Biden team surprised by rapid Taliban gains in Afghanistan

US President Joe Biden is seen during a meeting with VP Kamala Harris, their security team and senior officials to obtain updates on the draw down of civilian personnel in Afghanistan. (WhiteHouse/Handout via REUTERS)
Short Url
Updated 16 August 2021
Follow

Biden team surprised by rapid Taliban gains in Afghanistan

  • Unlike Obama and Trump who ultimately stood down in the face of resistance from military leaders and other political concerns against an abrupt pullout of US forces in Afghanistan, Biden has been steadfast in his refusal to change the Aug. 31 deadline

WASHINGTON: President Joe Biden and other top US officials were stunned on Sunday by the pace of the Taliban’s nearly complete takeover of Afghanistan, as the planned withdrawal of American forces urgently became a mission to ensure a safe evacuation.
The speed of the Afghan government’s collapse and the ensuing chaos posed the most serious test of Biden as commander in chief, and he was the subject of withering criticism from Republicans who said that he had failed.
Biden campaigned as a seasoned expert in international relations and has spent months downplaying the prospect of an ascendant Taliban while arguing that Americans of all political persuasions have tired of a 20-year war, a conflict that demonstrated the limits of money and military might to force a Western-style democracy on a society not ready or willing to embrace it.
By Sunday, though, leading figures in the administration acknowledged they were caught off guard with the utter speed of the collapse of Afghan security forces. The challenge of that effort became clear after reports of sporadic gunfire at the Kabul airport prompted Americans to shelter as they awaited flights to safety after the US Embassy was completely evacuated.
“We’ve seen that that force has been unable to defend the country, and that has happened more quickly than we anticipated,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken told CNN, referring to the Afghan military.
The turmoil in Afghanistan resets the focus in an unwelcome way for a president who has largely focused on a domestic agenda that includes emerging from the pandemic, winning congressional approval for trillions of dollars in infrastructure spending and protecting voting rights.
Biden remained at Camp David on Sunday, receiving regular briefings on Afghanistan and holding secure video conference calls with members of his national security team, according to senior White House officials. His administration released a single photo of the president alone in a conference room meeting virtually with military, diplomatic and intelligence experts. The next several days would be critical in determining whether the US is able to regain some level of control over the situation.
The Pentagon and State Department said in a joint statement Sunday that “we are completing a series of steps to secure the Hamid Karzai International Airport to enable the safe departure of US and allied personnel from Afghanistan via civilian and military flights.” Biden ordered another 1,000 troops into Kabul to secure the evacuation.
Discussions were underway for Biden to speak publicly, according to two senior administration officials who requested anonymity to discuss internal conversations. Biden, who is scheduled to remain at the presidential retreat through Wednesday, is expected to return to the White House if he decides to deliver an address.
Biden is the fourth US president to confront challenges in Afghanistan and has insisted he wouldn’t hand America’s longest war to his successor. But the president will likely have to explain how security in Afghanistan unraveled so quickly, especially since he and others in the administration have insisted it wouldn’t happen.
“The jury is still out, but the likelihood there’s going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely,” Biden said on July 8.
As recently as last week, Biden publicly expressed hope that Afghan forces could develop the will to defend their country. But privately, administration officials warned that the military was crumbling, prompting Biden on Thursday to order thousands of American troops into the region to speed up evacuation plans.
One official said Biden was more sanguine on projections for the Afghan fighters to hold off the Taliban in part to prevent a further erosion in morale among their force. It was ultimately for naught.
Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump also yearned to leave Afghanistan, but ultimately stood down in the face of resistance from military leaders and other political concerns. Biden, on the other hand, has been steadfast in his refusal to change the Aug. 31 deadline, in part because of his belief that the American public is on his side.
A late July ABC News/Ipsos poll, for instance, showed 55 percent of Americans approving of Biden’s handling of the troop withdrawal.
Most Republicans have not pushed Biden to keep troops in Afghanistan over the long term and they also supported Trump’s own push to exit the country. Still, some in the GOP are stepping up their critique of Biden’s withdrawal strategy and said images from Sunday of American helicopters circling the US Embassy in Kabul evoked the humiliating departure of US personnel from Vietnam.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell deemed the scenes of withdrawal as “the embarrassment of a superpower laid low.”
Meanwhile, US officials are increasingly concerned about the potential for the rise in terrorist threats against the US as the situation in Afghanistan devolves, according to a person familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive security matter.
Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told senators on a briefing call Sunday that US officials are expected to alter their earlier assessments about the pace of terrorist groups reconstituting in Afghanistan, the person said. Based on the evolving situation, officials believe terror groups like Al-Qaeda may be able to grow much faster than expected.
The officials on the call told senators that the US intelligence community is currently working on forming a new timeline based on the evolving threats.
Still, there were no additional steps planned beyond the troop deployment Biden ordered to assist in the evacuations. Senior administration officials believe the US will be able to maintain security at the Kabul airport long enough to extricate Americans and their allies, but the fate of those unable to get to the airport was far from certain.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who has backed the Biden administration’s strategy, said in an interview that “the speed is a surprise” but would not characterize the situation as an intelligence failure. He said it has long been known that Afghanistan would fall to the Taliban if the United States pulled out.
“Given how much we have invested in the Afghan army, it’s not ridiculous for analysts to believe that they’d be able to put up a fight for more than a few days,” Murphy said. “You want to believe that trillions of dollars and 20 years of investment adds up to something, even if it doesn’t add up for the ability to defend the country in the long run.”
In the upper ranks of Biden’s staff, the rapid collapse in Afghanistan only confirmed the decision to leave: If the meltdown of the Afghan forces would come so quickly after nearly two decades of American presence, another six months or a year or two or more would not have changed anything.
Biden has argued for more than a decade that Afghanistan was a kind of purgatory for the United States. He found it to be corrupt, addicted to America’s largesse and an unreliable partner that should be made to fend for itself. His goal was to protect Americans from terrorist attacks, not building a country.
As vice president, he argued privately against Obama’s surge of 30,000 troops into Afghanistan in a bid to stabilize the country so that the United States and its allies could then pull back their forces.
As president, Biden said in July that he made the decision to withdraw with “clear eyes” after receiving daily battlefield updates. His judgment was that Afghanistan would be divided in a peace agreement with the Taliban, rather than falling all at once.
While Biden has prided himself on delivering plain truths to the American public, his bullish assessment of the situation just a month ago could come back to haunt him.
“There’s going to be no circumstance where you see people being lifted off the roof of a embassy in the — of the United States from Afghanistan,” he said in July. “The likelihood there’s going to be one unified government in Afghanistan controlling the whole country is highly unlikely.”


New Trump human resources czar distances himself from Elon Musk

Updated 22 July 2025
Follow

New Trump human resources czar distances himself from Elon Musk

  • Kupor said he had told Trump and other people in the White House that “my job is to do the agenda that the president lays out to the best I can.”

WASHINGTON: The new chief of the agency spearheading efforts to slash the federal workforce said on Monday he had no personal ties to tech billionaire and former Trump adviser Elon Musk, pledging to faithfully execute President Donald Trump’s agenda.
“I have zero personal relationship with Elon Musk. I have talked to Elon Musk once on the phone in my life,” Scott Kupor, who was sworn in to lead the Office of Personnel Management earlier this month, told reporters.
The comments underscored lingering questions about the loyalties of Silicon Valley tech entrepreneurs among Trump administration officials following a public spat between Trump and Musk that led to a deep rift between the two former allies.
Kupor said he had told Trump and other people in the White House that “my job is to do the agenda that the president lays out to the best I can.”
“But I’m not going to do it consistent with someone else’s objectives that are inconsistent with what the president wants to do,” he added.
Musk, who spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to help Trump win November’s presidential election, led the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts to slash the budget and cut the federal workforce until his departure in late May to refocus on his tech empire, including electric vehicle maker Tesla .
While Trump hailed Musk’s tenure upon his departure, the president quickly pulled the nomination of Musk ally and tech entrepreneur Jared Isaacman to lead NASA. Reuters previously reported that Musk was disappointed by Isaacman’s removal.
The president also threatened to cancel billions of dollars worth of contracts between the federal government and Musk’s companies after Musk denounced Trump’s tax-cut and spending bill as a “disgusting abomination.”
Prior to taking the helm at OPM, Kupor was a partner at Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which invests in Musk’s AI startup Xai as well as SpaceX. 


White House restricts WSJ access to Trump over Epstein story

Updated 22 July 2025
Follow

White House restricts WSJ access to Trump over Epstein story

  • The punishment of the Wall Street Journal marks at least the second time the Trump administration has moved to exclude a major news outlet from the press pool over its reporting

WASHINGTON: The White House on Monday barred The Wall Street Journal from traveling with US President Donald Trump during his upcoming visit to Scotland, after the newspaper reported that he wrote a bawdy birthday message to his former friend, alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.
The move comes after Trump on Friday sued the WSJ and its media magnate owner Rupert Murdoch for at least $10 billion over the allegation in the article, which Trump denies.
The Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein case has threatened to split the Republican’s far-right Make America Great Again (MAGA) base, with some of his supporters calling for a full release of the so-called “Epstein Files.”
The punishment of the Wall Street Journal marks at least the second time the Trump administration has moved to exclude a major news outlet from the press pool over its reporting, having barred Associated Press journalists from multiple key events since February.
“As the appeals court confirmed, The Wall Street Journal or any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces,” said Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
“Due to The Wall Street Journal’s fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board (Air Force One).”
Trump departs this weekend for Scotland, where he owns two golf resorts and will meet with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Earlier this month, the US Department of Justice, under Trump-appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi, said there was no evidence suggesting disgraced financier Epstein had kept a “client list” or was blackmailing powerful figures before his death in 2019.
In its story on Thursday, the WSJ reported that Trump had written a suggestive birthday letter to Epstein in 2003, illustrated with a naked woman and alluding to a shared “secret.”
Epstein, a longtime friend of Trump and multiple other high-profile men, was found hanging dead in a New York prison cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on charges that he sexually exploited dozens of underage girls at his homes in New York and Florida.
The case sparked conspiracy theories, especially among Trump’s far-right voters, about an alleged international cabal of wealthy pedophiles.
Epstein’s death — declared a suicide — before he could face trial supercharged that narrative.
Since returning to power in January, Trump has moved to increase control over the press covering the White House.
In February, the Oval Office stripped the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) of its nearly century-old authority to oversee which outlets have access to certain restricted presidential events, with Trump saying that he was now “calling the shots” on media access.
In a statement, the WHCA president urged the White House to “restore” the Journal to the pool.
“This attempt by the White House to punish a media outlet whose coverage it does not like is deeply troubling, and it defies the First Amendment,” said WHCA President Weijia Jiang.
“Government retaliation against news outlets based on the content of their reporting should concern all who value free speech and an independent media.”

 


Zelensky names new ambassadors during Ukraine political shakeup

Yulia Svyrydenko, Prime Minister of Ukraine. (X @Svyrydenko_Y)
Updated 22 July 2025
Follow

Zelensky names new ambassadors during Ukraine political shakeup

  • Zelensky launched a major government reshuffle last week, promoting Yulia Svyrydenko, 39, who had served as economy minister and is well known in Washington, to head the cabinet as prime minister

MOSCOW: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky appointed over a dozen new ambassadors on Monday, during a big shakeup that has seen him replace top cabinet officials and envoys to shore up relations with Washington and isolate Russia internationally.
The new envoys named on Monday include ambassadors to NATO members Belgium, Canada, Estonia and Spain, as well as major donor Japan and regional heavyweights South Africa and the United Arab Emirates.

Ukraine's deputy prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration Olha Stefanishyna in Kyiv. (AFP file photo)

Zelensky launched a major government reshuffle last week, promoting Yulia Svyrydenko, 39, who had served as economy minister and is well known in Washington, to head the cabinet as prime minister.
Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna is set to become Ukraine’s new envoy to the United States, as Ukraine seeks to mend ties with the Trump administration.
In remarks to the diplomatic corps released by his office, Zelensky said envoys needed to support “everything that causes Russia pain for its war.”
“While the content of our relationship with America has transformed following the change in administration, the goal remains unchanged: Ukraine must withstand Russia’s strikes,” Zelensky said. 

 

 


A recap of the trial over the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protesters

Updated 22 July 2025
Follow

A recap of the trial over the Trump administration’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus protesters

  • US lawyer William Kanellis said that out of about 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters investigated by the federal government, only 18 were arrested

BOSTON: The Trump administration’s campaign of arresting and deporting college faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations violates their First Amendment rights, lawyers for an association representing university professors argued in federal court.
The lawsuit, filed by several university associations, is one of the first against President Donald Trump and members of his administration to go to trial. US District Judge William Young heard closing arguments Monday in Boston.
He did not say or indicate when or how he would rule. But he had some sharp words when talking about Trump.
“The president is a master of speech and he certainly brilliantly uses his right to free speech,” Young told federal lawyers. But whether Trump “recognizes whether other people have any right to free speech is questionable,” he added.
Plaintiffs are asking Young to rule that the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
No ideological deportation policy
Over the course of the trial, plaintiffs argued that the crackdown has silenced scholars and targeted more than 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters.
“The goal is to chill speech. The goal is to silence students and scholars who wish to express pro-Palestinian views,” said Alexandra Conlan, a lawyer for the plaintiffs.
She went on to say that this chilling effect caused by “intimidating and scaring students and scholars” is “exactly what the First Amendment was meant to prevent.”
But federal lawyers and a top State Department official testifying for the government insisted there was no ideological deportation policy as the plaintiffs contend.
John Armstrong, the senior bureau official in Bureau of Consular Affairs, testified that visa revocations were based on longstanding immigration law. Armstrong acknowledged he played a role in the visa revocation of several high-profile activists, including Rumeysa Ozturk and Mahmoud Khalil, and was shown memos endorsing their removal.
Armstrong also insisted that visa revocations were not based on protected speech and rejected accusations that there was a policy of targeting someone for their ideology.
“It’s silly to suggest there is a policy,” he said.
Were student protesters targeted?
US lawyer William Kanellis said that out of about 5,000 pro-Palestinian protesters investigated by the federal government, only 18 were arrested. He said not only is targeting such protesters not a policy of the US government, he said, it’s “not even a statistical anomaly.”
Out of the 5,000 names reviewed, investigators wrote reports on about 200 who had potentially violated US law, Peter Hatch of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations Unit testified. Until this year, Hatch said, he could not recall a student protester being referred for a visa revocation.
Among the report subjects was Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Khalil, who was released last month after 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump’s clampdown on the protests.
Another was the Tufts University student Ozturk, who was released in May from six weeks in detention after being arrested on a suburban Boston street. She said she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her school’s response to the war in Gaza.
Hatch said most leads were dropped when investigators could not find ties to protests and the investigations were not inspired by a new policy but rather by existing procedures in place at least since he took the job in 2019.
Patrick Cunningham, an assistant special Agent in charge with Homeland Security investigations in Boston and who was involved in Ozturk’s arrest, said he was only told the Tuft University student was being arrested because her visa was revoked.
But he also acknowledged being provided a memo from the State Department about Ozturk as well as a copy of an op-ed she co-wrote last year criticizing her university’s response to Israel and the war in Gaza. He also admitted that he has focused more on immigration cases since Trump’s inauguration, compared to the drugs smuggling and money laundering cases he handled in the past.
Professors spoke of scaling back activism
During the trial, several green card-holding professors described scaling back activism, public criticism and international travel following Khalil’s and Ozturk’s arrests.
Nadje Al-Ali, a green card holder from Germany and professor at Brown University, said she canceled a planned research trip and a fellowship to Iraq and Lebanon, fearing that “stamps from those two countries would raise red flags” upon her return. She also declined to participate in anti-Trump protests and abandoned plans to write an article that was to be a feminist critique of Hamas.
“I felt it was too risky,” Al-Ali said.

Kanellis, a US government attorney, said “feelings” and “anxiety” about possible deportation do not equate to imminent harm from a legal standpoint, which he argued plaintiffs failed to establish in their arguments.

 


US withdrawing 700 Marines from Los Angeles: Pentagon

Updated 22 July 2025
Follow

US withdrawing 700 Marines from Los Angeles: Pentagon

WASHINGTON: The 700 US Marines in Los Angeles are being withdrawn, ending a contentious deployment of the troops in the city, the Pentagon announced on Monday.
President Donald Trump ordered thousands of National Guard and hundreds of Marines into Los Angeles last month in response to protests over federal immigration sweeps — a move opposed by city leaders and California’s Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated,” Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement.
“Their rapid response, unwavering discipline, and unmistakable presence were instrumental in restoring order and upholding the rule of law,” he added.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also announced the withdrawal of the Marines in a post on X, saying it was “another win” for the city and that the presence of the troops was “an unnecessary deployment.”
The removal of the Marines comes after the Pentagon said last week that Hegseth had ordered the withdrawal of 2,000 National Guard personnel from Los Angeles, roughly halving the deployment of those troops in the city.
As a so-called “sanctuary city” with hundreds of thousands of undocumented people, Los Angeles has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration since the Republican returned to office in January.
After immigration enforcement raids spurred unrest and protests last month, Trump — who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest — dispatched the National Guard and Marines to quell the disruption.
It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard against the wishes of a state governor.