It makes a difference. I give a lot of credit particularly to the soldiers on the ground. I mean, when they know, you talk about this, they were briefed the day before that there are suicide bombers coming after you and they didn’t retreat behind the fences. They stayed there in front of the gates trying to pull Afghan civilians to safety. I mean, that’s an extraordinary thing. My God! I mean, we got to stand up for the American soldiers as a consequence.

Preet Bharara:

We’ll be right back with more of my conversation with Ian after this.

Preet Bharara:

So, you mentioned and we should talk about the horrific suicide bombing at the Kabul Airport that killed many, many, many people including 13 American service members. Is it your view based on what you know and the reporting that had the Biden administration done these other thing coordinated and et cetera, that they would have been able to avoid that terrorist attack? It strikes me that that’s a different thing? Do you lay blame at anyone’s feet for that? In other words, just to amplify the point for the question, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that at any point where a mass evacuation was going to take place, whether it was earlier, whether it was more organized, whether it was later, that ISIS-K was going to try to strike and it was foreseeable that they would get through?

Ian Bremmer:

Well, let me give you why I don’t think that’s completely a fair question. I mean, you will remember that the videos that made the greatest impact on everyone coming out of Afghanistan were American transports planes trying to get the hell out of Dodge when the airport was overrun with terrified Afghan civilians, some of whom actually hung on to the sides of the plane and fell to their death. What a horrifying thing.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, imagine, Preet, for a second if ISIS-K had their act a little more together and were there with the crowd, and so you’re not just hanging off the plane, you’re blowing it up as you take off. That could happen, right?

Ian Bremmer:

So, I do think that the level, and this is not about whether you talk to the allies or not, this is just bad intelligence, and that planning, I think at no point if you’re leaving Afghanistan and should you be in a situation where Hamid Karzai International Airport is overrun with Afghan civilians. You have no idea who they are as your transport planes are trying to take off. That is the scenario. It was completely unforeseen and it never should have happened. Yeah, I’d put that on Biden, for sure.

Preet Bharara:

I take the point, and it’s a good point as far as it goes, but it occurs to me when you’re saying that that there’s an argument to be made in favor of the hasty retreat that had there been more telegraphing, and had there been more time, and had there been more slow and steady evacuation, would that have given ISIS-K as you mentioned a second ago, this is your words, would that had given ISIS-K time to get their act together such that they may have been in a more impressive position to launch attacks rather than they’re having to scramble at the end?

Ian Bremmer:

It’s hard to say. I’m hardly a military tactician, so I don’t want to second guess the generals who actually are on the ground and lived this experience, but from what I’ve heard from the generals, the decision in the middle of the night to leave Bagram airbase, never mind whether the Bagram is useful strategically for the US and coalition forces for evacuation, for both sides of that argument, but the message that sent to the Afghan defense forces who were biting capably when the Americans were on base and safe and fighting and dying and losing territory to the Taliban, that is what precipitated the collapse, and that is, again, where the generals who say the Biden administration should have been listening to the advice that they were getting from the Pentagon. I defer it to people who know a lot more about that situation.

Preet Bharara:

Another argument people make, and it’s bound up in the discussion we’ve already been having, but I wonder what your response is, and I think some people are saying this because they want to see Biden succeed and they don’t like the bad faith argument, and they don’t like the double standard that’s between Biden and Trump that they think is the case in some quarters. .

Preet Bharara:

They say, look, some amount of this chaos would have been inevitable, and it’s just the nature of the beast and our mutual friend, Fareed Zakaria has said.

Fareed Zakaria:

None of that changed the fact that despite all its efforts it had not been able to achieve victory. It could not defeat the Taliban. Now, could it have withdrawn better more slowly in a different season after better negotiations? Certainly, but the naked truth is there is no elegant way to lose a war.

Preet Bharara:

Fair point in some regards?

Ian Bremmer:

Completely fair point. I think that Biden’s expectation after the policy review was that the Taliban was going to eventually take over given Trump’s decision. So, in other words, perhaps the most important effect of his decision which is that tens of millions of Afghan civilians will live under a system of extraordinary repression and the opportunities that the Americans and the coalition allies have spent literally billions and billions of dollars to try to provide for young Afghans to give them a shot in the future, that’s gone, and that was the holy expected and predicted outcome of the decision of the United States to withdraw irrespective, irrespective.

Preet Bharara:

Yeah. I mean, look, that’s an interesting point. There’s literally no person saying that once we left we had built up the forces sufficiently, that there would be peace and harmony and stability in Afghanistan led by Ghani and his government. No one is saying that. The only debate is they thought he was going to be able to hold the fort for some months or maybe a year or two, and the issue is it happened in a day or what seems like a day. I think you’re right to point that out that people have lost sight of that a little bit.

Preet Bharara:

Can I ask you this question? Now, let’s get to the end of the withdrawal, and then we’ll talk about the future in a moment. There are by the Biden administration’s own admission between 100 and 200 Americans who want to come out who are not out. There’s a lot of very heated debate about the terminology that’s used. Are they stranded? Have they been abandoned? Have we left Americans behind?

Preet Bharara:

You had General McKenzie saying I think very somberly that we’ve got as many out as we could and even we spend another 10 days, we couldn’t have gotten everyone out. They claimed that there’s a plan for continuing to extract people. They have some understanding with the Taliban. Again, neither you nor I is a military strategic expert, but should we have stayed a little bit longer just to extract everyone?

Ian Bremmer:

I’m actually less concerned about this one. I hope I’m not proven wrong by then some ground. The reality is we got well over 100,000 Afghan civilians out of the country and that never would have happened were it not for the cooperation of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. I don’t think there are a lot of people that would have expected that ex-ante. We also got thousand of American citizens out. That you might have expected because the Taliban knows there’s going to be hell to pay directly from the US military if something happens to them.

Ian Bremmer:

I think that we have not just economic leverage, but a reasonable amount of confidence that the Taliban government will continue to work with the United States to at least get the Americans out, the American citizens out, not the SIV holders, not Afghan civilians, human rights opposition members, none of those, but the American citizens, I think.

Ian Bremmer:

So, I say that in part because the American military leaders who have been briefing the public on this have acted pretty damn confident about the fact that the US will not need to engage militarily. In other words, they’d be hedging it a lot more.

Preet Bharara:

Wait a minute. This is the same group who is acting pretty damn confident that things were not going to collapse in three days.

Ian Bremmer:

Different group.

Preet Bharara:

Well, overlapping group? Overlapping group?

Ian Bremmer:

Overlapping group, Preet, all I’m saying is that they’ve now been actually working with these former Taliban fighters now suddenly running the country for a couple of weeks, and they have been, as you know, giving these list of people to the Taliban as they’re getting them on buses and bringing them to the gates, and they get through the Taliban checkpoints, and that’s actually worked. That’s a little surprising.

Preet Bharara:

Alarming, right? Because there are some people who would say that giving over these lists is a little bit too trusting and those things can double as a list of people once were gone if they don’t get through the gateway and they don’t get on the planes are people that the Taliban can eliminate.

Ian Bremmer:

They have to get out. If they don’t get out, you’ve got a problem and it looks like from the New York Times reporting that that is indeed a problem for hundreds of students of the American University in Kabul and we may end up with huge egg on face and moral culpability as a consequence of that.

Preet Bharara:

I don’t know which reporting you looked at most recently.

Ian Bremmer:

The Peter Baker piece.

Preet Bharara:

I saw that the New York Times made a correction and that the head of the university, and people need to be rigorous when they quote folks was that the president of the university said that the list of names was given to the US military and then separately said he understood that it was the US military’s practice to share names with the Taliban, and the US government has denied that that happened in this case.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, then there’s not story there. So, they made the correction. I’m glad to hear that because everything I heard until then was that every individual that had been provided to the Taliban was some of the Americans had, so the engagement directly with and were bringing them or knew they were going on an individual vehicle, and this was to get them through the Taliban checkpoint. I see no other way to do that once Kabul has fallen.

Ian Bremmer:

So, again, I accept that you never want to be in a position where you’re answering questions about how can you trust the Taliban. I mean, if you’re answering questions about how can you trust the Taliban, you’re probably losing, right? I mean, let’s be clear.

Preet Bharara:

Well, but there’s another problem, right? It’s easier for you and me to say trust the Taliban or not trust the Taliban. That assumed a certain amount of command and control within the Taliban, right? There had been stories and Richard Engel talked about this in the podcast a couple of weeks ago. One could argue that the leadership of the Taliban appreciates the opportunities they have at this moment to be more reasonable, to coordinate, to cooperate while they’re in the limelight, if that’s an appropriate word to use. Not clear to me and not clear to others that that message of behaving, at least for the time being, has made its way all the way down through the ranks of the Taliban. Fair concern?

Ian Bremmer:

I think that’s fair to say. Again, I mean, I think we have no idea. Is there a Taliban 2.0 that actually wants to engage constructively with the international community? Will their short-term political interest held more sway over their ideological orientation? How much hierarchy exists functionally within the present Taliban group and how stable is that likelihood be?

Ian Bremmer:

Will they continue to hold power or will Afghanistan devolve into civil war and how much is an ISIS-K insurgency going to undermine the ability of the Taliban to get anything done whatsoever? How compromised is the Taliban government by ISIS operatives that are getting that information or are there bribes going on? Is there’s a ransom on the head of individual Americans if you can get one? I mean, it would be a pretty big deal. With those couple hundred Americans still there, can we have some hostages? I mean, this would be a massive crisis for the United States, for the Biden administration if they could pull it off. So, I don’t pretend that Biden is out of the woods on this even now that all of the American service men and women have left the country.

Preet Bharara:

Do you have a view on these scenes we’ve been shown of service dogs being left behind?

Ian Bremmer:

Are you asking me would I prefer to get the humans out before the dogs? Yeah, I think I want to get the humans out before the dogs.

Preet Bharara:

Right, but-

Ian Bremmer:

Don’t you want to get the humans out before the dogs?

Preet Bharara:

Yeah, but I also want to get the rest of the Americans out and I want to get the dogs out, too. So, that goes back to my original question. Again, I don’t know, I’m not an expert.

Ian Bremmer:

On service dogs?

Preet Bharara:

On getting out the people and the animals that we wanted to get out. Should we have abided by the strict midnight August 31 deadline or stayed a little bit longer? I believe you quoted Biden recently in social media saying, “We’re going to get everyone out. Who wants to get out?” This goes back to the communication point, which I think is in some ways your most solid point. It’s one thing for there to have been a mess. We were told there wasn’t going to be a mess, and then he circumstanced-

Ian Bremmer:

I wanted the allies involved with this. I did not like the fact that the United States was telling its coalition partners, again, the people, the governments, the sovereign governments that risked their citizens on the line in Afghanistan for an attack on the United States and then when they asked us to stay beyond August 31st, we say, “Talk to the hand.” I was very uncomfortable with that. It may have been the right decision. I was very uncomfortable we made it by ourselves. Very uncomfortable.

Preet Bharara:

I want to talk about the future and you think about future risk and you write your report at the beginning of every year. So, we mentioned already what might be the case with the Taliban, and you have the Taliban who’s in odds with us and has been historically, maybe cooperating now in a security agreement of some fashion. There are dogs with ISIS-K. What kind of a relationship are we going to have with the Taliban and what does this arrangement do to the old phrase, “The enemy of my enemy is my …” what now?

Ian Bremmer:

That’s a fairly question because you’ll remember after Obama had the red line on Syria and said Assad must go and that failed, the reality is the American relationship on the ground with Syria no longer mattered anymore. There were countries in the region like Russia and Turkey and Iran, and what their relationships on the ground are what mattered. They were the ones that determined the future of Syria and its orientation towards the world.

Ian Bremmer:

So, going forward, now that the American troops are gone, the United States would be at best in marginal influence on the future of Afghanistan. It’s going to be China and Russia and Pakistan and Iran. The nature of the US relationship with the Taliban just ain’t going to matter that much. That’s the important point.

Preet Bharara:

Well, except that what happens in Afghanistan doesn’t stay in Afghanistan to coin a phrase, and one I think credible concern is that you might have a surge in it becoming a terrorist haven. I’ve not been to Afghanistan myself, but a lot of folks that I work with have been and we brought a lot of cases relating the material support of the Taliban, other folks in narcotics cases, which provided the funding for the Taliban in large part. Shouldn’t we be worrying about that?

Preet Bharara:

Then alongside that, the United States is still going to maintain its ability to strike back within the country even though there are no soldiers or airmen in the country. If you continue to have drone attacks like the one reported in the last couple of days that killed seven children, how does that affect the outlook of our relationships with that country and other countries?

Ian Bremmer:

Again, Syria also concerns about the export of radicalism, I will say that even though the US is still going to be involved, I’m sure in finding and hunting down using signal intelligence, using satellite imagery and other degrading ISIS-K and other extremist organizations operating in Afghanistan, the proximate threat from Afghanistan is in Afghanistan, the Afghan people, and then it’s to Pakistan and India and China and Russia and Iran, and then it’s to Turkey and Europe.

Ian Bremmer:

One of the reasons why it was comparatively easy for Biden to make the decision to leave is because Afghanistan is not a priority one or priority for US national security. They pivot to Asia, where the Americans are focusing, dealing with Russian cyber attacks is where the Americans are focusing. I think that will continue.

Ian Bremmer:

So, I don’t discount the importance of your question. It is a problem for the United States, but I don’t think it’s going to make anywhere close to the headlines or the national security importance and decision making in three, in five, in 10 years’ time as it has occupied us over the course of the last 20.

Preet Bharara:

That all depends on what happens and on what political figures can blame Biden for in retrospect based on the departure.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s going to hurt Biden. I think this will hurt Biden. I think this is actually going to be a concern.

Preet Bharara:

I thought your view was, well, I guess your view was that they have made a political calculation in part that the overwhelming majority of Americans didn’t want to be in this “forever war” and they wanted out.

Ian Bremmer:

Correct.

Preet Bharara:

They don’t really think about, I think you’ve said this also, but at least I know others have, they don’t really care about foreign policy so much. They don’t care about Afghanistan. They have cared for the last couple of weeks because it has become very politicized and legitimately, we care about people and we care about our armed service members and we care about our allies, but so long as no other immediate disaster unfolds, this will be forgotten and people will appreciate the bravery and courage of Joe Biden in doing what, I think you made this point as well, in doing what neither Trump nor Obama had the guts, and if I might say, and the balls to do. Fair?

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah. I think it is and will be in the long-term still a popular policy overall, but I think that the damage to Biden’s credibility in the way it was handled, as well as giving the Republicans an awful lot of speaking points that are a hell of a lot more damaging than Benghazi was for Obama or Hilary Clinton or Susan Rice, I do think that matters. It doesn’t matter as much as 3.5 trillion for infrastructure. It’s at the margins, but I do think there will be a cost. I think a couple of weeks that we’ve seen here the Americans we still have to get out, 9/11 20th anniversary, Taliban running around with American equipment and material, their flag over the embassy, all of that, yeah. Unfortunately, I think execution does actually matters. It’s going to leave a mark. Let’s put it that way.

Preet Bharara:

Last question. How dispiriting is the debate and argument going to be about the settling of refugees from Afghanistan here in the US?

Ian Bremmer:

I’m pretty optimistic about this.

Preet Bharara:

Oh, you are.

Ian Bremmer:

Well, look, I don’t think we’re going to accept it anywhere near the numbers that need to get the hell out, and I think in very short order of the issue will not be how do you get the Afghans out, but where are you going to put them because in the US, we’re talking about what? 150,000, 25,000 in Canada, 25,000 in the UK. I mean, these are not the numbers. We’re talking about 40 million people live in Afghanistan and millions of them are going to be fleeing a Taliban-led country or a civil war.

Ian Bremmer:

I think for the numbers we are talking about, given the fact that these Afghans served with, stood by, fought with Americans, I don’t think America is Twitter at all. I think the average American and communities are going to be very welcoming with these people and I think it all go well.

Preet Bharara:

I hope so. I really hope so.

Ian Bremmer:

I do, too.

Preet Bharara:

Ian Bremmer, aka my Regis Philbin, thanks for your insight. Look, I think this was a good discussion.

Ian Bremmer:

It’s a great discussion. Preet, always have been doing that.

Preet Bharara:

People have different points of view, and I think there should be more opportunity for people to be rigorous and thoughtful and honest about how they feel about things and why they feel those ways. Thanks again, Ian.

Ian Bremmer:

Great to be here, Preet.

Preet Bharara:

My conversation with Ian Bremmer continues for members of the Café Insider community. To try out the membership free for two weeks, head to cafe.com/insider. Again, that’s cafe.com/insider.

Preet Bharara:

So, folks, of course, in many different ways, there’s a lot of heavy stuff going around, but I wanted to end this show this week on a little bit of a hopeful note. It is, of course, true that with respect to COVID, the delta variant is spreading like rapid fire throughout the US. As you all know, this variant of COVID-19 is much more contagious and largely affects unvaccinated populations and is ravaging certain states putting healthcare workers and immunocompromised folks in life or death and situations.

Preet Bharara:

US health officials report that 97% of hospital admissions and 99.5% of COVID deaths are occurring among those who are not vaccinated. So, we have a severe problem of non-vaccination in this country, but there is some good news. A recent NBC poll of vaccine attitudes found that while around 70% of all adults are vaccinated, only about 13% said they will absolutely not get vaccinated. The rest were somewhere in the middle, unvaccinated yet potentially more willing.

Preet Bharara:

Some were waiting to see if the vaccine was harmful to others. Some said they would get it if it became required. This week in Axios-Ipsos’ poll reported that the number of vaccine skeptics was slowly and steadily decreasing as the number of vaccinations continues to increase.

Preet Bharara:

A few weeks ago towards the beginning of August, the pace of vaccinations hit its highest pace in weeks. The White House reported recently that the daily number of people getting their first dose of the coronavirus vaccine has risen by more than 70% since mid July, and there had been multiple days recently when the number of shots has exceeded one million. On average, about 450,000 Americans a day are getting their first shot up from 260,000 a little over a month ago.

Preet Bharara:

So, what explains this promising trend? Well, it seems there are a number of factors in play. I can think of three. First, are the vaccine mandates? In order to protect its population, cities like New York, where I spend a lot of time, are now requiring proof of vaccination to enter indoor spaces on masks. That has an effect.

Preet Bharara:

One issue that was keeping people from getting the vaccine was the fear that it was merely experimental. Well, that also changed recently when the FDA granted full approval of the Pfizer vaccine, making it the first to go beyond emergency use status, and that’s leading the way to more mandates. The US Defense Secretary ordered the country’s 1.4 million active duty service members to be vaccinated.

Preet Bharara:

Here’s another example. In Washington State, they saw a 34% leap in vaccine appointments after state officials imposed a vaccine requirement for public employees and school workers. Here’s another reason. Some communities have gotten better about their persuasive tactics. Online communities have popped up to discuss fact-based concerns about the vaccine like the Facebook group Vaccine Talk.

Preet Bharara:

As the Washington Post reported, Vaccine Talk was started by a group of moms who desperately wanted a place to discuss the vaccine without misinformation and online fighting. The group calls itself an evidence-based discussion forum where people can voice their opinions without fear of judgment.

Preet Bharara:

Finally, there’s a somewhat macabre reason why the vaccine numbers maybe going up. It maybe because of story after story of a horrifying narrative of anti-vaxxers losing their lives. There are people who I think don’t understand the proper concept of freedom or liberty and are paying the ultimate price.

Preet Bharara:

Here’s one story that of prominent conservative radio host, Phil Valentine. Valentine often scoffed that the need for a vaccine. In a December blog post entitled The Vax Fact he wrote, “If you’re not at high risk of dying from COVID, then you’re probably safer not getting it.” He said, “Further, I’m not an anti-vaxer. I’m just using common sense.”

Preet Bharara:

Well, then Valentine got COVID, but he put a defined face on it. He had to leave his show but he promised his listeners he would be back on air in a matter of days. He said, “Unfortunately for the haters out there, it looks like I’m going to make it.”

Preet Bharara:

Eventually, Valentine had a change of heart. The station put out a statement, “Phil would like his listeners to know that while he has never been an anti-vaxxer, he regrets not being more vehemently pro-vaccine and looks forward to being able to more vigorously advocate that position as soon as he is back on the air, which we all hope will be soon.”

Preet Bharara:

Well, Phil Valentine never got back on air. He passed away last week from COVID-19. Valentine is just one of many such tragic stories. Marc Bernier, a conservative radio host from Florida who called himself Mr. Antivax died of COVID-19 over the weekend. Caleb Wallace, an outspoken leader of anti-mask demonstrations in Texas, well, he died last week after a month-long battle with COVID-19.

Preet Bharara:

Maybe these stories are making a difference. Maybe we’re turning a corner. If nothing else, maybe this stat will give you some hope, too. Ariel Edwards-Levy tweeted a report that, “The share of American adults who have been at least partially vaccinated, something north of 73%, is greater than the share of American adults who know the earth revolves around the sun, 72%. Well, thank God for that.”

Preet Bharara:

Well, that’s it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks again to my guest, Ian Bremmer.

Preet Bharara:

If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple podcasts or wherever you listen. Every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me questions about news, politics, and justice. Tweet them to me @PreetBharara with the #AskPreet or you can call and leave me a message at 669-247-7338. That’s 669-24-PREET or you can send an email to staytuned@cafe.com.

Preet Bharara:

Stay Tuned is presented by Cafe Studios and the Vox Media Podcast Network. Your host is Preet Bharara. The executive producer is Tamara Sepper. The senior producer is Adam Waller. The technical director is David Tatasciore. The Cafe Team is Matthew Billy, David Kurlander, Sam Ozer-Staton, Noa Azulai, Nat Weiner, Jake Kaplan, Chris Boylan, and Sean Walsh. Our music is by Andrew Dost. I’m Preet Bharara. Stay tuned.