The beginning of the precipitous American withdrawal from Afghanistan during the last few days and the ongoing recapture of power by the Taliban have both been reminiscent of the events in Vietnam in April, 1975.  At that time, the Communist forces were achieving total victory, and Americans were in flight from Saigon (Ho Chi Minh City). I was an officer in the United States Navy at that time, stationed in Philadelphia, and I remember my feelings of despondency.  And these melancholy feelings came back to me yesterday.

The television segments in 1975 showing helicopters evacuating Americans and certain high ranking South Vietnamese officials out of Saigon gave our nation the image of both impotence and unreliability as an ally. This image was most unfair, given the fact that over 58,000 Americans had sacrificed their lives to give the people of South Vietnam the opportunity for self-determination.

Yet there was a significant factor differentiating the American entanglement in Vietnam from our current involvement in Afghanistan.

Our military involvement in Vietnam was based upon a gross misreading during the post-World War 2 era of the Communist world as a monolith.  America had a need to contain expansion of the totalitarian spheres of influence of the two major Communist superpowers, the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China.

As for the relatively Lilliputian Communist nation of North Vietnam, however, its invasions of its neighbors had nothing to do with the interests of the two aforementioned Communist superpowers.  Thus, the Vietnam War, from any consideration of moral or national interest, was a wasteful disaster for the United States of America.

The current American involvement in Afghanistan began in the days following September 11, 2001 with a compelling, valid, and essential purpose: to prevent the then prevailing Taliban regime from continuing to offer a safe haven for Al-Qaeda and other terrorist entities.  As the below-linked New York Times article notes, the Taliban regime was overthrown by the end of 2001, and in May, 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced an end to all major ground operations.

https://www.nytimes.com/article/afghanistan-war-us.html?referringSource=articleShare

In a classic case of “mission creep,” however, after routing the Taliban, the United States and NATO redefined the mission to include rebuilding a failed state and establishing a Western-style democracy.  This was a mission that was doomed to failure.

It is to be expected that Americans want to withdraw from Afghanistan after all these years.  It is even more understandable that Americans do not want to risk the lives of their children for people who themselves lack the will to fight.

The problem is the precipitous manner in which this withdrawal is being carried out.  It has raised the anxiety of our allies everywhere and is leaving behind people who risked their lives for our troops.

And most ominously, the withdrawal has been accompanied by the freeing of thousands of prisoners with terrorist backgrounds who are willing to again use Afghanistan and the Taliban as a protective safe haven. That includes former members of Al Qaeda and Islamic State.   https://www.businessinsider.com/watch-afghan-prisoners-isis-al-qaeda-fighters-freed-by-taliban-2021-8?amp

I feel that political blame for this foreign policy failure must be cast equally on both former President Donald Trump, who negotiated the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, and current President Joe Biden, who carried out the withdrawal.  Yet the debacle came to fruition during the Biden administration, and it is Joe Biden who will incur the most significant political damage.  And one of Biden’s most loyal allies on this issue, Congressman Andy Kim (D- NJ3) may find that his outspoken advocacy of the president’s Afghanistan policy may cost him his Congressional seat.

It all depends on the extent of the terrorist infiltration of Afghanistan and their ability to use the country as a safe haven for their activities.  If their utilization of Afghanistan as a terrorist base is limited, then Kim may survive a 2022 election challenge.  If terrorist use of Afghanistan as a base and safe haven is extensive, approaching pre-9-11 (September 11, 2001) levels, then Kim’s defeat in his quest for reelection in 2022 will be highly likely.

It must be understood that even in the absence of the Afghanistan controversy, Kim faces a rough road to reelection.  His Third District Cook Partisan Voting Index is R+3, meaning that it votes Republican 3% higher than the national average. And in 2020, the New Jersey Third was one of only nine Congressional districts in the nation where Trump carried the presidential vote, but a Democrat was elected to the House of Representatives.  All this suggests a strong tension between the views of Kim and the majority of voters in his district, adding to his vulnerability.

At this point, Kim’s likely opponent is Robert Healey, Jr., a member of the family that owns Viking Yacht. This suggests that this challenger’s campaign will be well – funded.

The Third District is one of two New Jersey Congressional Districts considered likely to be competitive in the 2022 national elections.  The other is the Seventh, where Republican State Senator Tom Kean, Jr.is challenging Tom Malinowski.

I have written at length about the Kean-Malinowski race before, and its outcome will depend largely on redistricting.  If Millburn is moved out of the Seventh District, Kean, Jr. becomes a definite favorite.

All this presages an interesting scenario.  The Democrats are moving inexorably towards landslide victories in the New Jersey gubernatorial and legislative races.  But if the Republicans achieve victories in the Seventh (Tom Kean, Jr.) and Third (Andy Kim challenger) Congressional races next year, 2022 could be the year of the NJGOP comeback.

Alan J. Steinberg served as Regional Administrator of Region 2 EPA during the administration of former President George W. Bush and as Executive Director of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission.