Category: Afghanistan

  • On August 16, 2021 President Biden addressed the nation to explain why the US military is pulling out of Afghanistan. To a lesser extent, he also tried to explain why the Afghan government and its 300,000 military forces imploded over the past weekend. With the Afghan State’s quick disappearing act, in a puff of smoke up went as well the more than $1 trillion spent by the US in Afghanistan since 2001.

    Biden glossed over the real answer to the first point why the US is now pulling out. The second he never really answered.

    The real answer to the first point is simple: the USA as global hegemon can no longer afford the financial cost of remaining in that country, so it is pulling out.

    The post Afghanistan And The US Imperial Project appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The stunning victory of the Taliban over the US-backed Afghan government raises more questions than it answers as to how this happened. In the search for answers, however, don’t ask the generals who fought the war – they all lied.

    Let me begin with full disclosure – I have never set foot in Afghanistan. I have zero skin equity in this current debacle. I have lost very close friends to the conflict that tore that country apart these past 20 years, and I do mourn their loss. What I lack in on-the-ground warfighting resume entries, however, is somewhat compensated by a more intellectually based approach toward the conflict in Afghanistan.

    As a historian, I have studied the tribes of Afghanistan, especially their penchant for conflict against ruling authority which deviates from what they expect from their leaders.

    The post The Only Truth About Afghanistan War Is That It Was All Based On Lies appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • By Shanil Singh in Suva

    Immigration Secretary Yogesh Karan has confirmed that 13 Fijians who are currently stuck in Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover last Sunday are safe and officials are working to repatriate them as soon as possible.

    Karan said two worked for private contractors and the other 11 were with international organisations.

    He said they had had a discussion with the Australian High Commission which gave an assurance that they would make every effort to “include our people in the evacuation flight”.

    Karan said it was very difficult to contact them because Fiji did not have a mission in Afghanistan and they are trying to contact them via New Delhi.

    He added Fiji was also working with UN agencies and the Indian government to get them out of there as quickly as possible.

    Karan was also requesting anyone who had contacts with anyone in Afghanistan to let the ministry know so they could note their details.

    NZ promises repatriation
    RNZ News reports that people promised help in getting out of Afghanistan were desperate for information, saying they did not know where they should be or who to contact.

    New Zealand citizens and at least 200 Afghans who helped New Zealand’s efforts in the country were expected to be repatriated.

    Diamond Kazimi, a former interpreter for the NZ Defence Force in Afghanistan, who now lives in New Zealand, has been getting calls from those who helped the military and wanted to know when help is coming.

    The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is providing consular assistance to 104 New Zealanders in Afghanistan but would not say where they were, what advice they were being given, or how they planned to make sure they were on the repatriation flight.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has called on the United States to fulfill its “moral obligation to the Afghan people” by swiftly accepting refugees into the country in light of the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan.

    But even as Ocasio-Cortez and progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) call for a more humanitarian approach toward those affected by the U.S.’s 20 years of military occupation and sudden departure from Afghanistan, right-wing media have resorted to racist and exclusionary language in speaking of the refugees.

    In a series of tweets on the matter, Ocasio-Cortez explained why she felt it was important for the U.S. to assist thousands of refugees affected by the Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan this past week.

    “We must waste no time or expense in helping refugees safely & swiftly leave Afghanistan,” the New York congresswoman wrote. “We must immediately welcome them to the U.S. & provide real support as they rebuild their lives.”

    “For all those who lost, sacrificed, suffered, and served in the last 20 years of war and occupation, the United States has a singular responsibility in extending safe refuge to the Afghan people,” she added. “That is the absolute floor.”

    A number of mainstream conservative voices, however, including Fox News personalities Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham, described Afghan refugees in bigoted terms, using racist tropes that have been historically used against immigrants and refugees before.

    “Is it really our responsibility to welcome thousands of potentially unvetted refugees from Afghanistan?” Ingraham asked her viewers. “All day, we’ve heard phrases like, ‘We’ve promised them.’ Well, who did? Did you?”

    Ingraham’s qualms don’t match reality. The process of accepting refugees into the United States is notoriously (and oftentimes painstakingly) thorough, and can take years to complete in many cases. Each individual’s background — including their political affiliations, identity, and more — is deeply examined by a number of U.S. security agencies, a point that Ingraham omitted from her diatribe.

    Carlson also criticized calls for accepting refugees into the U.S.

    “We will see many refugees from Afghanistan resettle in our country, and over the next decade, that number may swell to the millions. So first we invade, and then we are invaded,” he said.

    The comments from Carlson, Ingraham, and others were described by The Daily Show digital producer Matt Negrin as “openly reciting” concepts ascribed to “white replacement theory” — a white supremacist belief that there is a conspiratorial movement to reduce the white population in the U.S. and elsewhere.

    “Journalists unfamiliar with Fox should call this white supremacy, not just ‘anti-refugee rhetoric,’” Negrin wrote on Twitter, sharing screenshots of what the Fox News hosts and other far right voices had said publicly about refugees.

    Negrin elaborated on his views by sharing more images of media organizations using tampered language to describe how right-wing commentators were discussing the matter.

    “The press’s inevitable unwillingness to call this what it is — the same way they wouldn’t call Trump racist — is their tacit gift to Republicans who know they can spray their audience with carbon copy nazi manifestos and enjoy being described by mainstream outlets as ‘firebrands,’” Negrin added.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • ANALYSIS: By Azadah Raz Mohammad, The University of Melbourne and Jenna Sapiano, Monash University

    As the Taliban has taken control of the country, Afghanistan has again become an extremely dangerous place to be a woman.

    Even before the fall of Kabul on Sunday, the situation was rapidly deteriorating, exacerbated by the planned withdrawal of all foreign military personnel and declining international aid.

    In the past few weeks alone, there have been many reports of casualties and violence. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes.

    The United Nations Refugee Agency says about 80 percent of those who have fled since the end of May are women and children.

    What does the return of the Taliban mean for women and girls?

    The history of the Taliban
    The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in 1996, enforcing harsh conditions and rules following their strict interpretation of Islamic law.

    A crowd of Taliban fighters and supporters.
    The Taliban have taken back control of Afghanistan with the withdrawal of foreign troops. Image: Rahmut Gul/AP/AAP

    Under their rule, women had to cover themselves and only leave the house in the company of a male relative. The Taliban also banned girls from attending school, and women from working outside the home. They were also banned from voting.

    Women were subject to cruel punishments for disobeying these rules, including being beaten and flogged, and stoned to death if found guilty of adultery. Afghanistan had the highest maternal mortality rate in the world.

    The past 20 years
    With the fall of the Taliban in 2001, the situation for women and girls vastly improved, although these gains were partial and fragile.

    Women now hold positions as ambassadors, ministers, governors, and police and security force members. In 2003, the new government ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which requires states to incorporate gender equality into their domestic law.

    The 2004 Afghan Constitution holds that “citizens of Afghanistan, man and woman, have equal rights and duties before the law”. Meanwhile, a 2009 law was introduced to protect women from forced and under-age marriage, and violence.

    According to Human Rights Watch, the law saw a rise in the reporting, investigation and, to a lesser extent, conviction, of violent crimes against women and girls.

    While the country has gone from having almost no girls at school to tens of thousands at university, the progress has been slow and unstable. UNICEF reports of the 3.7 million Afghan children out of school some 60 percent are girls.

    A return to dark days
    Officially, Taliban leaders have said they want to grant women’s rights “according to Islam”. But this has been met with great scepticism, including by women leaders in Afghanistan.

    Indeed, the Taliban has given every indication they will reimpose their repressive regime.

    In July, the United Nations reported the number of women and girls killed and injured in the first six months of the year nearly doubled compared to the same period the year before.

    In the areas again under Taliban control, girls have been banned from school and their freedom of movement restricted. There have also been reports of forced marriages.

    Afghan woman looking out a window.
    Afghan women and human rights groups have been sounding the alarm over the Taliban’s return. Image: Hedayatullah Amid/EPA/AAP

    Women are putting burqas back on and speak of destroying evidence of their education and life outside the home to protect themselves from the Taliban.

    As one anonymous Afghan woman writes in The Guardian:

    “I did not expect that we would be deprived of all our basic rights again and travel back to 20 years ago. That after 20 years of fighting for our rights and freedom, we should be hunting for burqas and hiding our identity.”

    Many Afghans are angered by the return of the Taliban and what they see as their abandonment by the international community. There have been protests in the streets. Women have even taken up guns in a rare show of defiance.

    But this alone will not be enough to protect women and girls.

    The world looks the other way
    Currently, the US and its allies are engaged in frantic rescue operations to get their citizens and staff out of Afghanistan. But what of Afghan citizens and their future?

    US President Joe Biden remained largely unmoved by the Taliban’s advance and the worsening humanitarian crisis. In an August 14 statement, he said:

    “an endless American presence in the middle of another country’s civil conflict was not acceptable to me.”

    And yet, the US and its allies — including Australia — went to Afghanistan 20 years ago on the premise of removing the Taliban and protecting women’s rights. However, most Afghans do not believe they have experienced peace in their lifetimes.

    Now that the Taliban has reasserted complete control over the country, the achievements of the past 20 years, especially those made to protect women’s rights and equality, are at risk if the international community once again abandons Afghanistan.

    Women and girls are pleading for help. We hope the world will listen.The Conversation

    Azadah Raz Mohammad, PhD student, The University of Melbourne and Dr Jenna Sapiano, Australia Research Council postdoctoral research associate and lecturer, Monash Gender Peace & Security Centre, Monash University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • George W. Bush is interviewed while surrounded by his "paintings"

    For a time back in the bad old days of Donald Trump, it seemed as if the corporate “news” media had ever so slightly corrected their hard-wired rightward tilt. They were still awful when viewed from a progressive vantage point, and Fox News was going to Fox News no matter what, but as the daily grind of the Trump presidency grew into a roaring existential threat to the country, that media often said what needed saying, providing context, background, fact checks and experts by the score to warn against “normalizing” fascism.

    Maybe it was only a sense of self-preservation that wrought the change — the news media are, of course, “the enemy of the people” according to Trump, and would have been a certain target of his wrath had he ever been able to fully slip the leash. Having the angry mob turn its eyes to you, knowing that they know your name, has a mystic way of concentrating the mind.

    That appears to be over now as the world encompasses the sudden change of power in Afghanistan, and it’s ugly as hell.

    As always, Fox News is going to Fox News, but that network is outdoing even itself when it comes to dangerous and misleading coverage of the situation in Afghanistan. During his Monday broadcast, vile potato monster Tucker Carlson warned that the collapse of the Afghan government would release a death tide of refugees that would wash over the U.S. and straight up your driveway.

    “If history is any guide, and it’s always a guide, we’ll see many refugees from Afghanistan resettle in our country in coming months,” Carlson intoned, “probably in your neighborhood. And over the next decade, that number may swell to the millions. So first we invade and then we’re invaded.” Laura Ingraham went on to push the theme: “Is it really our responsibility to welcome thousands of refugees from Afghanistan?”

    “Probably in your neighborhood.” If you were wondering whether incoherently hateful immigration polemics were again going to be a GOP staple of the upcoming campaign season, look no further. Fox got the RNC talking points and lacquered them to the bathroom doors, probably.

    Take a deeper dive into that, and what you see is a brazen example of a news network running as fast as it can from a mess of its own devising. Among a variety of things, the collapse of Afghanistan can be laid at the feet of two decades of presidents, politicians and military commanders deliberately bullshitting the public on the actual situation in that country. During that time, the main delivery vector for flag-humping hyper-nationalistic rubbish like that has been Fox News.

    That streak remains unbroken. The daytime Fox broadcasts spent most of their time yesterday breathlessly blaming President Biden for the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, gleefully bypassing an ocean of history and nuance that — if provided — might help the right-leaning public avoid getting led by the nose into another war that is almost old enough to buy a beer. By the evening, they were folding their nonsense coverage into racist GOP talking points. An opportunity squandered, try to contain your shock.

    The other alphabet soup networks, along with a forest’s worth of newspapers, have fared little better in the delivery of useful information. Instead, we have been fed a steady diet of pundit-heavy drivel about “winners and losers,” with an unmistakable avoidance of anything which might remind viewers and readers that, more often than not, this sort of galloping tragedy is what happens when a war is lost.

    I’m not here to stand in front of Joe Biden. He voted for this mess back in 2001, and while it is abundantly clear more should have been done to extricate our allies and personnel before the country fell, he faced a grim Hobson’s Choice: Get out the way we did, or begin pulling people out months ago and perhaps precipitate a running slaughter all the way to Kandahar and Kabul. Nothing is more vulnerable than an army in retreat, and that’s precisely what we were.

    That being said, the president deserves at least some of his lumps, if for no other reason than because he’s where the buck stops. Yet this buck has stopped a few places before landing on Biden’s desk, but you’d never know it listening to the broadcasts or reading the boiling-oil editorials.

    Former President Obama has barely merited a mention, despite having presided over and expanded this war, and despite having clearly failed to end it. Former President Trump signed a half-assed peace deal with the Taliban in February of 2020, which essentially handcuffed the Biden administration to some form of the current outcome.

    The top-page motive behind Trump’s deal in Doha, according to BBC News: “The move would allow US President Donald Trump to show that he has brought troops home ahead of the US presidential election in November.” The GOP is so proud of all this, in fact, that they removed an RNC web page praising Trump for the deal.

    And let us not forget the biggest soup bone in this particular stew, though the corporate “news” media devoutly wishes we would. You will be heartened to know that George W. Bush and his wife Laura have been “watching the tragic events unfolding in Afghanistan with deep sadness.” One would hope so. After all, here is the man who started the war, and then abandoned it for his Iraq misadventure without ending it, leaving office with the Afghanistan mission a rudderless mess that set the tone for the next dozen years to come.

    Journalist Eric Boehlert has some thoughts:

    The U.S. has spent trillions in Afghanistan stretching back 20 years, yet Biden, who has been in office for seven months and who campaigned on bringing the troops home, is being tagged as an architect for the Taliban’s inevitable rise to power there. A convenient, gaping hole in the coverage and commentary? The U.S. mission in Afghanistan was unalterably damaged when President George W. Bush hijacked that post-9/11 military mission and foolishly turned the Pentagon’s time, attention, and resources to a doomed invasion of Iraq….

    Today the media’s role in marketing the Iraq War has been flushed down the memory hole, even though Iraq should be central to any discussion about the U.S.’s running failure in Afghanistan. “Remarkably, the word ‘Bush’ was not mentioned once on any of the Sunday shows” this weekend as they focused nonstop on Afghanistan, noted Jon Allsop, at the Columbia Journalism Review. You cannot discuss the rise of the Taliban in 2021 without talking about the U.S.’s doomed Iraq War in 2003. But the press today wants to try.

    There is more to this than the corporate “news” media’s self-serving, myopic coverage. The United States lost the war in Afghanistan, just as we lost the war in Iraq, just as we lost the war in Vietnam not so terribly damn long ago. These wars represent more than 60 years of profiteering to the benefit of a preciously guarded few, while the rest of us drown in the blood and soot of aftermath.

    These things are not discussed by the corporate “news.” Bad for business, you see.

    However, if you are looking for a bit of context, here is some to consider: After the Soviet Union withdrew in defeat from Afghanistan in 1989, the U.S.S.R. collapsed and ceased to exist only two years later. The Soviet Union’s war was ten years shorter than ours, and it was not contending with viral variants of COVID-19 when it left.

    I doubt the corporate “news” media will talk about that, either, but it’s the truth.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Investigative journalist Azmat Khan, who has reported extensively in Afghanistan, says President Joe Biden has not yet addressed the chaos unleashed by the collapse of the Afghan government. In remarks on Monday, Biden “really focused on the decision to end the war” and ignored criticism about chaos at the Kabul airport and the abandonment of thousands of Afghans who helped the U.S. over the last 20 years. “None of that was really discussed in any detail,” Khan says. She also discusses why the Afghan military fell so quickly to the Taliban, its overreliance on U.S. air power, how civilian casualties weakened support for the U.S.-backed government, and the massive profits the two-decade-long war generated for U.S. defense contractors.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: Let’s bring in Azmat Khan, the investigative reporter, who’s covered Afghanistan for years. Your response to President Biden, to the complete chaos at the airport, the thousands of Afghans who are trying to leave, and the Taliban victory in Afghanistan, overall?

    AZMAT KHAN: So, President Biden really focused on the decision to end the war, and not on that searing criticism of this withdrawal, the chaos we’re seeing at the airport, the leaving behind of many people to whom the United States had made promises, people like translators, people like local journalists who were working with American journalists, as well as activists, who now face not just great uncertainty, like was earlier being talked about, but significant threats to their lives and safety. So, none of that was really discussed in any detail.

    But I think another omission that really needs to be highlighted is the fact that President Biden took this negative view of Afghan security forces for, quote, “not fighting,” and that’s not accurate. You know, as the earlier speaker was describing, many Afghan soldiers have died fighting the Taliban over the last 20 years, countless, whereas American soldiers, since Operation Freedom’s Sentinel began in 2015, you know, we’ve lost 64 American soldiers in hostile deaths in Afghanistan. So there is a real disparity about who was paying that human costs of that fight, at least from the side that’s fighting the Taliban.

    But at the same time, what he didn’t acknowledge was the fact that the entire way that those soldiers were doing that fight was with the support of U.S. air power. So, the United States was bombing heavily parts of that country where there were fights against the Taliban raging. So, just to give some context, in 2019, the United States dropped more bombs in Afghanistan than in any previous year of the war. So, I think it was something close to — more than 6,200 bombs that year, as they were trying to negotiate. So, even with incredible bombs dropping, you know, this was the deal they were able to get. And even then, look at how many Afghan soldiers were dying. Now, once you take that level of air power out of the mix, who would expect any Afghan soldiers to continue to fight? If that many Afghan soldiers died with the support of air power, what happens when you take that out of the mix?

    Now, on top of that, I just need to say that that air power may have helped keep this tenuous hold that the Afghan government had on the country, but it also killed scores of civilians in rural areas, areas that don’t often get talked about. Nearly three-quarters of Afghanistan is rural countryside. The majority of the population comes from these kinds of areas, populations that have seen the brunt of the war and we rarely hear about. And they’ve suffered not just bombings, airstrikes and night raids, but also Taliban attacks. And many of them wanted this war to end. And you can’t really talk about that air power and the tenuous grip that the government had without also acknowledging the ways in which that has created space for the Taliban, where even civilians who didn’t like the Taliban just wanted the war to end.

    So it kind of makes sense, once you take air power out of the mix, that sort of tenuous hold falls, but at the same time, at this point, the Taliban has resuscitated itself and grown. You know, many of its more recent recruits were people who did lose loved ones and really wanted revenge for those casualties. So, in many ways, as surprising the swiftness of it was, it also makes sense, what we see happening right now.

    AMY GOODMAN: The Intercept reports that military stocks outperformed the stock market overall by 58% during the Afghanistan War, including Boeing, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics. Quote, “[F]rom the perspective of some of the most powerful people in the U.S., [the Afghanistan War] may have been an extraordinary success. Notably, the boards of directors of all five [military] contractors include retired top-level military officers.” You have written extensively, Azmat, about these contracts and who financially profited from this war.

    AZMAT KHAN: It’s really stunning. It’s incredibly stunning, because people don’t often talk about the massive wealth, the people who maybe went to Afghanistan temporarily, got hazard pay and built themselves homes, wealthy businessmen, military — former military officials — who now, by the way, come on television talk shows to give their views, without concealing necessarily their own — the fact that they’re on boards of many of these defense contractors. So, there has been incredible corruption on the part of many Americans, on the part of many contractors, as well as just on the ground, that has really helped to isolate local people from the Afghan government.

    And so, just to give you some examples, you know, I spent a lot of time investigating U.S.-funded schools in Afghanistan, something that we might consider the kind of untouchable success of the war — right? — that in these 20 years, the United States has radically transformed education for Afghan children, and, in particular, girls. And I really dug into the schools the United States had funded, and picked 50 of them in seven battlefield provinces and went to go see, well, you know, what’s happening at these schools now. And when I would dig into it, I think 10% of the schools either were never built or no longer exist. A vast majority of them were falling apart.

    And then, when I would try to understand what happened — you know, for example, in one case, there was a school that was missing. Turns out it was built in the village of a notorious Afghan police chief who was allied with the United States, Abdul Raziq, known for many human rights abuses. And the local education chief said, “Yes, we built it here, and there were no children in this village for three years, so nobody really attended. The school never opened for a number of years.”

    In another instance, the school I arrived at was empty, incomplete, never finished, and all the kids were across the street at a mosque having a religious education, not the curriculum that they were on the books as recording having had. And when I tried to figure out what happened, it turned out the contract for the school went to the brother of the district governor, who then, you know, pilfered the money, and it was never finished as a result of that.

    Down the block in another part of Kandahar, the contract for a school was given to a notorious local warlord, who’s — actually, for the clinic that was going to be built next to the school — was given to this notorious warlord, who basically wound up being the source for the rise of the Taliban in many ways. His family was part of that sort of corruption in the early years that preceded the Taliban, that really riled up individuals to support the Taliban because of the massive corruption and the human rights abuses that were happening to Afghan people.

    So, even something as noble and as worthy of effort as education has been mired in this kind of corruption, this kind of wheeling and dealing. And if we had to understand why, I think it’s the fact that counterterrorism goals were baked into every single aspect of the American project in Afghanistan. So, even something great like schools, you know, had these metrics, had this desire to imbue a counterterrorism narrative of some kind, that left them willing to work with people who were abusive actors in the name of fighting terrorism, when in reality they often undercut Afghan people and a lot of the promises of the United States at on almost every level.

    AMY GOODMAN: Azmat Khan, I want to thank you for being with us and give Lieutenant [sic] Colonel Ann Wright the final word. As you speak to us now from Honolulu,, from Hawaii, and you look at what’s happening in Afghanistan, where you were almost two decades ago, what you think needs to happen, and what you think Americans should understand about the U.S. War in Afghanistan?

    ANN WRIGHT: Well, I think that the U.S. public ought to be very wary of every administration that thinks that we should take a military option in trying to resolve any sort of conflict. We have seen that the United States in Vietnam, in Iraq, in Afghanistan — the lies that are told to us about why we need to go into countries with our military versus having some nonmilitary resolution to these issues is really, really important, and particularly as we face our government right now that’s saying that China and Russia are enemies that are threats to our national security. We, the U.S. people, have to push back against our government, against any more military invasions, occupations, attacks on any country.

    And my heart goes out, it bleeds for the people of Afghanistan, who have suffered through these decades long of war, of violence. And I certainly hope that the next years somehow calm down and that the Taliban takes a very different tact than what it had when it was in power from 1996 to 2001, because the people of Afghanistan deserve much better than what they have had. Thank you.

    AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you both for being with us, and of course we’ll continue to cover this. I demoted you, Ann. Ann Wright is a retired U.S. Army colonel and former U.S. State Department official who was part of the team that reopened the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. And Azmat Khan, investigative reporter, contributing writer at The New York Times Magazine, we’ll link to your articles, including the one you described, “Ghost Students, Ghost Teachers, Ghost Schools.”

    When we come back, we go to Haiti, where the tropical storm has slammed the same parts of the country shattered by the earthquake on Saturday that’s killed more than 1,400 people. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • George W. Bush

    We must not allow the tragedy unfolding in Afghanistan to be used to rewrite history and teach the wrong lessons.

    The rapid fall of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan and the takeover of that country by Taliban extremists has stunned the world. President Joe Biden has nevertheless defended his decision to withdraw U.S. forces, arguing that Americans should not be forced to fight and die for a government when Afghans were themselves unwilling to do so.

    Yes, the Biden administration grossly miscalculated how quickly Afghanistan would fall to the Taliban and there should be a thorough investigation. And there should have been broad, concrete plans to open the U.S. to Afghan refugees, as Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Barbara Lee are now proposing. However, Biden was still correct to follow through with Donald Trump’s agreement to withdraw U.S. forces, which polls show had the support of nearly three-quarters of the American public.

    We must not erase the U.S.’s longtime role in the creation of the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan: The current chaos and violence have been nearly 20 years in the making. Indeed, Biden actually delayed the withdrawal for several months beyond Trump’s May deadline, making claims by the former president and his supporters that Biden had suddenly decided to “surrender” to the Taliban particularly absurd.

    Gerald Ford is generally not blamed for the Communist victory in Vietnam simply because he was president at the time the U.S.-backed regime in Saigon finally collapsed. Similarly, Biden should not be primarily blamed for the Taliban victory in Afghanistan.

    The Afghan army officially had 300,000 troops, four times the number of Taliban soldiers. In addition, they had an air force, heavy weapons and had received hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of training, weaponry and equipment from the world’s military superpower. By contrast, the Taliban had no significant foreign backing, no air force, and only light weaponry they had captured or otherwise managed to procure through underground means. Similarly, since there were only 2,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for most of the past year, their withdrawal should not have made much of a difference in terms of the strategic balance.

    Militarily speaking, there was no reason for the Afghan government to lose and little more the United States could do. This was not, therefore, a military victory by the Taliban. It was the political collapse of the U.S.-backed regime. It is hard to imagine that, after nearly 20 years of U.S. support, had Biden decided to send more arms, more money or more troops, it would have led to a different outcome.

    University of Michigan professor Juan Cole, one of the more prescient observers of U.S. policy in the greater Middle East in recent decades, described the United States’ policy in Afghanistan as essentially a Ponzi scheme based on an unsustainable system utterly dependent on foreign support in which an eventual collapse was inevitable.

    While Biden was correct to point out the corruption and ineptitude of the Afghan government, he unfortunately failed to acknowledge how the United States was largely responsible for setting up and maintaining that decrepit system. And the costs were huge: over $1 trillion, 2,500 Americans killed, 1,000 other NATO soldiers, 4,000 civilian contractors, 70,000 Afghan soldiers and police, and 47,000 civilians.

    It would be ironic if — given Biden’s strident support for the invasion of Iraq, his defense of Israel’s recent war on Gaza, his insistence on maintaining an obscenely bloated military budget, his backing of allied military dictatorships, his providing jet fighters to those responsible for the terror bombing of Yemen, and other policies — a narrative takes hold that he is not militaristic enough.

    There are certainly areas regarding Afghanistan policy for which Biden should be criticized, such as the failure to adequately prepare for such a quick collapse of the regime in terms of evacuating Afghan translators, government officials, human rights activists and others now at serious personal risks under Taliban rule. In addition, he should have never supported the September 2001 war authorization which went well beyond targeting Al-Qaeda and left the door open for decades of open-ended conflict in Afghanistan. On that war resolution, of course, he was certainly not alone: only one of the 535 members of Congress voted against that resolution, despite people like me warning at that time that sending U.S. ground forces into Afghanistan would result in “an unwinnable counter-insurgency war in a hostile terrain against a people with a long history of resisting outsiders.”

    Even more problematic was Biden’s key role in pushing the 2002 Iraq War Authorization through the Democratic-controlled Senate, which — unlike the authorization for the war in Afghanistan — was opposed by the majority of congressional Democrats. The Taliban had essentially been defeated by that time. However, the George W. Bush administration, supported by then-Senator Biden and some others, decided not to finish the job but to instead put the focus of our troops, our generals, our intelligence, our satellites, our money, and pretty much everything else on invading and occupying Iraq. It was during the years of counter-insurgency war in Iraq that the Taliban made their comeback, crossing back over from Pakistan to re-consolidate their control in rural Afghanistan and begin their gradual takeover of the country, culminating in their recent takeover. If the Bush administration and its congressional allies like Biden hadn’t insisted on invading Iraq, the Taliban might have remained a small exile group in the Pakistani tribal lands.

    The Washington Post has published a series of articles on how, particularly under President Bush, the U.S. government systematically lied to the American people about the supposed progress being made in the Afghan War. Despite claims of strategic gains by U.S. and Afghan government forces, the heavy bombing of the countryside, the search-and-destroy operations, the raids on villages, and the tolerance for rampant corruption ended up alienating much of the Afghan population from the United States and its allies in Kabul. Much of the Taliban’s support over the past decade has come not from the small minority of Afghans who embrace their reactionary misogynist ideology, but those who saw them as the vanguard of resistance against foreign occupiers and their corrupt puppet government. The United States allied with warlords, opium magnates, ethnic militias, and other unrepresentative leaders simply due to their opposition to the Taliban and with little input from ordinary Afghans themselves.

    In my nearly 20 years of working with Afghans and Afghan Americans, including those from prominent political families, my strong sense is that most them supported an active and ongoing U.S. role in Afghanistan in principle, but believed that it should have been about 10 percent military and 90 percent focused on grassroots political and sustainable economic development, especially empowering civil society. Instead, U.S. funding and the overall focus of U.S. officials was 90 percent military, and much of the development work consisted of top-down projects of dubious merit through corrupt elites.

    And no analysis of the Afghan tragedy would be complete without observing how the United States played a critical role in the emergence of the Taliban in the first place: In the 1980s, the Reagan administration was less interested in liberating the Afghan people from the Soviet-backed Communist dictatorship than they were prolonging a counter-insurgency war that would weaken the United States’ superpower rival. They figured that the most hardline elements of the anti-Communist resistance were less likely to reach a negotiated settlement. Of the six major mujahidin groups fighting the Afghan government and its Soviet allies, 80 percent of U.S. money and arms went to Hesb-i-Islami, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who subsequently became a close Taliban ally. For similar reasons, the United States and its Saudi allies promoted religious studies along extremist and militaristic lines among Afghan refugees in Pakistan, out of which emerged the Taliban — the Pashtun word for “students” — in the 1990s.

    There is plenty of blame to go around for the tragic turn of events in Afghanistan. It should not, however, be focused on Biden’s reasonable refusal to break off the withdrawal agreement of his predecessor, which would have inevitably led to the resumption of never-ending combat operations by U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

    As reports of Taliban atrocities come out in the coming weeks, months and years, we must not allow the advance of a narrative which argues that the U.S. war in Afghanistan should have been bigger and longer or that Biden is inadequately supportive of U.S. military intervention overseas. While we should certainly hold Biden accountable for his role in initiating and fueling this war, it’s also important to refute spurious accusations from the right, which could lead future presidents to needlessly prolong unwinnable wars.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Refugees line up at night to board a plane

    As the Biden administration faces criticism for not doing enough to assist those fleeing Afghanistan, an analysis released Monday showed that the roughly $19 billion the Pentagon budgeted for the U.S. occupation of the country in 2020 alone could cover initial resettlement costs for 1.2 million refugees.

    Lindsay Koshgarian of the National Priorities Project estimated that the $18.6 billion the Pentagon allocated for its 2020 operations in Afghanistan — where the Taliban is in the process of retaking power after two decades of deadly U.S. occupation — could pay up-front refugee relocation costs of $15,148 for the more than “250,000 Afghans displaced since the end of May (and growing)” and “a significant chunk of the 3.5 million Afghans who were internally displaced as of July.”

    “Refugees typically receive some assistance after their arrival, but even if we expanded to cover an additional four years of the approximately $4,600 in annualized social service aid that refugees typically receive, we could still resettle more than half a million people, for just one year’s worth of the cost of fighting,” Koshgarian noted. “We’d face even lower costs to help resettle Afghans in countries closer to home — all the more reason after 20 years of war to step up with some serious resources and get it done.”

    “After twenty years,” she added, “we owe the Afghan people at least that much.”

    The analysis came as progressive lawmakers in the U.S. and global humanitarian organizations implored the Biden administration to open the U.S. to vulnerable Afghans attempting to escape a growing humanitarian crisis and Taliban rule. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency, 80% of those currently trying to flee Afghanistan are women and children.

    In a speech on Monday, U.S. President Joe Biden said that “in the coming days, the U.S. military will provide assistance to move more [Special Immigrant Visa]-eligible Afghans and their families out of Afghanistan.” The Pentagon confirmed Monday that it is planning to house up to 22,000 Afghans at two U.S. bases — Fort Bliss in Texas and Fort McCoy in Wisconsin.

    “We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Afghans who worked for our embassy: U.S. non-governmental agencies — or the U.S. non-governmental organizations; and Afghans who otherwise are at great risk; and U.S. news agencies,” the president added.

    Following his remarks, Biden directed the U.S. State Department to use up to $500 million from the nation’s Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund to meet “unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs of refugees, victims of conflict, and other persons at risk as a result of the situation in Afghanistan, including applicants for Special Immigrant Visas.”

    But critics have accused the Biden administration of failing to adequately plan for the rapid collapse of the Afghan government that followed the ongoing withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country — a still-deteriorating situation that has left countless people in limbo as they seek safety for themselves and their families.

    In his speech Monday, Biden claimed the administration didn’t begin evacuating at-risk civilians sooner “because the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, ‘a crisis of confidence.’”

    Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department expanded eligibility for the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, opening it to tens of thousands of Afghans who worked for U.S. government contractors, U.S.-based media outlets, and U.S.-based non-governmental organizations. The families of eligible Afghans also have access to the program, whose application process consists of an arduous 14 steps.

    And as the Wall Street Journal observed on Monday, the program excludes the poorest Afghans by design. “To claim refugee status,” the Journal noted, “the Afghans must enter through a third country and cover the costs of travel and lodging on their own — a hurdle that is nearly impossible to surmount under the current, chaotic circumstances.”

    In a letter to Biden on Monday, the advocacy organization Refugees International called on the administration to “express its willingness initially to resettle up to 200,000 Afghan refugees, as part of an international responsibility-sharing effort to rescue and resettle Afghans at risk.”

    “While most would be resettled from countries of asylum,” the group wrote, “a program ultimately could involve direct resettlement from Afghanistan, akin to the Orderly Departure program that resulted in the resettlement of many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese directly from their country of origin.”

    Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.), part of a chorus of progressive lawmakers pushing Biden to do more to welcome refugees — in addition to ending the interventionist foreign policy approach that creates such humanitarian crises — noted in a tweet Monday that the U.S. “welcomed 120,000 refugees in a single year” in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

    “Yet the United States has only taken in ~2,000 Afghan refugees thus far,” Bush wrote. “We have a duty to save lives — and to do so, we must welcome many, many more refugees as quickly as possible.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As the Taliban take over Kabul’s presidential palace, you’d be forgiven for wondering who it is that two decades of war and foreign occupation has benefited.

    In 2001, the US, UK, and their allies invaded Afghanistan. The invasion certainly hasn’t benefited the people of Afghanistan; since 2001, an estimated 47,245 civilians have been killed.

    Most people in the US haven’t benefited either, with $2.261tn spent on the war, and 2,442 military personnel killed.

    Neither has it helped ordinary people in the UK. More than 450 British soldiers have been killed, and in 2013, the estimated cost of the UK’s war in Afghanistan stood at £37bn. Most UK combat troops withdrew from Afghanistan in 2014, but 750 remained until this summer as part of NATO’s force.

    So who has benefited?

    One of the groups of people who have clearly benefited from two decades of war are the CEOs and directors of international arms companies.

    For example, British weapons company BAE’s profits shot up after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Many of the people who’ve been at the helm of the UK’s Afghanistan policy have also directly had skin in the arms game.

    Defence secretary Ben Wallace cried crocodile tears on LBC recently. But what he didn’t mention is that he used to be a director of QinetiQ, an arms company whose share prices were soaring 11 years ago after it gained contracts to supply weapons for the war in Afghanistan. British rapper Lowkey tweeted:

    The revolving door goes the other way too. Data from Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) shows that 196 ex-public servants are now in arms trade jobs.

    And they’re meeting in London this September

    From 14-17 September, one of the world’s largest arms fairs is coming back to London’s Docklands. At least 1,700 arms companies will be exhibiting, and official delegations and government employees from the UK and abroad will be doing their shopping. No doubt the industry attendees will be counting their profits from two decades of war in Afghanistan and looking for new conflicts to exploit.

    It’s worth remembering that the Defence Security and Equipment International (DSEI) arms fair was underway 20 years ago, on 11 September 2001, when the planes hit the World Trade Center and lit the spark which paved the way for the US’s disastrous ‘War on Terror’.

    One person who was at the demonstration back in 2001 reflected:

    On [September 11] I was among about the hundreds of people taking part in a protest organised by CAAT outside the DSEi arms fair. Many events were cancelled that day and in the following days and weeks. Sports events, cultural events, political events, the UN Special session on Children, which I was had been doing some work around  –  all these we cancelled. The arms fair however, continued.  More deals were signed and more arms contacts were made even in the light of that awful mass killing.

    Whilst the fact that there was a major arms fair taking place in the UK at the very same time as this awful act of terrorism was something of a coincidence I think there are [connections] here. I think there are real connections between for example, our proliferation of weaponry through the arms trade and our real insistence – despite all evidence to the contrary –  that world security is best served by an ever increasing ability to inflict death and destruction on others  – and that  desperate, awful, self-destructive act of mass violence.

    The Canary‘s senior editor, Emily Apple, was also at the protests that week:

    On 12 September, share prices across the world had crashed and many major events were cancelled. But DSEI continued and arms company share prices soared. So we were back on the streets, blockading arms dealers from reaching the fair. We were told by the police that we should be ashamed of ourselves, that we had no respect for the dead because we were out protesting. But they didn’t think to question the fact that DSEI continued, didn’t care that those who’d make obscene profits from the attack, and the inevitable subsequent war, were continuing their business as usual.

    Two decades of resistance

    DSEI has encountered over two decades of mass street resistance. As the US’s ‘War on Terror’ got underway – a smokescreen for neo-colonial foreign policies – thousands took to the streets. Shoal Collective interviewed anti-militarist organiser Sam Hayward in Red Pepper:

    That year, millions of people were involved in the opposition to the invasion of Iraq,’ Sam says. ‘When the war began it wasn’t clear how to oppose it and many anti-militarist activists fell away, not knowing what to do. I started thinking about how imperialist wars couldn’t happen without the weapons being manufactured and sold by the arms companies — beneficiaries of aggressive imperialist wars.’

    One tactic at DSEI 2003 was to stop the arms dealers from getting to the ExCeL Centre. Sam explains how this happened: ‘Activists climbed onto the roofs of DLR trains and locked themselves on, stopping the trains. As a result, the arms dealers were brought in on buses. Protesters stopped the buses, laying down in front of them. Delegates started arriving by taxi and on foot, so people blocked the roads. There were thousands of activists involved. It was successful in delaying the arms dealers getting there, but ultimately the arms fair still took place’.

    In 2011, anti-militarists rowed kayaks into the path of a battleship, which was on the way to be used as a reception area at the DSEI arms fair. One of them told Red Pepper: 

    Four of us launched inflatable kayaks from a hidden spot in the Thames, so we were on our way before the river police spotted us. The ship was equivalent to about three storeys tall.

    “blocking the DSEI arms fair is an obligation”

    In 2019, I joined the resistance against DSEI along with several other writers from The Canary. One of them was Canary journalist Eliza Egret, who wrote at the time:

    For me, blocking the DSEI arms fair is an obligation. My activism and writing has taken me to Palestine, Kurdistan and Syria. I have seen first-hand the devastation caused by this sickening arms industry. I have interviewed families whose children have been murdered with weapons made in Europe. I have met a 10-year-old boy who miraculously survived after an Israeli sniper shot a bullet through his brain. I have had tear gas and sound grenades fired at me in Palestine, and I have been surrounded by armoured vehicles in Kurdistan. I have stood on rubble that was once family homes, and I have seen human blood splattered on the walls of buildings.

    So it is my duty to take action against this disgusting weapons exhibition. As I write this, arms deals are being made, mostly by privileged men who have never had to experience the terror of living in a war zone.

    Two of us from The Canary also launched kayaks on to the water and disrupted a military boat display by BAE Systems at the fair.

    Join us at DSEI 2021

    In 2021, campaign group Stop the Arms Fair is calling for people to take action to disrupt the setting up of the arms fair. The set-up of DSEI is a major operation, as the exhibition itself takes place on 100,000 square metres of land at the ExCeL Centre in London’s Docklands. It set out some of the actions that have happened in previous years:

    As lorries and trucks transporting armoured vehicles, missiles, sniper rifles, tear gas and bullets attempted to get on site, people from around the world were there to put their bodies in the way.

    Dabke-dancing, aerobics, an academic conference, a gig on a flatbed truck, abseilers dangling from a bridge, theatre, military veterans undertaking unofficial vehicle checks for banned weapons, Kurdish dancers, rebel clowns, religious gatherings, hip-hop artists, radical picnics, a critical mass of cyclists, Daleks, political choirs, and lots of people in arm-locks all blocked the entrances to the DSEI arms fair repeatedly over the course of a whole week.

    Thousands more amplified the protests by signing petitions, lobbying decision-makers, speaking out online and in their own communities, and helping in diverse ways to make the protests possible.

    In September, arms dealers, many of whom will have profited from Afghanistan, will be coming together to make more deals that will cause more war and suffering.  It’s important to be there to resist the fair, and to show solidarity with those who are under attack by state militaries armed with weapons bought at DSEI.

    Featured image via The Canary

    By Tom Anderson

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • Listen to a reading of this article:

    George W Bush has issued a statement on the situation in Afghanistan, and there are not enough shoes in the world to adequately respond to it.

    “Laura and I have been watching the tragic events unfolding in Afghanistan with deep sadness,” the Hague fugitive writes. “Our hearts are heavy for both the Afghan people who have suffered so much and for the Americans and NATO allies who have sacrificed so much.”

    Bush tells the US Armed Forces, diplomatic corps, and intelligence community how proud he and his wife are of their “sacrifice” and “courage” and that they “kept America safe” and “made America proud” with their decades-long occupation which accomplished literally nothing besides making horrible people very rich. And, it won’t surprise you to learn, the statement contains exactly zero apologies to anyone for anything.

    Can you believe this person? Imagine being George W Bush in the middle of August 2021 and saying to yourself, “I know just what people need: a pep talk on Afghanistan from me, George W Bush!”

    I mean, the gall. The absolute gall.

    This is after all the same man who ordered the disastrous invasion in the first place under the justification of the plot hole-riddled 9/11 narrative after already having decided to oust the Taliban a month before the towers came down. The same man who rejected the Taliban’s offer to turn over Osama Bin Laden in October 2001 if the US would just show proof that he is guilty and end its bombing campaign. The same man who repeatedly rejected Taliban offers to surrender after the invasion began. The same man who initiated decades of lies about what was happening in Afghanistan in order to justify an occupation maintained for power and profit.

    And after all that phony hand-wringing about “the oppressed people of Afghanistan“, the United States is after twenty years of occupation leaving the Afghan people the single most miserable population of any nation on earth. After all that phony hand-wringing about “the Taliban’s war on women“, Afghanistan has remained the worst place in the world to be a woman throughout the entirety of the occupation.

    And it is entirely the fault of the US-centralized empire. The Taliban only came to power in the first place because the US backed their predecessors (whom they also actively radicalized) against the Soviet Union and its leftist Afghan allies in the eighties, then Bush invaded and rained explosives from the sky for twenty years, killing hundreds of thousands of people.

    After four decades of interventionism and two decades of full-scale occupation following generations of shocking savagery and terrorism being inflicted upon the Afghan people by the British, it is perfectly fair to say that one hundred percent of Afghanistan’s problems today can be blamed entirely on the US and its allies.

    So now, as the nation reverts back to Taliban control after a long and sadistic intermission and many Afghans are so fearful that some fell to their deaths desperately clinging to departing US military planes, it would be a fantastic time for George W Bush to shut the fuck up.

    But George W Bush did not shut the fuck up. Not only did George W Bush not shut the fuck up, but Bush administration war architects like John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz are being interviewed by the mass media for their opinions on whether it was wise to finally end one of Bush’s wars. Bolton was given a platform on NPR to tell the world that the withdrawal is a “catastrophic failure of American leadership” and that the US should intervene to oust the Taliban once again. Wolfowitz was interviewed by BBC Radio where he said he feels “deep trepidation” about the withdrawal and called it a boon to China and to terrorists everywhere.

    Yeah that’s sane and normal. Hello I’m a very serious newscaster; now here to explain what’s happening in Afghanistan let’s turn to a Bush administration PNAC neocon who’s helped create mountains of corpses and who is literally always wrong about literally everything. This could only happen in a media environment where blatant war propaganda is routinely disguised as news reporting.

    What the US empire has done to Afghanistan is unforgivable. Utterly unforgivable. Never forgive those monsters. Never forget what they did to that poor country. Never forget that the next time you are asked to support another act of US military interventionism it will with absolute certainty be based on lies, fail to accomplish what its proponents claim, end in disaster, result in many broken promises to all parties involved, cost trillions of dollars, and benefit nobody but the very worst among us.

    ________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • BBC/ Web Desk:

    The rapid takeover of Afghanistan raises fresh challenges for technology firms on how to deal with content related to the group.

    “The Taliban is sanctioned as a terrorist organization under US law and we have banned them from our services under our Dangerous Organization policies. This means we remove accounts maintained by or on behalf of the Taliban and prohibit praise, support, and representation of them,” a Facebook spokesperson told the BBC.

    According to the BBC, Facebook says it has a dedicated team of Afghan experts to monitor and remove content linked to the group.

    “We also have a dedicated team of Afghanistan experts, who are native Dari and Pashto speakers and have knowledge of local context, helping to identify and alert us to emerging issues on the platform,” they added.

    The social media giant said it does not make decisions about the recognition of national governments but instead follows the “authority of the international community”.

    Facebook highlighted that the policy applies to all of its platforms including its flagship social media network, Instagram and WhatsApp. However, there are reports that the Taliban is using WhatsApp to communicate. Facebook told the BBC that it would take action if it found accounts on the app to be linked to the group.

    Rival social media platforms have also come under scrutiny over how they handle Taliban-related content.

    In response to BBC questions about the Taliban’s use of Twitter, a company spokesperson highlighted policies against violent organizations and hateful conduct. According to its rules, Twitter does not allow groups that promote terrorism or violence against civilians.

    YouTube did not immediately respond to a BBC request for comment on its policies in respect to the Taliban.

    This post was originally published on VOSA.

  • Pacific Media Watch newsdesk

    The Journalism Research and Education Association of Australia (JERAA) has urged the Australian government to make a strong commitment to supporting journalists and media personnel in Afghanistan following the withdrawal of international forces.

    JERAA said in a statement today it had endorsed the calls of Australia’s Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) and International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) for urgent action to provide humanitarian visas and other support to those attempting to flee the country.

    In the current upheaval, it is difficult to obtain figures on how many journalists have been attacked, but the Afghan Independent Journalist Association and Afghanistan’s National Journalists Union express grave concerns for the well-being of journalists and media personnel.

    Nai, an Afghan organisation supporting independent media, released figures indicating that by late July, at least 30 media workers had been killed, wounded or tortured in Afghanistan since the beginning of 2021.

    UNESCO has recorded five deaths of journalists in Afghanistan in 2021, making it the country with the world’s greatest number of journalists’ deaths this year. Four have been women, reflecting the higher risk of attacks on female journalists.

    Current figures are likely to be incomplete due to the challenges of obtaining information. They do not include deaths of professionals in related industries, such as the murder of the Head of Afghan government Media and Information Centre on August 6.

    The Taliban has a long-established pattern of striking out against journalists.

    A Human Rights Watch report, released in April 2021, in the lead up to the United States and NATO troop withdrawal, noted that Taliban forces had already established a practice of targeting journalists and other media workers.

    Journalists are intimidated, harassed and attacked routinely by the Taliban, which regularly accuses them of being aligned with the Afghan government or international military forces or being spies.

    Female journalists face a higher level of threats, especially if they have appeared on television and radio.

    International Press Institute figures, released in May 2021 at the start of the troop withdrawals, also showed that Afghanistan had the highest rate of deaths of journalists in the world.

    The IPI expressed concern about an intensification of attacks on journalists and the future of the news media in Afghanistan.


    This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • If any proof was needed that the Afghani government was a puppet of Washington, it was shown by its quick collapse, writes Malik Miah.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • Hundreds seek assistance, relocation amid threat from militant group

    New York, August 16, 2021 – The United States must do more to ensure the safety of Afghan journalists as the county falls under the control of the Taliban, including facilitating safe passage out of the country and providing emergency visas, the Committee to Protect Journalists said today. CPJ is deeply concerned for the safety of hundreds of local journalists and media workers who could be targeted by the emerging Taliban regime.

    “The United States has a special responsibility to Afghan journalists who created a thriving and vibrant information space and covered events in their country for international media,” said CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon. “The Biden administration can and should do all within its power to protect press freedom and stand up for the rights of the vulnerable Afghan reporters, photographers, and media workers.”

    CPJ has registered and vetted the cases of nearly 300 journalists who are attempting to reach safety, and there are hundreds more whose cases are under review. Because of the deteriorating security situation at the airport, only a handful have been able to board a flight to the U.S. or a third country where their visa requests can begin being processed. The vast majority of threatened journalists remain in hiding.

    Afghan journalists working with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal have been unable to board a flight out of the country, the Post reported today. In a joint statement sent to President Biden, the news outlets called on the U.S. to do more to guarantee safe passage out of the country for journalists and media workers who have supported their news operations.

    “The international community’s understanding of what is happening in Afghanistan will depend on the survival of what was once a thriving independent press, even if much of the reporting takes place from exile,” Simon continued. “The local knowledge of Afghan journalists cannot be replaced.”

    CPJ has long advocated globally for emergency visas for journalists at risk precisely to avoid temporary or improvised responses when new threats emerge.

    To date, CPJ has registered and vetted 45 high priority cases of Afghan journalists in which the threat from the Taliban is clear and imminent. Many are female journalists whose record of reporting on women’s rights has exacerbated the risk. CPJ has also registered and vetted 127 other cases of Afghan media members who face significant risk, along with 119 journalists affiliated with U.S. news organizations. CPJ’s list of cases does not take into account family members who would also be eligible for relocation. Over the last 24 hours, CPJ has received an additional 475 email requests for assistance, which are undergoing review.

    Note to editors:

    In recent days, CPJ intensified its collaboration with government officials and a broad network of local and global partners to provide emergency assistance and bring Afghan journalists to safety. Information about these journalists has been made available to the U.S. and several other governments willing to evacuate or accept journalists.

    In Afghanistan, at least 53 journalists have been killed since 2001, and five were killed last year alone, CPJ research shows. Requests for help from Afghan journalists have been coming in to CPJ since the start of the year and have increased as the U.S. and NATO troop withdrawal drew nearer and Taliban militants expanded control over the country.

    ###

    Press contact

    Bebe Santa-Wood

    Senior Communications Associate

    917-972-3305


    This content originally appeared on Committee to Protect Journalists and was authored by Committee to Protect Journalists.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Former U.S. President Donald Trump arrives at Trump Tower in Manhattan on August 15, 2021 in New York City.

    The Republican National Committee (RNC) removed a webpage praising former President Donald Trump for making a “historic peace agreement” with the Taliban on Monday amid chaos as the group took over the Afghanistan government.

    The page, according to the archival Wayback Machine, was removed on August 15 as the Taliban surrounded Kabul. In an article entitled “President Trump Is Bringing Peace To The Middle East,” the RNC touted a “historic peace agreement with the Taliban in Afghanistan” made by Trump.

    Though critics argued the agreement didn’t contain enough concessions from the Taliban to be worthwhile for the U.S., it still signalled the beginning of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, which progressives have been pushing for decades. President Obama had pledged but failed to follow through on withdrawing from Afghanistan and it was only after the agreement last year, that Trump began withdrawing troops from the country.

    The RNC deputy chief of staff Mike Reed said that the RNC web page was taken down because the organization is moving to a new website and that its removal on Sunday was a coincidence. But Republican lawmakers and the RNC have also appeared to be reversing course on the issue in recent days, saying now that withdrawing from Afghanistan is a mistake.

    “With the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, America is now less safe. This is the latest real world, horrific consequence of Biden’s weak foreign policy,” tweeted the RNC on Monday.

    Meanwhile, several Republican lawmakers have also reversed course on the issue, as the American Independent pointed out. Rep. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) tweeted in February that Trump’s agreement is “a sign of progress, and a step toward being able to bring our troops home.” But on Sunday, she pinned the entire situation on Biden, criticizing his “rapid and haphazard withdrawal of American troops.”

    Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) took an even sharper heel turn. In February, she tweeted criticism of Biden’s plan to extend the full troop withdrawal to September after it was originally planned for May — an extension that was arguably necessitated by a lack of planning from the Trump administration. Still, Boebert said, “We’ve been in Afghanistan for more than half my life. We need to end the endless wars.”

    By Sunday, Boebert had a different stance — though still, somehow, critical of Biden. “Joe Biden was in the Senate when America pulled out of Saigon in 1975. He didn’t learn,” she said.

    Trump also did a swift turnaround on the withdrawal strategy to criticize Biden. Back in April Trump had said that continuing to withdraw troops was “a wonderful and positive thing to do” while criticizing Biden’s timeline. On Saturday, however, Trump criticized Biden for “[running] out of Afghanistan” and not following Trump’s timeline — though Trump’s deadline passed three months ago.

    It’s hard to say whether or not any troop withdrawal from the country would have caused the current outcome. Biden could likely have taken more precautions, especially with regards to refugees, in the event that the Taliban did take over, but judging by his comments earlier this year, he seemed confident that it wouldn’t happen.

    Biden has said that he was withdrawing because, as progressives have warned over the years, there is no good militaristic solution to the situation. “I will not send another generation of Americans to war in Afghanistan with no reasonable expectation of achieving a different outcome,” Biden said in July. Though it appears that his administration had miscalculated the risk of a Taliban takeover, it also didn’t give in to the decades-old lies about the U.S. in Afghanistan holding back terrorism and creating peace.

    Biden re-emphasized that position on Monday in remarks about the Taliban takeover. “Truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated,” he said. “If anything, the developments in the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.”

    The president then promised to end American occupation of the country. “I will not pass this responsibility onto a fifth president. I will not mislead the American people by claiming that just a little more time in Afghanistan will make all the difference.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • No doubt many Afghans fear a resumption of Taliban rule after two decades, with its draconian rules against music, the cinema and girls going to school. But there is a reason why the Afghan military dissolved before the advancing Taliban, putting up no resistance whatsoever, despite Washington banking on them holding out for at least a month: the Taliban may be rotten but they are Afghans. They may impose an unpopular, repressive regime but they are not a foreign occupation force.

    The post Rapid Taliban Takeover Shows How Little US Understood Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Since the horrific events of Sept. 11, much has been said about the desperate situation of the Afghani people now crushed under the heel of the theocratic, dictatorial Taliban, and about the role of the Northern Alliance and other Taliban opponents who now figure in Washington’s plans for the region. There has been talk, most of it distorted, about the role of the Soviet Union in the years from 1978 to 1989. There has been talk, most of it understated, about the role of the U.S. in building up the Mujahideen forces, including the Taliban.

    The post Afghanistan’s Promising Socialist Future Killed Off By U.S. Imperialism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • “It’s long been obvious to anyone paying attention that the Taliban would regain control of the country when occupying western powers withdrew, but I don’t think anyone would’ve put money on it happening this quickly. A few interesting questions have come up about this, like for example how hilarious would it be if after spending twenty years and trillions of dollars and thousands of human lives “fighting the Taliban”, the Taliban suddenly resumed power as a US puppet regime?”

    The post Afghanistan Shenanigans appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), talks with reporters while leaving the U.S. Capitol on Monday, August 9, 2021.

    Progressive lawmakers are calling on the U.S. to accept Afghan refugees as the Taliban has taken over the country, forcing at least thousands of residents to attempt to flee.

    After the Afghanistan government collapsed, the Kabul airport has been flooded with Afghans desperate to flee the country. Particularly striking footage Monday showed hundreds of Afghans attempting to cling to a U.S. Air Force plane that was taking off. Meanwhile, earlier that day in Afghanistan, five people were killed at the Hamid Karzai International Airport amid chaos.

    The United Nations (UN) has warned of a coming refugee crisis as conditions worsen drastically for the people of Afghanistan. It also said that the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of Afghan refugees who have fled the country over the past months have been women and children.

    Some countries are bracing for the sudden influx of refugees; Canada last week announced that it would be offering refuge to 20,000 Afghans, with an emphasis on women, children and LGBTQ people. Mediterranean countries have requested European Union-level talks on the situation.

    But the U.S. has yet to announce any mass refugee resettlement plans. President Joe Biden has been relatively quiet and, on Friday, Reuters reported that the U.S. is searching for countries willing to temporarily house Afghan refugees who have worked for the U.S. government. The U.S. is reportedly considering other resettlement plans but officials are still discussing details.

    Biden has announced that he will address the nation on Afghanistan on Monday afternoon.

    Progressives on Twitter say that the U.S. should open its doors to refugees immediately — not just because of the morality of the matter, but also because of the U.S’s role in imperializing the country and killing civilians, adding to chaos and destruction in the country over the past two decades.

    “Foreign policy matters: After 20 years of U.S. effort,” wrote Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), “Afghanistan was left with a corrupt government and an ineffectual military. At this moment, we must do everything we can to evacuate our allies and open our doors to refugees.”

    “If we don’t start putting everyday people first, no matter what country they’re born in, this will keep happening,” wrote Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) on Sunday. “Let’s start by opening our country to shelter refugees fleeing the consequences of our actions.”

    Tlaib also pointed out that, while the U.S. has waged its forever war in Afghanistan, politicians and arms dealers have profited greatly from the conflict. “Innocent people suffer the horrors of war while political leaders and arms-dealing corporations sit back and make billions,” she said.

    Indeed, on top of the hundreds of thousands of people killed over the past 20 years in the country, the U.S. has also spent over $2.2 trillion on the war, according to research from Brown University.

    Defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have profited massively from the U.S.’s military spending over the past decades. Members of Congress with stock in such companies, meanwhile, have profited from the aggressive U.S. defense spending — spending that the lawmakers themselves authorize.

    As Republicans scramble over messaging on Biden’s troop withdrawal from the country, liberal and Republican war hawks alike are saying that the Taliban’s takeover is justification for the U.S. troops to stay in the country, citing lies from American officials that the war is effectual in preventing terrorism.

    Rep. Barbara Lee (D-California) pushed back against that idea over the weekend. “What’s happening in Afghanistan currently is a humanitarian crisis. Let’s be clear: there has never been, and will never be, a U.S. military solution in Afghanistan,” she wrote. “Our top priority must be providing humanitarian aid and resettlement to Afghan refugees, women, and children.”

    Indeed, many progressive advocates have said for decades that the U.S. should never have engaged in war in Afghanistan to begin with, arguing that the war would and has done more harm than good, especially to the citizens of Afghanistan.

    Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) argued as such last year when she introduced a proposal to accelerate the U.S.’s withdrawal from the country and end the war. But she was shot down by Republicans and a whopping 103 Democrats in the House who voted down her proposal.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • As the Taliban says it will soon declare the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan after seizing control of the country, we discuss their history with award-winning journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of several books, including Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. “These militants have become very well integrated into Afghan society and into Taliban society,” Rashid notes, and if the U.S. wants to capture them, “it’s going to be extremely difficult.” Rashid also looks at the Taliban’s relationship with China, history of human rights abuses against women and whether they will be allowed to continue their education.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we continue to look at the Taliban seizing control of Afghanistan as thousands of Afghans and foreign nationals are trying to flee Afghanistan from the international airport in Kabul. Earlier today, the Taliban released a video from Mullah Baradar Akhund, one of the founders of the Taliban.

    MULLAH ABDUL GHANI BARADAR: [translated] We congratulate the great victory to the whole Afghan nation, especially to the people of Kabul and to our mujahideens. The way we have come through was unexpected, as we have reached a position which was never expected. But with the help of Allah, that he has given us the victory, and there is nothing like this in the history of the world. So we should thank Allah. We should have no arrogance. Now is a time to trial. We will give services to our nation. We give serenity to the whole nation, that will go as far as possible for the betterment of their lives.

    AMY GOODMAN: Still with us is the award-winning journalist Ahmed Rashid, author of several books, including Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. He’s speaking to us from Madrid, Spain.

    Ahmed Rashid, can you comment on what he has said, and also the fact that Kabul fell with, really, hardly a shot being fired? And there’s clearly a coordination between the Taliban and the U.S. right now at the airport, the Taliban letting the U.S. control that, while it has now moved into the palace because President Ashraf Ghani has fled the country.

    AHMED RASHID: Well, the Taliban has been saying for several days now that people have nothing to fear in Kabul, and foreigners have nothing to fear, journalists would be protected, so would women. But the problem is that nobody believed them, which is why we are seeing these horrendous scenes at the airport, people trying to get out. And people are very doubtful that they will remain passive and not take revenge, not carry out revenge killings against, for example, soldiers, officers and people who have resisted the Taliban all this time. And the Taliban has to rebuild its credibility, because, remember, just before this takeover, there were months of assassinations taking place in Kabul of top officials, government officials, journalists, women, activists, that the Taliban were going out of their way to eliminate the educated class. And that created real fear and panic in the whole country, not just in Kabul. So, there’s this legacy of brutality, quite recent, which the Taliban has to mitigate in some form or the other.

    Now, the next stage is obviously going to be humanitarian relief. I hope there’s going to be some help from donors who are going to bring in food and supplies, because there’s a chronic shortage of food, water, medicines and everything in Kabul right now. And, you know, business has stopped. Kabul was isolated for many days. All of the produce that normally comes into the city has not been coming in. And so, there is an urgent need for humanitarian relief, food. But also there has to be a way to distribute it. Will the Taliban be given the reins of all this food, etc., to distribute it themselves, or will it be an international NGO, the United Nations or somebody else be given it? All these things will have to be negotiated very carefully with the Taliban.

    AMY GOODMAN: What have you been, Rashid Ahmed — what have you been, Ahmed Rashid, most shocked by in these last few days? I mean you, who are steeped in history. And then, I started by asking Ali Latifi about that history. But if you can even go back to the founding of the Taliban — we just heard one of the founders of the Taliban — and who exactly they are?

    AHMED RASHID: Well, I was one of the first journalists to meet with the Taliban in ’92, the autumn of ’92. And even then, they wanted to be seen as a very pious group who were fed up with the civil war that the elders were fighting with each other, and they wanted an Afghanistan at peace. And they had two claims when they launched themselves. They said, “We will disarm the population,” a highly popular move at that time, “and we will bring peace to Afghanistan.”

    And they did, initially, I mean, the first year or so, when they conquered most of the south, again, without firing much of a shot, because people were so fed up with the civil war and the brutalities of the warlords that they easily succumbed to the ideas of the Taliban and supported them. It’s later, when the Taliban went up to Kabul to try to conquer Kabul, they changed their political stance very drastically. Before that, they had been saying, “We do not want power. We will not take power. We will disarm the population, bring peace, and then ask our elders to choose a new government.” Now, that was something quite noble at that time. But once they captured Kabul, they went back to becoming yet another warlord, saying, “We will now rule Afghanistan according to our own principles,” which were a form of a Sunni sect called Deobandism.

    Deobandis are very strict followers of the prophet’s life. And they are originated in India and are quite predominant in Pakistan, and that is where a lot of the Taliban learned their religious observance and their very strict adherence to these regulations regarding women, etc. So what we had was a very severe form of Islamic teaching which the Taliban followed, and which none of the rest of the country really had any truck with. They weren’t interested in becoming full Deobandis. The Tajiks, the Uzbeks, the Hazaras and even many of the Pashtuns had no interest in this. And the Taliban imposed this religious cult, if you like, on everybody else. And that was where the real conflict began.

    And that is what is really upsetting people today in Afghanistan, because they don’t want to see the return of this kind of strict Deobandi Islam, when they practice an altogether different Islam. And they’ve been through 20 years now of getting education, especially the young, who have seen — who have got jobs, who had an education, who were able to move around the country freely, go abroad, study, get scholarships, come home. All that now, they see, is coming to an end.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, these breaking news alerts keep coming in. And a Taliban official says the group will soon declare the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Also, the question of the relationships with China, AFP reporting China is ready to deepen, quote, “friendly and cooperative” relations with Afghanistan, said a government spokesperson after the Taliban seized control of the country. The relationship Afghanistan will have with, for example, China, with Iran? And do you think the Taliban might take a more moderate approach now in the — what they are calling the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan? And particularly say more about women.

    AHMED RASHID: Well, this is — I mean, the whole idea of the Islamic Emirate is what they established after they conquered Kabul in ’96. And it was not accepted by anyone, anyone in Afghanistan and anyone outside of Afghanistan, except for three countries who recognized the government: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

    Now, the Taliban are very keen now on getting international recognition. They’ve gone out of their way to travel to neighboring states to win them over. And the most recent visit they had was, in fact, to China, where they met the foreign minister of China, the highest-level official who had ever met with the Taliban. And he asked them to make sure that they did not encourage the Uyghurs, the Muslim Uyghur population, which has been under tremendous repression in China, not to allow the Uyghurs into — not to give them training and not to turn them into guerrillas. And the Taliban, despite their Islamic zeal and their condemnation of non-Muslims and all the rest of it, they have said, “Fine, we’ll do that. We will restrict the activity of Uyghurs in Afghanistan so they do not create any problem for you.” And it was an amazing declaration of the Taliban.

    Now, whether it is going to be kept — because, don’t forget, the Uyghurs and many other militant groups from Central Asia, Pakistan, are all very active in Afghanistan. And people don’t see at the moment how the Taliban is going to get rid of them, even if they want to. And these groups include al-Qaeda, of course, much depleted and reduced but still very much a factor in Afghanistan. And a lot of these militants have been fighting alongside the Taliban. So, it’s not that the Taliban can just dump these people or shoot them. Many of them have settled down. They’ve got married in Afghanistan. They’ve got Afghan wives. And these militants are speaking the local languages. So these militants have become very well integrated into Afghan society, into Taliban society.

    Now, how the Taliban are going to deal with this is going to be the main preoccupation of the West, I think, and especially the United States, because right now if there are any militant groups around and the U.S. wants to bomb them, kill them, capture them, whatever, it’s going to be extremely difficult, because the closest American forces are much behind in the Gulf, in the Gulf countries, and possibly in Turkey, which is a long way away from Afghanistan.

    And the role of women, simply, I think, is also — we have to wait and see. I think they will allow minimal — I mean, what I’ve heard about education, for example, is that women will be allowed to study until grade 12, but they will not be allowed to go to university and other centers of higher learning. Now, that may be true; it may not be true. It may be a declaration that will be made but will not be implemented by some of the militants in the provinces, or it will be implemented in full by Taliban who control the cities and who come into contact with men and women who are well-educated every day. So, it’s touch and go.

    And I think the main issue right now is what kind of government are they going to form. Will it include non-Taliban politicians, warlords, tribal elders, etc.? Or is it just going to be an exclusive Taliban government? That’s what they really want, an exclusive Taliban government, no interference from, you know, wannabe politicians. But, of course, that will not be a representative government. And the danger always for the Taliban is going to be watching the ethnic minorities, making sure that they do not rise up in revolt down the road.

    AMY GOODMAN: Ahmed Rashid, we’re going to have to leave it there, but we hope to have you back soon, as these developments are fast unfolding. Ahmed Rashid is a writer, award-winning journalist, author of several books, including Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. And also, thanks so much to Ali Latifi, journalist, joining us from Kabul. Of course, we’ll continue to cover this tomorrow and in the days to come.

    Coming up, we go to Haiti, where the death toll has reached 1,300 people, following the 7.2 magnitude earthquake. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • While the people of Afghanistan are in a state of fear of the Taliban who now control Afghanistan, its capital, major cities and countryside after the U.S. and NATO occupation of twenty years, please pardon my personal observances of some of my experiences during sixteen years in the U.S. diplomatic corps and opening and closing U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone and Afghanistan and the effects on the civilian populations of the countries involved.

    In December 2001, I was a part of a very small team from the U.S. Department of State that was sent to Kabul, Afghanistan to reopen the U.S. Embassy.  The Embassy had been closed for 12 years following the Soviet exodus from Afghanistan and the subsequent civil war between the warlord militias that fought to gain land and influence. 

    The post Opening And Closing US Embassies-From Sierra Leone To Afghanistan appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The increasingly desperate situation in Afghanistan has led to widespread calls for the UK to welcome Afghan refugees despite Priti Patel’s plans to crack down on immigration.

    Refugee Action summed up the situation:

    When Parliament reconvenes to discuss the crisis, the Government must recognise the cruelty of its current position, and abandon it. Can its message to desperate Afghan people really be that they must go to local embassies for visas and book commercial flights?

    Do they really think people in fear of their lives are going to wait around for a ‘safe route’ to be created by the UK Government, when it currently offers none?

    It also highlighted the need for “concrete action”:

    Thousands of Afghan people are currently trying to escape from Afghanistan. But the Home Office has yet to confirm how many refugees it will welcome.

    Fear in Afghanistan

    The Taliban took control of Kabul early on Sunday 15 August, and Afghanistan’s president has fled the country. The takeover is expected to mark the beginning of a new era of Taliban rule. The UNHCR reported in July that Taliban advances had already displaced 270,000 people in Afghanistan this year. As Taliban control increases across the country, this figure will only grow.

    Afghan women are scared they won’t be able to continue their education, careers, or independence. Writing in the Guardian, one women stated:

    I worked for so many days and nights to become the person I am today, and this morning when I reached home, the very first thing my sisters and I did was hide our IDs, diplomas and certificates. It was devastating. Why should we hide the things that we should be proud of? In Afghanistan now we are not allowed to be known as the people we are.

    International action?

    Despite the dire situation, international action in welcoming refugees has been slow.

    Canada has pledged to accept 20,000 ‘vulnerable’ Afghans who need protecting from the Taliban.

    But EU countries Germany, Greece, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium asked the EU for permission to continue deporting Afghan refugees they had already rejected for asylum. Since then, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands have reversed their position and paused deportations.

    Many are calling on the UK to follow in Canada’s footsteps.

    Labour MP Rebecca Long-Bailey said:

    Gov must provide answers and assurances today about what they will do to help those at grave risk in Afghanistan. They have a moral responsibility along with the international community to urgently evacuate refugees under threat to a safe and welcoming place.

    But these figures are a drop in the ocean when figures from July show that total number of displaced people is 3.5 million.

    The UK and refugees

    Home secretary Priti Patel recently criticised France for ‘failing’ to stop migrants crossing the channel. She further warned that the UK would be seeing more people wanting to enter the country due to them fleeing Afghanistan.

    The Home Office recently abandoned numerical targets for resettling refugees, instead claiming it will strengthen “safe and legal” ways for refugees to enter the country by ensuring:

    resettlement programmes are responsive to emerging international crises – so refugees at immediate risk can be resettled more quickly.

    This has left people in the UK asking where the UK’s response is.

    “Wrong and unsustainable”

    But the Home Office’s hostile environment is likely to only make the situation worse for those trying to flee to the UK. Refugee advocates have warned that the Nationality and Borders Bill, currently at the committee stage, could prevent thousands of people from claiming asylum in the UK.

    Refugee Action said that the bill could leave Afghan refugees unable to claim asylum, left in barracks, or sent elsewhere.

    It further stated:

    The #AntiRefugeeBill and the lack of commitment to resettlement are wrong and unsustainable. Both must now be swept away on the tide of compassion brought by the events in Afghanistan. We are witnessing how quickly people can be left desperately struggling to find safety.

    Welcoming refugees

    The UK must allow, pro-actively help and welcome Afghan refugees fleeing persecution and fear. And it must go further than following the Canadian model of accepting just 20,000 people.

    It is the UK that helped create the current situation and it is down to the UK to urgently take action and help those facing an increasing desperate situation. It must happen quickly and it must mean giving people housing and rights – not condemning people who have already suffered so much to unsafe and appalling conditions in places like Napier Barracks.

    This crisis further highlights the fight we have in ahead of us against the racist Nationality and Borders Bill. This bill, and the hostile environment created by this government, must be stopped.

    Featured image via YouTube/Al Jazeera English

    By Jasmine Norden

    This post was originally published on The Canary.

  • This story was originally published on August 15, 2021, by Laura Jedeed, and is reprinted here with permission.

    By the time you read this, the Taliban may already be in Kabul. If not now, then soon.

    Nixon wanted—and got—his decent interval between the United States pullout of Vietnam and the inevitable North Vietnamese takeover. Afghanistan’s interval was never going to be decent, but I confess I expected an interval. We’re scrambling to leave in time, we’re racing for the helicopters as the Taliban burns through Afghanistan like a forest fire.

    I remember Afghanistan well. I deployed there twice—once in 2008, and again in 2009–2010. It was already obvious that the Taliban would sweep through the very instant we left. And here we are today.

    I know how bad the Taliban is. I know what they do to women and little boys. I know what they’re going to do to the interpreters and the people who cooperated with us, it’s awful, it’s bad, but we are leaving, and all I feel is grim relief.

    [F]inally, you fuckers, finally you have to face the thing Afghanistan has always been. You can’t keep lying to yourself about what you sent us into.

    This is what I remember:

    I remember Afghanistan as a dusty beige nightmare of a place full of proud, brave people who did not fucking want us there. We called them Hajjis and worse and they were better than we were, braver and stronger and smarter.

    I remember going through the phones of the people we detained and finding clip after clip of Bollywood musicals, women singing in fields of flowers. Rarely did I find anything incriminating.

    I remember finding propaganda footage cut together from the Soviet invasion and our own Operation Enduring Whatever. I remember laughing about how stupid the Afghans were to not know we aren’t the Russians and then, eventually, realizing that I was the stupid one.

    I remember how every year the US would have to decide how to deal with the opium fields. There were a few options. You could leave the fields alone, and then the Taliban would shake the farmers down and use the money to buy weapons. Or, you could carpet bomb the fields, and then the farmers would join the Taliban for reasons that, to me, seem obvious.

    The third option, and the one we went for while I was there, was to give the farmers fertilizer as an incentive to grow wheat instead of opium poppy. The farmers then sold the fertilizer to the Taliban, who used it to make explosives for IEDs that could destroy a million dollar MRAP and maim everyone inside.

    I remember we weren’t allowed to throw batteries away because people who worked on base would go through the trash and collect hundreds of dead batteries, wire them together so they had just enough juice for one charge, and use that charge to detonate an IED.

    I remember the look on my roommate’s face after she got back from cutting the dead bodies of two soldiers out of an HMMWV that got blown up by an IED that I have always imagined was made with fertilizer from an opium farmer and detonated with a hundred thrown-out batteries.

    I remember an Afghan kid who worked in the DFAC (cafeteria) who we called Cowboy. He always wore this cowboy hat and an “I’m with stupid” t-shirt someone had given him, always with a big smile, high school age.

    Cowboy was a good student. His family, who all worked on base, was incredibly proud of him. He wanted to go to college in America. But there weren’t colleges that took Afghans, the education system was too shit. No program to help kids like him. I looked.

    I wonder if he’s dead now, for serving us food and dreaming of something different.

    But if Cowboy is dead then he died a long time ago, and if Cowboy is dead it’s our fault for going there in the first place, giving his family the option of trusting us when we are the least trustworthy people on the planet.

    We use people up and throw them away like it’s nothing.

    And now, finally, we are leaving and the predictable thing is happening. The Taliban is surging in and taking it all back. They were always going to do this, because they have a thing you cannot buy or train, they have patience and a bloody-mindedness that warrants more respect than we ever gave them.

    I am Team Get The Fuck Out Of Afghanistan which, as a friend pointed out to me today, has always been Team Taliban. It’s Team Taliban or Team Stay Forever.

    There is no third team.

    And so I sit here, reading these sad fucking articles and these horrified social media posts about the suffering in Afghanistan and the horror of the encroaching Taliban and how awful it is that this is happening but I can’t stop feeling this grim happiness, like, finally, you fuckers, finally you have to face the thing Afghanistan has always been. You can’t keep lying to yourself about what you sent us into.

    No more blown up soldiers. No more Bollywood videos on phones whose owners are getting shipped god knows where. No more hypocrisy.

    No more pretending it meant anything. It didn’t.

    It didn’t mean a goddamn thing.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Women in media in Kabul tell of trying to destroy traces of their identity as they brace for Taliban retribution

    When president Ashraf Ghani slipped out of Afghanistan with no warning, he took with him any glimpse of hope left for the nation’s women – especially those who are educated and outspoken.

    Aaisha* is that and more. As a prominent news anchor and political talk show host, she has watched her life’s efforts crumble in what felt like seconds.

    Related: An Afghan woman in Kabul: ‘Now I have to burn everything I achieved’

    Related: Afghan women’s defiance and despair: ‘I never thought I’d have to wear a burqa. My identity will be lost’

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • RNZ News

    Former New Zealand prime minister Helen Clark says the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan shows “a catastrophic failure of intelligence in Western foreign policy” and to say that she is pessimistic about the country’s future would be an understatement.

    Taliban insurgents have entered Kabul and President Ashraf Ghani has fled Afghanistan, bringing the Islamist militants close to taking over the country two decades after they were overthrown by a US-led invasion.

    Clark has also served as administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for eight years and has advocated globally for Afghan girls and women.

    She sent New Zealand troops to Afghanistan in 2001 during her term as prime minister and said it was surreal to see what had happened.

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced today after the cabinet meeting this afternoon that the government had offered 53 New Zealand citizens in Afghanistan consular support.

    “We are working through this with the utmost urgency,” she said.

    The government was also aware of 37 individuals who had helped the NZ Defence Force (NZDF).

    Gains for women, girls
    Clark said today: “Twenty years of change there with so many gains for women and girls in society at large and to see what amounts to people motivated by medieval theocracy walk back in and take power and start issuing the same kinds of statements about constraints on women and saying that stonings and amputations are for the courts – I mean this is just such a massive step backwards it’s hard to digest.”

    Clark said to find out what had gone wrong it was necessary to look back a couple of decades and it was not long after the Taliban had left that the US administration started to look away from Afghanistan, turning instead towards its intervention in Iraq.

    “With the gaze off Afghanistan the Taliban started to come back. When I was at UNDP I would meet ambassadors from the region around Afghanistan and they would say ‘look 60 percent of the country is in effect controlled by the Taliban now’ and I’m going back four or five years, six years in saying that.”

    Former NZ Prime Minister Helen Clark
    Former NZ prime minister Helen Clark … extremely dubious that this is “a new reformed Taliban”. Image: RNZ/Anadolu

    Helen Clark is extremely dubious that this is “a new reformed Taliban”. Photo: 2018 Anadolu Agency

    Clark said at that time the Taliban did not have the ability to capture and hold district and provincial capitals, but the Taliban was waiting for an opportunity and that came when former US president Donald Trump indicated they would withdraw troops from Afghanistan and current US President Joe Biden then followed through on that.

    “Looking at it from my perspective I think the thought of negotiating a transition with the Taliban was naive and I think the failure of intelligence as to how strong the Taliban actually were on the ground is, as a number of American commentators are saying, equivalent to the failure of intelligence around the Tet Offensive in 1968 in Vietnam – I mean this is a catastrophic failure of intelligence in Western foreign policy,” she said.

    Clark said the Taliban would be under pressure from Western powers to do anything if it was able to enlist the support of other powers.

    Pessimistic about Afghanistan’s future
    She said to say she was pessimistic about Afghanistan’s future would be an understatement and there were already reports of women being treated very badly in regions where the Taliban has taken over.

    “We’re hearing stories from some of the district and provincial capitals that they’ve captured where women have been beaten for wearing sandals which expose their feet, we’re hearing of one woman who turned up to a university class who was told to go home, this wasn’t for them, women who were told to go away from the workplace because this wasn’t for them.”

    Clark said she very much doubted that this was “a new reformed Taliban”, an idea that was accepted by some negotiators in Doha.

    She said she did not expect that the UN Security Council would be able to do anything to improve the situation.

    Clark said it met about Afghanistan within the last couple of weeks and the Afghanistan permanent representative pleaded on behalf of his elected government for support but there was no support forthcoming.

    Clark said the UN Security Council was unlikely to get any results and the UN would likely then say that it needed humanitarian access.

    Catastrophic hunger
    “Because these developments create catastrophic hunger, flight of people, illness — but you know the UN will be left putting a bandage over the wounds and there will be nothing more constructive that comes out of it.”

    Clark said Afghanistan’s problems were never going to be solved in 20 years.

    “I understand that the Americans are sick of endless wars, we all are. But on the other hand they’ve kept a 50,000 strong garrison in Korea since 1953 in much greater numbers at times, they maintain 30,000 troops in the Gulf. They were in effect being asked to maintain a very small garrison which more or less kept the place stable enough for it to inch ahead, build its institutions and roll out education and health, when that commitment to do that failed then the whole project collapsed.

    “This is not so much a Taliban takeover as simply a surrender by the government and by forces who felt it wasn’t worth fighting for it.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • It unfolded as a story of fleeing.  The Afghan president Ashraf Ghani, taking flight to Tajikistan, giving little clue of his intentions to colleagues.  The fleeing of the infamous Abdul Rashid Dostum, a warlord assured to fight another day. The fleeing of tens of thousands of residents out of the city of Kabul, long seen as beyond the reach of insurgents.  The fleeing of Coalition embassy personnel, aided by freshly deployed troops from the United States and the UK sent into Afghanistan as a matter of urgency. The Taliban had taken Kabul.

    In departing and leaving stranded colleagues to their fate, the bookish Ghani, preferring pen to gun, had time to leave a message on Facebook.  One could never accuse the man of having wells of courage. He reflected on either facing armed Taliban fighters or leaving his beloved country.  In order to avoid immolating Kabul, which “would have been a big human disaster”, he chose a hasty exit.

    Only a few days prior, on August 11, Ghani had flown to Mazar-i-Sharif, in the company of the blood lusty Uzbek Dostum, supposedly to hold the fort against the Taliban with another warlord, the ethnic Tajik Atta Muhammad Noor.  Noor had pledged in June to mobilise the citizenry of Balkh province to fight the Taliban.  “God forbid, the fall of Balkh,” he declared at the time, “means the fall of the north and the fall of the north means the fall of Afghanistan.”

    This was not a move greeted with universal joy.  Habib-ur-Rahman of the leadership council of the political and paramilitary group Hizb-e-Islami saw a bit of self-aggrandizing at work, hardly remarkable for a warlord keen to oversee his bit of real estate.  “The mobilisation of the people by politicians under the pretext of supporting security forces – with the use of public uprising forces – fuels the war from one side and from the other it affects Afghanistan’s stance in foreign policy.”

    The shoring up mission led by Ghani would do little to conceal the historical differences between Noor and Dostum.  The former had done battle with Dostum’s troops during the latter’s time as a regional commander in the ailing Soviet-backed Afghan government.  Dostum’s defection from the government (one spots the common theme) in 1992 to form the Junbish-e-Milli party presented Noor with a chance to join forces.  But the Tajik left Dostum in 1993 citing irreconcilable ideological differences.  With the initial defeat of the Taliban, Noor triumphed in several military encounters with the frustrated Uzbek, seizing the Balkh province in its entirety.

    The accord reached between the parties on this occasion certainly did not involve agreeing to fight the Taliban.  Both had come to the conclusion that scurrying to Uzbekistan was a sounder proposition.  Noor subsequently justified the measure by claiming enigmatically that, “They had orchestrated the plot to trap Marshal Dostum and myself too, but they didn’t succeed.”  Ghani would soon follow.

    Members of Ghani’s imploding government have not taken kindly to the flight of their leader.  “Curse Ghani and his gang,” wrote acting defence minister, Bismillah Khan Mohammadi.  “They tied our hands from behind and sold the country.”

    The head of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah also released a video withering in announcing that, “The former president of Afghanistan” had “left the country in this difficult situation.”  God, he suggested, “should hold him accountable.”  Abdullah, along with former President Harmid Karzai and Hizb-e-Islami leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, are currently in negotiations with the Taliban over the formal transfer of power.

    The US and UK have deployed personnel in a hurried panic.  Over the weekend, President Joe Biden, in announcing the deployment of 5,000 troops, told the press that they would ensure “we can have an orderly and safe drawdown of US personnel and other allied personnel, and an orderly and safe evacuation of Afghans who helped our troops during our mission and those at special risk from the Taliban advance.”  Another thousand have also been added to the complement.

    There was much embarrassment in all of this.  The US and its allies made the fundamental error that training, money and expertise would somehow miraculously guarantee the stability, continuity and reliability of a ramshackle regime.  Biden, in coming up with his own phraseology, had stated that a Taliban victory was “not inevitable”.  In July, we were given a nugget of Bidenese that, while he had little trust for the Taliban, he did “trust the capacity of the Afghan military, who is better trained, better equipped, and more re- – more competent in terms of conducting war.”

    As the Taliban was securing the capital, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken parried evident parallels with the US withdrawal from Vietnam in 1975.  “This is manifestly not Saigon,” he said with little conviction.

    Now, the scene was one of grave, turbaned and bearded men, armed to the teeth, overseeing the desk which Ghani previously occupied in the presidential palace.  They had survived and outwitted an army better armed and supposedly better trained. They had survived airstrikes launched from within the country and from bases in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, via heavy bombers and lethal drones.  They had survived the forces of the US, NATO and rival militias.

    They now find themselves in control of an entity they wish to be recognised as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.  History has come in its full violent circle.  A group of insurgents dismissed as fundamentalist mountain savages who would be vanquished before the modernising incentives of the West have shown up, as previous Afghan fighters have, the futility and sheer folly of meddling in their country’s affairs.

    The post The Taliban take Kabul first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Things have been moving very rapidly as Taliban forces immediately closed in on Kabul after the end of the occupation. The US is frantically evacuating people, former Afghan officials are fleeing the country, and a transition to Taliban control is a done deal.

    It’s long been obvious to anyone paying attention that the Taliban would regain control of the country when occupying western powers withdrew, but I don’t think anyone would’ve put money on it happening this quickly. A few interesting questions have come up about this, like for example how hilarious would it be if after spending twenty years and trillions of dollars and thousands of human lives “fighting the Taliban”, the Taliban suddenly resumed power as a US puppet regime?

    I mean, what’s going on here?

    And here?

    And here?

    I’m not the first person to speculate about this:

    And this all comes just months after the Taliban renewed its earlier pledge to guarantee safety to a trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline, which many like journalist Whitney Webb have suggested was a major reason for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

    So who knows what’s going on, but it wouldn’t be surprising if shenanigans were afoot in Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile this all has a lot of people outing themselves as believers in benevolent imperialism, with many westerners across the political spectrum arguing that the US needs to continue its military occupation in perpetuity to protect women’s rights.

    It is now suddenly the wokest of feminisms to want an empire whose interventionism is literally always disastrous to re-invade Afghanistan and occupy their land for generations and keep murdering anyone who tries to fight back in order to force them all to espouse our white liberal values.

    Exactly zero of the shitlibs demanding troops stay to prevent Taliban rule at gunpoint would fight the Taliban themselves. Exactly zero of them would even be willing kill Taliban forces sitting miles away safely piloting a drone. This is a game to them. A complete abstraction. I mean, can you picture Marianne Williamson charging at Taliban forces firing an M4 carbine? I can’t.

    If the US empire hadn’t manufactured consent for the invasion by aggressive narrative management about Taliban oppression westerners would give zero fucks about women in Afghanistan, just like they give zero fucks about women in all the other oppressive patriarchal nations. This is all just people who don’t think much about the consequences of US warmongering having an emotional reaction to their sudden realization that US warmongering has consequences.

    Maybe, just maybe, it was dumb to believe the invasion of Afghanistan ever had anything to do with helping women in the first place? The US military is the very last institution on earth who’d ever actually do anything in the interests of humanitarianism and the very last institution you’d ever want to.

    No matter what exactly is happening in Afghanistan, everything you’re seeing there today is the fault of the US-centralized oligarchic empire. Every little bit of it. Not just starting with the insane 2001 invasion which cost trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives but long before it, when US government agencies backed the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in the eighties and actively radicalized them. This entire mess is the result of a bunch of imperialists deciding that the entire planet needs to be dominated by a single power structure and that it’s fine to play with human lives like chess pieces in order to make that happen.

    These bastards are going to keep murdering people around the world while robbing and oppressing their own citizenry at home until their fingers can be pried off of the world’s steering wheel for good. Only then will we ever have a chance at creating a healthy world.

    ____________________________

    My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi or . If you want to read more you can buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at  or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded,  to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, 

    Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

    Featured image via Sam Shepherd,(CC BY 3.0 NZ)

    This post was originally published on Caitlin Johnstone.

  • RNZ News

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says work to get New Zealanders out of Afghanistan has ramped up, as commercial options become unavailable.

    Yesterday the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said it was aware of 17 New Zealanders who were in Afghanistan, but Ardern said that number is now believed to be closer to 30 when citizens and family members were taken into account.

    “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade have been actively trying to contact those that they believe may be in Afghanistan and working to get people out,” she said.

    “Previously there have been commercial options for people to leave on if they’re able to get to the point of departure. That will increasingly, if not already, no longer be an option,”

    She said that was when the government would step up the work it was doing to try to get them out.

    Ardern said that the situation was moving fast and quick decisions would need to be made in terms of those New Zealanders in Afghanistan.

    “That is something we’ve been working on, as you can imagine, in a very changeable environment for the past, wee while and is something we will continue to work on.

    Additional consideration
    “There’s also for us … the additional consideration of those who may have who may have historically worked to support the New Zealand Defence Force or who may have been on the ground over many years in Afghanistan their safety situation, so that’s also something we’re moving as quickly as we can on,” she said.

    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern
    Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern … “There’s also for us … the additional consideration of those who may have who may have historically worked to support the New Zealand Defence Force.” Image: Samuel Rillstone/RNZ

    Ardern said New Zealand had been working with partners to try and determine a safe passage for these New Zealanders, but would not give details about which other countries had been approached.

    “There will be security issues around me giving much more detail than I’ve given now, but I can tell you we are working at the highest level alongside our partners to support those New Zealanders who may be on the ground.”

    Interpreters contact NZ government
    Cabinet is meeting today to consider whether New Zealand can evacuate Afghanistan nationals who supported our military efforts there. The situation is urgent, with civilian lives believed to be in danger.

    A small group of people who were not eligible for the Afghan interpreters package in 2012 have now made contact with the New Zealand government, Ardern said.

    She said fewer than 40 people, have identified themselves as having worked alongside New Zealand forces, but the majority of these cases are historic and they were not eligible under the previous National government’s “interpreter package”.

    Ardern said at that time they were not seen as directly affected or at risk from the Taliban but the current situation has changed dramatically.

    “It was basically interpreters at that time who were brought over as they were considered to have the strongest, or face to strongest risk at that time, there were others who weren’t eligible for that who have subsequently made contact.

    “Cabinet will be discussing today what more needs to be done to ensure the safety of those who are directly connected to them.”

    Ardern said they would need to ensure that these people were in fact working directly alongside the NZ Defence Force and that would be considered by Cabinet today.

    Focused on security
    She said it was too soon to look ahead with the international community to what would be done regarding the Afghanistan situation.

    “We’re quite focused on the security situation on the ground right now, getting those who need to get out out, and doing what we can to support those who supported us, so that’s our immediate consideration I think then we’ll be looking over the horizon to what next with the international community.”

    Ardern said it was devastating to see what was happening in Afghanistan now, but that did not diminish the roles of those New Zealanders who served there.

    “Everyone makes the best decisions they can at the time they’re made … and in the environment in which they’re made and all I would say to our New Zealand troops who were in there, they would have seen for themselves the difference that they made at that time,” she said.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Taliban fighters entered Kabul on Sunday and sought the unconditional surrender of the central government, officials said, as Afghans and foreigners alike raced for the exit, signaling the end of a 20-year Western experiment aimed at remaking Afghanistan.

    The beleaguered central government, meanwhile, hoped for an interim administration, but increasingly had few cards to play. Civilians fearing that the Taliban could reimpose the kind of brutal rule that all but eliminated women’s rights rushed to leave the country, lining up at cash machines to withdraw their life savings.

    Helicopters buzzed overhead as part of an evacuation of personnel from the U.S. Embassy. Several other Western missions were also preparing to get staff out.

    In a stunning rout, the Taliban seized nearly all of Afghanistan in just over a week, despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the U.S. and NATO over nearly two decades to build up Afghan security forces. Just days earlier, an American military assessment estimated it would be a month before the capital would come under insurgent pressure.

    The post US Embassy Staff Flee Kabul As The Taliban Takes Control appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.