‘Easy to Play Backseat’: Psaki Mixes it Up with NY Times’ Michael Shear in Testy Exchange Over Afghanistan Evacuation

Jackson RichmanAug 27th, 2021, 3:54 pm
 

White House press secretary Jen Psaki got testy with New York Times White House correspondent Michael Shear during the White House press briefing on Friday over the Biden administration’s handling of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Preceding Shear’s question, Washington Post reporter Sean Sullivan asked Psaki for the administration’s response to Rep. Susan Wild’s (D-PA) criticism of the withdrawal.

In a Twitter thread on Thursday, Wild posted, “I am devastated at the loss of U.S. servicemembers and Afghan civilians in today’s horrific attack, and I’m thinking of their families. Our country feels their grief, and we will never forget their loved ones’ sacrifices.

“Although it is clear to me that we could not continue to put American servicemembers in danger for an unwinnable war, I also believe that the evacuation process appears to have been egregiously mishandled.”

“In order to move forward, we need answers and accountability regarding the cascading failures that led us to this moment,” she added. “Our troops deserve nothing less than a complete and unvarnished truth.”

In response, Psaki said she doesn’t “have any direct response to any member of Congress.”

But what I will say is that it is easy to throw stones or be a critic from the outside. It is harder to be in the arena and make difficult decisions and the decisions that a commander-in-chief has to made include among difficult options. Right? These were the options. You send tens of thousands of more troops in Afghanistan to potentially lose their lives. That’s an option. Some support that. That’s their prerogative. You pull out and you don’t put anyone at risk. You don’t put troops at risk and you don’t evacuate more than 105,000 people, that’s another option. The option that he has chosen, in coordination and based on the recommendations with his military commanders and advisers on the ground, is to implement an evacuation that has saved the lives potentially of more than 105,000 people, certainly at risk of the men and women who are serving in the military as we saw the events of yesterday. That’s the choice he’s made.

Shear interjected with “But, Jen, apologies for my colleagues, but, like, you guys have said repeatedly this idea that there were only two choices. What evidence do you have that there weren’t other choices that could have been made?”

“What’s the other choice anyone is offering,” Psaki asked Shear.

An example Shear gave was that the United States could have told in May the now-previous Afghan government, led by Ashraf Ghani, that the United States was “going to start a mass evacuation of all” U.S. personnel and put out an advisory for Afghan allies to begin evacuating.

“It would have been a show of no confidence in the Ghani government. There might’ve been other repercussions,” he said. “I’m not suggesting that’s the right way to have gone, I don’t know, but it is another option and I’m sure there’s ten other options that I haven’t thought of. So why do you present it as these being the only two options?”

“There are of course other options, but there are consequences to every option,” replied Psaki. “That is my point.”

Psaki went on to say that if the United States “had evacuated, moved in C-17s, 6,000 troops – I think that’s what you’re suggesting – and implemented this evacuation in May, what would’ve happened in all likelihood? The threat on U.S. forces would have increased at that point in time. ISIS-K …”

Shear interrupted and correctly retorted that Kabul wasn’t under Taliban control in May.

“How do you know that,” asked Psaki.

“Well, the Taliban wasn’t near Kabul at that point,” said Shear.

The Taliban did not take over Kabul until the middle of August.

“I think it’s easy to play backseat, let’s look at what could have happened, three months, four months, ago,” said Psaki. “

“I think we’ve been clear on a couple of things, I will say. No one anticipated, I think, including on the outside, that the Afghan government would have fallen at the pace they fell and the president and members of our national security team has spoken to that as well,” said Psaki. “We didn’t anticipate the Afghan national security forces would have folded as they did. We didn’t anticipate that. And as a result of that all happening, we saw a chaotic situation just two weeks ago.”

Contrary to Psaki’s assertion, the CIA reportedly warned that there could be a hasty collapse of both the Afghan government and military.

“My point in response to the question is that there are consequences to any of these difficult choices and decisions,” she concluded. “That is what faces you as commander-in-chief and that was the larger point I was trying to make.”

Tags: