The Pentagon has reportedly authorized the deployment of 1,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of troops on the ground to 6,000 as the Taliban continues its advances in the capital city of Kabul.
Reuters reported on Sunday that the additional troops will be drawn from the 82nd Airborne Division, which was already on standby.
The news of additional troops being sent to Afghanistan comes after President Biden announced on Saturday that the U.S. would send 1,000 more troops to Afghanistan to assist with evacuating U.S. personnel, and after the Pentagon revealed on Thursday that it was deploying 3,000 more troops to the country to help facilitate the withdrawal of embassy staff.
The Hill reached out to the Pentagon for additional information.
The deployment of troops to Afghanistan comes as the country is facing a rapidly deteriorating security situation, with the Taliban making significant gains in the region.
Chaos broke out in the country overnight on Sunday after the insurgent group entered Kabul. Taliban fighters entered the presidential palace in the capital city, and members of the group’s leadership addressed the media from the throne of power, according to photos published by Al Jazeera.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country as Taliban fighters seized Kabul on Sunday, later writing in a Facebook post that he did so to avoid bloodshed.
The rapidly evolving situation in Afghanistan comes as the U.S. was nearing completion of its withdrawal process, which President Biden previously said was set to finish at the end of this month.
The Taliban, however, has increased its efforts in recent weeks, capturing a number of key provincial capitals in Afghanistan as protection from U.S. and NATO forces decreased.
Our Neighbors To The North Stand With American Patriots In Solidarity Saturday In The Pursuit of Freedom.
Freedom protesters marched in the streets of Montreal, Canada on Saturday as worldwide protests appear all over the planet against vaccine passports. The Freedom protesters derived massive numbers, as evidenced by video footage of the streets of Montreal. The freedom protesters are joined in solidarity Saturday by Freedom protesters who stand against vaccine mandates at the Oklahoma City state capitol on Lincoln Boulevard in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Similar Freedom demonstrations continued in London, England, and Paris, France, a historical sister city to Montreal. In Paris, Freedom protesters are actually setting up their own cafe bistros with food and supplies so as to avoid patronizing the restaurants that enforce the vaccine passport.
Rebel News has been covering this peaceful populist uprising, the latest in a series of joyous Freedom protests in the city of Montreal during the era of Coronavirus tyranny.
Earlier, the previous US president, Donald Trump, criticized Biden on his Afghanistan policy, as the former wondered out loud whether anyone in the US had begun to miss him in the White House as the Taliban advances in the Central Asian country following the US military’s exit.
Former US President Donald Trump issued a statement on Saturday lambasting the policies of the current administration under President Joe Biden on Afghanistan and remarking that Biden should have followed Trump’s “plan”.
While Trump did not elaborate on what his “plan” actually was, he did suggest that it had “protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban* would never dream of taking our embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America”.
“The withdrawal would be guided by facts on the ground”, Trump said, adding: “After I took out ISIS*, I established a credible deterrent. That deterrent is now gone. The Taliban no longer has fear or respect for America, or America’s power”.
Trump also predicted that it would be a “disgrace” when the Taliban “raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul”.
“This is complete failure through weakness, incompetence, and total strategic incoherence”, Trump continued.
The former president’s comments came shortly after Biden took a shot at Trump’s Afghan policies earlier in the day, where he announced an increase in the troop deployment in Afghanistan to 5,000 to aid with the evacuation. According to Biden, his predecessor “left the Taliban in the strongest position militarily since 2001”, imposing a May 2021 deadline on US forces.
“When I became president, I faced a choice—follow through on the deal, with a brief extension to get our forces and our allies’ forces out safely, or ramp up our presence and send more American troops to fight once again in another country’s civil conflict”, Biden noted, pledging not to pass a war in Afghanistan onto the next US president.
As his presidential term ended in 2020, Trump made a deal with the Taliban to pledge that the US, along with its allies, would reduce troops in the region and lift sanctions against the group, while the militant movement would promise to not allow al-Qaeda* or any other extremist groups to operate in regions under its control.
Trump is not the only one to condemn the 46th president for his moves in Afghanistan, as he has been joined by a choir of conservatives, with some voicing concerns that the Biden policy to withdraw American troops may result in “ISIS 3.0”.
(American Thinker) It is rare that U.S. Department of Defense officials, blinded by their zealous pursuit of the latest variant of U.S. military diversity policy, reveal that policy’s intellectual vacuousness. Recent comments by the Navy’s top, uniformed personnel officer, however, did just that, exposing the Pentagon diversity policy’s intellectual bankruptcy and providing a focus for those who, following their commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, genuinely believe America’s sons and daughters in uniform deserve the best leadership available.
On August 3, 2021, VADM John Nowell, Jr., Chief of Naval Personnel, made public comments arguing for reinstating the use of photographs in selection boards, justifying that position by saying that not using photographs is hurting “diversity.” He lamented that the Navy’s recent “data” (accumulated after the policy had been changed so it no longer included official photographs in personnel files the promotion boards used) show the new practice has hurt “diversity.” Rather than acknowledging that such evidence proves “diversity” policies undermine meritocracy in the military, Admiral Nowell’s further comments revealed the dishonest disregard for objective evidence and truth that pervades the pursuit of anti-white, racial discrimination in the name of “diversity” in our military.
He said, “It’s a meritocracy. We’re only going to pick the best of the best, but we’re very clear with our language … that we want them to consider diversity across all areas. Right?” “And therefore … I think having a clear picture on this just makes it easier. So, actually, our data show that it would support adding photos back in.”
Admiral Nowell also said, “I think we should consider reinstating photos in selection boards.” “We look at, for instance, the one-star board over the last five years, and we can show you where, as you look at diversity, it went down with photos removed.” (Emphasis added)
So, the Navy’s data show that when “color-blind” promotion boards do not use photos, they select the “best” – but that these results differ (fewer minority selectees, i.e., “diversity … went down”) compared to the selections (more minorities) when promotion boards do use photos that show candidates’ skin color (facilitating the use of racial preferences).
The Navy’s data are strong evidence of the negative effect that using racial preferences has on meritocracy and therefore the quality of the selection board outcome. Shockingly, that conclusion apparently escaped this 3-star flag officer whose job is to oversee Navy personnel policy. Ever true to the mantra that diversity policies never lower quality or involve lowering standards to make minorities “more successful,” he predictably claims the process, when influenced by photo-enabled racial preferences, is still a meritocracy.
Admiral Nowell’s explanation of the Navy’s data proves that “diversity” (when considered by a promotion board) means “racial preferences.” Would he admit that considering “diversity” (race) in a promotion board is, in practice, the extension of racial preferences? Not likely. Just call it “diversity.” That places the topic beyond the reach of critical thinking (and legal) analysis and discussion.
If only the “best of the best” will be chosen, why does a board need to know each candidate’s skin color? There is no evidence showing that skin color correlates positively with demonstrated performance and/or performance potential at a higher rank. Nor is there evidence to show that skin color correlates with the various traits and characteristics that make one an effective leader, such as integrity, judgment, professional competence, empathy, loyalty, et al.
Instead, these comments reveal the intellectually bankrupt attempt by those in power to deny that “diversity” inspired, race-based affirmative action in military promotions involves both anti-white discrimination and lowering standards. Admiral Nowell gives no substantive rationale for how and why skin color must be considered to identify the “best of the best.” He gives no explanation for how what is called “diversity” makes one candidate better than other candidates (the “best”). All that is said is the word “diversity,” and we are then expected to accept that as justifying ending the discussion and warranting a change in policy.
No, Admiral, the use of racial preferences in promotion boards is not a meritocracy. Racial preferences are, instead, antithetical to meritocracy. To claim that their use is (or is even consistent with) a meritocracy is a lie. Racial preferences use skin color where there is no evidence that race has anything to do with one candidate’s merit versus that of another. Injecting race is nothing more than a substitute for merit, using subjective, dubious (and clearly unproven, as to merit) notions that are based on skin color.
Defense Secretary Austin’s recent guidance that senior military leaders, and officers in general, will “look like” the rest of the force (i.e., racial demographic parity — apparently wearing the same uniform is no longer enough) is apparently the driving force. It, too, is intellectually vacuous and an undeniable admission that quality is being sacrificed for the sake of racial demographic parity.
Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen want competence in their leaders’ ability to get them on and off the battlefield, accomplishing the mission with minimal loss of life. They care little for “diversity-hired” substitutes for the leadership they need and deserve. Hal Moore’s men, and those who have studied the battle at LZ X-Ray, would attest to the fact that his battalion’s soldiers cared not at all what his (or his subordinate leaders’) skin color was. Those who survived did so because of Colonel Moore’s superior leadership and the bravery of Soldiers and Airmen of all colors and ethnicities.
The Chief of Naval Personnel’s “meritocracy” claim is dishonest doublespeak. It is untrue on its face. Its context — race-based preferences in military promotions — is extremely bad policy for a long list of reasons. His words also reflect a betrayal of our Constitution and DOD’s systemic violation of Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until our courts intervene, for so long as the U.S. military continues down its current path, its ability to defend the Nation will “progressively” weaken.
Equally troubling is the Pentagon’s implicit moral failure. One of America’s legendary combat leaders, Medal of Honor recipient Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, USMC (ret.), has observed: “America’s Moms and Dads gift their children for the purpose of defending the country. Our moral responsibility is to provide them the best possible leadership and, to the extent possible, return them safely to the gifting family.” Substituting the best possible leadership with diversity promotions to satisfy a political agenda would be an egregious moral failure, worsened only by DOD’s facially dishonest claims of meritocracy.
The CDC director is receiving pushback from conservatives for repeatedly referring to pregnant women as “pregnant people” in a brief speech Thursday about COVID-19 vaccines.
The comments by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky about a serious subject – vaccinations among pregnant women – quickly became overshadowed by what many viewers saw as an awkward phrase. Walensky said “pregnant people” six times within about 70 seconds during the remarks.
Walensky was encouraging pregnant women to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, saying new studies show no increase in the risk of miscarriage.
“For pregnant people who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, we are strengthening our guidance and recommending that all pregnant people or people thinking about becoming pregnant get vaccinated,” Walensky said.
The new data, she said, builds “on previous evidence from three safety monitoring systems that did not find any safety concerns for pregnant people who are vaccinated late in pregnancy or for their babies.” The new data “found no increase in the risk for miscarriage among people who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine before 20 weeks of pregnancy.”
“Clinicians have seen the number of pregnant people infected with COVID-19 rise in the past several weeks,” she said. “The increased circulation of the highly contagious Delta variant, the general low vaccine uptake among pregnant people, and the increased risk of severe illness and pregnancy complications related to COVID-19 infection among pregnant people make vaccination for this population more urgent than ever.”
Walensky never said “women.” A CDC press release used the phrase “pregnant people” 10 times and the phrase “pregnant women” only once.
The phrase “pregnant people” is used by some in the LGBT community to include biological women who identify as men. It also can include women who identify as non-binary.
Critics of the phrase, though, say it rejects science.
“People don’t get pregnant – women do,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his podcast The Briefing.
Syndicated columnist Mona Charen noted that National Public Radio also used the term.
“None of the hosts used the word ‘woman’ once. It was ‘pregnant people’ throughout,” Charen tweeted. “This is not an accident. It reinforces the idea that women aren’t the only people who get pregnant. Sigh.”
Just listened to an NPR report about vaccines in pregnancy. None of the hosts used the word "woman" once. It was "pregnant people" throughout. This is not an accident. It reinforces the idea that women aren't the only people who get pregnant. Sigh.
Daniel Darling, vice president at the National Religious Broadcasters, said the phrase is “incredibly demeaning and dehumanizing to women and the sacrifices they make in childbirth and motherhood.”
“The fact that our key institutions are using this,” he said, “is ridiculous.”
I just hate the term "pregnant people." It's so incredibly demeaning and dehumanizing to women and the sacrifices they make in childbirth and motherhood. The fact that our key institutions are using this is ridiculous.
‘Put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus,’ he says.
White House coronavirus adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci called on vaccine-hesitant Americans “put aside” their “concerns about personal liberty” and just take the experimental COVID vaccine.
“You have to get the overwhelming proportion of people vaccinated, but you also have to do mitigation, and that gets to the controversial issue of mask wearing, and the mandating of things. Mandating vaccines, for example, for teachers and…personnel in the school,” Fauci said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
“It’s the unvaccinated that are doing that, so we have a lot of tasks. We’ve got to do mitigation. Put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus,” Fauci said.
“And we really have to go together to get on top of this. Otherwise, we’re going to continue to suffer as we’re seeing right now.”
Fauci has been more brazen in his support for vaccine and mask mandates in recent months in tandem with the rise of the so-called “delta” COVID variant.
Others, like Arnold Schwarzenegger, have been more blunt in demanding compliance from Americans as local authorities in blue cities weigh imposing more mandates.
“Screw your freedom,” he said last week in response to mask mandate pushback.
So far, ten states have banned vaccine mandates as blue states like New York and California are preparing to impose vaccine and mask mandates for businesses, schools, and government jobs.
Republican leaders in oil-and-gas states want President Biden to get behind domestic producers instead of pleading with foreign governments to pump more crude as the administration seeks to counter surging fuel prices.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott advised the White House to “stay out of the way” after the administration announced Wednesday that it would ask OPEC and leading non-OPEC oil producers to boost their output in a bid to drive down world prices.
“Dear White House,” Mr. Abbott tweeted Wednesday. “Texas can do this. Our producers can easily produce that oil if your administration will just stay out of the way. Allow American workers — not OPEC — [to] produce the oil that can reduce the price of gasoline.”
Fellow Republican Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt accused the administration of “punishing” his state with its unfriendly policies toward fossil fuels, which include the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and a freeze on new oil-and-gas leasing on federal lands and waters.
“It is disturbing that the Biden administration looks to foreign adversaries for help while punishing Oklahoma and other oil-producing states here at home,” Mr. Stitt said in a Wednesday statement. “As governor, I take pride in Oklahoma’s status as a global leader in oil and gas production and our history of powering the world for generations.”
He said that “President Biden should grow America’s energy independence and support domestic oil and gas production rather than turning his back on hardworking Oklahomans.”
Dear White House:
Texas can do this.
Our producers can easily produce that oil if your Administration will just stay out of the way.
Allow American workers—not OPEC—produce the oil that can reduce the price of gasoline.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen called the administration’s approach “an insult to Americans in rural communities who would have benefited from the Keystone XL pipeline and the energy workers in states like mine who are suffering from the effects of the Biden administration’s ongoing federal lease ban.”
In March, Mr. Knudsen and 12 other GOP attorneys general sued the Biden administration over its moratorium on federal energy leasing.
“President Biden‘s lawless actions restricting domestic energy production began on his first day in office and now that the chickens are coming home to roost, he‘s asking countries like Russia, Iran and Venezuela to bail him out and pump more oil,” Mr. Knudsen said.
The Biden administration is reviewing the federal leasing program as he seeks to reduce U.S. emissions in the name of combating climate change.
Administration officials have noted that the moratorium only affects new leases, not ongoing drilling projects.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said Wednesday the administration was engaging with the major foreign energy-producing countries — known collectively as OPEC+ — on “the importance of competitive markets in setting prices,” adding that Mr. Biden “wants Americans to have access to affordable and reliable energy, including at the pump.”
“While OPEC+ recently agreed to production increases, these increases will not fully offset previous production cuts that OPEC+ imposed during the pandemic until well into 2022,” Mr. Sullivan said. “At a critical moment in the global recovery, this is simply not enough.”
Mr. Biden was also accused in May of benefiting foreign governments at the expense of domestic producers when he waived sanctions on Western firms building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is slated to run gas from Russia to Germany.
On Thursday, the average price of a gallon of gas was $3.19, up more than a dollar from last year’s average of $2.17; according to the American Automobile Association.
On September 1, Texas will become the first state to make buying sex from prostitutes a felony. This is a shift away from blaming the prostitutes and putting the focus on “johns” in an attempt to mitigate human trafficking. The law makes the crime a state jail felony.
House Bill 1540 passed the House and Senate unanimously during the spring legislative session. It is the first state law in the country that makes it a felony to buy sex from an adult. The bill also expands the definition of human trafficking which is a first-degree felony in Texas. It includes those who recruit trafficking victims from places like residential treatment centers. Adults exploit homeless minors and foster children in these facilities who are being treated for violence and assault. They prey on the most vulnerable. The bill is an attempt to deter human trafficking. Sex trafficking remains a big problem in Texas, particularly in Houston, even during the pandemic.
Though the Legislature has adopted a number of measures in recent sessions aimed at reducing sex trafficking, the illegal trade remains prevalent in Texas, particularly Houston. Sex trafficking has spiked in Texas during the COVID pandemic, according to the Polaris Project, a nonprofit that recorded a 40 percent uptick in calls to its sex trafficking hotline last year compared with 2019.
Thompson’s bill included several recommendations from the Texas Human Trafficking Prevention Task Force, a group formed by the Legislature in 2009 that includes members from more than 50 agencies and organizations and is run by the attorney general.
Among the provisions that will take effect next month is one that allows state officials to deny a liquor license to establishments that practice so-called drink solicitation, when employees such as bartenders charge marked-up prices for drinks in exchange for spending time with a customer.
The practice is considered a gateway to sex trafficking and other crimes.
The law also establishes a Class A misdemeanor charge — punishable with up to a year in jail — for those who trespass on treatment center properties. The task force notes a need for more protection for minors at treatment facilities. It says pimps freely approach minors on the grounds of treatment centers and sell them drugs.
Jamey Caruthers, an attorney for the Houston nonprofit Children At Risk, noted during the March committee hearing that the provisions of the bill that heighten penalties for drug crimes at residential treatment centers apply only to those 18 and older, meaning minors are exempt.
“These are kids with severe emotional problems, behavioral problems and substance abuse problems,” Caruthers said. “What we’re really after here are the pimps that are in the parking lot with a bag of weed waiting for a kid to come out, offering a ride. The next time that child is seen will probably be on a website … where ads are posted for buyers to purchase victims.”
House Bill 1540 is receiving attention, not just because it provides more protection for minors in treatment centers but also because the johns will receive harsher penalties as a determent against buying or soliciting sex. The maximum sentence for a first offense is doubled from one to two years and it becomes a third-degree felony for those previously convicted of the crime. Third-degree felonies carry sentences of 2-10 years in prison. State jail felonies carry a penalty of 180 days to 2 years.
Will this approach actually help ease the problem of human trafficking? The opinions from people who work in the justice system and with victims are mixed. Most agree it makes sense to punish the people buying sex, perpetuating a demand, rather than the prostitutes, who are often in the situation because of a vulnerability that led them into the world of human trafficking. The idea is to offer rehabilitation to those who are trafficked and help in getting their lives on track instead of focusing on legal punishment.
“This law is a rethinking of the traditional supply side in prosecutions that tended to target the women who were involved in these activities and not the buyers,” said Sandra Guerra Thompson, director of the Criminal Justice Institute at the University of Houston Law School. “It’s also coming from a growing awareness that oftentimes, those involved are from a vulnerable class.”
She said the law also aligns with similar approaches around the country like offering sex workers pretrial diversions, which allows them to go through alternative sentencing options rather than spending time in jail or prison. The intent is to focus on rehabilitation rather than on the punishment, she said.
“It’s really unfair to someone who is a victim to prosecute them rather than try to help them escape their situation and get their lives back on track,” she said, adding that the law could serve as a model to other states that may be considering similar measures.
Instead of a slap on the wrist and a fine for pimps, the law will allow it to be a state felony that carries jail time. An opposing view is that arresting johns does nothing for those who are sex trafficked. It may tie up victims in court and it reduces the resources they need. A professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School says the law may be well-intentioned but it actually harms the victims.
“Putting individual ‘johns’ in jail will do absolutely nothing for victims of trafficking,” she said. “In fact, it harms them because evidence demonstrates that the more resources that go into law enforcement approach, the more that victims lose because resources that ought to be going towards things like victim benefits, social services support, and legal advocacy, is still unavailable and maybe even diminished because more resources are going toward a dominant criminal enforcement approach.”
Kim said what often plays out in practice is that survivors are “rounded up” in the same operations as those buying sex, and either become criminalized themselves or enmeshed in investigations as witnesses, which often re-traumatizes and re-exploits them.
One way to improve the law could be to add a provision in the bill or additional law that promises blanket immunity for the providers of the sex services from any kind of arrest or legal charge and does not compel other participation unless they themselves want to, she said, adding that anti-trafficking efforts can only work if victims feel safe around law enforcement.
The oldest profession in the world is still around because there is a demand for it. Whether or not increasing penalties will affect the demand is questionable. Sex trafficking is a billion-dollar business. It is being aided by our open southern border. Prostitution isn’t a victimless crime, certainly not for the women and children being exploited.
The World Health Organization says it is actively pursuing evidence in support of a possible “lab-leak” origin of the SARS-Cov-2 virus, a notable contrast from an investigatory team’s earlier confidence that the theory was highly unlikely.
In a statement this week, the world health body said that “in order to address the ‘lab hypothesis,’ it is important to have access to all data and consider scientific best practice and look at the mechanisms WHO already has in place.”
“WHO is only focused on science, providing solutions and building solidarity,” the statement said.
Earlier this year an investigatory team charged with determining the origins of the virus concluded that it was “extremely unlikely” that the pathogen emerged from a Chinese coronavirus lab.
Leaders at the WHO quickly clarified that the hypothesis had not been taken off the table. Intelligence officials in the U.S. have also been looking into the possibility of a lab origin of the virus.
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the Biden administration eight days ago in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News that it must exit Afghanistan in a way that prevents the Taliban from using it as a staging ground for new attacks on the United States of America.
The humiliating and sudden collapse of the Afghan government to the Taliban forces, and the rushed evacuation of the American Embassy in Kabul in the ensuing few days since that prophetic warning indicate the Biden administration was in no way prepared to complete that mission.
On Sunday, Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News reported “Afghan President Ghani has fled the country. ‘That’s it. It’s over,’ U.S. official says.”
BREAKING: Afghan President Ghani has fled the country. “That’s it. It’s over,” U.S. official says
Minutes later on Sunday, Tomlinson followed up with a tweet and this comment from former Secretary of State Pompeo:
Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo calls Afghan President Ghani a “corrupt leader” who “spent all of his time lobbying Washington, D.C. Republicans and military leaders.” @FoxNewsSunday
In an exclusive interview with Breitbart News on Saturday, August 7, just eight days before the pending fall of Afghanistan to the Taliban, former Pompeo delivered a clear message to the Biden administration about it’s duty to the United States of America.
“How would the Trump administration have handled the exit from Afghanistan differently than the Biden administration?” Breitbart News asked Pompeo.
“We don’t know exactly what they’re going to do just yet,” Pompeo responded.
Eight days later, it appears the Biden administration also did not know.
“I had two missions that the president gave me as secretary of state. The first mission was to get our young people home, to get them out of harm’s way. The second was to make sure we left the capacity to reduce the risk we would ever be attacked from Tora Bora or Afghanistan again,” Pompeo explained in the interview.
Pompeo said that during his service as secretary of state in the Trump administration he met with the Taliban leadership and “had multiple discussions with them.”
“They were bad guys. They were very bad people who don’t care about human rights. They have an interpretation of Sharia that is violative of all the central things that we know and value and how you should treat other human beings,” Pompeo said.
“But in the end, you make peace and reconciliation with your adversaries, with your enemies. And so we were trying to find a path forward. I hope the Biden administration will do this,” he continued.
Pompeo then delivered a clear warning to the Biden administration.
“I hope they are still sincere in their effort to do the second part of the mission set, which is to ensure that we’re never attacked again from Afghanistan. When we left office, there were fewer than two hundred Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan, down from the thousands that were there almost exactly 20 years ago. That’s a really good thing, and we should be proud of the work we did to crush Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. But today, they’re in Africa, they’re in Yemen, they’re in Southeast Asia,” the former secretary of state said.
“We need to make sure our resources are deployed appropriately to protect our homeland. And that’s the mission set. It’s the mission set President [Donald] Trump had given me. I’m confident we would have delivered on both of those missions. I pray the Biden administration can get both of those right,” he concluded.
‘Gets It Wrong Every Time’: Trump Says Biden Should Have Followed His ‘Plan’ on Afghanistan
Earlier, the previous US president, Donald Trump, criticized Biden on his Afghanistan policy, as the former wondered out loud whether anyone in the US had begun to miss him in the White House as the Taliban advances in the Central Asian country following the US military’s exit.
Former US President Donald Trump issued a statement on Saturday lambasting the policies of the current administration under President Joe Biden on Afghanistan and remarking that Biden should have followed Trump’s “plan”.
While Trump did not elaborate on what his “plan” actually was, he did suggest that it had “protected our people and our property, and ensured the Taliban* would never dream of taking our embassy or providing a base for new attacks against America”.
Trump also predicted that it would be a “disgrace” when the Taliban “raises their flag over America’s Embassy in Kabul”.
The former president’s comments came shortly after Biden took a shot at Trump’s Afghan policies earlier in the day, where he announced an increase in the troop deployment in Afghanistan to 5,000 to aid with the evacuation. According to Biden, his predecessor “left the Taliban in the strongest position militarily since 2001”, imposing a May 2021 deadline on US forces.
As his presidential term ended in 2020, Trump made a deal with the Taliban to pledge that the US, along with its allies, would reduce troops in the region and lift sanctions against the group, while the militant movement would promise to not allow al-Qaeda* or any other extremist groups to operate in regions under its control.
Trump is not the only one to condemn the 46th president for his moves in Afghanistan, as he has been joined by a choir of conservatives, with some voicing concerns that the Biden policy to withdraw American troops may result in “ISIS 3.0”.