conflict
Three Years Later, Biden Still Hasn’t Said Who’s At Fault For Chaotic Afghanistan Withdrawal
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
On the third anniversary of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Biden administration has yet to fire any leadership personnel for their role in the botched operation; instead, the administration has maintained that the decision to pull out was the right move.
The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 was seen by many as a chaotic and abrupt operation that led to the deaths of several U.S. troops. But the Biden administration has largely refused to admit blame in the matter, and no leadership involved has been dismissed or resigned over the operation, according to a review of multiple records.
The Biden administration’s goal was to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan by September 2021, but a failure of planning and preparation by leadership in Washington created a disordered situation for troops on the ground in Afghanistan, resulting in a disordered evacuation. There was also a miscalculation among military leaders who believed that the Taliban would not seize control of the country as quickly as the extremist group did after U.S. forces withdrew.
The Department of Defense, headed by Secretary Lloyd Austin, was intimately involved prior to and during the withdrawal, guiding U.S. military operations on the ground in Afghanistan and providing resources and intelligence for the operation. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCOS) Chairman retired Gen. Mark Milley — at the time the highest ranking member of the military — was also involved in coordinating strategy and operations for the withdrawal.
Both Austin and Milley attended planning sessions for the withdrawal, retired Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the top U.S. general in Afghanistan at the time, told lawmakers during a closed-door hearing in April, according to The Washington Post. Miller had been privately warning the administration ahead of the withdrawal that Afghanistan’s stability would get “very bad, very fast” after U.S. forces departed.
Miller stepped down from his role in July 2023, after serving as the most senior U.S. officer in Afghanistan. Neither Austin nor Milley were removed from their roles over the withdrawal, though Milley testified in 2023 that he had advised the administration to keep troops in Afghanistan, arguing that the region would quickly collapse if the U.S. withdrew on the set timeline, according to The New York Times. Milley’s term as JCOS chair ended in September 2023.
For his part, Austin testified in 2023 that he supported Biden’s decision to evacuate U.S. troops in 2021 and said he didn’t “have any regrets” about the operation. Austin remains the current Secretary of Defense under Biden.
Similar to the Department of Defense, the State Department, led by Secretary Antony Blinken and tasked with overseeing U.S. foreign affairs, was also involved in planning and helping execute the Afghanistan withdrawal, especially regarding evacuating U.S. citizens present in the country. Thousands of Americans were initially stranded in Afghanistan; most of them were evacuated in the weeks and months following.
A State Department 2023 after-action report found that the withdrawal operation “was hindered by the fact that it was unclear who in the Department had the lead.” The report also noted that there was an “insufficient senior-level consideration of worst-case scenarios.”
There have been multiple credible reports that the State Department on various occasions failed to properly vet or track millions in aid to Afghanistan following the U.S. withdrawal in 2021, running the risk it could end up in the hands of the Taliban or other extremist groups.
The U.S. left over $7 billion worth of military equipment in Afghanistan. The Taliban, an Islamic extremist group ruling over Afghanistan, held a demonstration on Wednesday with American military equipment and vehicles left at a former U.S. base in the country.
Biden has not dismissed Blinken, and Blinken has not resigned from his role as Secretary of State. Nor has Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, who would have had his ear and offered him advice prior to and during the withdrawal.
A Biden administration 2023 report assigned most blame on the former Trump administration for the withdrawal, given that Trump signed an agreement with the Taliban in 2020 to withdraw U.S. forces by 2021. After taking office in 2021, Biden tried to abide by the agreement and withdraw forces by September of that year, according to the report.
Trump and his team argue that had he been president at the time, the withdrawal would have been executed in a safe and secure manner, and blamed the Biden administration for “trying to gaslight the American people for their disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan that directly led to American deaths and emboldened the terrorists.”
Biden has defended his choice to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan when he did. He falsely claimed during a debate against Trump in June that he was “the only president this decade that doesn’t have any troops dying anywhere in the world.”
Following the withdrawal, Biden also reportedly told his top aides, including Sullivan, that he supported them and their decisions regarding the operation, according to Axios.
The Pentagon and State Department did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
conflict
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
For the first time since Russian soldiers entered Ukraine in February 2022, the US is negotiating with Vladimir Putin. Surprisingly it’s not President Biden’s team at work, but President Elect Donald Trump. Trump has been working through Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban. President Orban traveled to the US to meet with Trump a day before he had an hour long phone conversation with Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
Clearly Trump is looking for at least a quick de-escalation if not an all out end to the conflict in Ukraine. Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris of The Duran podcast explain the current situation.
conflict
Sending arms to Ukraine is unnecessarily placing American lives in danger
U.S. President Joe Biden signs the guest book during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Ukrainian presidential palace on February 20, 2023, in Kyiv, Ukraine
From LifeSiteNews
By Bob Marshall
Joe Biden’s direct military support, coupled with ignoring peace efforts and sidelining containment principles, could spark global conflict.
To understand why a congressional budget fight over continuing or possibly expanding the Ukraine-Russia war is so fraught with dangers, some background of the relevant history and politics must be considered.
Ukraine-Russian hostilities
On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated what he designated as his “special military operation.” He undertook this action in Ukraine which was an extension of the hostile acts that started in February 2014 with a U.S.-supported coup of the Ukraine government. But, recall that Putin approached Biden in late December 2021 through mid-February 2022 with proposals to forestall or avoid Russian military action mainly centering around assurances that Ukraine and other countries would not join NATO, an expansion policy which had its proximate beginnings at the end of the Cold War right after the reunification of Germany.
Putin did not approach Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with such proposals because the United States, and specifically President Biden, was the sine qua non for making such a decision regarding Ukraine’s entrance into NATO both for the U.S. and NATO. Basically, Biden told Putin there was nothing to talk about, especially with regard to reaching any agreement on Ukraine not entering NATO.
Biden rejects Ukraine-Russia peace agreement
Biden and British Prime Minister Johnson refused to accept bona fide peace agreements reached and worked out between Ukraine and Russia during the first weeks of this unnecessary conflict achieved with the assistance of Israel’s 13th prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Former Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote that Biden and Johnson urged Zelensky to reject a more than 100-page peace treaty, “each page of which had been initialed by both sides, and its essence accepted by the Kremlin and by Kyiv,” and that by trusting the U.S. and Britain for military assistance, eastern Ukraine could be protected and Ukraine would not have to make concessions to Putin.
For these reasons, Biden and Great Britain own this war and bear partial responsibility for the Ukraine, Russian, and other lives lost as well as other war costs incurred after the treaty’s rejection.
So, American, Russian, and Ukrainian citizens now suffer the political, economic, and military consequences of the myopic and imprudent judgments of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, and perhaps much less so by Volodymyr Zelensky who apparently believed promises of continued economic and military support from Biden and Johnson.
Biden trashes Kennan Containment Doctrine
In one feckless and politically vindictive act, Biden put our troops and the American homeland in harm’s way. He obliterated George Kennan’s highly successful “containment” policy, which our country has skillfully employed since 1947 in Europe and East Asia as a means of avoiding a direct military confrontation with communist governments across several conflicts and near conflicts and the resulting horrors of nuclear exchanges with Russia, China, and North Korea.
Containment worked! America avoided nuclear war.
Direct U.S./NATO Attacks on Russia
The headlines, of course, say that “Ukraine fires UK-made missiles” and that “Russia says Ukraine attacked it using U.S. long-range missiles.” Not so fast. Zelensky may have given the order to fire, or maybe even pushed the buttons, but the White House needs to explain to the American voters who paid for these weapons, who guided the missiles to their targets in the Russian homeland, and why it is not constitutionally and morally irresponsible for Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to risk a much wider or even a worldwide nuclear holocaust to call Vladimir Putin’s bluff.
On November 24, Rebekah Koffler, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, told Fox News that “we are now on the escalation ladder inching towards a nuclear war. Those ATACMS do not fire by themselves.”
Even if Ukrainian soldiers technically pushed the button, “the targeting of the weapons systems, ensuring that there is a proper flight trajectory of the missile, that it destroys the right target, and the actual battle damage it achieved that we wanted it to achieve, all requires U.S. personnel and U.S. satellites. This is why the Russians have stated that the United States and European targets are now in the crosshairs. In every wargame that we conducted back in the intelligence community ended up in a nuclear war.”
This is direct engagement.
In September, Vladimir Putin explained why a decision like Biden’s is radically different from all other “redlines.”
[T]his is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes … using Western-made long-range precision weapons. … This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or U.S. satellites. … [O]nly NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. … Therefore … It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not. If this decision is made … this will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia.
Biden finesses radical policy change
Biden has still refused to take public ownership of his radical departure from George Kennan’s Cold War containment policy of communist powers when he committed the one cardinal sin of American diplomacy: authorizing the direct military attack of a nuclear opponent, however “small.”
The initial press coverage from the Associated Press on November 17 announced that President Biden had authorized Ukraine, for the first time, to use U.S.-made long-range missiles for use by Ukraine inside Russia, “according to a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter…. The official and the people familiar with the matter were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.”
The stark refusal of even one Biden official to put their name to this monumentally dangerous and radical policy change is astonishing. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) noted on X that, “Joe Biden just set the stage for World War III[.] Let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that[.] Otherwise, we may never forget where we were [t]he moment we received this news.”
AP also noted that “Biden did not mention the decision during a speech at a stop to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil on his way to the Group of 20 summit.”
Press disguises Biden policy switch
Biden’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to not acknowledging the political-military consequences of his own actions was received with favorable “silent” coverage from the nation’s compliant mainstream media.
Indeed, none of the following news organizations told readers that Biden has converted American military personnel and civilian employees into warfighters who are directly engaging Russian troops, equipment, buildings, and territory by his direction: Associated Press, New York Times, NBC-Washington, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg News, ABC-News, Public Broadcasting, Seattle Times, Minnesota Star Tribune, Miami Herald, and The Hill.
Checking the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department websites for this period reveals no press releases, fact sheets, or acknowledgments about the unprecedented and radical missile policy change with Ukraine or any of its particulars. However, Biden’s White House website posted a note on November 20 expressing sympathy with the Transgender Day of Remembrance but is silent on the possible escalation toward World War III.
Even a week later, National Security Advisor John Kirby still did not acknowledge that Biden has authorized direct attacks on Russia in obvious disregard of Kennan’s successful policy of avoiding nuclear war by avoiding direct military to military conflict with nuclear powers. Below is an exchange between National Security Advisor John Kirby and a reporter at an “on the record” press gaggle:
QUESTION: In the past, you kind of downplayed [the] potential impact of the ATACMS on the battlefield and warned that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia could lead to escalation by the Kremlin. How do you see it now?
KIRBY: Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves, you know, in an immediate-need basis. And right now, you know, understandably, that’s taking place in and around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast. I’d let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS and their targeting procedures and what they’re using them for and how well they’re doing. But nothing has changed about the – well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.
Biden’s war escalation ladder
At this point, in light of the grim statistics about a completely avoidable war killing and maiming young men and women, Americans are entitled to the truth, not to a rehash of tired legalisms about Ukraine’s right to defend itself.
On November 25, Judge Andrew Napolitano cited 27-year veteran former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a frequent guest on Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” podcast, as confirming that Biden made the decision to let Ukraine use the ATACMS missiles without any input from his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, which is highly unusual.
Biden and weakening Russia
Previously, Austin admitted on April 25, 2022 that the point of the war is “to see Russia weakened,” and Zelensky told The Economist on March 27, 2022, that “there are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” As Leonid Ragozin wrote in May 2024:
The West has crossed many red lines and is willing to try even more, but it is impossible to predict how the close-knit group of criminally inclined individuals which rules Russia will act if their country begins losing. It has always been a tough proposition to play chess with a guy who is holding a hand grenade. And it makes no sense, as Biden’s predecessors knew very well during the Cold War.
Biden initiated direct but “lower level” hostilities with Russia on November 19, and Biden ally, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, followed suit with similar hostile bombardments of Russia on November 20, partially fulfilling the goal of British and American war hawks attempting to push Russia into larger hostilities under Biden’s lead, or that of his “handlers,” to turn the second cold war with Russia – the aspirations of Washington and London’s armchair generals – into a conflict more likely in their minds of bringing Putin into a more contentious and uncontrollable situation that would relieve Putin of power.
This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.
-
Alberta1 day ago
Proposed $70 billion AI data centre in MD of Greenview could launch an incredible new chapter for western Canadian energy
-
Brownstone Institute5 hours ago
A Potpourri of the World’s Unexposed Scandals
-
Alberta1 day ago
Your towing rights! AMA unveils measures to help fight predatory towing
-
Economy3 hours ago
The White Pill: Big Government Can Be Defeated (Just Ask the Soviet Union)
-
conflict2 hours ago
Trump has started negotiations to end the war in Ukraine
-
COVID-191 hour ago
Esteemed UK Doctor pleads with governments to cancel COVID-19 vaccines
-
COVID-196 hours ago
Biden HHS extends immunity for COVID shot manufacturers through 2029
-
Bruce Dowbiggin4 hours ago
MLB’s Exploding Chequebook: Parity Is Now For Suckers