1. This NYT Ed Board opinion rightfully calls for a regional approach to Afghanistan & the region. But a zero-sum mentality is not a Trumpism. Like an amateur day trader who chases rallying stocks, Washington's short-term reactionary multilateralism fails. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/30/opinion/afghanistan-withdrawal-biden.html

2. The India-led Chabahar port project offers the perfect metaphor for why US FP in the region cannot be carried out in separate silos. Sanctions on Iran prevented Afghanistan’s integration into regional trade routes. Even exceptions failed to entice risk averse developers.

3. But I take issue with the use of "moral obligation" here. Washington is obligated to the interests of the American people. Fewer messes will be created if those interests are prioritized over futile interventions. If this is isolationism, then all our allies are isolationists.

4. As @BRRubin put it, "[s]top looking at Afghanistan as either ‘war on terror’ or nothing and broaden the aperture to see that it is a country in a region with China, Russia, Iran, India and Pakistan — four nuclear powers." Diplomacy is the primary vehicle for this.

5. Proponents of continuing forever wars often point to what they view as a limited cost. Others advocate to end them & instead focus on near-peer competition. Both miss the point which is that ending these wars allows for more productive US engagement regionally & globally.