United Kingdom

Taliban issues threat to US and NATO over delaying military withdrawal from Afghanistan

The Taliban has threatened the US and NATO with consequences if the promised military withdrawal from Afghanistan is not completed by May 1 after US President Joe Biden said the exit would not be completed until September 11.

Biden announced on Wednesday the withdrawal of 2,500 US troops would not be completed until September 11, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.  

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said those responsible for delaying the removal of US and NATO troops from Afghanistan would be 'held liable'. 

Writing on Twitter, Mujahid said: 'If the [Doha] agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable'.  

The Taliban has threatened the US and NATO with consequences if the promised military withdrawal from Afghanistan is not completed by May 1 after US President Joe Biden said the exit would not be completed until September 11

NATO immediately followed Biden's lead on Wednesday, saying its roughly 7,000 non-American forces in Afghanistan would be departing within the next few months.    

The Taliban's warning has heightened fears of ongoing violence in Afghanistan after the withdrawal of American troops.

The Taliban and Afghan government signed a treaty, known as the Doha Agreement, in late February 2020. 

It was billed as an 'agreement for bringing peace' and stated that US and NATO allies would have to withdraw from Afghanistan within 14 months, by May 1, 2021, provided both parties upheld their side of the treaty. 

But, Biden's new timeline will mean thousands of the US troops will remain in Afghanistan for at least four months beyond the May 1 deadline for withdrawal. 

The US President said there will be a phased drawdown on troops until his apparently uni-lateral September 11 deadline. 

The news has sparked concerns the Taliban will push its spring offensive, a rise in attacks that usually takes place as the weather gets warmer. 

In response to the news, an angered Taliban have sought to distance themselves from the US-led push for peace (pictured, Taliban representatives attend the opening session of peace talks in Doha, Qatar)

In response to the news, an angered Taliban have sought to distance themselves from the US-led push for peace. 

The group said representatives would no longer travel to Turkey for a peace conference intended to jump start negotiations.  

Spokesperson for the Taliban's political office Mohammad Naeem said: 'Until all foreign forces completely withdraw from our homeland, the Islamic Emirate [the Taliban] will not participate in any conference that shall make decisions about Afghanistan'.

The US President said there will be a phased drawdown on troops until his apparently uni-lateral September 11 deadline

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has been more amenable to Biden's new deadline, tweeting shortly before the US' announcement that the pair had discussed the issue over the phone. 

Ghani said on Wednesday: 'Tonight, I had a call with President Biden in which we discussed the US decision to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by early September. 

'The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan respects the U.S. decision and we will work with our U.S. partners to ensure a smooth transition.' 


I'm speaking to you today from the Roosevelt - the Treaty Room in the White House. The same spot where, on October of 2001, President George W. Bush informed our nation that the United States military had begun strikes on terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. It was just weeks - just weeks after the terrorist attack on our nation that killed 2,977 innocent souls; that turned Lower Manhattan into a disaster area, destroyed parts of the Pentagon, and made hallowed ground of a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and sparked an American promise that we would 'never forget.'

We went to Afghanistan in 2001 to root out al Qaeda, to prevent future terrorist attacks against the United States planned from Afghanistan. Our objective was clear. The cause was just. Our NATO Allies and partners rallied beside us. And I supported that military action, along with overwhelming majority of the members of Congress.

More than seven years later, in 2008, weeks before we swore the oath of office - President Obama and I were about to swear - President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I flew to Afghanistan, to the Kunar Valley - a rugged, mountainous region on the border with Pakistan. What I saw on that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have the right and responsibility to lead their country, and that more and endless American military force could not create or sustain a durable Afghan government.

I believed that our presence in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went in the first place: to ensure Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which to attack our homeland again. We did that. We accomplished that objective.

I said, among - with others, we'd follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell if need be. That's exactly what we did, and we got him. It took us close to 10 years to put President Obama's commitment to - into form. And that's exactly what happened; Osama bin Laden was gone.

That was 10 years ago. Think about that. We delivered justice to bin Laden a decade ago, and we've stayed in Afghanistan for a decade since. Since then, our reasons for remaining in Afghanistan are becoming increasingly unclear, even as the terrorist threat that we went to fight evolved.

Over the past 20 years, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe: al-Shabaab in Somalia; al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula; al-Nusra in Syria; ISIS attempting to create a [caliphate] in Syria and Iraq, and establishing affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia.

With the terror threat now in many places, keeping thousands of troops grounded and concentrated in just one country at a cost of billions each year makes little sense to me and to our leaders. We cannot continue the cycle of extending or expanding our military presence in Afghanistan, hoping to create ideal conditions for the withdrawal, and expecting a different result.

I'm now the fourth United States President to preside over American troop presence in Afghanistan: two Republicans, two Democrats. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth.

After consulting closely with our allies and partners, with our military leaders and intelligence personnel, with our diplomats and our development experts, with the Congress and the Vice President, as well as with Mr. Ghani and many others around the world, I have concluded that it's time to end America's longest war. It's time for American troops to come home.

When I came to office, I inherited a diplomatic agreement, duly negotiated between the government of the United States and the Taliban, that all U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, just three months after my inauguration. That's what we inherited - that commitment.

It is perhaps not what I would have negotiated myself, but it was an agreement made by the United States government, and that means something. So, in keeping with that agreement and with our national interests, the United States will begin our final withdrawal - begin it on May 1 of this year.

We will not conduct a hasty rush to the exit. We'll do it - we'll do it responsibly, deliberately, and safely. And we will do it in full coordination with our allies and partners, who now have more forces in Afghanistan than we do.

And the Taliban should know that if they attack us as we draw down, we will defend ourselves and our partners with all the tools at our disposal.

Our allies and partners have stood beside us shoulder-to-shoulder in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, and we're deeply grateful for the contributions they have made to our shared mission and for the sacrifices they have borne.

The plan has long been 'in together, out together.' U.S. troops, as well as forces deployed by our NATO Allies and operational partners, will be out of Afghanistan before we mark the 20th anniversary of that heinous attack on September 11th.

But - but we'll not take our eye off the terrorist threat. We'll reorganize our counterterrorism capabilities and the substantial assets in the region to prevent reemergence of terrorists - of the threat to our homeland from over the horizon. We'll hold the Taliban accountable for its commitment not to allow any terrorists to threaten the United States or its allies from Afghan soil. The Afghan government has made that commitment to us as well. And we'll focus our full attention on the threat we face today.

At my direction, my team is refining our national strategy to monitor and disrupt significant terrorist threats not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere they may arise - and they're in Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.

I spoke yesterday with President Bush to inform him of my decision. While he and I have had many disagreements over policies throughout the years, we're absolutely united in our respect and support for the valor, courage, and integrity of the women and men of the United States Armed Forces who served. I'm immensely grateful for the bravery and backbone that they have shown through nearly two decades of combat deployments. We as a nation are forever indebted to them and to their families.

You all know that less than 1 percent of Americans serve in our armed forces. The remaining 99 percent of them - we owe them. We owe them. They have never backed down from a single mission that we've asked of them.

I've witnessed their bravery firsthand during my visits to Afghanistan. They've never wavered in their resolve. They've paid a tremendous price on our behalf. And they have the thanks of a grateful nation.

While we will not stay involved in Afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and humanitarian work will continue. We'll continue to support the government of Afghanistan. We will keep providing assistance to the Afghan National Defenses and Security Forces.

And along with our partners, we have trained and equipped a standing force of over 300,000 Afghan personnel today and hundreds of thousands over the past two decades. And they'll continue to fight valiantly, on behalf of the Afghans, at great cost. They'll support peace talks, as we will support peace talks between the government of Afghanistan and the Taliban, facilitated by the United Nations. And we'll continue to support the rights of Afghan women and girls by maintaining significant humanitarian and development assistance.

And we'll ask other countries - other countries in the region - to do more to support Afghanistan, especially Pakistan, as well as Russia, China, India, and Turkey. They all have a significant stake in the stable future for Afghanistan.

And over the next few months, we will also determine what a continued U.S. diplomatic presence in Afghanistan will look like, including how we'll ensure the security of our diplomats.

Look, I know there are many who will loudly insist that diplomacy cannot succeed without a robust U.S. military presence to stand as leverage. We gave that argument a decade. It's never proved effective - not when we had 98,000 troops in Afghanistan, and not when we were down to a few thousand.

Our diplomacy does not hinge on having boots in harm's way - U.S. boots on the ground. We have to change that thinking. American troops shouldn't be used as a bargaining chip between warring parties in other countries. You know, that's nothing more than a recipe for keeping American troops in Afghanistan indefinitely.

I also know there are many who will argue that we should stay - stay fighting in Afghanistan because withdrawal would damage America's credibility and weaken America's influence in the world. I believe the exact opposite is true.

We went to Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. That cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021.

Rather than return to war with the Taliban, we have to focus on the challenges that are in front of us. We have to track and disrupt terrorist networks and operations that spread far beyond Afghanistan since 9/11.

We have to shore up American competitiveness to meet the stiff competition we're facing from an increasingly assertive China. We have to strengthen our alliances and work with like-minded partners to ensure that the rules of international norms that govern cyber threats and emerging technologies that will shape our future are grounded in our democratic values - values - not those of the autocrats.

We have to defeat this pandemic and strengthen the global health system to prepare for the next one, because there will be another pandemic.

You know, we'll be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors over the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20 years, not the last 20.

And finally, the main argument for staying longer is what each of my three predecessors have grappled with: No one wants to say that we should be in Afghanistan forever, but they insist now is not the right moment to leave.

In 2014, NATO issued a declaration affirming that Afghan Security Forces would, from that point on, have full responsibility for their country's security by the end of that year. That was seven years ago.

So when will it be the right moment to leave? One more year, two more years, ten more years? Ten, twenty, thirty billion dollars more above the trillion we've already spent?

'Not now' - that's how we got here. And in this moment, there's a significant downside risk to staying beyond May 1st without a clear timetable for departure.

If we instead pursue the approach where America - U.S. exit is tied to conditions on the ground, we have to have clear answers to the following questions: Just what conditions require to - be required to allow us to depart? By what means and how long would it take to achieve them, if they could be achieved at all? And at what additional cost in lives and treasure?

I'm not hearing any good answers to these questions. And if you can't answer them, in my view, we should not stay. The fact is that, later today, I'm going to visit Arlington National Cemetery, Section 60, and that sacred memorial to American sacrifice.

Section sisty [sic] - Section 60 is where our recent war dead are buried, including many of the women and men who died fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. There's no - there's no comforting distance in history in Section 60. The grief is raw. It's a visceral reminder of the living cost of war.

For the past 12 years, ever since I became Vice President, I've carried with me a card that reminds me of the exact number of American troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. That exact number, not an approximation or rounded-off number -- because every one of those dead are sacred human beings who left behind entire families. An exact accounting of every single solitary one needs to be had.

As of the day - today, there are two hundred and forty- [2,448] U.S. troops and personnel who have died in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Freedom's Sentinel - our Afghanistan conflicts. 20,722 have been wounded.

I'm the first President in 40 years who knows what it means to have a child serving in a warzone. And throughout this process, my North Star has been remembering what it was like when my late son, Beau, was deployed to Iraq - how proud he was to serve his country; how insistent he was to deploy with his unit; and the impact it had on him and all of us at home.

We already have service members doing their duty in Afghanistan today whose parents served in the same war. We have service members who were not yet born when our nation was attacked on 9/11.

War in Afghanistan was never meant to be a multi-generational undertaking. We were attacked. We went to war with clear goals. We achieved those objectives. Bin Laden is dead, and al Qaeda is degraded in Iraq - in Afghanistan. And it's time to end the forever war.

Thank you all for listening. May God protect our troops. May God bless all those families who lost someone in this endeavor.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Thursday to sell Afghan leaders and a wary public on the decision 

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Thursday to sell Afghan leaders and a wary public on the decision.

Blinken met with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, chief executive Abdullah Abdullah, and civic figures and sought to reassure them that the withdrawal does not mean an end to the US-Afghan relationship.

'I wanted to demonstrate with my visit the ongoing to commitment of the United States to the Islamic Republic and the people of Afghanistan,' Blinken told Ghani as they met at the presidential palace in Kabul. 

'The partnership is changing, but the partnership itself is enduring.'

'We respect the decision and are adjusting our priorities,' Ghani told Blinken, expressing gratitude for the sacrifices of US troops.

Experts have warned a successful US and NATO withdrawal from Afghanistan hinges on a strong peace deal between the Taliban and Afghan government. 

But months of negotiations, launched in Doha, Qatar, in September, have failed to yield tangible results, and violence in Afghanistan has spiked as the talks have stalled. 

Relations within the Afghan government have also made negotiating a slow process as President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, the government's peace talks representative, continue to bicker over policy. 

An annual threat assessment by the US Director of National Intelligence released this week said the chance of a peace deal in the next 12 months 'remains low'. 

It said 'the Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and the Afghan Government will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support'. 

'It is time to end America´s longest war,' Biden said in his announcement in Washington on Tuesday, but he added that the U.S. will 'not conduct a hasty rush to the exit'

After withdrawing, the United States and NATO aim to rely on Afghan military and police forces, which they have developed with billions of dollars in funding, to maintain security, though peace talks are struggling and the insurgency is resilient.

A key reason for a coordinated withdrawal is the fact that NATO relies on U.S. airlift capabilities and shipping to move valuable equipment back home out of landlocked Afghanistan. 

NATO also wants to avoid any hardware falling into the hands of militants, as happened after the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. 

Biden has faced a backlash over the decision to delay the withdrawal of US troops from Senators. 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters on Wednesday the 'world is at risk' thanks to Biden's move.  

'Every terrorist camp in the world is on steroids today because in their world they beat us,' the South Carolina Republican warned. 'In their world, they drove us out.'  

Senator Lindsey Graham told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday that the 'world is at risk' thanks to Biden's move 

Graham accused Biden of choosing the 'highest risk option available' by pulling the remaining 2,500 troops out of the country starting May 1 and ending before the 20th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, which prompted the war.   

He blasted Biden for canceling the country's 'insurance policy,' arguing that groups like Al Qaeda won't be able to regain strength if American boots remain on the ground.  

'We gain the idea that the war is now over and Joe Biden ended the longest war in American history,' Graham said. 'With all due respect to President Biden you have not ended the war you have extended it.' 

Were 20 years of blood and treasure wasted? How conflict cost $825billlion and 3,500 dead troops 

Critics lined up to slam the 'pointless' war in Afghanistan as US, UK and NATO allies prepare to pull out troops and hand the country to the Taliban after a 20-year conflict which cost $825 billion and the lives of 3,500 soldiers.

The conflict has seen tens of thousands of deaths in all, with remarkably few of the aims set out in the beginning actually achieved.

As NATO leaders meet for talks this week, with a possible withdrawal on the cards following President Trump's pledge to have all US troops out by May, those across the globe who have opposed the war have once again made their views known.

American author and combat vet Daniel L. Davis wrote: 'The United States has been fighting a pointless, unnecessary war in Afghanistan for nearly two decades.'

Laila Harré, leader of New Zealand's Internet Party, tweeted that it was '20 years since the Alliance stood against this predictably destructive deployment. 20 years wasted on war.'

Meanwhile, a survey in 2019 found 58 per cent of veterans and 59 per cent of the public felt the conflict was not worth fighting. 

Afghanistan's government is held together by a fragile power-sharing deal, it is one of the least democratic and most-violent places on earth, and half of its territory is either in Taliban hands or being contested by the Islamists. 

It is unlikely that NATO forces will stay much longer. Their withdrawal would bring an end to one of the longest conflicts of modern times. 

But it will also be the beginning of the end of democracy in the country - the long-running campaign's main objective - as the Taliban reclaim total control.

The US invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 on a counter-terrorism mission - seeking to capture or kill the Al Qaeda leaders who orchestrated the 9/11 terror attack, and to displace the Taliban government which sheltered the group.

NATO was not far behind, arriving in the country two months later with a mission to secure Kabul province so the new government could be established there.

But the objectives quickly changed - a new goal to rebuild Afghanistan as a stable and democratic country within the Middle East emerged, and the war dragged on.

Military operations expanded to fit. In 2003, NATO's mission extended across the entire country and troops became more involved in day-to-day fighting alongside regular US forces.

At its height, in 2011, the NATO force numbered roughly 130,000 men drawn from 50 countries, before declining rapidly from 2013 as US forces pulled back.

In 2014, primary responsibility for security was handed over to the Afghan government and today, there are around 10,000 troops from 36 countries stationed there in support and training roles.

Over that time, some 3,500 coalition troops have died fighting - the vast majority, around 2,400, were American.

The UK lost some 450 soldiers - the second-highest total - who were largely killed in Helmand and Kandahar provinces when they took over combat operations from the Americans.

On the Afghan side, it is thought that more than 110,000 have been killed including at least 31,000 civilians who were largely hit by airstrikes.

At least 30,000 coalition troops have also been wounded in the fighting - the vast majority American - while tens of thousands of Afghans have also been wounded.

NATO costs are hard to estimate because its troops are drawn from dozens of countries which control spending individually through many separate budgets.

However, the respected Stockholm International Peace Research Institute previously estimated that combined US and NATO combat costs in Afghanistan from 2001 and 2012 totalled around $725billion. 

Football news:

Griezmann spoke with Hamilton and visited the Mercedes boxes at the Spanish Grand Prix
Barcelona feels that Neymar used it. He said that he wanted to return, but extended his contract with PSG (RAC1)
Aubameyang to the Arsenal fans: We wanted to give you something good. I am sorry that we could not
Atletico did not lose at the Camp Nou. Busquets' injury is the turning point of the match (and the championship race?)
Verratti injured his knee ligaments in PSG training. Participation in the Euro is still in question
Neymar's contract in one picture. Mbappe wants the same one
Manchester United would like to sign Bellingham in the summer, not Sancho. Borussia do not intend to sell Jude