US lacks leverage over Taliban amid chaotic Afghanistan exit: 'They have us in a corner'

WASHINGTON – As the Biden administration scrambles to get Americans and Afghan allies safely out of Afghanistan, its quest for a quick exit has clashed with on-the-ground reality: The U.S. has little leverage against the Taliban, the Islamic militant group now in charge of the country.

“They are in control of Kabul – that’s the reality that we have to deal with,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

The U.S. has taken steps to try to speed the evacuation of Americans and put pressure on the Taliban after the group's stunning overthrow of the U.S.-backed government last weekend.

The Biden administration has blocked the Taliban’s access to billions of dollars in assets Afghanistan’s central bank holds in the Federal Reserve and other U.S. banks, according to an administration official. Barring access to those assets deprives the Taliban of crucial financial resources as it tries to establish a new government.

Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan would not rule out sending in additional troops to help U.S. forces already on the ground.

Sullivan said the U.S. has "sufficient forces" in Afghanistan. But “every single day the president asks his military commanders, including those at the airport and those at the Pentagon, whether they need additional resources, additional troops,” he said. “So far, the answer has been no, but he will ask again today.”

'It’s just rubbish': Experts doubt Taliban's promises on women and girls

Analysts said the U.S. has few other options available to pressure the Taliban as it tries to enforce the evacuation of remaining Americans and Afghan contractors.

The Taliban "have us in a corner, because we can’t risk our responsibility to get everybody out who really need to leave,” said Phil Mudd, former deputy director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and the FBI’s National Security Branch.

Ryan Crocker, who served as U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, said the Taliban may look to exact revenge on those who have worked against them.

"I'm very much afraid that this is going to get worse," Crocker said. "The chaos may subside, but as it does, I am terribly worried you're going to see the Taliban start to methodically take care of those they consider their enemies. We will be in no position to help them."

Turmoil and violence

Kabul’s international airport, now one of the only routes out of the country, has seen days of turmoil and sometimes violence since the Taliban entered the capital Aug. 15. Thousands poured onto the tarmac last week, and several Afghans plunged to their deaths after clinging to a U.S. military cargo plane as it took off.

The British military said Sunday that at least seven Afghans died in a panicked crush of people trying to enter the airport.

Blinken, appearing on "Fox News Sunday," said about 8,000 people had been evacuated on 60 flights in the past 24 hours, bringing the total to 30,000 on military and charter flights since the end of July.

Anti-Taliban fighters, meanwhile, claimed to have seized three mountainous districts, and a prominent militia commander in the only province not yet under Taliban control pledged to fight back if attacked.

Anthony Cordesman, who has been a consultant on Afghanistan to the defense and state departments, warned that the evacuation could become more chaotic if violence erupts on the ground.

“All it takes is one violent confrontation between the U.S. and Taliban to alter the security situation at the airport,” said Cordesman, who is Arleigh A. Burke chair in strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“If we’re lucky, it will go relatively smoothly," Cordesman said. "If we’re not, it could turn into either chaos or a considerable crisis almost without warning because of an action that nobody really planned or called for.”

'A state of whiplash': Will turmoil in Afghanistan hurt Biden campaign to repair U.S. reputation?

'Threat of terror' in Kabul

The threat of terrorist attacks in Kabul on civilians headed to the airport and on American forces has forced changes in planning for the evacuation, according to two U.S. officials.

Commanders halted evacuation flights for a time Saturday in part because of the terror threat, one of the officials said. The other official acknowledged the terror threat from from ISIS-K and the group's drive to mount a spectacular attack.

The second official, however, attributed the suspension of flights more to the limited capacity at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar to handle the flood of American citizens and Afghan refugees.

To speed the flow of refugees, the Pentagon announced Sunday that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had invoked the military's authority to use 18 civilian airliners to ferry passengers to the United States and other destinations after they have been evacuated from Hamid Karzai International Airport as part of the Central Reserve Air Fleet, Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said in a statement.

Financial sanctions have already begun cutting off aid to Afghanistan through the International Monetary Fund and other organizations. But the U.S. lacks any authority to impose sanctions on the local economy and every facet of life the Taliban controls, which adds to difficulties in getting the Taliban to carry out the evacuation, Mudd said.

“They will be selling the country’s minerals to China, and there is no way to sanction opium sales,” he said. “The informal economy is going to be huge for them.”

Crocker said he fears what the Taliban will do going forward.

"I am afraid that as the Taliban gains more control, as they settle in a bit more, they are going to go after all of those in Afghanistan who have spoken the truth then in the media, who have represented the institutions of this young democracy and certainly those who have helped us directly like the interpreters," he said on "Face the Nation."

U.S. military has limited options

If the evacuation becomes more violent, a military response could be ineffective, analysts said.

“There really aren’t very good options because you can’t bomb the Taliban into moderation for effective government,” Cordesman said.

The U.S. continues to hold diplomatic talks with the Taliban, and military commanders remain in frequent contact with Taliban militants at the airport.

Sullivan said the U.S. will have a “swift and forceful response” if the Taliban disrupts the evacuation. The U.S. hasn’t offered the Taliban anything in return as part of the militant group’s agreement to not interfere, he said.

“This isn't some kind of quid pro quo. We haven't made any commitments,” Sullivan said. “We have laid out our expectations. We have explained to them that the United States of America intends to evacuate any American who wants to leave, as well as Afghans at risk. We intend to follow through on that. And we intend to ensure that they follow through on that.”

But analysts question whether any agreements with Taliban commanders would hold much sway with insurgents on the ground.

“The nature of Taliban – they are not the Pentagon – runs the risk that a 17-year-old with an AK-47 can throw this effort into more chaos,” Mudd said. “The risk is incredibly high. They have learned how to speak but not how to act. You have to be incredibly mission-focused.”

James Dobbins, a special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Obama administration and acting U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan during the George W. Bush administration, said the evacuation does face the risk “that a lack of coordination could allow unintended clashes to escalate” between Taliban and the limited number of U.S. troops.

Dobbins said the peril for the U.S. increases if troops are required to “move outside the wire.”

“It’s pretty risky,” he said.

At the same time, Dobbins said, there may be a “motive for restraint” as the Taliban seek “international recognition.”

“Interference with the exodus means interference with more than the U.S.,” Dobbins said. “The British, French and Germans all have interests. It’s a pretty big cost if the Taliban don’t cooperate.”

Biden's dilemma: For Biden, fallout from the Afghanistan withdrawal abroad complicates agenda at home

Taliban risks recognition if it acts aggressively

A looming threat is that the Taliban could basically take Americans hostage, as happened in Cuba after the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 or in the Iranian revolution in 1979, Cordesman said.

“If they do that, they risk a lack of recognition and future problems,” Cordesman said.

A key will be what kind of government the Taliban forms, Cordesman said. Revolutionary governments often evolve for years as fighters who won the battle are replaced by political figures, he said.

“Once you have some kind of stable Taliban structure, presumably you can negotiate with them,” Cordesman said. “Right now, you don’t have it and you don’t know when you’re going to get it, whether it’s days or weeks.”

The uncertainty extends beyond the thousands of Americans and more than 100,000 vulnerable Afghans seeking evacuation to the 36 million who will continue to live in the country, Cordesman said.

“This crisis isn’t going to go away even once you pulled back out of the airport,” he said. “In many ways, it’s almost certain to be going on for a couple of years.

“In some ways, we haven’t been honest enough about what we can’t control.”

Contributing: The Associated Press; Matthew Brown and Joey Garrison, USA TODAY

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: In Afghanistan withdrawal, US lacks leverage over Taliban