#us withdraw troops from afghanistan

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Courtney Kube, Carol E. Lee, Vaughn Hillyard, and Mosheh Gains at NBC News:

The Trump transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former U.S. military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan and exploring whether they could be court-martialed for their involvement, according to a U.S. official and a person familiar with the plan.  Officials working on the transition are considering creating a commission to investigate the 2021 withdrawal from Afghanistan, including gathering information about who was directly involved in the decision-making for the military, how it was carried out, and whether the military leaders could be eligible for charges as serious as treason, the U.S. official and person with knowledge of the plan said. “They’re taking it very seriously,” the person with knowledge of the plan said. The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Matt Flynn, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for counternarcotics and global threats, is helping lead the effort, the sources said. It is being framed as a review of how the U.S. first got into the war in Afghanistan and how the U.S. ultimately withdrew.

[...] President-elect Donald Trump has condemned the withdrawal as a “humiliation” and “the most embarrassing day in the history of our country.”  It is not clear, though, what would legally justify “treason” charges since the military officers were following the orders of President Joe Biden to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

A 2022 independent review by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction blamed both the Trump and Biden administrations for the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in 2021. Trump first reached an agreement with the Taliban in 2020 to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan, roughly 13,000 troops, and release 5,000 Taliban fighters from prison. The Biden administration then completed the withdrawal and badly overestimated the ability of Afghan government forces to fight the Taliban on their own. Trump’s choice for secretary of defense, Fox News personality Pete Hegseth, has criticized the withdrawal, saying the U.S. lost the war and wasted billions of dollars. In his book “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth wrote, “The next president of the United States needs to radically overhaul Pentagon senior leadership to make us ready to defend our nation and defeat our enemies. Lots of people need to be fired. The debacle in Afghanistan, of course, is the most glaring example.”

[...] The transition team is looking at the possibility of recalling several commanders to active duty for possible charges, the U.S. official said.  It’s not clear the Trump administration would pursue treason charges, and instead could focus on lesser charges that highlight the officer’s involvement. “They want to set an example,” said the person with knowledge of the plan.

NBC News is reporting that Donald Trump’s transition team is compiling a list of senior current and former US military officers who were directly involved in the withdrawal from Afghanistan to face a potential court martial.

This is a fascistic insult to common sense.

[darkmaga-returns]

https://en.topwar.ru/253668-the-wall-street-journal-v-komande-trampa-gotovjat-ukaz-o-chistke-generalov-vinovnyh-v-begstve-ssha-iz-afganistana.html

The Wall Street Journal: Trump's team is preparing an order to purge generals guilty of US flight from Afghanistan

Today, 10: 1726

The team of the 47th US President is currently actively working on an executive order to establish a “war council” that will have the power to remove US Army generals and admirals from their positions. fleet. This was reported by The Wall Street Journal. The publication notes that the new body may include retired generals and officers.

As commander in chief, Trump would already be able to fire any officer he wanted, something presidents rarely do for political reasons. But an outside council would be able to bypass the system by signaling to the entire military that he intends to purge a number of generals and admirals.

- notes the publication.

A draft order reviewed by The Wall Street Journal outlines that the military board will review active-duty senior military personnel, focusing on their leadership qualities and commitment to military excellence.

However, as the publication’s sources claim, the first to come under the new body’s scrutiny may be those generals whom Trump considers guilty of the shameful withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan.

It is assumed that the military council will have the right to send recommendations to the US president on the removal of a particular general or admiral from office. Such a recommendation, as the newspaper claims, will become a kind of black mark for the military. After the corresponding recommendation lands on Donald Trump's desk, the general or admiral will be dismissed from their position within 30 days.

Let us add that earlier American media already reported that Donald Trump has prepared a so-called black list of his enemies, with whom he intends to settle accounts during his presidency. According to the press, it includes Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and several other high-ranking current and retired US politicians.

[tomorrowusa]

Donald Trump's botched handling of the pandemic emergency spread COVID-19 throughout the United States. Perhaps memory loss is an unexpected side effect of Long COVID.

It's up to all of us personally to remind people of the horrors of the Trump administration. Don't rely on the media and political ads to do so.

Those who blame Biden for the chaos at the end of US involvement in Afghanistan conveniently leave out the fact that the Trump administration effectively handed over the country to the Taliban.

Senate Republicans, before they became full-time concubines of Trump, were alarmed by the timetable. This is from FactCheck.org

^^^ Li'l Marco should hope that nobody reminds Trump how critical he was of The Orange One's Afghanistan withdrawal.

Biden inherited a flawed deal from Trump. At the time Trump left the White House, US troop levels in Afghanistan were down to 2,500 as 5,000 Taliban prisoners were being released.

Of course not many people in the US were paying a lot of attention to Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of Trump's January 6th coup attempt.

[gryficowa]

Isn't it fascinating to see liberals blaming everyone for feeling in four years what Palestinians have felt for 70 years?

Well listen, karma is a bitch, you treated genocide as a "minor issue", now at least you will experience it for yourself, don't blame the leftists, blame yourself, because the fault was your ignorance and the desire to maintain your privilege at the expense of others

This will last four years, what the Palestinians have been going through has lasted almost 80 years, ignorance is bliss but reality will hit you harder when it comes to you

It's not the leftists' fault, you're just dealing with the consequences of your ignorance

Recall that the US did not stop the holocaust when it started, and only two years after the Third Reich attacked Poland, think of all the people who could have been saved but were not because of America's ignorance, think of the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Yemenis what could have been saved, but the democratic party preferred to help Israel all year round

Think of the women of Afghanistan who wouldn't have had to deal with the Taliban now if Biden had stopped Trump's bill (instead of postponing it a year later) related to the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan

You ignored it because it was the blue party, now your love for them has bitten you in the ass and you're going to face the shit these people have been dealing with for much longer than you want to think

[simply-ivanka]

Kamala Harris on the Afghanistan Withdrawal

Three years later, she calls Biden’s decision ‘courageous and right.’

By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal

Kamala Harris is working hard to hide her policy views from the public, but now and then she opens a window on her worldview, and it isn’t reassuring. One example came Monday on the third anniversary of the terrorist bombing at the Kabul airport that killed 13 Americans trying to defend the chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The Vice President praised the dead servicemen and women. “Today and everyday, I mourn and honor them,” she said in a statement.

But if she has any regrets about President Biden’s policy, she isn’t sharing them. “As I have said,” Ms. Harris noted, “President Biden made the courageous and right decision to end America’s longest war.”

It’s good to know what she thinks, but it doesn’t reflect well on her judgment as a potential Commander in Chief. The withdrawal decision was arguably the worst of Mr. Biden’s Presidency, as he ignored the advice of nearly all of his advisers that a date-certain, total retreat would likely result in the collapse of the Afghan government and a Taliban takeover. Keeping a few thousand troops in support of the Afghan forces could have prevented the catastrophe and its consequences.

Listen to retired Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, who was in charge of Central Command at the time of the Afghan fiasco, speaking recently on the School of War podcast:

Host Aaron MacLean: “What do you think the consequences are broadly of the collapse and us not being there?”

Gen. McKenzie: “Well, I think on several levels, I think [Vladimir] Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was directly driven by this. I think the Chinese were emboldened as a result of it. I think that more operationally, I think ISIS-K flourishes now in Afghanistan. The attack in Moscow just a few months ago is only a sign of things to come.

“Our ability to actually look into Afghanistan, understand what goes on in Afghanistan, is such a small percentage of what it used to be that it is effectively zero. So we predicted these things will happen, these things are happening. Our ability to, again, apply leverage here is quite limited.”

Mr. Biden was indeed warned about all of this—and so was Ms. Harris if she was in the White House Situation Room as she likes to say she has been for all of this Administration’s major security decisions. The needless deaths of those 13 Americans were the worst result, but the withdrawal also marked the end of Mr. Biden’s ability to deter adversaries around the world.

That Ms. Harris now embraces this failure suggests more of the same ahead if she wins in November.

Appeared in the August 27, 2024, print edition as 'Kamala on the Afghan Withdrawal'.

[deadpresidents]

Random question, but something I've wondered for the last few years: concerning Afghanistan, should the US have considered leaving a few thousand troops in Kabul indefinitely while withdrawing troops from the rest of the country?

It seems like the capital city would've been relatively easy for American troops to defend, and their presence there could have blocked the Taliban from fully returning to power. A singular focus on protecting Kabul might've been one way to prevent the worst possible outcome.

When President Trump left office and President Biden was inaugurated in January 2021, there were only 2,500 American troops left in Afghanistan. The Trump Administration had made a deal with the Taliban to withdraw all American troops by May 2021, and Biden pushed that back by a few months, but if the U.S. wanted to defend Kabul we almost certainly would have had to commit to another surge of American troops and that simply wasn't going to happen. It would have required a bigger fight against the Taliban because we would have been pulling out of the deal that the Trump Administration negotiated and the Taliban was already in the process of rapidly regaining control of the country by that time.

Even when he was Vice President, Joe Biden strongly believed that the United States needed to get out of Afghanistan because the only other option was to be there forever. Twenty years of training and equipping Afghan troops still hadn't resulted in a national force that could stand on its own, so Biden had argued against troop surges since the earliest days of the Obama Administration. There was no way that Biden was going to surge the number of troops once he became President, and Trump was so determined to withdraw all the troops from Afghanistan before the end of his term that his Defense Department had to beg him to pump the brakes.

Just to defend Kabul would have required much more than those 2,500 American troops left in the country on the day Biden was inaugurated. And the Afghan government of Ashraf Ghani was an unreliable partner that was corrupt and often seemed oblivious to what was actually happening throughout the country. You used the word "indefinitely" and that's exactly what Biden (and Trump, to be fair) wanted to avoid. We had already been in Afghanistan for 20 years, and things weren't heading in the right direction.

I certainly don't agree that we should have been there indefinitely. I think we probably should have bolstered the American forces in Kabul for a short and specific amount of time in order to ensure that the withdrawal was less chaotic. But it was always going to be an ugly end. There was never going to be a victory in Afghanistan, and I supported the decision to withdraw American troops. I wish we would have done a far better job at protecting the Afghan people who worked for ISAF/NATO and ended up left behind to fend for themselves as the Taliban took over once again. It's a tragedy that those final days were such a mess, but one of our leaders was going to have to make the difficult decision to definitively end the neverending war that we were never going to win, and I think history will eventually see President Biden's decisive action in a different light, much like President Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon is understood differently today.

[thewarfox]

Reagan gave the rich big tax cuts and Trump did too. The war in Afghanistan was still going when Trump was in office. He released 5000 Taliban prisoners including their leader. Now tell me that you paid less taxes and the world was safer under Trump. Denial ain't a river in Egypt, Cletus! Crawl back inside your Trailer. Your cousin is going to have another of your babies now.

... did an AI write this? I'm not even sure if I'm supposed to take this seriously. There's not even an indication of what provoked this. I don't recall saying anything about tax cuts or the 'world being safer'. When those tax cuts end soon and you have to pay through your ass on taxes next year, you tell me what situation you'd prefer, with or without them. As far as Taliban prisoners? If I recall correctly they were released as part of an Afgani peace deal that the US was brokering with the Taliban to try to end conflict. Said deal was to release 5000 Taliban prisoners in exchange for 1000 of the Taliban's prisoners. The point was that Trump was trying to arrange for the US to withdraw from Afganistan so that the various muslims of the region could solve their own problems and conflicts with one another. That Afganistan withdrawal was utterly and tragically botched by Joe Biden, who left tens of billions of dollars in military equipment, weapons, and money behind for the Taliban, got a lot of people killed, and for good measure he drone-bombed an entire family thinking they were attackers when they were actually US allies who had been providing our people water on the way out. The deal had been to be out by a certain date, giving our people time to remove our equipment, dismantle/destroy our bases, and evacuate our allies and troops without needing to fire a shot. Biden and his incompetent staff not only did not do any of the preparation needed to accomplish any of this, but he also tried to renege on the deal by pushing back the exit date for symbolic reasons(to September 11th, I believe). The Taliban had enough of our shit not sticking to the deal, and forced us out in humiliating and disastrous fashion.

Whether or not Biden liked the deal orchestrated by his predecessor, it was still his duty to see it through, as he's responsible for treaties and military action and whatnot. If you want to talk about what has left the world less safe, $85 BILLION in weapons, armor, helicopters, and other equipment in Taliban hands certainly didn't make things safer. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that Hamas in Israel were funded and equipped through this massive transfer of wealth and spurred them into attacking last October.

You're a brainwashed stooge who doesn't know anything about the world, nor do you understand anything about it. And you know what? I will say I paid less taxes under Trump. And I will say that I think the world was trending towards being safer under his leadership, bravery, and guidance. He was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize(FOUR TIMES) for a reason. Fuck off with your shit, scumsucker.

[rockyp77mk3]

Grocery stores have been gouging customers since 2020. Trump was in office then. Why didn't he do something about the prices then? Why didn't he pull troops out of Afghansitan then? He said he got rid of Isis but that's bullshit. Wake the fuck up! He's a pile of bullshit!

If you look at the data, neutral and unbiased data that is, gross profit margins of grocery stores have been relatively flat since 2018. A sharp and sustained rise in gross profits would be how you judge gouging. Gross profits refer to the money left in company coffers after paying the direct cost of producing and stocking goods. So, inflation, increased fuel costs, wage increases, cost of production, increases in governmental regulations, and quite a few other things all contributed to increased cost of food. But of course these prices really took off in the last two years of the Biden-Harris administration.

Trump was getting us out of Afghanistan, the right way. The right way wasn't the cut and run remake of the fall of Saigon produced and directed by the Biden-Harris team. Trump had set goals for the Afghani government and Taliban to meet in order for the US to withdraw in a metered and orderly fashion. Biden-Harris rushed a poorly planned mass exit that not only left billions of dollars worth of military hardware behind but cost the lives of 13 servicemembers, not to mention leaving many of our allies in the lurch. Biden-Harris screwed up, just admit it.

Trump had ISIS to the point where it didn't have two suicide vests to clack off together. No nation no matter how failed would give them a secure base from which to operate. Their funding was drying up, their support was slipping away. In other words they were defeated. Then a president with the spine of a chocolate eclair took the Oval Office and the pressure was taken off the shattered remains of ISIS. In fact the pressure was taken off just about every terror group. In the absence of that pressure the terror groups made something of a comeback. Once again not Trump's fault. You have to blame the Biden-Harris team again.

The only pile of bullshit brought to this this discussion was delivered by you.

[ritchiepage2001newaccount]

Project2025 #CorpMedia #Oligarchs #MegaBanks vs #Union #Occupy #NoDAPL #BLM #SDF #DACA #MeToo #Humanity #FeelTheBern

JinJiyanAzadi #BijiRojava Trump believes fight against DAESH achieved goal [UPDATES]

According to reports by Reuters and numerous American media, the US military troops are to be withdrawn from Syria…

RELATED UPDATE: Mattis resigns after clash with Trump over troop withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-announces-mattis-will-leave-as-defense-secretary-at-the-end-of-february/2018/12/20/e1a846ee-e147-11e8-ab2c-b31dcd53ca6b_story.html

RELATED UPDATE: Top U.S. envoy in the fight against ISIS resigns

RELATED UPDATE: Journalist Houda-Pepin: We betrayed the Kurds

RELATED UPDATE: Chief Pentagon spokeswoman announces resignation

RELATED UPDATE: Bolton’s visit to Ankara: Yellow vests, 944 and more

RELATED UPDATE: Trump Says ISIS Is Defeated. Reality Says Otherwise.

RELATED UPDATE: Report Warns ISIS is “Resurging” in Syria After Trump Ordered a Partial Troop Withdrawal

RELATED UPDATE: The Man Who Couldn’t Take It Anymore

FURTHER READING:

[misfitwashere]

Friends,

What might otherwise be considered a minor error of judgment can blow up into a big issue in a political campaign when the error evokes a candidate’s deeper flaws. 

Yesterday, the U.S. Army issued a stern rebuke to the Trump campaign over his visit on Monday to the Arlington National Cemetery, where Trump sought to score political points by marking the third anniversary of a deadly attack on U.S. troops in Afghanistan as American forces withdrew from the country. Thirteen American service members were killed in the attack at Kabul airport’s Abbey Gate.

A video of the visit posted by the Trump campaign on TikTok shows Trump visiting grave sites, with audio of him blasting Biden’s “disaster” of the Afghanistan withdrawal.

The Army said in its statement that participants in the ceremony “were made aware of federal laws” which “clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds.” The statement also noted that an Arlington National Cemetery official “who attempted to ensure adherence” to these rules “was abruptly pushed aside.” 

Reportedly, when the cemetery official — a woman — tried to prevent Trump and his staff from entering the prohibited area, Trump’s staff verbally abused her and pushed her out of the way so Trump could enter. 

The Army statement went on to say: “It is unfortunate that the ANC employee and her professionalism has been unfairly attacked. ANC is a national shrine to the honored dead of the Armed Forces, and its dedicated staff will continue to ensure public ceremonies are conducted with the dignity and respect the nation’s fallen deserve.”

The incident has blown up into a big issue, but not because the Trump campaign erroneously held a political event at the Arlington National Cemetery. 

It’s blown up because it’s a microcosm of Donald Trump’s moral squalor. 

Trump has repeatedly shown contempt for military heroism. He claimed that the late John McCain, who had been a prisoner of war, was “not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.” 

When General Mark Milley invited a wounded, wheelchair-bound soldier to sing “God Bless America” at Milley’s welcoming ceremony as Trump’s chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Trump admonished him, “Why do you bring people like that here? No one wants to see that, the wounded.”

On a trip to France in 2018, Trump refused to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery, where more than 2,200 U.S. service members are buried. “Why should I go to that cemetery?” he asked staff members. “It’s filled with losers.” 

According to Trump’s then-chief of staff John Kelly, Trump called the Marines who died at Belleau Wood “suckers” for getting killed.

Trump recently said that the Congressional Medal of Freedom he’d awarded to Republican donor Miriam Adelson was “much better” than the Medal of Honor because Medal of Honor recipients are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they are dead.”

It’s not only Trump’s disdain for military heroism that’s brought to mind by what happened at Arlington National Cemetery. It’s also Trump’s disdain for the law, suggesting other occasions when Trump and his henchmen have disregarded legal rules, including their attempt to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election. 

Verbally abusing and pushing the cemetery employee who was trying to enforce the law, after she notified Trump and his staff that it was illegal to stage political events at the ceremony, recalls other instances when Trump and gang have pushed people aside, using violence to try to get their way. Think January 6, 2021. 

That the employee in question is a woman brings to mind the multitude of ways Trump has employed violence against women, from grabbing their genitals to raping them to stirring up his followers to threaten them. She declined to press charges because, according to military officials, she feared retaliation by Trump supporters. 

The entire incident is also a microcosm of Trump’s utter disdain for morality, honor, and patriotism — the public virtues, the common good. The cemetery is a sacred, hallowed ground. It is considered to be a national shrine. Trump sullied it to achieve his personal goal of the moment: to get a news clip in which he could bash Biden and, indirectly, Kamala Harris. 

The incident rings the warning bells, rekindles the dark memories, revives the fears. 

What happened at Arlington National Cemetery earlier this week was much more than an erroneous photo op. It was Trump on full display.

***********************************************************************

It was a crime.

[mariacallous]

What would Donald Trump’s foreign policy look like, should he win a second presidential term? The debate ranges between those who believe he will abandon Ukraine, withdraw from NATO, and herald a “post-American Europe”—and those who predict he will escalate the Russian-Ukrainian war and continue his fiercely anti-communist policies. Foreign governments have been frantically reaching out to Trump and Republican circles to understand, if not influence, the future direction of his policies; one such visit may have even played a role in Trump’s acquiescence to the most recent batch of U.S. military aid to Ukraine following months of delay by many of his Republican supporters in the U.S. Congress.

One fact is already clear: If Trump regains the presidency, he and his potential advisors will return to a significantly changed global landscape—marked by two regional wars, the threat of a third in Asia, the return of great-power geopolitics, and globalization measurably in decline. While many expect a Trump 2.0 to be a more intense version of Trump 1.0, his response to the dramatic changes in the geopolitical environment could lead to unexpected outcomes.

Trump may now be less eager to abandon Europe given fast-rising European defense spending and an ongoing major war. The strengthening U.S. economy and flux in global supply chains could facilitate a broader decoupling from China and market-access agreements with allies. Expanded Iranian aggression could make it easier for Trump 2.0 to build a large international coalition. An examination of these and other changes of the last four years could yield surprising insights into how a second Trump administration could differ significantly from the first.

Since Trump left office, the U.S.-Mexico border crisis has worsened significantly. In 2020, Trump’s last full year in office, U.S. Customs and Border Protection carried out 646,822 enforcement actions, including against three individuals on the Terrorist Screening Data Set. By 2023, this had skyrocketed to 3.2 million encounters, including 172 people on the terrorist list. Under the Biden-Harris administration, there have been some 10 million illegal border crossings, including nearly 2 million known so-called gotaways—illegal crossers who could not be apprehended. The unsecured border, broken asylum process, and overwhelmed immigration courts have enabled significant fentanyl trafficking, resulting in over 200,000 American deaths in the last three years.

For a second Trump administration, sealing the border would be the critical national security issue, overshadowing all others. The Republican platform calls for completion of the border wall, the use of advanced technology on the border, and shifting the focus of federal law enforcement to migration. It also proposes redeploying troops from overseas to the southern border and deploying the U.S. Navy to impose a fentanyl blockade. Americans now see the border as a major problem, and Congress is likely to support significant spending. This reallocation will impact other areas, since the U.S. Army and Navy are already struggling with personnel and fleet size targets. Navigating tensions with Mexico and Central American countries, many of which have free-trade agreements with the United States and receive U.S. assistance, will be challenging.

Facing escalating regional wars and the smallest U.S. military in generations, Trump would likely oversee the most significant U.S. military buildup in nearly 50 years. The U.S. Armed Forces are shrinking, and the defense budget is close to its post-World War II low in terms of both federal budget share and percentage of GDP. The capacity, capabilities, and readiness of the U.S. military are weakening, and the defense industrial base has atrophied. The disastrous defeat in Afghanistan has led to a significant drop in Americans’ confidence in the military.

Trump has long supported a bigger and stronger military, but his administration’s modest budget increases primarily went to personnel, operations, and maintenance, with little investment in capabilities. Under then-Defense Secretary James Mattis, the 2018 National Defense Strategy abandoned the long-standing U.S. doctrine of maintaining readiness to fight wars in two regions simultaneously, focusing instead on deterring China in the Indo-Pacific. Today’s Trump-approved Republican platform pledges a larger, modern military, investment in the defense industrial base, and a national missile defense shield. Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, likely the next chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has proposed a detailed plan to raise defense spending from 3 percent of GDP in 2024 to 5 percent within five to seven years. This plan aligns with Trump’s policies and could lead to a domestic manufacturing boom. Trump could announce the first-ever trillion-dollar defense budget with broad Republican support, determined not to be remembered as the president who let China surpass the U.S. militarily.

Notwithstanding the Biden administration’s climate agenda, the United States’ historic rise as the world’s energy superpower could empower Trump to pursue more punitive policies against Russia and Iran while wielding greater leverage over China. The United States is now producing and exporting more energy than ever, even as its carbon emissions have decreased, largely due to the shift from coal to gas. In 2019, the country became a net energy exporter. Since 2017, total energy exports have nearly doubled, and the country has surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s biggest oil producer. By further ramping up liquefied natural gas exports to Europe, a second Trump administration could reduce Russia’s influence, reshape European geopolitics, and strengthen trans-Atlantic ties. It would also greatly reduce the trade deficit with Europe, something Trump frequently rails about. Expanding energy production would also increase U.S. leverage over China, the world’s largest energy importer. Greater production—as well as closer alignment with Saudi Arabia under Trump—could do much to lower gas prices in the United States and oil prices globally. This, in turn, would allow Trump to pursue more aggressive strategic policies, such as striking Iranian nuclear assets or, should he wish to do so, diminishing Russian oil and gas exports.

The relative strength of the U.S. economy and major shifts in trading patterns would give another Trump administration far greater leverage on trade—including winning a trade war with China and striking new or revised trade deals with others.

Many Americans have a pessimistic view of their country’s economy, but it is far stronger relative to its peers than in 2016 or 2020. This year, the U.S. economy will account for an estimated 26 percent of global GDP, the highest share in almost two decades. It was nearly four times the size of Japan’s when Trump first entered office, and it will be seven times as large by the end of this year. As recently as 2008, the U.S. and Eurozone economies were similar in size. Today, the former towers over the latter, with the U.S. economy almost 80 percent larger. Britain’s relative decline is similar.

The strength of the U.S. economy would give Trump the leverage to strike the fair and reciprocal trade deals he seeks. Japan, facing an ever-aggressive China and urgently needing to boost economic growth, might build on the 2019 U.S.-Japan market access deal. Trump could resume the talks with Britain from the end of his first term with more leverage; a former Trump official indicated that a deal with Britain would be a priority in a second term. Trump might also revisit negotiations with the EU, following up on a market access agreement signed in 2019 following his imposition of tariffs. After eight years on top, the United States has overtaken China to be Germany’s top trading partner again. Trump’s aim to secure better deals is evident, and he may find more willing partners than before.

The same dynamics may lead to a far broader trade war with and decoupling from China. The U.S. economy has grown relative to China’s over the past eight years, with the gap widening in both directions: The U.S. economy is larger and the Chinese one smaller than economists expected. The forecast for when China’s economy might surpass the United States’ keeps sliding further and further into the future and may never happen at all. The International Monetary Fund projects that China’s share of the Asia-Pacific region’s GDP will be slightly smaller in five years than it is today, and it may never become the majority share. Even China’s official, flattering statistics suggest its economy is experiencing a lost decade due to deeply structural challenges, not temporary ones.

Over the past eight years, the U.S. economy has also become less dependent on foreign trade, including with China. In 2016, China was the top U.S. trading partner, accounting for more than 20 percent of U.S. imports and about 16 percent of total U.S. trade. By 2023, China slipped to third place, accounting for 13.9 percent of imports and 11.3 percent of trade. This shift would give greater credibility to Trump’s threats to revoke China’s most-favored nation trading status and impose wide-ranging tariffs. While these measures would have economic costs for Americans, around 80 percent of Americans view China unfavorably today, a significant increase from 2017, and the United States is now better positioned to withstand a protracted trade war with China than a few years ago.

Trump 2.0 would have the potential to lead a broader containment approach toward China. First, Trump and most Americans blame the Chinese government for the COVID-19 pandemic, which killed more than 1 million Americans, forced the U.S. economy into a deep recession, and likely cost Trump his reelection in 2020. Whether through trade measures, sanctions, or a demand for reparations, Trump will seek to hold China accountable for the estimated $18 trillion in damage the COVID-19 pandemic caused to the United States. In parallel, he is likely to end the attempts at partnership made by the Biden administration and Trump during parts of his first term. Issues like climate change, public health, foreign investment, Chinese land purchases in the United States, and Beijing’s role in the fentanyl epidemic will be viewed through the lens of strategic independence from China, as outlined in the Republican platform.

Second, the United States’ major European allies have become much more critical of China than when Trump left office—the result of COVID-19, Chinese “wolf warrior” diplomacy, Beijing’s support for Moscow’s war in Ukraine, and mounting issues concerning trade, technology, and supply chains. The references to China in the 2024 G-7 summit statement and NATO summit communique, compared to the last versions under Trump in 2019, make that clear. Europe is following Washington’s lead in imposing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, restricting Chinese telecoms from 5G infrastructure, and exposing and punishing Chinese espionage. A second Trump administration could build a coalition against Chinese behavior.

Third, the United States’ Asian allies are enhancing their military capabilities and cooperation among themselves. Australia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and others are increasing their defense spending, and the United States recently negotiated expanded military access to key sites in the Philippines. Improved regional alliances and partnerships, including the Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) pact, the Quad (Australia, India, Japan, and the United States), much improved Japan-South Korea relations, and growing Japan-Philippines cooperation will strengthen Trump’s hand with Beijing.

However, the China Trump will face is more powerful and aggressive than ever before. It has significantly increased its military harassment of Taiwan, the Philippines, and India. It has also deepened its strategic partnership with Russia: The two countries declared a “partnership without limits” in 2022, and Chinese President Xi Jinping told Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023 that the world is undergoing changes “we haven’t seen for 100 years—and we are the ones driving these changes together.” China’s navy, already larger than its U.S. counterpart since around 2015, could be about 50 percent larger by the end of Trump’s second term. How would Trump respond if China attacked Taiwan? Washington assesses that Xi has ordered the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to be prepared to win a war against Taiwan by 2027, and U.S. war games consistently indicate the U.S. could lose such a conflict. Trump continues to hew to the decadeslong policy of maintaining strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan’s defense, even if he has included Taiwan in his familiar critique of allies not doing enough for their own defense. Nevertheless, the continuously eroding balance of power and rapidly evolving correlation of forces could make Trump less likely to assist Taiwan than one might suspect given his overall China policy. As Trump recently acknowledged in the bluntest of terms, Taiwan is 9,500 miles away from the United States but only 68 miles away from China.

Trump would return as commander in chief with the largest European war since World War II raging in Ukraine, the increased presence of U.S. forces on the continent, and European NATO members ramping up their defense spending. The much-changed situation in Europe could make him far less likely to withdraw U.S. troops, end support for Ukraine, or seek a grand bargain with Putin.

Trump’s persistent haranguing of European allies when he was president, coupled with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has prompted European countries to rapidly increase their defense spending. Whereas only five NATO members spent at least 2 percent of GDP on defense in 2016 and nine did so in 2020, 23 do so now. European NATO nations have increased their collective defense spending by more than half since Trump first took office, far ahead of the United States’ much smaller increase during the same period. Germany has even surpassed Britain as Europe’s biggest defense spender. The burden sharing Trump pushed for is beginning to happen: European NATO allies are now shouldering a greater share of bloc-wide defense spending, and Europe also provides the majority of aid to Ukraine. U.S. companies and workers are benefiting: The U.S. share of global arms exports rose from 34 percent to 42 percent over the most recent five-year period.

In his first term, Trump welcomed both Montenegro and North Macedonia into NATO, even though neither met the 2 percent mark at the time. His inclination to move U.S. forces farther east along NATO’s frontier is now a reality. Today, 20,000 U.S. forces are stationed in the alliance’s eastern frontier states, part of what Supreme Allied Commander Europe Gen. Christopher Cavoli called a “definite shift eastward.” With the addition of Finland and Sweden as a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO now has a significantly reshaped posture.

While the 2 percent floor for defense spending is now grossly inadequate, European states are proposing higher benchmarks. The European Union has released its first-ever defense industrial strategy, and many European countries are planning further increases in spending. Were Trump to preside over the June 2025 NATO summit in the Netherlands, he could not only announce “mission accomplished” with respect to the 2 percent target, but that NATO has collectively pledged a higher 3 percent floor.

Trump has promised to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine “in 24 hours”—but has also threatened to dramatically increase arms support to Ukraine if Putin does not comply. He has never outright opposed military aid to Ukraine, acquiesced to congressional passage of a large supplemental in April, and recently concluded a positive call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Having observed how Biden’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan sunk his presidency, Trump may be determined to avoid a similar loss of Ukraine.

Facing a Middle East with escalating Tehran-backed conflicts and a near-nuclear Iran, Trump 2.0 might also double down and increase U.S. military involvement to douse the fires Tehran has lit.

Trump is likely to end the Biden administration’s pressure on Israel to end the war against Hamas, de-escalate against Iran, and withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank. Trump would end Biden’s embargo on certain U.S. arms deliveries to Israel, halt aid to Gaza, and de-emphasize humanitarian concerns. Trump has consistently supported an Israeli “victory”—a stance repeated by his running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance—and called on Israel to “finish the job.” Trump has walked back his previous endorsement of a Palestinian state, suggesting a very different approach to the “day after.” If a major war between Israel and Hezbollah breaks out, Trump’s track record suggests he would support swift Israeli action with less concern for civilian casualties, with full U.S. support but no direct military involvement.

Trump 2.0 would quickly face the choice of whether to take preemptive military action against Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran is now a nuclear breakout state, capable of producing enough weapons-grade uranium for several bombs in less than 10 days, even if weaponization may take several months to a year. Berlin, Paris, and London, antagonists to Trump 1.0’s Iran policy, may be supporters of Trump 2.0’s, as Iran’s growing military alliance with Russia, nuclear progress, and support for the Houthis have shifted European attitudes. Having repeatedly passed the wartime tests by Iran and its proxies, Israeli anti-air capabilities have rapidly improved, as has coordination with Arab partners. Trump will likely recharge his maximum-pressure approach, but he may be more likely to threaten Iran directly than ever before.

Trump 2.0 could also launch a campaign against the Houthis similar to that against the Islamic State during Trump 1.0. He would inherit a 24-nation coalition that is currently failing to restore freedom of navigation through the Red Sea. Despite the most intense U.S. naval combat operations since World War II, Suez Canal transits are still fewer than half of what they were a year ago; so far, over 90 commercial vessels have been hit and more than 100 warships attacked. Just as he declared the defeat and destruction of the Islamic State to be his “highest priority” on the first day of his presidency, he may flip the mission from a defensive to offensive one by hitting Houthi launch sites, targeting critical infrastructure, eliminating Iranian naval support, and directly threatening Tehran. A successful campaign could restore commercial shipping, lower energy and shipping costs, and foster diplomatic cooperation with European, Middle Eastern, and Asian governments.

Even if Trump’s instincts and inclinations remain unchanged, the world’s vastly shifted circumstances could prompt unexpected approaches. If Trump 1.0 was an alliance disruptor and protectionist, a second Trump administration could turn out to be a coalition builder and forger of significant trade deals. Concerns over U.S. abandonment of Europe and withdrawal from the Middle East may prove to have been hasty, with altered circumstances leading to greater stability in Europe and a rollback of Iranian aggression in the Middle East. Dealmaking with China may give way to the best opportunity to build a Cold War-like coalition to blunt aggressive Chinese behavior.

[septembriseur]

“In August 2021, the world watched with dread as the Taliban swiftly regained control of Afghanistan while U.S. forces exited the country. In those early days, it became clear that an ominous fate awaited America’s most committed Afghan allies. Women and men who fought shoulder to shoulder alongside U.S. troops were left facing inevitable retribution from the Taliban. As the challenges of the U.S.-led operation to evacuate vulnerable Afghan allies became painfully clear, it also became obvious to many of us that some of the most at-risk Afghans were likely to be left behind.

In fact, despite the large number of Afghans evacuated during the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021, a report from the Association of Wartime Allies (AWA) in February 2022, showed that of the estimated 81,000 Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) applicants in Afghanistan that had visa applications pending as of Aug. 15, 2021 — the day Kabul fell — some 78,000 were not evacuated in this effort. At least 96 percent of the SIV population remained in Afghanistan and in grave danger of reprisal by the Taliban.

…As with most government programs, the Afghan SIV program is complicated and requires oversight and maintenance. Most acutely, the program does not have an unlimited number of visas available and relies on congressional reauthorization of visas to allow America to continue to bring those left behind in Afghanistan to the safer shores of the U.S. Based on the rate of issuance, there are likely less than 7,000 visas remaining available for Afghan allies, with some 140,000+ SIV applicants waiting to receive one. At the current pace, this supply of visas will be exhausted as early as mid-August of this year.”

[beardedmrbean]

NBC’s Kristen Welker "incorrectly implied" that Vice President Kamala Harris was in attendance at the dignified transfer of U.S. troops killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal.

Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., appeared on NBC’s "Meet the Press" Sunday and criticized President Biden and Harris for ignoring the families of the fallen soldiers. 

"Joe Biden and Kamala Harris — where were they? Joe Biden was sitting at a beach. Kamala Harris was sitting at her mansion in Washington, D.C. She was four miles away — ten minutes. She could've gone to the cemetery and honored the sacrifice of those young men and women, but she hasn't. She never has spoken to them or taken a meeting with them," Cotton told Welker. "It is because of her and Joe Biden's incompetence that those 13 Americans were killed in Afghanistan."

"They did meet them during the dignified transfer. They were with them at the dignified transfer," Welker interjected.

TRUMP SUPPORTERS, GOLD STAR FAMILIES FLOOD HARRIS' X ACCOUNT AFTER ARLINGTON ATTACK: ADMIN 'KILLED MY SON'

NBC posted a correction on the show's X account after the show. 

"On our broadcast this morning, we incorrectly implied that both President Biden and Vice President Harris attended the dignified transfer of 13 American service members killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal,"  NBC wrote on their "Meet the Press" X account.

"Biden was in attendance but Harris was not," the statement continued.

GOLD STAR FAMILIES SLAM KAMALA HARRIS FOR 'PLAYING POLITICS' OVER TRUMP'S VISIT TO ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

President Biden was at the event, photographed "repeatedly checking his watch" during the proceedings.

Former President Trump, who attended the Arlington National Cemetery at the request of Gold Star families, commemorated the third year anniversary of botched withdrawal from Afghanistan that left 13 U.S. service members killed. 

"The Trump team is very, very respectful and cognizant. They wanted to be respectful to everyone there," Christy Shamblin, mother of fallen U.S. Marine Sgt. Nicole Gee, one of the Fallen 13 from Afghanistan, told "The Sacramento Bee." 

"The big news stories that the mainstream media covers about the [Fallen] 13 aren’t stories of honor and respect. It’s hard to understand why. There are always stories about some kind of conflict that didn’t happen... The Trump team worked diligently with us and with Arlington to make sure there weren’t any disruptions to services, or even to any school groups," Shamblin continued. 

Gee’s mother also went on to tell "The Bee" that she was "confident" that a second term for the Trump Administration would be "better for veterans and their families." 

The families of the 13 service-members have said they have yet to hear from Biden or Harris, despite having made attempts to reach out to the administration.

"At least Biden sent us a form letter," Shamblin added. "I think one of the most devastating parts of having the administration really just ignore this and not speak their names and speak to us, is that you start to feel like your loss is really in vain."

[opencommunion]

"Since October 7, more than 1,300 Palestinians in Gaza have died; more than 8,000 have been injured; more than 340,000 have been displaced; and thousands of buildings, including homes, universities and hospitals, were destroyed. Al-Alam and Press TV journalists have been assassinated, and several media centres in Gaza have been destroyed. Eleven UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNWRA) staff members also lost their lives in the shelling. Some died in their homes with their families.

The notorious Israeli intelligence often thwarted resistance well before it started, and/or the perpetrators were swiftly captured or assassinated. The sophistication of Operation al-Aqsa Flood, which has succeeded in roping multiple Palestinian forces, has resulted in groundbreaking sustainability of resistance. The aggression is being rivalled to such measures that after 48 hours of battle, all flights to and from Israel had to be stopped.

The US could have chosen to be a peace broker by empathising with the conditions that led to the large-scale resistance. Instead, President Joe Biden deviated from his stance that he had in his younger years and vehemently denounced the rights of Palestinians to resist. While ironically emphasising apartheid Israel’s right to self-defence, implying that Palestinians’ lives were less important, he pledged more military assistance for Israel, which already receives $3.8 billion a year in US military aid.

Demonstrating this commitment, a plane carrying ammunition and equipment to replenish Israel’s Iron Dome arrived in Tel Aviv on Tuesday. Furthermore, the US navy dispatched the USS Gerald R Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean. The strike group is comprised of the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN-78), with its eight squadrons of attack and support aircraft, the Ticonderoga class guided-missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG 60), the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers (DDG 51), USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), USS Ramage (DDG 61), USS Carney (DDG 64), USS Roosevelt (DDG 80), and thousands of soldiers. The carrier group is being augmented with the Air Force F-35 in addition to the F-15, F-16 and A-10 fighter aircraft and the approximately 30,000 troops already in the region. A second carrier stands ready to be deployed.

This exaggerated show of force by the US in the region is cause for concern. Hamas’s offensive is asymmetrical. Unlike Israel, it has no air force, navy or military.

The blatant, excessive US presence is unjustifiable and prompts the question of why? The Biden administration has put much effort into influencing dynamics in the region. They shifted from the overt, post-9/11 militaristic approach of the Obama and Trump administrations. The withdrawal from Afghanistan and the initial engagements with Iran around its nuclear programme are demonstrations of this shift in tactics. However, protecting their primary ally in the region remained essential. Therefore, they prioritised building on Trump’s Abraham Accord and focusing on normalising diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab states, namely Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and Morocco.

... Even as the Biden administration sought to shift its approach to the Middle East from militaristic to being more developmental, it retained a presence in Iraq and Syria.

In addition, it continued to engage in joint military exercises with Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain in the Red Sea. January saw the second iteration of Red Sands training exercises between the US and Saudi Arabia, which included employing various kinetic and non-kinetic techniques to destroy or disable Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS). From August 31 to September 14, the US Central Command and Egypt facilitated Bright Star 2023, the oldest multilateral military exercise in the Middle East and Africa, having first occurred in 1980.

Despite US efforts, they have not been able to gain control over the region. Relations between Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia have been re-established with Syria. In May this year, Syria was readmitted into the Arab League. In August, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were invited to form part of BRICS plus. Operation al-Aqsa Flood makes a mockery of their interventions related to Israel. And within the broader geopolitical sphere, the US-Nato-Ukraine-proxy war is a failure. The emergence of a multi-polar world order is becoming increasingly probable, thereby increasing the volatility and desperation of the US.

It is feared that Operation al-Aqsa Flood might provide the US with the long-desired opportunity to deal with the “Axis of resistance” once and for all. Any such aggression will definitely ignite a conflict of global proportions.

Already, there are efforts to provoke Lebanon and Syria into joining the conflict. Biden’s warning about external interference and the heavy presence of the US military imply that they will intervene should Lebanon and Syria come to the assistance of Palestine. The Nato defence ministers, through Jens Stoltenberg, have also pledged that Israel will not stand alone, inferring a willingness to engage in military combat.

The millions of corpses in the region testify to the devastation that the US-Israeli-Nato alliance can sow. Therefore, Hezbollah has been careful in its response to date, only acting within occupied Lebanese territory. Likewise, Syria has primarily relied on its air defence to manage the Israeli attacks from occupied Golan, including the bombing of Damascus and Aleppo airports this month. Neither country wants to be drawn into further war.

However, both have vigorously defended the right of the people of Palestine to resist and indicated a preparedness to fight should the US enter the conflict more prominently.

The primary target of the US and Israel, namely Iran, also wishes to avoid a war in the region. However, it is already participating in plans for an emergency session for the heads of the councils of member states of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation. The meeting will discuss the repercussions of the apartheid-Israel aggression on Gaza and how best to provide humanitarian support. ... We have witnessed the human, social and economic costs of the Ukraine-Russian conflict. An extension thereof is undesirable. We, particularly the world’s leaders, must wake up to what the US is dragging us into and make greater efforts to resist it."

[tomorrowusa]

« Four main factors will influence the course of the war. The first is the level of resistance and national unity shown by Ukrainians, which has until now been extraordinary. The second is international support for Ukraine, which, though recently falling short of the country’s expectations, remains broad. The third factor is the nature of modern warfare, a contest that turns on a combination of industrial might and command, control, communications and intelligence systems. One reason Russia has struggled in this war is that it is yet to recover from the dramatic deindustrialisation it suffered after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The final factor is information. When it comes to decision-making, Vladimir Putin is trapped in an information cocoon, thanks to his having been in power so long. The Russian president and his national-security team lack access to accurate intelligence. The system they operate lacks an efficient mechanism for correcting errors. Their Ukrainian counterparts are more flexible and effective. In combination, these four factors make Russia’s eventual defeat inevitable. In time it will be forced to withdraw from all occupied Ukrainian territories, including Crimea. Its nuclear capability is no guarantee of success. Didn’t a nuclear-armed America withdraw from Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan? »

— Prof. Feng Yujun, Director of the Center for Russian and Central Asian Studies at Fudan University, writing at The Economist (archived).

Prof. Feng is one of China's leading "Russia watchers". His views may not reflect official thinking of the Chinese government though they are probably not distant from it.

China is currently benefiting economically in several ways from the war, but this does not mean Putin is highly regarded among Chinese policy makers.

Putin made a gross miscalculation with his invasion of Ukraine. He has put his military on international display as embarrassingly incompetent. Russian military hardware has been shown to be generally inferior to what Ukraine has gotten from the West and also inferior to various items of Ukrainian manufacture. Russia's few recent successes involve using its own troops as cannon fodder to make slow and costly advances.

With Putin's three-day "special operation" heading into day 789 and with Russian casualties equal to the population of a medium large city, Putin has clearly lost face in China.

[pashtunology]

On 2nd Nov 1841, an uprising broke out in Kabul against the British. Senior British officer and Deputy Envoy, Sir Alexander Burnes was caught with a Kashmiri concubine in his house, an act which was absolutely unacceptable by the Afghans. Burnes, along with his aides were killed as a result.

Now fearful of their safety in Kabul, British commander, Colonel John Shelton's troops, despite his misgivings, reached Bala Hisar without being opposed. However after staying there for a week, they realised that they won't be able to defend in case of an Afghan attack. They decided to withdraw from Kabul. Shelton's force evacuated the citadel and moved into a cantonment outside the city.

The Afghans had been taking back occupied forts from the British everywhere. It cost the British hundreds of lives to secure the surroundings, only to be taken back by Afghans a few days later. The Afghans had pulled cannons up the hill of Behmaru which overlooked the cantonments. The cannons were used to open fire into the cantonments.

On 23rd Nov 1841, the battle of Behmaru took place, under Nawab Muhammad Zaman Khan, Aminullah Khan Logari as his Wazir and Abdullah Khan Achakzai as his commander-in-chief,

Shelton took his men out again to retake the hills which proved disastrous. The Afghans' long-barrelled jezails had a longer range than the British Brown Bess muskets. They were systematically gunned down by Afghan snipers while Shelton refused to retreat.

George St. Patrick Lawrence, who had watched helplessly from his post in the cantonment during the battle, wrote of his horror at witnessing how "our flying troops [were] hotly pursued and mixed up with the enemy, who were slaughtering them on all sides: the scene was so fearful that I can never forget it."

The Afghan guerilla warfare was something that the British failed to outwit.

Cover image: pashtunology

Sources:

Afghanistan in the age of empires

Return of a King