War terminations as critical situations for ontological security: the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan

Abstract This paper introduces an ontological security approach to international war terminations. While International Relations scholarship emphasises physical security and domestic political calculations as influencing factors in when wars end, this paper explores how ‘ontological security processes’ shape war termination decisions. The paper argues that war terminations often constitute ‘critical situations’ that threaten a state’s ontological security, or ‘security of being’. War terminations are a distinct anxiety-generating moment that prompt elites and citizens to confront gaps between expectations and reality and what that means for a state’s character. This is partly why leaders are often wary of war terminations even when not directly ‘culpable’ for the conflict. Applying this framework to the United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan, the paper illustrates how ontological security processes shaped termination decisions across three presidential administrations alongside battlefield conditions and domestic political fears. Despite low political salience and broad public support for withdrawal, presidents pursued strikingly similar gradual and ‘responsible’ withdrawals. This avoidance strategy managed ‘normal’ anxiety and was associated with gradual troop reductions, culminating in bipartisan embrace of ending ‘forever/endless’ wars. However, the chaotic August 2021 withdrawal made avoidance impossible, escalating into ‘existential’ anxiety and creating a critical situation with widespread identity-questioning and ‘soul-searching’. As such, an ontological security approach can advance our understanding of both termination decisions and their reception.