Afghanistan

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      Joe Biden Meets Afghanistan’s Leaders as the Country Faces Collapse

      by

      The security situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating dramatically. The Taliban have captured the country’s border crossing to Tajikistan. Prospects of civil war have risen.

      Even as the US withdrawal gains momentum, Afghan leaders are visiting Washington to meet President Joe Biden on June 25. This includes President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, the chairperson of the High Peace Council for Reconciliation.

      The Hazara Minority’s Precarious Existence in Afghanistan

      READ MORE

      The Taliban are filling the vacuum that Americans are leaving behind. Violence has surged across Afghanistan and the government is losing territory by the day. As September 11, the deadline for the departure of American troops, draws nigh, the Taliban are becoming increasingly emboldened.

      The government in Kabul has a reputation for corruption and is proving to be ineffective. People are dying every day in cities, towns and villages from terror, crime and hunger. The US is leaving behind a royal mess. If its presence in Afghanistan was problematic, its withdrawal promises to be doubly so.

      Ghani Is Running Out of Time

      Stakes are high in Biden’s first meeting with the Afghan leaders even if expectations are low. Ghani is not an ideal interlocutor. He has presided over a notoriously corrupt administration of a failing state. Kabul’s writ does not even run in the city. Even if Biden and Ghani do a dream deal, the latter is highly unlikely to be able to uphold his part of the bargain.

      Biden wants to bring back American troops and minimize the instability that will inevitably follow in Afghanistan. He needs a good partner to work with. Once, Ghani was the blue-eyed boy of Washington. His academic credentials and bureaucratic experience gave him a halo that few Afghans possessed. Ghani has squandered all the resources that the US provided him. He has few, if any, opportunities left. Ghani’s government is on the verge of total collapse.

      Embed from Getty Images

      According to a new assessment of the US intelligence community, Ghani’s government could collapse within six months of the American military withdrawal from Afghanistan. The government has lost credibility because it has failed to provide basic public services to the people. Consequently, the people have lost hope. Yet again, Afghans are voting with their feet and leaving the country in droves.

      Like many African strongmen, Ghani has surrounded himself with sycophantic cronies. He sees himself as the savior and messiah of Afghanistan. The president has no idea that he has lost all credibility in his second term. His lofty rhetoric fails to reflect Afghanistan’s grim realities.

      Ghani is not entirely delusional, though. He realized fully well that he occupies his fancy palace in Kabul thanks to the barrels of American guns. Once the Americans leave, he is toast. Therefore, he has opposed Biden’s peace plan that calls for a political settlement between warring parties, including the Taliban. Unsurprisingly, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has lauded Biden’s plan. 

      What Joe Biden Must Do

      Afghans fear that the US might be leaving their country to the mercy of the Pakistani generals. After the last Soviet troops departed from Afghanistan in 1989, the Pakistan-trained Taliban took over. This provided Pakistan with strategic depth, jihadis to send to India and a bargaining chip vis-à-vis Washington. History might be about to repeat itself and Afghans are terrified of another tragedy.

      Biden is meeting Ghani to reassure Afghans that he is not leaving them to the Taliban wolves. The official American line is that the US will continue to support the legitimately elected government in Kabul. Yet the Americans are infamous for short attention spans and Afghans fear they will be forgotten again. After all, Charlie Wilson could raise a ton of money to fight the Soviets but very little for schools or hospitals afterward. As the iconic American movie on the late congressman records, no one cared.

      There is another historical parallel. When US troops left Saigon in 1975, the Viet Cong overran Vietnam. As the last American planes fly back from Bagram, the Taliban could do the same in Afghanistan. Washington must act differently this time around. The US has to back Afghan security forces, put its weight behind a people-centered peace process and uphold Biden’s much-touted democracy agenda.

      If the US fails, the Taliban will be in charge. Pakistan will make Afghanistan a puppet state. Bagram, the closest American airbase to China’s western borders, might well fall to Beijing. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) might expand into Afghanistan too. The risks for Afghanistan, the region and the US are only too real.

      In an article for The Washington Post, David Ignatius argues that “a summer of pain awaits” Afghanistan. Over the years, American leaders have found themselves in a Catch-22 regarding Afghanistan. They cannot tell the public that Afghanistan deserves American blood and treasure forever. Nearly 20 years have passed since the tragic 9/11 attacks in the United States. American troops have patrolled Afghanistan’s dusty roads, fighter jets have flown endless sorties and drones have liquidated fearsome foes. Yet peace is nowhere in sight. At the same time, packing up and leaving only fuels the raging violence further, leaves behind a geopolitical vacuum and allows rival powers leverage against American interests.

      .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;}

      Donald Trump promised American troops would come home when he was president. Biden has set a date for the final withdrawal. By doing so, he has tied his hands. The Taliban now know that American troops are preparing to leave and will soon be gone. In their worldview, the Taliban have made history. After humbling the Soviets, they have defeated the evil Uncle Sam. They see themselves as superiors of super powers in their own backyard. With morale sky high, they have launched bold military operations to take over Afghanistan. It seems the US can do little to prevent the Taliban from taking over.

      Yet things are never as dire or as rosy as they seem. Many Afghans have fought the Taliban and are willing to fight them again. The Ghani government may be incorrigibly corrupt, but its officials want to avoid the fate of the Soviet-backed leader Mohammad Najibullah whose corpse was strung for public display. Crises tend to focus minds and this might be the best time to deal with Afghanistan’s manifestly flawed leaders.

      Even as American troops are leaving, Biden must support Afghan leaders against the Taliban. He must make that support conditional on Ghani and his cronies leaving office by a certain date. They must put in place a more credible Afghan leadership to take on the Taliban. After all, the British replaced Neville Chamberlain with Winston Churchill during World War II. For Afghanistan, this is a time of national crisis.

      The Taliban could take over much of the country but will struggle to hold it together. A civil war might break out. The disintegration of Afghanistan might move from the realm of possibility to reality. Ambitious powers in the near neighborhood will take advantage of the ensuing chaos. Unlike Vietnam, Afghanistan will not become a nation of high literacy, low infant mortality and better nutrition. It will yet again become an impoverished land where fanatics and terrorists will find refuge and a base for their global jihadist operations.

      President Biden has long declared that “America is back.” Afghanistan could smash that assertion to smithereens and demonstrate that America is just going back home. If he is serious about American leadership and holding aloft the torch for democracy, Biden cannot throw Afghanistan to the dogs of war. He has to build an international coalition that pushes through a peace process, backs credible leaders in Afghanistan and provides aerial, if not ground assistance to those putting their lives on the line against the Taliban.

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

    • 75 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      Does Afghanistan Have a Green Future?

      by

      Everyone has a different doomsday scenario for Afghanistan once US and NATO troops withdraw by September 11. The Taliban will take over and reimpose their repressive social agenda. Al-Qaeda will multiply rapidly and again become a global threat. Rival warlords will split apart the country. Another wave of Afghan refugees will overwhelm Europe. And then there’s the scenario in which China basically takes over the country, or at least the most sought-after parts of the country: the resources that lie beneath Afghan soil.

      “Afghanistan is one of the richest mining regions in the world, holding untapped mineral wealth and rare Earth elements estimated at roughly $3 trillion,” writes Chris Dolan in The Hill. “Competition with China over mineral wealth is intensifying and Afghanistan presents China with a new opportunity to expand its mining and transportation projects in the Belt and Road initiative.”

      Shaping the Future of Energy Collaboration

      READ MORE

      So far, the China “threat,” like all the others, is hypothetical since Beijing has been hesitant to invest a lot into the war-torn country. In 2007, China contracted to build a large copper mine at Mes Aynak but has done so little to set up operations there that the Afghan government is considering retendering the contract to another investor. The Chinese have their own complaints about the Mes Aynak arrangement, particularly around security and renegotiating some of the terms of the contract. Other than the stalled copper mine and some oil exploration, Chinese investments in Afghanistan have been minimal compared to what Beijing is pouring into neighboring Pakistan.

      Whether to block China, thwart al-Qaeda or muscle through a power-sharing deal with the Taliban, the United States has no plans to abandon Afghanistan completely. The Biden administration is looking to move US bases there to another country, perhaps in Central Asia. In the meantime, Washington will maintain its air war from aircraft carriers or from more distant points in the Middle East, and it will continue to train and provide financial support for the Afghan army.

      Embed from Getty Images

      As for ensuring that Afghanistan rises from the bottom of the world’s social and economic indices — currently, it’s the least peaceful, one of the most corrupt and one of the worst-off countries in terms of human development — the US appears to be washing its hands of any responsibility. So much for the Pottery Barn rule. From Washington’s perspective, Afghanistan was broken long before the 2001 invasion. Mission (never-to-be) accomplished.

      Indeed, in his remarks last week on “the way forward in Afghanistan,” President Joe Biden had very little to say about Afghanistan itself, aside from its military and the various threats the country poses to the United States. He said virtually nothing about the Afghan economy, Afghan society or the Afghan people. At most, the United States appears to be bracing for the worst-case scenario and preparing to minimize the impact on US national interests.

      A Different Future for Afghanistan

      When Seth Warren Rose looks at Afghanistan, he doesn’t see red, he sees green: the green of money, yes, but more importantly the green of environmental sustainability. “I grew up with Vietnam being considered a war not a country,” he told me. “Afghanistan is the same. Americans think of Afghanistan only as a war. But there are 30 million-plus people living there.”

      Rose’s outfit, the Eneref Institute, is gathering support from Afghan politicians for a bold initiative to make Afghanistan carbon-neutral. “If you look at the carbon footprint of Afghanistan, it’s minimal,” Rose continued. “They haven’t really industrialized. Obviously, they’ll let the world in once they establish a peace. But why don’t they establish a mechanism, as long as they’re selling their resources, to do so in a way that’s non-toxic, energy-efficient, and net-carbon zero?”

      As Rose explained to me, Eneref’s proposal is to keep Afghanistan’s oil in the ground but to develop methods of extracting other valuable underground resources in an environmentally more sustainable manner. In this way, the country could “use its mineral wealth to leapfrog industrialization.” This Lead the Leap campaign has lined up a number of prominent Afghans as advisers and secured the support of the Afghan senate.

      Extracting Afghanistan’s mineral wealth in a carbon-neutral fashion is easier said than done. Extractive industries are notoriously dirty, responsible for 80% of the planet’s biodiversity loss and half the world’s carbon emissions (and that’s just in the extraction process). Workers die in large numbers in the mining sector, whether immediately in accidents or through exposure to dangerous substances over the long term. Communities around mines have to deal with often-horrifying pollution in their air, land and water. And wherever mines extract valuable substances, conflict is sure to follow (see, for example, “blood diamonds”).

      Nor is it so easy to leapfrog over the extraction industry into a clean energy future. Many green technologies, such as solar panels, are dependent on an array of minerals like copper and zinc, while wind turbines and electric vehicles require inputs like cobalt, lithium and rare earth elements.

      Eneref’s bid to green Afghanistan’s mining sector is part of a much larger effort to make the entire production chain of the extraction industry sustainable. The World Bank, for instance, has launched a Climate Smart Mining initiative that focuses on using renewable energy in mining operations, preventing deforestation and promoting sustainable land-use strategies, and reusing minerals to minimize waste.

      The mining industry is also responsible for its share of “greenwashing,” making only cosmetic changes before proceeding with business as usual. Civil society organizations, shareholders and committed politicians can put pressure on companies to adhere to international regulations and corporate codes of conduct. But particularly in poor countries like Afghanistan, which are desperate enough for revenue in the short term to overlook longer-term environmental consequences, mining companies are more willing to cut corners when it comes to carbon emissions.

      But there’s another option.

      The Next OPEC?

      Afghanistan has little leverage over mining operations beyond the $3 trillion of natural resources beneath its soil. That wealth is useless, however, if Afghanistan can’t get it out of the ground. Perhaps the Chinese reluctance to invest more into copper extraction is a godsend. China, after all, pays little attention to sustainability in its extraction operations overseas.

      Many countries, like Congo and Venezuela, are in the same position as Afghanistan. If they rebuff China or any other potential investor, the latter can turn to more amenable investment opportunities elsewhere.

      .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;}

      Unless, of course, all mineral-rich countries form a new cartel. Let’s call this cartel OMEC, the Organization of Mineral-Exporting Countries. This mineral-version of OPEC could impose its own carbon-reducing restrictions on the extraction industry. “No one country has the wherewithal, the power, the influence, to demand that Russia, China and the United States follow carbon-neutral rules,” Rose concluded. “So, let’s gather a third of the world to create a union.”

      Remember, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) wasn’t just a mechanism to extract more money from the petroleum-desperate. It was originally designed to restrict oil production. As Lester Brown recounts in “Building a Sustainable Society,” the founder of OPEC, Venezuelan Minister of Mines and Hydrocarbons Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso, believed that “his mission in life was to stop the waste of valuable energy resources. When describing his early vision of OPEC, he said, ‘Most people see OPEC as a way to raise oil prices, but I see it as a way to lower the use of energy.’ Shortly before he died in late 1979, he referred to OPEC as the ‘leading ecology group in the world.’”

      OMEC could similarly perform a valuable ecological function by regulating the extraction of minerals to keep the price high, reduce waste and help turn countries like Afghanistan into the mineral equivalent of a Gulf state. Of course, to avoid the “resource curse,” OMEC members would have to submit to serious anti-corruption programs, devote profits to communal advancement rather than individual wealth and set aside a portion of proceeds to future contingencies (like Norway’s oil fund).

      But most of all, OMEC members must leverage their relatively small carbon footprints into economic advantage. I’ve written elsewhere about how a country like North Korea, which lags far behind South Korea on virtually every economic and social indicator, could parlay its single advantage of a smaller carbon footprint into a clean energy future that would lead the Korean peninsula and the region. Like Afghanistan, North Korea has significant mineral resources that could finance such a transformation.

      For decades, countries like North Korea and Afghanistan were promised material advancement — leading perhaps someday to membership in the club of richest nations called the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — if they just followed the conventional path of industrialization. The poorest of the poor haven’t made much progress in the last couple decades, and that industrial model has proved disastrous on a number of levels. Perhaps it’s finally time for them to band together according to an entirely different model of economic cooperation and development.

      *[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

    • 225 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      The US is pulling out of Afghanistan. But it will never leave those of us who served there

      by

      I am one of more than 800,000 American military veterans who have served in Afghanistan since 2001. Tens of thousands more served in other capacities, from intelligence and diplomacy to aid and development. It’s fair to ask whether the end of the war affects how one views his or her own small role in the effort. If we didn’t “win”, whatever winning means in a war like this, did we matter? Were the sacrifices in vain?A cold accounting might tally the costs in blood, treasure and time against the benefits to Afghanistan’s development and security or the reduction of al-Qaida’s capabilities. A historian’s perspective, a strategist’s assessment of alternatives and time, above all else, will tell.Rather, consider a more familiar and human frame: sport. Two boxers stand in the ring. Ten athletes race for the gold medal. A thousand enter the marathon. Was it worth it only for the winner? Would you appear for the Olympics even if you knew in advance you would lose?The value of the individual veteran’s experience in Afghanistan is not dependent on the outcome of a battle, the shifts in a policy or the determinations of a historian. To quote President Theodore Roosevelt, “It’s not the critic that counts … the credit belongs to the man [sic] in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.” The game changes you, regardless of the result.Nowadays, I live in the suburbs of Washington DC. The eggbeater whirr of a helicopter is a routine accompaniment to the other sounds of our suburban neighborhood, close by a local hospital. Nearly 20 years ago, leading a platoon of 25 American mountain infantry in Afghanistan, I could have told you the distance, firepower and model of a helicopter from its signature melody in a matter of seconds.Reflecting on President Biden’s announcement about the end, for now, of American troops in Afghanistan, these hospital helicopters carry me back.There was the double-rotored Chinook that deposited our advance party in Gardez, a peaceful city at the time.A nearby mountain pass reminded us that hadn’t always been the case. Two decades earlier, a large Soviet force was pinned down and decimated by Afghan mujahideen. Their hasty fighting positions remained by the roadside. In Gardez, our platoon was the muscle to protect a reconstruction team of diplomats and development workers. There were textbooks and school supplies to liberate from former Taliban warehouses, endless councils with local elders, and mostly uneventful patrols along roads bounded by tall fields of marijuana and hashish drying in the relentless sun. On one mission we helped army veterinarians vaccinate what must have been a thousand livestock: goats, sheep and camels streaming towards our tent from all points of the compass.Even then it was clear a generation or more would pass before Afghanistan’s economic and political development would catch up with the lofty communiques of the US and our Nato allies. This was an order of magnitude more challenging than the reconstruction of Japan and Germany after the second world war.There was the dragonfly silhouette of an Apache attack helicopter, call sign “Widow maker”, as it banked against the midday sun near Khand Narai pass.Soon after arriving in Afghanistan, we had relocated closer to the jagged mountain border with Pakistan. The Apache released its missiles on my target, an enemy sniper who moments earlier fatally punctured Chris’s chest. Hours before, we had scrambled in response to another unit ambushed near the Pakistan border. Chris had driven in my Humvee. We’d never have reached the firefight without his navigation. With the sniper dead, we stumbled to safer ground, carrying Chris on a stretcher. Slippery with blood, I struggled to keep a grip. It was a lonely and cold drive home.Every week, it seemed, more and more “insurgents” – the catch-all label for Taliban, al-Qaida and other people shooting at us – were emboldened to leave their sanctuary inside Pakistan and walk across the largely unmonitored border into Afghanistan. We could plainly see what policymakers at the time wouldn’t acknowledge: the Taliban, and their allies, were gaining strength.What we hadn’t realized yet was how the game had changed. We were still measuring success by our head-to-head encounters. They knew it was a political contest. To discredit the Afghanistan government in the eyes of local villagers, our adversaries didn’t need to compete in the election or construct new roads and clinics. They only needed to show the government couldn’t keep those villagers safe. In one brazen move, they beheaded all the police at a local outpost. One act of terror silenced a hundred potential collaborators. Across a large province, half the size of Switzerland, an American force in the hundreds was insufficient for the task. It always would be.There was the Blackhawk medevac helicopter with its red cross markings, attempting a second landing on Losano Ridge.If I’d had the time, I could have counted each of the bullet holes in its fuselage from its first bold attempt to land in the midst of a 12-hour battle. In what had become a familiar drill, my fellow lieutenant’s platoon had drawn fire near the border that morning and we arrived soon after with reinforcements. As one of my men crested a hill to my flank, an ambush erupted from what sounded like every direction. Evan, age 19, was shot and killed in the opening act. Four of his buddies pulled him up a steep hillside, under withering machine gun fire and rocket-propelled grenades, to the landing zone we marked for the Blackhawk. I remember the skids lifting off the ground, evading incoming fire. The helicopter raced north with Evan. Maybe 40, maybe 60 insurgents were killed by the time we rumbled home that September night, shivering and shattered. When we said roll call, it was the one name without a response I would never forget.There were the helicopters that brought celebrities and public officials for their combat visits. They kept the engines on because the visits were short. There were resupply helicopters laden with ammo, food and mail. Even at the outer perimeter of American firepower we ate frozen king crab legs and steak. Once when the water resupply failed, we made do with diet iced tea. When our replacements began to arrive by helicopter in the spring, we even became a little nostalgic and put on the airs of grizzled old-timers.I left Afghanistan in 2004, but Afghanistan never left me. I remember the smile when we helped an elderly woman carried to our clinic on her husband’s back. I remember the solidarity of our platoon as we returned to patrol after Evan and Chris died. I remember the laughter of a bonfire skit and the stink of one sergeant’s boots. I can recall almost every moment of some battles, but hardly any of others. On some days it’s a worn photo that reminds; on others, the sounds of a helicopter.I do not regret trading early career opportunities for a uniform. I do not begrudge the policy mistakes echelons above my reality. I no longer mourn those who did not return. Instead, I celebrate how they lived with integrity and courage. I cherish our band of brothers. I try to pass on what I learned to my children, students and colleagues.Yes, it mattered. We played and it counted. For us. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on the Afghanistan withdrawal: an unwinnable war | Editorial

      by

      Britain’s former prime minister Harold Macmillan is said to have told colleagues that the first law of politics should be “never invade Afghanistan”. It was a lesson that imperial Britain had learned the hard way, following three separate casualty-strewn incursions in the 19th and 20th centuries. After 11 September 2001, when al-Qaida radicals, based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban government, successfully attacked New York and Washington, the lesson was quickly forgotten.Instead, the United States, backed by Britain and Nato, launched a retaliatory campaign to destroy al-Qaida and overthrow the Taliban. After spectacular initial success, marked by the unexpected collapse of Kabul and massive bombing of the al-Qaida presence in the eastern mountains, the military campaign became overcommitted and, in the end, even faced defeat. Western ambitions were long on idealised visions of the postwar order, but short on a grasp of regional realities and military capabilities. The Taliban regrouped and rearmed. Long attritional years of civil conflict followed. This week, almost 20 years in, Joe Biden has decided America has at last had enough of an unwon and unwinnable war. He is bringing the troops home. America’s allies, including Britain, will now follow the US through the exit door.In his televised address this week, Mr Biden announced that nearly 10,000 US and Nato troops – including 750 from the UK – will start pulling out within weeks. All of them will be gone in time for the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks later this year. The president’s words were a valediction over what, in the end and in spite of its achievements, has been a failed campaign. “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,” the president said. He is surely right. Donald Trump had reached a similar conclusion from a different, more isolationist standpoint, although, unlike Mr Biden, without consulting his allies first. None of that will stop congressional Republicans denouncing Mr Biden’s decision as reckless.The US president’s announcement exposes some of the limits of 21st-century American power. It is true that, while the US has been engaged in Afghanistan, education has blossomed across much of the country, including for girls, who were largely excluded by the Taliban. Life expectancy, now at 65, has risen each year. But these gains remain fragile and their future is highly uncertain. When the Russian-backed Afghan regime collapsed in the early 1990s, the Taliban were able to take back control quickly. The same thing may happen after America’s departure 30 years later. Peace talks are continuing, but the Taliban will now have less reason to treat them seriously.Mr Biden’s decision marks the death of a particular kind of American hubris. New forms of warfare, increasingly technologically ambitious and involving fewer ground troops than in earlier wars such as Vietnam, were championed two decades ago by the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld. They have not achieved the goals that he claimed. Winning this kind of war without major troop commitments has not worked. Afghan opinion has been more divided and is marked by greater hostility to the US than the simplistic western assumptions of 2001 ever allowed. Regional hostilities have not been overcome. American public opinion has also become increasingly hostile towards committing to the conflicts. The nation-building claims that were made about Afghanistan and, later, Iraq have been exposed as unachievable. A lot of this was predicted and predictable when the conflict was launched. But there is very little satisfaction to be drawn from seeing it come to pass amid continuing uncertainty and insecurity for so many Afghan men and women. More

    • 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