Afghanistan

Subterms

    More stories

    • 88 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      The New York Times Predicts Our Future

      by

      The banner headline on the front page of Wednesday’s New York Times contained what can be interpreted as either a promise, a prophecy, a wild hope or a meaningless truism. It read: “Withdrawal of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Will End Longest American War.” The headline linked to an article with a slightly less assertive title: “Biden to Withdraw All Combat Troops From Afghanistan by Sept. 11.” Nevertheless, it quickly returned to the prophetic tone, while adding one significant dramatic detail: “President Biden will withdraw American combat troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, declaring an end to the nation’s longest war and overruling warnings from his military advisers.” Instead of the traditional tactic of divide and rule, Biden will be applying a new one: withdraw and overrule.

      Japan’s Art of Forgetfulness

      READ MORE

      How can The New York Times promise that an event “will” happen months before the date? Does The Times, as the “paper of record,” have the authority to report future events? Expressions of intention, even by a sitting president, are not predictions. Is The Times now in the business of publishing prophetic journalism? More likely its certainty about what will happen in the future should be branded a wild partisan hope. The Times has been willing to go overboard to give the Biden administration credit long before credit is due. It has become a pattern since the election in its reporting and even the opinions of its Republican editorialists.

      The Times’ initial affirmation can nevertheless be justified as a truism. Though it fails to refer to a real event, its meaning is undeniably true. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan at any time in the future — whether it’s September 2021 or even 2051 — will effectively end the longest war in US history, simply because in April 2021 it is already the nation’s longest war.

      To underline the very real seriousness of President Joe Biden’s resolution and to support the idea that the future will happen as reported, The Times cites a significant fact: “A senior Biden administration official said the president had come to believe that a ‘conditions-based approach’ would mean that American troops would never leave the country.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Conditions-based approach:

      A tactic that allows a government to promise to carry out an action and then, at the critical moment, announce that it is justified in refusing to carry out that action

      Contextual Note

      The resolution of any serious problem in the realm of geopolitics is subject to conditions on the ground. That is why negotiations are important. But the situation in Afghanistan has always been so complex and asymmetrical that even attempting to negotiate is doomed to failure. The current situation involves three parties: the US, which is seeking to withdraw after 20 years of failed military efforts; the Taliban, who control most of the territory of a country traditionally administered by local warlords; and the so-called legitimate Afghan government initially put in place and supported economically and militarily by the US.

      Barack Obama and Donald Trump both announced plans to withdraw from the conflict. But as soon as discussions began, the US insisted that certain conditions must be met. Those conditions were always framed as minimal criteria of political stability and a guaranteed role for the official government, even in a power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban. There was never any serious chance of realizing those objectives. Withdrawal dates could only be formulated as a target, not as a predefined moment. It also meant that those who opposed withdrawal simply needed to make sure that things on the ground remained suitably unstable.

      Embed from Getty Images

      President Biden has clearly, even shockingly, innovated by unilaterally canceling the criterion of conditions. It appears to be a move designed to counter not the actors in Afghanistan, but his political opponents in Washington and the Pentagon. He has done so because in every case from the past, Congress and the Pentagon have managed to declare that the sacrosanct conditions were not met. The US economy thrives on military engagement. The Afghan government has had a permanent incentive to maintain the presence of the US, which guarantees the billions of dollars funding of the government’s operations. Once the US leaves, even while promising to provide aid to a new composite regime, the Taliban will undoubtedly have the upper hand in a negotiated power-sharing arrangement.

      In other words, there are two actors in the drama who have used the idea of conditions to oppose withdrawal: the NATO-supported Afghan government and the Pentagon. Obama and Trump failed in their plans to withdraw because they placed all their trust in the Pentagon. That is why the Biden administration’s decision to abandon a conditions-based approach may not only be constructive but absolutely necessary to achieve a goal ardently desired by the American public but opposed by the military-industrial complex that includes the Pentagon, the defense industry and members of Congress who depend on the defense industry for funding their campaigns and providing jobs in their jurisdictions.

      How inevitable is The New York Times’ bold prophecy that withdrawal will effectively happen in September? Already, powerful senators who can stop it from happening, both Republican and Democrat, are beginning to speak up to condemn what they call a shameful and humiliating retreat from an engagement that began 20 years ago. The lobbyists are mobilizing to make sure the interests of the defense industry and the Pentagon continue to exercise effective control of US foreign policy.

      But on April 14, Biden himself made it clear that there actually is a condition. The Times reports that he warned the Taliban “that if American forces are attacked on the way out of the country, ‘we’re going to defend ourselves and our partners with all the tools at our disposal.’” That certainly sounds like a condition.

      Historical Note

      When running for president in 2000, George W. Bush asserted that he wanted the US to avoid any temptation of nation-building. Eight months into his presidency, using the pretext of the 9/11 attacks, Bush initiated a foreign policy that obliged the US to engage actively in nation-building, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq.

      The foreign policy of the past three presidents has transformed both Afghanistan and Iraq into examples of what may be called “government-creating and defending” rather than “nation-building.” After toppling an existing regime and putting in its place a puppet government committed to Western liberal values, the game has consisted of ensuring the minimum required to keep such governments from collapsing as they take on the impossible burden of defeating America’s designated enemy.

      It is a recipe for geopolitical failure that worries presidents, who prefer being thought of as winners. But it comforts everyone else in a system with its own internal logic. Spending money on weapons, selling those weapons to a captive client government and deploying them operationally whenever necessary in real, non-simulated wartime situations constitute a major factor of motivation for all parties concerned.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The beauty of it is that they can count on the US taxpayer to foot the bill. In the parlance of sports, the Middle East and now parts of Africa have become the equivalent of the expensive training facilities of a professional sports franchise motivated to push competition to its extreme and emerge as uncontested champions. Training can be carried on at all times and can endure decades, but when things get hot, these exotic locations also serve as the stadium itself, where the games are played and the scores tabulated.

      It took decades after World War II to build such a coherent system. For multiple reasons, however, this system is incompatible with the idea of democracy and the morality of a civilized society dedicated to the idea of human rights and responding to human needs. It is coherent to the extent that those who exercise power — in government, industry, the media and academe — share a common interest. The system provides them with the lifeline they need to maintain their activities. The problem is that the only parties left out and left holding the bag are… the people.

      Today’s economico-political situation reflects a “conditions-based approach.” The condition is that the interests that control the machine must never be forced to lose their control, because the result would be anarchy. And no civilized person — apart from the late anthropologist David Graeber — can seriously defend the idea of anarchy.

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Officer who shot Daunte Wright charged with manslaughter | First Thing

      by

      Good morning.The police officer who shot a 20-year-old black man dead during a traffic stop was charged with manslaughter yesterday, officials said, after days of unrest. Police said that Kimberly Potter, 48, meant to fire her stun gun at Daunte Wright during a traffic stop in the Minneapolis suburb of Brooklyn Center, but accidentally shot her handgun. Potter, who is white, has since resigned, as has her police chief.
      What sentence could she face? She has been charged with second-degree manslaughter, and a conviction carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. She was reportedly released from jail after posting bail.
      Who was Daunte Wright? Wright has been described as a doting father to his one-year-old son, with the “most beautiful smile”. Learn more about the individual behind the headlines.
      The killing triggered days of protests, with demonstrators in Brooklyn Centre alleging there had been a history of racial profiling by the local police. It comes amid existing tensions in Minneapolis during the murder trial of former police officer Derek Chauvin, over the death of George Floyd.
      A leading pathologist said Floyd was killed by his heart condition and drug use as he testified at Chauvin’s trial yesterday. Dr David Fowler, testifying for the defence, also suggested fumes from vehicle exhausts may have played a part in his death.
      Opinion: the trial won’t change US policing, writes Simon Balto, an assistant professor of African American history at the University of Iowa. He argues that while the trial is of “enormous importance” it would be a mistake to think that it alone could turn the tide.
      Biden is ending ‘the US’s longest war’Joe Biden yesterday announced that it was time “to end America’s longest war”, as he confirmed that all remaining US troops in Afghanistan would return home in the run-up to the 20th anniversary of 9/11.The president said that 2,500 US troops and 7,000 from Nato allies would begin leaving on 1 May. Minutes later, all Nato members released a joint statement confirming they would undertake an “orderly, coordinated and deliberate” removal of troops in tandem.
      We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” Biden said, in a late afternoon speech at the White House.
      Democrats are trying to add more justices to the supreme courtDemocrats have unveiled a plan to add four justices to the US supreme court, taking the total number from nine to 13. The new bill will be presented by the senator Ed Markey and representatives Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson and Mondaire Jones at a news conference later today.
      What do progressives think? Progressives have long been pushing to expand the court after Trump’s three appointees tipped it firmly to the right, especially as the court is due to tackle issues of voting rights, reproductive rights and the environment.
      What do conservatives think? The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said the idea of expanding the court was “a direct assault on our nation’s independent judiciary”. Given conservatives’ control of the supreme court, they are likely to oppose any expansion.
      Biden has not adopted a clear stance on supreme court expansion, but in the past has said he is “not a fan” of the idea. However, last week, he created a bipartisan commission to look at the history of the court and the possible impact of changing its size. As for this bill, it is so politically inflammatory that it is unlikely to be approved.
      Lawmakers are also advancing a bill to create a slavery reparations commission to examine slavery and discrimination since 1619 and recommend remedies. After impassioned debate, the House judiciary committee voted by 25-17 to advance the bill last night; the first time it has acted on the legislation. It will now be considered by the House and Senate, but seems unlikely to go further given Congress is so closely divided.
      The White House is to expel Russian diplomats for US cyber-attacksThe White House is expected to announce sanctions against Russia as early as today for interfering in US elections, alleged bounties on US soldiers in Afghanistan and masterminding cyber-attacks.
      What will the sanctions entail? About 10 Russian diplomats are expected to be expelled, and 30 entities are likely to be blacklisted. The White House may also ban US financial institutions from buying rouble bonds issued by Russia’s government.
      In other news …
      Capitol police were woefully unprepared for the 6 January insurrection, an internal report has found. The report described poor training and intelligence, riot shields that shattered on impact, and weapons that had expired. It comes in advance of a congressional hearing later today.
      The Johnson & Johnson coronavirus vaccine will be in limbo for longer after US health advisers told the White House they needed more evidence to decide if the vaccine could be linked to blood clotting, and how big the risk of administering the shot was.
      All US cars and trucks could be electric by 2035, amid rapid developments in technology and the cost of electric vehicle batteries, new research has found. At present, just 2% of all cars sold in the US are electric.
      Stat of the day: only 3% of the world’s ecosystems are intact, a study has suggestedJust 3% of the world’s land is ecologically intact – meaning it has a healthy population of all its original animals and an undisturbed habitat – a study has found. The rare spots that are undamaged by humans are predominantly in areas such as the Amazon and Congo tropical forests. Previous studies had suggested about 20 to 40% of land was intact.Don’t miss this: the equal rights amendment still faces an uphill battleThe fight to get the equal rights amendment enshrined into law has been going on for almost a century, and appears close an eventual victory. But with legal difficulties and a persistent lack of urgency from lawmakers, the amendment is not over the line yet.Last Thing: magic mushrooms could be just as effective as antidepressantsMagic mushrooms could be as effective as antidepressants for treating moderate to severe depressive disorders, according to a new study. One co-author of the study said the “results signal hope that we may be looking at a promising alternative treatment for depression”.Sign upSign up for the US morning briefingFirst Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If youare not already signed up, subscribe now. More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden outlines Afghanistan withdrawal: ‘It’s time for American troops to come home’ – live

      by

      Key events

      Show

      5.50pm EDT
      17:50

      Local US mosques caught in pandemic crunch turn to online fundraisers

      5.19pm EDT
      17:19

      ‘Terrible days ahead’: Afghan women fear the return of the Taliban

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      4.39pm EDT
      16:39

      Chauvin trial: defense claims bad heart and drug use killed Floyd

      3.36pm EDT
      15:36

      Biden visits Arlington National Cemetery after announcing Afghanistan troop withdrawal

      3.09pm EDT
      15:09

      Obama applauds Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan

      2.52pm EDT
      14:52

      ‘It’s time to end the forever war,’ Biden says of Afghanistan

      Live feed

      Show

      5.50pm EDT
      17:50

      Local US mosques caught in pandemic crunch turn to online fundraisers

      Lizzie Mulvey reports:
      The building facade is deteriorating. The heating system is a fire hazard. When it rains outside, it also rains inside – a plastic container near the prayer area collects water. Masjid An-Noor, a mosque serving the Muslim community of Bridgeport, Connecticut, for over 30 years, is barely holding on – and it is part of a trend of mosques across America facing dire financial problems during the Covid-19 pandemic.
      In April last year, as states across America went into lockdown, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan was just beginning. The holy month is a time when mosques open their doors each night, welcoming members and guests for iftar – a communal meal to break the day’s fast. It’s also one of the most fruitful times of year for fundraising, particularly for local mosques, which cover the majority of expenses through individual donations.
      But as in-person worship was put on hold, congregants could no longer share their nightly meal. And throughout the rest of 2020, families were barred from going to Friday prayers, or Jum’ah, another robust time for fundraising. And with unemployment rising, many Muslims families faced their own financial hardship. As a result, donations to mosques across the country declined dramatically – for some places of worship, annual funding fell by 40-60%.
      Larger, regional mosques in the US, usually based in urban areas, are connected to large Muslim communities and a network of other mosques that provides financial security. Smaller neighborhood mosques, sometimes called mahallah mosques, in cities and suburban and rural areas, lack the same safety net. There is also little financial support offered by federal and state governments and many of them turn to GoFundMe efforts to survive – with mixed results.
      “We are extremely in financial debt, we owe a lot of money to people,” said Atif Seyal, an executive committee member of the mosque in Connecticut, who helped organize a GoFundMe fundraiser for the mosque, which sought to raise $100,000 but has so far accrued only $12,200.
      “We have a lot of children in the community and we want to teach them our religion,” said Seyal, explaining why it was important to him that the mosque continues to exist. The mosque also provides a service to people in the town of all ages, supporting “people in need, people who don’t have a job. When a family member passes we help them to get them buried in the proper way.”
      According to Tariq Reqhman, the secretary general of the Islamic Circle of North America, a non-profit in Queens, New York, “99% of mosques in New York City have community support, and do not have grants or public or government funding. Everything comes from the community.”
      Read more:

      5.48pm EDT
      17:48

      A bill to address hate crimes against Asian Americas advanced through the Senate – but faces potential roadblocks ahead.
      With a 92-6 vote, the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act passed a procedural vote, and will be up for final passage this week. The bill, introduced by Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii would create a new Justice Department position to oversee the review of hate crimes related to the pandemic.
      Six Republicans – Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Tommy Tuberville of Alabama — voted against advancing the measure.
      Republicans were generally unenthusiastic about the bill and had hoped to introduce nearly two dozen amendments to it.

      5.19pm EDT
      17:19

      ‘Terrible days ahead’: Afghan women fear the return of the Taliban

      Akhtar Mohammad Makoii (in Herat) and Michael Safi report:
      Outside a college from which their mothers were banned, the women waited for friends finishing exams they fear will be some of the last they can take. “The Americans are leaving,” said Basireh Heydari, a Herat University student. “We have terrible days ahead with the Taliban. I’m worried they won’t let me leave the house, let alone what I’m doing now.”
      The Biden administration’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by 11 September will bring an end to the US’s longest war. With Nato allies such as Germany already announcing on Wednesday that they will follow Washington’s lead and exit the country, Afghans fear an intensification of fighting between the national government and the Taliban, who were ousted by the US-led intervention two decades ago.
      Violence against civilians, especially women and children, has surged over the past year, according to UN statistics released on Wednesday, and Taliban control of the country is greater than at any point in the past two decades. The benefits of an ongoing foreign military presence in the country are unclear.
      But a return to hardline Islamist rule could mean the rollback of one of the intervention’s least disputed achievements – the lifting of a Taliban prohibition of female education.
      Read more:

      5.00pm EDT
      17:00

      Today so far

      That’s it from me today. My west coast colleague, Maanvi Singh, will take over the blog for the next few hours.
      Here’s where the day stands so far:

      Joe Biden announced all US troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by September 11. “It’s time for American troops to come home,” the president said in a speech at the White House. “It’s time to end the forever war.” Biden said the troop drawdown will begin next month and be completed by the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
      Barack Obama praised Biden’s troop withdrawal decision. “After nearly two decades of putting our troops in harm’s way, it is time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home,” Obama said in a statement. Biden spoke to Obama and former president George W Bush yesterday about his decision on Afghanistan.
      The police officer who fatally shot Daunte Wright will be charged with second-degree manslaughter. The announcement comes three days after Officer Kim Potter shot and killed Wright, a 20-year-old Black man, during a traffic stop. Potter and the Brooklyn Center police chief, Tim Gannon, submitted their resignations yesterday.
      Derek Chauvin’s defense team called a forensic expert to testify that George Floyd died because of his heart condition and drug use. Experts called by prosecutors last week testified that Floyd only died because Chauvin kept his knee on the Black man’s neck for more than nine minutes.
      A new poll showed lingering coronavirus vaccine hesitancy among Americans, amid a “pause” in administering the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to six reports of blood clots among the more than 6 million people who have received the vaccine. A new poll from Monmouth University found that 21% of Americans say they will never get a coronavirus vaccine if they can avoid it.

      Maanvi will have more coming up, so stay tuned.

      4.39pm EDT
      16:39

      Chauvin trial: defense claims bad heart and drug use killed Floyd

      Chris McGreal

      A leading forensic pathologist has told the Derek Chauvin trial that George Floyd was killed by his heart condition and drug use.
      Dr David Fowler, testifying for the defence, also introduced the idea that vehicle exhaust may have played a part in Floyd’s death by raising the amount of carbon monoxide in his blood and affecting his heart.
      Fowler, Maryland’s former chief medical examiner who trained in South Africa during the apartheid era, said the combination of cardiac disease, methamphetamine use and carbon monoxide killed the 46-year-old Black man while Chauvin, who is white, was arresting him last May in Minneapolis.
      “All of those combined to cause Mr Floyd’s death,” he said.
      Fowler is a controversial witness. He is being sued by the family of a Black teenager, Anton Black, killed by the Maryland police in 2018 after being held face down by three police officers.
      Fowler certified that Anton Black died from natural causes, with his bipolar disorder a contributing factor.
      The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has accused Fowler of “creating false narratives about what kills Black people in police encounters”.
      Last week, medical experts testified for the prosecution that Floyd died because the way that Chauvin and the other police officers pinned him to the ground in the prone position caused brain damage and heart failure.

      4.18pm EDT
      16:18

      Republican Senator Lindsey Graham criticized Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan, saying he was “heartbroken” over the announcement.
      “I beg you, President Biden, re-evaluate this,” Graham said at a press conference.
      The South Carolina senator cited one study indicating a withdrawal of American troops will lead to a new threat to the US homeland within three years.
      “With all due respect, President Biden. you have not ended the war — you have extended it,” Graham said.

      3.56pm EDT
      15:56

      The Guardian’s Dan Sabbagh in London and Julian Borger in Washington report:
      Addressing the world from the White House, Joe Biden said 2,500 US troops plus a further 7,000 from “Nato allies” including 750 from the UK would gradually leave the country starting on 1 May. “The plan has long been in together, out together,” he added.
      “We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal and expecting a different result,” Biden said in his late afternoon speech.
      The plan was debated at a Nato summit in Brussels earlier on Wednesday. Member states did not oppose the plans for a full withdrawal once the US has made its intentions clear earlier this week, partly because they cannot guarantee the security of their own forces without the presence of the US.
      Minutes after Biden’s confirmation of the withdrawal plan, all Nato members, including the UK, put out a joint statement, confirming they would join in with an “orderly, coordinated, and deliberate” removal of troops alongside the US.
      The alliance said that it had achieved a goal to “prevent terrorists from using Afghanistan as a safe haven to attack us” but acknowledged also there was no good reason to stay on. “There is no military solution to the challenges Afghanistan faces,” Nato members said.

      3.36pm EDT
      15:36

      Biden visits Arlington National Cemetery after announcing Afghanistan troop withdrawal

      Joe Biden just paid a visit to Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery, where servicemembers who died fighting in America’s recent wars, including the war in Afghanistan, are buried.
      The president laid a wreath in honor of those lost troops. He noted it is now difficult for him to visit a cemetery and not think of his late son Beau, who fought in Iraq and later died of brain cancer.
      “Look at them all,” Biden said of the rows of headstones before him.

      JM Rieger
      (@RiegerReport)
      REPORTER: Was it a hard decision to make, sir?BIDEN: No it wasn’t. … It was absolutely clear … we went for two reasons: Get rid of bin Laden and to end the safe haven. … I never thought we were there to somehow unify … Afghanistan. It’s never been done. pic.twitter.com/gVHixStVdi

      April 14, 2021

      Asked by a reporter whether it was a difficult decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, Biden said it was not.
      “To me, it was absolutely clear,” Biden said. “We went for two reasons: get rid of bin Laden and to end the safe haven. I never thought we were there to somehow unify … Afghanistan. It’s never been done.”

      3.26pm EDT
      15:26

      Joe Biden spoke with Barack Obama and George W Bush yesterday about his decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, the White House press secretary said.
      “While we are not going to read out private conversations, he values their opinions and wanted them both to hear directly from him about his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan,” Jen Psaki said on Twitter.

      Jen Psaki
      (@PressSec)
      @potus spoke with both President Bush and @BarackObama during separate calls yesterday. While we are not going to read out private conversations, he values their opinions and wanted them both to hear directly from him about his decision to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

      April 14, 2021

      Biden mentioned his phone call with Bush in his speech formally announcing the troop withdrawal. The president did not mention his separate conversation with Obama, although Psaki has previously said the two men speak often.
      Biden said that, despite their policy differences, he and Bush are “absolutely united in our respect and support” for the troops who have served in Afghanistan over the past 20 years.

      CBS News
      (@CBSNews)
      Biden says he spoke with former President Bush about plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, and they were “absolutely united” in respect for Americans who served there”Less one 1 percent of Americans serve in our armed forces. The remaining 99 percent — we owe them.” pic.twitter.com/4N9BqoFtT8

      April 14, 2021

      3.15pm EDT
      15:15

      It’s worth noting that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have not always seen eye to eye on the war in Afghanistan.
      Biden opposed then-President Obama’s decision in 2009 to approve a troop surge to Afghanistan, a point that he repeatedly brought up on the campaign trail last year.
      However, Biden also opposed launching the raid that resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden, which Obama approved.

      3.09pm EDT
      15:09

      Obama applauds Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan

      Barack Obama has released a statement praising Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by September 11.
      “President Biden has made the right decision in completing the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan,” the former president said.

      Barack Obama
      (@BarackObama)
      After nearly two decades in Afghanistan, it’s time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and bring our remaining troops home. I support @POTUS’s bold leadership in building our nation at home and restoring our standing around the world. pic.twitter.com/BrDzASXD3G

      April 14, 2021

      Obama acknowledged there will be “very difficult challenges and further hardship ahead in Afghanistan,” and he urged the US to remain involved in diplomatic efforts to ensure the human rights of Afghan people.
      “But after nearly two decades of putting our troops in harm’s way, it is time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily, and that it’s time to bring our remaining troops home,” Obama said.
      “I support President Biden’s bold leadership in building our nation at home and restoring our standing around the world.”

      3.03pm EDT
      15:03

      The White house has released a readout of Joe Biden’s call with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani earlier today.
      “They discussed their continued commitment to a strong bilateral partnership following the departure of U.S. troops from Afghanistan and affirmed shared respect and gratitude for the sacrifices made by American forces, alongside NATO allies and operational partners, as well as by the Afghan people and Afghan service members over the past two decades,” the White House said.
      “President Biden emphasized that the United States will continue to support the Afghan people, including through continued development, humanitarian, and security assistance. President Biden and President Ghani reaffirmed their shared conviction that every effort should be made to achieve a political settlement so that the Afghan people can live in peace.”
      Ghani said earlier today that he “respects” Biden’s decision to withdraw US troops, promising to help ensure a “smooth transition” as the drawdown begins.
      “Afghanistan’s proud security and defense forces are fully capable of defending its people and country, which they have been doing all along, and for which the Afghan nation will forever remain grateful,” Ghani said on Twitter.

      2.52pm EDT
      14:52

      ‘It’s time to end the forever war,’ Biden says of Afghanistan

      Joe Biden offered assurances that the US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan would be handled very carefully over the next several months.
      “We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely,” the president said. “And we’ll do it in full coordination with our allies and partners.”

      CBS News
      (@CBSNews)
      BREAKING: President Biden announces U.S. will begin its final withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan on May 1.”We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We’ll do it responsibly, deliberately and safely.” https://t.co/qp2ZY191EH pic.twitter.com/Crd9zV1yjq

      April 14, 2021

      Explaining his decision to withdraw all US troops, Biden noted there are servicemembers currently deployed in Afghanistan who were not alive when the September 11 attacks occurred.
      Some servicemembers even have parents who served in the same war that they are now fighting, the president said.
      “The war in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking,” Biden said. “It’s time to end the forever war.”
      The president has now concluded his prepared remarks. He is next scheduled to visit Arlington National Cemetery to pay his respects to some of the servicemembers who died in Afghanistan.

      2.45pm EDT
      14:45

      Joe Biden argued the original reasons for the deployment of US troops to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks no longer apply.
      “We went to Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. That cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021,” the president said.
      Biden added, “We’ll be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors in the long term if we fight the battles of the next 20 years, not the last 20.”
      The president acknowledged some people disagreed with his decision to withdraw all US troops because, despite the widespread desire to end the war, there were lingering doubts that now was the right time to leave.
      “When will it be the right moment to leave?” Biden asked. “One more year? Two more years? Ten more years?”

      2.40pm EDT
      14:40

      Joe Biden said he spoke to former president George W Bush yesterday about his decision to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan by September.
      Despite their policy differences, Biden said he and Bush are “absolutely united in our respect and support” for the service members who have been deployed to Afghanistan over the past 20 years.
      The president said the drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan will begin in May and wrap up by September 11, which will mark the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

      Updated
      at 3.25pm EDT

      2.37pm EDT
      14:37

      ‘It’s time for American troops to come home,’ Biden says in Afghanistan speech

      Joe Biden is now delivering a speech on his plan to withdraw all US troops from Afghanistan in the Treaty Room of the White House.
      Biden said his many visits to Afghanistan over the past two decades, including as vice-president to Barack Obama, had convinced him that “only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country”.

      President Biden
      (@POTUS)
      It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home from Afghanistan.

      April 14, 2021

      The president noted the US originally deployed troops to Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks, to ensure the country could not again be used as a launchpad to attack America.
      “We did that. We accomplished that objective,” Biden said.
      It has now been ten years since Osama Bin Laden was killed, the president noted, and the terrorist threat has evolved greatly in the decade since his death.
      “Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan have become increasingly unclear,” Biden said. “It’s time for American troops to come home.”

      Updated
      at 2.42pm EDT More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Damned either way, Biden opts out of Afghanistan as US tires of ‘forever wars’

      by

      Joe Biden has decided that 20 years is enough for America’s longest war, and has ordered the remaining troops out no matter what happens between now and September.Biden’s withdrawal is one area of continuity with his predecessor, although unlike Donald Trump, this administration consulted the Afghans, US allies and its own agencies before announcing the decision. But both presidents were responding to a national weariness of “forever wars”.To the surprise of no one, the Republican party that acquiesced in Trump’s order to get the troops out by May, is now launching attacks on Biden’s “reckless” decision. The political attacks will mount if, as many expected, the current peace initiative fails and the Taliban steps up their offensive.In Afghanistan, any US president is damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Biden has plainly decided in that case, “don’t” is the better option.In the Obama administration, Biden was a consistent voice of scepticism over the utility of military force in foreign policy, sometimes in opposition to advocates of humanitarian intervention.He bluntly told a television interviewer on the campaign trail that he would feel “zero responsibility” if the status of Afghan women and other human rights suffered as a consequence of a US withdrawal.“Are you telling me that we should go into China, go to war with China because what they’re doing to the Uyghurs,” he asked his CBS interviewer.Safeguarding Afghan women and civil society has never been an official aim of the vestigial US military presence, but in the absence of a clearly defined goal, it became part of the de facto rationale.“There are things that American officials have said over time to encourage that kind of thinking,” said Laurel Miller, who served as US special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and now runs the Asia programme of the International Crisis Group.“I’ll admit to – when I was in government – not feeling comfortable with some of those statements of enduring commitment, because I didn’t think it was believable.”In making this decision, Biden has made clear he is setting aside Colin Powell’s famous “Pottery Barn rule”: if you break it, you own it. The quote comes from 2002 when the then secretary of state cited the fictional rule (which is not the policy of that furniture store) to warn George W Bush of the implications of invading Iraq. In Afghanistan, the US has part-owned the store for two decades now, and in reality, people and their livelihoods are still getting smashed.There are gains to be lost however. While the US has been in Afghanistan, the number of children in school has gone from well under a million (almost all boys) to more than 9 million (40% of whom are girls). Life expectancy has risen from 44 to 60.There is no question such advances are at stake. The US intelligence community’s prediction, in its annual Threat Assessment published on Tuesday, is that peace talks were unlikely to succeed.“The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support,” the assessment said, adding: “the Taliban is confident it can achieve military victory”.Whether that confidence is borne out depends on some unknowables, such as whether the Afghan security councils will crumble or be galvanised by the departure of their US and Nato backers, and whether the absence of a foreign foe will dampen enthusiasm among would-be Taliban recruits.Michael Semple, a former EU envoy in Afghanistan and now a professor at Queen’s University Belfast, said he believed more progress could have been made to stabilise the country prior to departure. He said “not enough has been done to avoid the risks of Taliban takeover or civil war”.There are questions, too, over whether withdrawal will allow the US military to achieve its more narrowly defined objective in Afghanistan: to prevent the resurgence of al-Qaida or Isis in the country to the extent that they could pose a direct threat to the US, its interests or allies.“Effective CT [counter terrorism] requires good intelligence, good partners, good capabilities and access,” General Joseph Votel, the former head of US Central Command told the Defense One website. “While probably not impossible – all of these will be much more challenged and difficult from over the horizon.”US generals have told successive administrations for years that Afghanistan had “turned the corner”, but each year there were more corners. Biden has chosen to stop trying to turn them. After 20 years of US presence in Afghanistan, no one knows for sure what happens next. More

    • 75 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Is the Long War Finally Ending?

      by

      In October 1944, with the end of World War II in sight, Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin passed a note back and forth to each other at a conference in Moscow. On the piece of paper, Churchill had assigned percentages to several Eastern European countries. Stalin amended the numbers and Churchill agreed. The deal remained secret for nearly a decade.

      The percentages on the piece of paper referred to the amount of influence that the Soviet Union and the West would wield in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Greece, with the first three countries falling in the Soviet sphere, control divided evenly in Yugoslavia, and Greece staying in the Western camp. It was the first major articulation of the geopolitical “spheres of influence” that would characterize the Cold War era.

      What an Afghan Peace Deal Could Look Like

      READ MORE

      During the first post-war elections in Eastern Europe, communist and non-communist parties vied for power, eventually cobbling together different versions of coalition governments. Ultimately, however, the communist parties seized control, except in Greece, where the West intervened in a civil war to help defeat leftist insurgents. By 1948, the region looked very much like the agreement that Churchill and Stalin had drawn up.

      The Long War

      Today, the end of a much longer war appears to be approaching. The fighting in Afghanistan has lasted nearly two decades, the most protracted conflict the United States has ever endured. This war is, in turn, part of a much larger battle that has been variously described as “America’s endless wars,” the “war on terror” or simply the “long war” that began in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, though earlier skirmishes took place during the 1990s.

      The Biden administration is currently trying to negotiate a spheres-of-influence arrangement in Afghanistan that resembles what Churchill laid out in 1944. The American-backed government in Kabul, according to this proposal, would share power with the insurgent Taliban forces as an interim step until elections can be held under a new constitution.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Such a deal would make it easier for the United States to withdraw all of its 3,500 soldiers from Afghanistan by May 1, as laid out in a peace deal signed in 2020. Even if that withdrawal goes through, however, the institutional apparatus of the larger “long war” will still be operational. US forces remain in Iraq and Syria, and the Pentagon eyes the civil war in Libya with concern.

      In all, after drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq, about 50,000 US troops are stationed in the greater Middle East, with 7,000 mostly naval personnel in Bahrain, 13,000 soldiers in Kuwait and a roughly equal number in Qatar, 5,000 in the United Arab Emirates and several thousand in Saudi Arabia. US Special Forces are also scattered across Africa, while the United States is still conducting air operations throughout the region.

      But, as in 1944, the preliminary discussion of a power-sharing arrangement in Afghanistan suggests that the active phase of the “long war” is coming to an end. The specific US adversaries — al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and various smaller global actors — have more or less been defeated. Local groups that have battled US forces, like the Taliban, remain powerful, as do adversarial governments like Bashar al-Assad’s in Syria, but they don’t pose a threat to the US homeland. Larger geopolitical rivalries, with Russia and Iran in particular, continue to shape the conflicts in the region, but the US has already established an uneven pattern of engagement and containment with these actors.

      If history is to be replayed, the United States will wind down direct combat in favor of a tense cold war and intermittent “out-of-area” operations. The end of this “long war” against the architects of the 9/11 attacks and their supporters is long overdue. The Biden administration is eager to focus on “building back better” at home, enjoy a post-war economic expansion and beef up the US capacity to challenge China and, to a lesser extent, Russia. The administration is reassessing its military capabilities to reflect these priorities.

      All of this begs the question: Will it be possible to avoid repeating the 1945 scenario by ending the “long war” and not replacing it with a cold war?

      After promising to end the forever wars during the 2020 election campaign, President Joe Biden is eager to enjoy his own “mission accomplished” moment in Afghanistan. But that pledge comes with a couple asterisks.

      For one, Biden would like to maintain a “counterterrorism” force in Afghanistan with the permission of the Taliban. Such an agreement would parallel the arrangement in Iraq, where the government allows around 2,500 US troops to focus on suppressing any remnants of the Islamic State (as well as reining in Iran-backed paramilitaries). Second, Biden has in the past broached the possibility of moving US military bases from Afghanistan to Pakistan, where they would continue to serve their counterterrorism function. It’s not at all clear whether the Taliban or Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan would be enthusiastic about these options.

      At the moment, the United States is paying a relatively low price for its continued presence in Afghanistan. After last year’s peace deal, there haven’t been any US combat deaths in the country, which means that Afghanistan is basically absent from the hearts and minds of Americans. The US foreign policy community would like to preserve that status quo as long as possible, particularly given the post-withdrawal prospects of “ethnic cleansing, mass slaughter and the ultimate dismemberment of the country,” as Madiha Afzal and Michael O’Hanlon of Brookings have written. Similar arguments were made around the proposed withdrawal of the bulk of US troops from Iraq, and yet those worst-case scenarios haven’t come to pass.

      In recent days, the warnings about Afghanistan have increased. According to The New York Times:

      “American intelligence agencies have told the Biden administration that if U.S. troops leave before a power-sharing settlement is reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government, the country could fall largely under the control of the Taliban within two or three years after the withdrawal of international forces. That could potentially open the door for Al Qaeda to rebuild its strength within the country, according to American officials.”

      It doesn’t take an intelligence agency to predict that the Taliban will play a major role in any future Afghanistan, with or without a power-sharing settlement. The Taliban control about 20% of the country with as much as 85,000 full-time soldiers (though the areas under Taliban control are relatively underpopulated). At the same time, the insurgents are active over a much larger stretch — as much as 70% of the country — and are putting pressure on a number of key cities, including Kunduz in the north and Kandahar in the south.

      Embed from Getty Images

      In other words, there’s a good possibility that regardless of power-sharing arrangements, the Taliban will simply take over the country, much as the communists did throughout Eastern Europe in the late 1940s. Given the record of the Taliban’s last sojourn in power, the prospect of a reestablishment of their rule is very sobering.

      But the US has failed in two decades to defeat the Taliban with the full force of its military. Keeping a few thousand soldiers in the country is not going to change the balance of power on the ground. “The hawks argue that to leave Afghanistan is simply unthinkable until someday when they have finished winning the war,” writes Scott Horton in his new book, “Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terrorism.” “But they lost the war more than a decade ago, and no one who protested against Trump’s drawdown had a single coherent thing to say about how staying there is supposed to somehow change the reality of Taliban power in that country.”

      Won’t Afghanistan again become a safe haven for international terrorists once the US troops withdraw along with their NATO partners? For all their immersion in Islamic religion and culture, the Taliban are Pashtun nationalists interested above all in kicking out the foreigners. They’re not big fans of the Islamic State group, but they do maintain a close relationship at the moment with the 200-250 al-Qaeda militants in the country. Take NATO out of the equation, however, and that relationship will likely fray at the seams, particularly if international recognition, access to the global economy and the support of powerful neighbors like Russia and Iran depend on a verifiable divorce.

      When he proposed the two spheres of influence, Churchill was not relying on the goodwill of the Soviet state. The British leader hated Stalin and communism. He was taking a clear-eyed look at the balance of power at the time and striking what he thought was the best deal he could, even if that meant “losing” most of Eastern Europe. A power-sharing arrangement with the Taliban that “loses” Afghanistan is comparably pragmatic. But will it be accompanied by other, equally pragmatic policies to bring the long war to an end?

      The Rest of the War

      The “endless wars” are obviously not just being fought by the 3,500 troops in Afghanistan and 2,500 soldiers in Iraq. As the Bush administration transitioned to the Obama era and war fatigue began to set in, the United States shifted its focus from ground operations to an air war. In Afghanistan for instance, as the number of troops declined from a high of 100,000 in 2011, the number of airstrikes steadily increased, with a peak in terms of bombs dropped in 2018 and 2019 and a consequent rise in casualties. “The number of civilians killed by international airstrikes increased about 330 percent from 2016, the last full year of the Obama Administration, to 2019, the most recent year for which there is complete data from the United Nations,” reports Neta Crawford of the Costs of War project. Throughout the greater Middle East, the United States has launched in excess of 14,000 drone strikes, which have killed as many as 16,000 people, including several hundred children.

      Since taking office, as I note in my recent study of Biden’s take on multilateralism, the new administration has launched two airstrikes, one against Iranian targets in Syria on February 25 and the other in Iraq on February 9 against the Islamic State. The Syrian attack, in particular, has prompted a bipartisan effort in Congress to repeal the Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (passed in 1991 and 2002) in order to narrow the presidential ability to launch future airstrikes.

      Meanwhile, the administration has yet to report any drone strikes. This is in marked contrast to the strikes that Barack Obama and Donald Trump ordered almost immediately upon taking office as well as the escalation in attacks that took place in Trump’s final months. In one of its first orders, the Biden administration issued a temporary halt to any drone strikes outside of combat areas such as Afghanistan and Syria. As Charli Carpenter, an expert in the laws of war, points out:

      “Essentially what Biden is doing is he’s moving the barometer back to where it was before Trump devolved authority for drone strikes away from the executive branch and into the hands of commanders. What that means is that anytime a drone strike is envisioned, it needs to be approved by the White House. There’s going to be a much higher level of oversight and much more concern over the legal nuances of each strike. It will just make drones harder to use, and you can imagine the weaponized drones will only be used in the most extreme cases.”

      In addition to initiating a review of drone strikes, the administration has launched a probe into Special Forces operations to ascertain whether they have adhered to the Pentagon’s “law of war” requirements. In effect, the Biden administration is applying greater oversight across the range of military operations to bring them into closer compliance with international rules and regulations. Such oversight, however, does not imply the end of the endless wars.

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      For that to happen, the United States would have to dramatically shrink its global military footprint, the constellation of US bases around the world that serve as the launching pad for myriad operations. About 220,000 military and civilian personnel operate in more than 150 countries and over 800 overseas military bases. A significant chunk of the Pentagon’s $700 billion-plus budget goes toward maintaining this immense archipelago of force.

      In early February, the Biden administration also announced a Global Posture Review to assess the US. footprint. Such a review is much needed. After all, did this massive apparatus save a single one of the more than half a million Americans who have died from COVID-19? Is the Pentagon protecting the United States from climate change (or merely contributing to the problem with its own carbon emissions and its protection of overseas fossil fuel production and distribution)? And all that “forward-based defense” has done absolutely nothing to safeguard US infrastructure from cyberattacks like the SolarWinds hack (that, by the way, gained access to the emails of Trump’s cybersecurity team at the Department of Homeland Security).

      For the time being, the architects of the Global Posture Review are thinking primarily of refocusing “strategic capabilities” against China in the Far East and Russia in the Arctic. But that just replaces one set of threats with another, which will adjust the footprint without actually reducing it.

      So, let’s remember that the 3,500 American troops in Afghanistan are just the tip of the iceberg. For the United States to avoid the fate of the Titanic — also famous at one time for being immense and impregnable — it had better address the rest of the icy hazard of war.

      *[This article was originally published by FPIF.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in World Politics

      The US Joins the “Rules-Based World” on Afghanistan

      by

      On March 18, the world was treated to the spectacle of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken sternly lecturing senior Chinese officials about the need for China to respect a “rules-based order.” The alternative, Blinken warned, is a world in which might makes right, and “that would be a far more violent and unstable world for all of us.”

      Blinken was clearly speaking from experience. Since the United States dispensed with the UN Charter and the rule of international law to invade Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, and has used military force and unilateral economic sanctions against many other countries, it has indeed made the world more deadly, violent and chaotic. When the UN Security Council refused to give its blessing to US aggression against Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush publicly said the UN would become “irrelevant.” He later appointed John Bolton as UN ambassador, a man who famously once said that, if the UN building in New York “lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.” 

      What an Afghan Peace Deal Could Look Like

      READ MORE

      But after two decades of unilateral US foreign policy in which Washington has systematically ignored and violated international law, leaving widespread death, violence and chaos in its wake, US foreign policy may finally be coming full circle, at least in the case of Afghanistan. Secretary Blinken has taken the previously unthinkable step of calling on the United Nations to lead negotiations for a ceasefire and political transition in Afghanistan, relinquishing America’s monopoly as the sole mediator between the Kabul government and the Taliban.

      So, after 20 years of war and lawlessness, is Washington finally ready to give the “rules-based order” a chance to prevail over US unilateralism and “might makes right,” instead of just using it as a verbal cudgel to browbeat its enemies? President Joe Biden and Secretary Blinken seem to have chosen America’s endless war in Afghanistan as a test case, even as they resist rejoining Barack Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran, jealously guard America’s openly-partisan role as the sole mediator between Israel and Palestine, maintain Donald Trump’s vicious economic sanctions, and continue the United States’ systematic violations of international law against many other countries. 

      What’s Going on in Afghanistan?

      In February 2020, the Trump administration signed an agreement with the Taliban to fully withdraw US and NATO troops from Afghanistan by May 1, 2021. The Taliban had refused to negotiate with the US-backed government in Kabul until the US and NATO withdrawal agreement was signed. But once that was done, the Afghans began peace talks in March 2020. Instead of agreeing to a full ceasefire during the talks, as the US government wanted, the Taliban only agreed to a one-week “reduction in violence.”

      Eleven days later, as fighting continued between the Taliban and the Afghan forces, the United States wrongly claimed that the Taliban were violating the agreement they signed with the United States and relaunched its bombing campaign. Despite the fighting, the Kabul government and the Taliban managed to exchange prisoners and continue negotiations in Qatar, mediated by US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who had negotiated the US withdrawal agreement with the Taliban. But the talks made slow progress and now seem to have reached an impasse.

      Embed from Getty Images

      The coming of spring in Afghanistan usually brings an escalation in the war. Without a new ceasefire, a spring offensive would probably lead to more territorial gains for the Taliban, who already control at least half of Afghanistan. This prospect, combined with the May 1 withdrawal deadline for the remaining 3,500 US and 7,000 other NATO troops, prompted Blinken’s invitation to the UN to lead a more inclusive international peace process that will also involve India, Pakistan and the United States’ traditional enemies: China, Russia and, most remarkably, Iran.

      This process began with a conference on Afghanistan in Moscow on March 18-19, which brought together a 16-member delegation from the Afghan government in Kabul and negotiators from the Taliban, along with Khalilzad and representatives from the other countries. The conference has laid the groundwork for a larger UN-led conference to be held in Istanbul in April to map out a framework for a ceasefire, a political transition and a power-sharing agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban.

      UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has appointed Jean Arnault to lead the negotiations for the United Nations. Arnault previously negotiated the end to the Guatemalan Civil War in the 1990s and the peace agreement between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in 2016. He was also the secretary-general’s representative in Bolivia from the 2019 coup until a new election was held in 2020. Arnault also knows Afghanistan, having served in the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan from 2002 to 2006.

      If the Istanbul conference results in an agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban, US troops could be home sometime in the coming months. Trump, who belatedly tried to make good on his promise to end that endless war, deserves credit for beginning a full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. But a withdrawal without a comprehensive peace plan would not have ended the conflict. The UN-led peace process should give the people of Afghanistan a much better chance of a peaceful future than if US forces left with the two sides still at war, and reduce the chances that the gains made by women over these years will be lost.

      “Muddle Along”

      It took 17 years of war to bring the United States to the negotiating table and another two-and-a-half years before it was ready to step back and let the UN take the lead in peace negotiations. For most of this time, the US tried to maintain the illusion that it could eventually defeat the Taliban and “win” the war. But US internal documents published by WikiLeaks and a stream of reports and investigations revealed that US military and political leaders have known for a long time that they could not win. As General Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, put it, the best that US forces could do in Afghanistan was to “muddle along.” 

      What that meant in practice was dropping tens of thousands of bombs, day after day, year after year, and conducting thousands of night raids that, more often than not, killed, maimed or unjustly detained innocent civilians. The death toll in Afghanistan is unknown. Most US airstrikes and night raids take place in remote, mountainous areas where people have no contact with the UN human rights office in Kabul that investigates reports of civilian casualties. Fiona Frazer, the UN’s human rights chief in Afghanistan, admitted to the BBC in 2019 that “more civilians are killed or injured in Afghanistan due to armed conflict than anywhere else on Earth. … the published figures almost certainly do not reflect the true scale of harm.” 

      No serious mortality study has been conducted since the US-led invasion in 2001. Initiating a full accounting for the human cost of this war should be an integral part of UN envoy Arnault’s job, and we should not be surprised if, like the Truth Commission he oversaw in Guatemala, it reveals a death toll that is 10 or 20 times what we have been told.

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      If Blinken’s diplomatic initiative succeeds in breaking this deadly cycle of “muddling along,” and brings even relative peace to Afghanistan, that will establish a precedent and an exemplary alternative to the seemingly endless violence and chaos of America’s post-9/11 wars in other countries. The United States has used military force and economic sanctions to destroy, isolate or punish an ever-growing list of countries around the world, but it no longer has the power to defeat, restabilize and integrate these countries into its neocolonial empire, as it did at the height of its power after the Second World War. America’s defeat in Vietnam was a historical turning point: the end of an age of Western military empires.  

      All the United States can achieve in the countries it is occupying or besieging today is to keep them in various states of poverty, violence and chaos — shattered fragments of empire adrift in the 21st-century world. US military power and economic sanctions can temporarily prevent bombed or impoverished countries from fully recovering their sovereignty or benefiting from Chinese-led development projects like the Belt and Road Initiative, but America’s leaders have no alternative development model to offer them. The people of Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela have only to look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Libya or Somalia to see where the pied piper of American regime change would lead them.

      What’s This All About?

      Humanity faces truly serious challenges in this century, from the mass extinction of the natural world to the destruction of the life-affirming climate that has been the vital backdrop of human history, while nuclear mushroom clouds still threaten us all with civilization-ending destruction. It is a sign of hope that Biden and Blinken are turning to legitimate, multilateral diplomacy in the case of Afghanistan, even if only because, after 20 years of war, they finally see diplomacy as a last resort. 

      But peace, diplomacy and international law should not be a last resort, to be tried only when Democrats and Republicans alike are finally forced to admit that no new form of force or coercion will work. Nor should they be a cynical way for American leaders to wash their hands of a thorny problem and offer it as a poisoned chalice for others to drink.

      If the UN-led peace process Secretary Blinken has initiated succeeds and US troops finally come home, Americans should not forget about Afghanistan in the coming months and years. We should pay attention to what happens there and learn from it. And we should support generous US contributions to the humanitarian and development aid that the people of Afghanistan will need for many years to come. This is how the international “rules-based system,” which US leaders love to talk about but routinely violate, is supposed to work, with the UN fulfilling its responsibility for peacemaking and individual countries overcoming their differences to support it.

      Maybe cooperation over Afghanistan can even be a first step toward broader US cooperation with China, Russia and Iran that will be essential if we are to solve the serious common challenges confronting us all.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 163 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden tells migrants 'don't come over' US border as he tackles inherited 'mess'

      by

      Joe Biden told immigrants making the difficult journey to the US-Mexico border “don’t come over” as the administration attempts to respond to an increase of unaccompanied children seeking asylum.In a wide-ranging interview with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, aired in full on Wednesday morning, the US president also discussed vaccines, Vladimir Putin and the New York governor, Andrew Cuomo.Biden said his plan for the immediate issue of children needing safety at the border was to increase the number of beds available and speed up the process of placing children with sponsors in the US while their legal cases play out.“We will have, I believe by next month, enough of those beds to take care of these children who have no place to go,” Biden said.In the interview Biden was also critical of the existing process for migrants. “You have to try and get control of the mess that was inherited,” Biden said.Longer-term, Biden said his plan for the border included creating programs to address the factors driving people from their home countries – including violence, poverty, corruption and the climate crisis – and to allow children to apply for asylum from those countries, instead of at the border. “They come because their circumstance is so bad,” Biden said.But he emphasized that the US was still blocking most asylum-seeking adults and many families from pursuing their claims at the border. “I can say quite clearly: don’t come over,” Biden said.Stephanopoulos also pressed Biden on his vaccine plan, asking when things would return to normal. Biden said his previously stated goal of getting things close to normal by the Fourth of July holiday wouldn’t happen unless people wear masks, socially distance and wash their hands.Biden also said he was surprised that the conversation about vaccines had been politicized.“I honest to God thought we had it out,” Biden said. “I honest to God thought that, once we guaranteed we had enough vaccine for everybody, things would start to calm down. Well, they have calmed down a great deal. But I don’t quite understand – you know – I just don’t understand this sort of macho thing about, ‘I’m not gonna get the vaccine. I have a right as an American, my freedom to not do it.’ Well, why don’t you be a patriot? Protect other people.”Biden said that since being vaccinated, he has been able to hug his grandchildren and see them in his home.The pair also discussed Biden’s foreign policy plans and the president said he was currently reviewing the deal made by Donald Trump with the Taliban to have the US pull its troops from Afghanistan by 1 May.“I’m in the process of making that decision now as to when they’ll leave,” Biden said. “The fact is that, that was not a very solidly negotiated deal that the president – the former president – worked out. And so we’re in consultation with our allies as well as the government, and that decision’s going to be – it’s in process now.”Biden said it would be “tough” for all service members to leave by the May deadline.“It could happen,” he said, “but it is tough.”Stephanopoulos asked Biden if the Russian president would “pay” after the US chief intelligence office found that Putin had overseen efforts aimed at “denigrating” Biden’s candidacy in the 2020 presidential election.“He will pay a price,” Biden said, noting that the two leaders had spoken in January about Putin’s election meddling.“The conversation started off, I said, ‘I know you and you know me. If I establish this occurred, then be prepared.’”Stephanopoulos asked: “So you know Vladimir Putin. You think he’s a killer?”“Mmm hmm, I do,” Biden replied.Biden was also asked about US leaders, including the allegations that Andrew Cuomo sexually harassed several women. The state attorney general is investigating the claims and several prominent New York politicians have called for the Democratic governor to step down.Stephanopoulos asked Biden: “If the investigation confirms the claims of the women, should he resign?”“Yes,” Biden replied. “I think he’ll probably end up being prosecuted, too.”The interview concluded with Stephanopoulos asking Biden about his dog, Major, who the White House recently announced had caused “a minor injury” to someone on the property. After, Major was brought to the Biden home in Delaware, where he is now being trained.Biden said Major did not bite someone and break their skin and only went to the Delaware home because he and his wife, Jill Biden, were going to be away for a few days. The new environment of the White House startled Major, Biden said.“You turn a corner, and there’s two people you don’t know at all,” Biden said. “And he moves to protect. But he’s a sweet dog. Eighty-five per cent of the people there love him. He just – all he does is lick them and wag his tail.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Afghans dread the ‘danger hours’ as fragile gains of 20 years slip away

      by

      Ghazaal Habibyar’s trembling hand hovered over her mobile phone, unable to type the numbers. “I was afraid to hear bad news,” she recalls of that morning in Kabul when she heard there’d been an explosion close to her young son’s school.
      “Why should we have to choose between educating or protecting our children?” asks the 38-year-old mother of two – a former Afghan deputy minister of mines and petroleum. That day, her six-year-old son was sitting safely in class.
      This is how the day begins now in Kabul – the time of day in a time of war that is most worrying of all. Afghans call them “the danger hours”.
      “There’ve been blasts before me, and blasts behind me,” says 22-year-olduniversity student Sadeq Alakozai. “Every day we wonder whose turn it will be.”
      One morning, a magnetic “sticky” bomb slapped on a minibus took the life of a popular TV presenter at the same time Alakozai and his friends were driving to work on the same street. Another morning, a district security chief was assassinated in a blast so strong it flipped the police car upside down at a busy roundabout just before they reached the same corner.
      Afghanistan – map
      From 7.30am to 9.30am, when the diesel fume-soaked streets of the capital are choked with traffic as government employees go to work, is the time to avoid, if you can. Every day someone somewhere in Afghanistan is picked off: journalists and judges; civil servants and scholars; activists and academics.
      Many of the victims came of age in the two decades since the Taliban were toppled from power in the US-led invasion after the 9/11 attacks; their lives are being cut short as the last of the US-led Nato forces deliberate over a departure date and the Taliban boast of victory.
      The Taliban’s path back to power could either run through accelerating moves by President Joe Biden’s team to negotiate a political way out of war, or what many fear could be the most blistering of battles this summer in a country which has already lived through more than 40 years of pain.
      No one takes responsibility for this wave of assassinations. The Afghan government blames the Taliban. The Taliban accuse the Afghan government, which is also under fire for not being able to protect its people. And, in a time of rising insecurity and impunity, anyone with a gun and a grudge can exploit the moment.
      Many see a concerted campaign by Taliban supporters to kill off or frighten away what is described, in shorthand, as the “gains of the last 20 years”: educated, ambitious women; a vibrant media; an active civil society.
      “They claim these realities were created under the US military occupation and are like foam on top of water, which goes away as soon as you touch the waters underneath,” says Tamim Asey, a former deputy defence minister who now chairs the Institute of War and Peace Studies in Kabul. More