Just about everyone in Washington knows Miles’s law: “Where you stand depends on where you sit.” Rufus E. Miles Jr. was a Truman administration bureaucrat who coined that phrase, and we find it often comes in handy when understanding abrupt shifts in policy positions.
Support our journalism. Subscribe today. arrow-right
Witness the case of former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. In early 2020, as the incumbent at the State Department, he touted the Trump administration’s agreement with the Taliban that set the stage for the departure of U.S. troops no later than May 2021, a deadline that President Biden briefly extended. He defended the deal — and his Taliban interlocutors — even as the agreement came under fire for not involving the Afghan government, for setting the stage for the release of 5,000 Taliban militants from Afghan prisons and for having weak language on ending the Taliban’s ties to al-Qaeda. Although over the following 14 months attacks against U.S. troops largely ended, the Taliban built up its capacity for the stunning offensive that quickly toppled the U.S.-backed government.
After Biden announced that he would fulfill the terms of the agreement and remove all U.S. troops, Pompeo appeared to support that decision as well. In July, when it appeared that U.S.-trained Afghan troops were being outfought by the Taliban, Pompeo (like Biden) put the onus on the Afghan government. But his tune changed once the government fell.
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
Here’s a timeline of statements by Pompeo on the agreement and his dealings with the Taliban, interspersed with data and facts about the conflict.
“After decades of conflict, we have come to an understanding with the Taliban on a significant reduction in violence across Afghanistan. This is an important step on a long road to peace, and I call on all Afghans to seize this opportunity.”
— Then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R), in a tweet, Feb. 21, 2020
“For the first time, [they] have announced that they’re prepared to break with their historic ally, al-Qaeda. … The [Taliban] gentleman whom I met with agreed that they would break that relationship and that they would work alongside of us to destroy, deny resources to and have al-Qaeda depart from that place.”
Story continues below advertisement
— Pompeo, interview on CBS News, March 1, 2020
Advertisement
“Are they really living up to that commitment? It’s our expectation. I met with them myself when I was in Doha. I looked them in the eye. They revalidated that commitment.”
— Pompeo, interview on Fox News, March 2, 2020
“We have seen the senior Taliban leadership working diligently to reduce violence from previous levels during similar time periods. And so we still have confidence that the Taliban leadership is working to deliver on its commitments.”
— Pompeo, remarks to the press, March 5, 2020
“Although U.S. and Taliban representatives signed an agreement on Feb. 29 as a first step toward ending the conflict, a number of events occurred that raised questions over whether the peace process would take place. Taliban violence continued at high levels, even during a negotiated week-long reduction in violence that led to the agreement’s signing. The Taliban limited violence against coalition forces but increased attacks against the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) during this period. The Taliban escalated violence further after signing the agreement. U.S. forces defended the ANDSF against the Taliban. U.S. officials stated the Taliban must reduce violence as a necessary condition for continued U.S. reduction in forces and that remaining high levels of violence could jeopardize the U.S.-Taliban agreement. Even still, the United States began to reduce its forces in Afghanistan from roughly 13,000 to 8,600.” (Inspector general for the Department of Defense, report issued May 15, 2020) “Since the February RIV [reduction-in-violence] period, the Taliban has sustained high levels of violence against ANDSF checkpoints and convoys. Concurrently, the Taliban has avoided attacks against coalition forces and provincial capitals, likely to avoid risking the U.S.-Taliban Agreement. The current level of violence conducted by the Taliban remains high. ... Despite recent progress in the peace process, AQIS [al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent] maintains close ties to the Taliban in Afghanistan, likely for protection and training.” (Defense Department report to Congress, June)
“There are a series of commitments that the Taliban have made. We have every expectation that they will follow through on them. … Look, we saw just yesterday, maybe the day before, there have been a lot of spoilers out there. There are people who don’t want this to go forward. They want America mired in this place. They don’t want peace in Afghanistan. Most Afghan people want that; that’s what we’re going to stay focused on.”
Advertisement
Story continues below advertisement
— Pompeo, remarks to the media, Sept. 11, 2020
“We hope he will win the election and wind up U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.” (Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, endorsing President Donald Trump’s reelection, Oct. 10, 2020) “As the Taliban and the United States were finalizing their February deal, Taliban leaders were in frequent communication with al-Qaeda, consulting with their counterparts on the terms of the agreement and assuring them that they would not be betrayed, according to U.N. monitors. ... The active coordination between the two groups has continued to this day, despite the Taliban’s commitment to sever ties as a condition of the peace deal, according to U.N. and Afghan officials and current and former Taliban members. … The ongoing coordination is a reflection of the deep bonds that were forged decades ago over a shared ultrareligious Islamist ideology and al-Qaeda’s early support for a fledgling Taliban.” (The Washington Post, in a report from Kabul, Dec. 8) “The Times confirmed 3,378 security-force and 1,468 civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2020.” (The New York Times, Dec. 31) “The last three months of the year marked an uncharacteristic rise in civilian casualties — a critical indicator of the nature of the conflict. The year ended with increased focus on levels of violence and diminishing hopes for lasting peace. … Anti-Government Elements continued to cause the majority of civilian casualties, amounting to 62 percent of all civilian casualties in 2020.” (United Nations report, issued February 2021, which estimated that 3,035 civilians were killed in Afghanistan in 2020)
“Afghanistan needs to begin to stand up on its own. … You have got Afghan leaders with beautiful homes all over the Middle East, in Europe. There’s corruption everywhere. It’s time for the Afghan people to do the hard work, the heavy lifting, and demand that they push back against the Taliban, not just militarily, but politically, exercise their own rights, secure their own freedom. We have provided all the resources the Afghan National Security Forces could possibly ever have dreamed of and all the training over two decades.”
— Pompeo, interview on Sunday Morning Futures, July 12, 2021
“These [the Taliban] are butchers. I met in the room with them. These were some of the most difficult meetings for me personally and emotionally. I knew exactly who I was sitting across the table from. These are evil people. The world is filled with evil people like this. … We never trusted them. … We always knew what they were telling us was almost certainly a lie.”
— Pompeo, interview in Tulsa, Aug. 18, 2021
(About our rating scale)
Send us facts to check by filling out this form
Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter
The Fact Checker is a verified signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network code of principles