Category Archives: Afghanistan

Robert Jenrick Called Out For False ‘Asylum Shoppers’ Claim

Posted on by
Reply

Robert Jenrick has been called out by Krishnan Guru-Murthy for falsely claiming the United Nations refugee convention dictates that migrants have to seek sanctuary in the first ‘safe’ country they arrive in.

The immigration minister quickly backpedaled and said it was a “key principle” the government supported as the journalist refused to let the politician off the hook.

It came as Jenrick was grilled over the Archbishop of Canterbury’s stinging criticism of the government’s crackdown on asylum seekers under the illegal migration bill.

Jenrick was pulled up on Channel 4 News as he said that those crossing the Channel from France were “essentially asylum shoppers”.

Here’s the exchange (plus clip below):

Robert Jenrick: “If somebody originated from a place of danger, like Afghanistan, the vast majority of those people coming across on small boats are coming from France, and they are choosing to come to the UK for whatever reason.”

Krishnan Guru-Murthy: “As is their right.”

RJ: “They are essentially asylum shoppers.”

KGM: “It is their right to apply for asylum anywhere, they are asylum seekers, not asylum shoppers.”

RJ: “The convention says people should seek asylum in the first safe country.”

KGM: “No, it doesn’t. Where does it say that?”

RJ: “We are prioritising people in a place of danger rather than people who are in a place of safety like France.”

KGM: “That is not true. That is not true. The refugee convention does not say that you must seek sanctuary in the first safe country.”

RJ: “The refugee convention does encourage people to do that.”

KGM: “It does not say you must seek sanctuary in the first safe country, which you just said. That is not true.”

RJ: “That’s a key principle that we support as a government.”

KGM: “OK, but it’s not in the refugee convention.”

RJ: “We don’t think it’s right that if you’re in a safe country like France, that you should be coming to the UK. That’s creating a fundamental unfairness.”

KGM: “That’s the government’s position, it’s not in the refugee convention.”

The claim has been repeatedly rejected.

Amnesty International has said: “There is no rule requiring refugees to claim in the first safe country in which they arrive.”

The Full Fact site has also said: “The UN refugee convention does not make this requirement of refugees, and UK case law supports this interpretation. Refugees can legitimately make a claim for asylum in the UK after passing through other ‘safe’ countries.”

And a House of Commons briefing paper from February this year states: “The UK government’s position is that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The UN Refugee Agency says this is not required by the refugee convention or international law.”

In 2021, Tory MP Jonathan Gullis was schooled by an immigration expert after asking why asylum seekers choose to come to the UK in a clip that has gone viral many times since.

The former minister quizzed Zoe Gardner over the number of refugees seeking to settle in Britain after fleeing their homeland.

But he was told the international asylum system would “crumble” if countries refused to accept immigrants and expected other countries to take them instead.

The pair clashed in 2021 as Gardner appeared before parliament’s nationality and borders bill committee.

In the clip, Gullis, the MP for Stoke-on-Trent North, asks Gardner: “If these people out in Calais are legitimate refugees, why are they not claiming asylum in France, Italy, Spain or Greece? Why do they need to come to the United Kingdom?

Gardner replies: “As I’m sure you’ll be aware … the vast majority of people who seek asylum worldwide, firstly, 86% of refugees and displaced people worldwide, remain in the country neighbouring the one they have fled.

“So, 86% of people remain in developing countries.

“France received three times as many asylum applications as we did last year. People stop as soon as they feel safe.

″But the people who are making their way to England and who specifically wish to the UK, do so because they have ties to this country either because they have served with out military in the case of people from Afghanistan, or have family members, or speak the language because of our colonial history and have other ties of kinship and history here.

″So there are people who have legitimate ties to the UK and there is no good reason why they should particularly have their claims assessed in France if they do not wish to.

“It doesn’t really work for us to say to the French, ‘given that we’re geographically located slightly to the west of you, none of these refugees are our responsibility and they’re all on you’ because France can say the same thing and then Italy can say the same thing, and then the entire international refugee protection system will crumble.”

Share Button

Closed-Door UN Meeting Stokes Fears Of Taliban Recognition

Posted on by
Reply

Thousands of people around the world are protesting against the ongoing closed-door United Nations meeting about the future of Afghanistan, as fears grow that the talks could lead to the Taliban being recognized as a legitimate governing group.

Diplomats from nearly 25 countries and groups — including the US, China and Russia, as well as major European aid donors and key regional neighbors like Pakistan — are attending the two-day meeting chaired by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The Taliban were not invited to attend the meeting, and they have expressed their displeasure over the exclusion.

The attendees are set to discuss key issues affecting Afghanistan, including terrorism and women’s rights, according to the UN.

Activists against the U.N. formally recognizing the Taliban hold banners during a demonstration in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 30.
Activists against the U.N. formally recognizing the Taliban hold banners during a demonstration in front of the White House in Washington, D.C., on April 30.

DANIEL SLIM via Getty Images

After regaining power in 2021, the Taliban has cracked down on women’s access to public life, including barring them from attending universities and high schools. The group also decided last month to enforce a ban on Afghan women working for the UN, which the UN warned could force closure of their operation in Afghanistan.

However, shortly after the Taliban announced the ban, senior UN official Amina Mohammed suggested finding “baby steps” toward “recognition” of the group. Later, the UN retracted her comment and clarified that the Doha meeting is not focused on recognition.

Still, Mohammed’s comments have contributed to widespread concerns about the meeting, with critics pointing out a lack of transparency about the discussions.

Civil society groups and human rights activists highlighted their apprehensions about the possible recognition of the Taliban in an open letter to the UN shared on Sunday.

“Past experiences show that giving into the demands of such regimes by compromising on human rights will only strengthen their grip on power, and prolong the suffering of the people of Afghanistan,” the letter reads.

They also insisted that women of Afghanistan should be “meaningfully represented” in all talks regarding its future.

A member of Taliban fires in the air to disperse the Afghan women during a rally to protest against Taliban restrictions on women, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 28, 2021.
A member of Taliban fires in the air to disperse the Afghan women during a rally to protest against Taliban restrictions on women, in Kabul, Afghanistan, Dec. 28, 2021.

ALI KHARA via Reuters

Videos have surfaced on social media showing women in Kabul protesting against the Taliban, holding up placards with slogans such as #NoToTaliban and #AfghanWomenLivesMatter. They can be heard chanting “Taliban recognition is a disgrace to the world” and “We will fight, we will die, but we will get our rights”.

“Taliban are terrorists and criminals,” Amiri, a protester in Kabul who is being identified by a pseudonym due to fear of retaliation from the group, told HuffPost. “The UN must not turn a blind eye to the plight of Afghan women and recognize a terrorist organisation that has no achievement except for oppressing women.”

“It’s funny that we have come to a point where the recognition of the Taliban is a topic of global discussion,” Amiri said. “In a fair world, Taliban should be brought to the International Criminal Court to face justice for the decades of crimes they have committed against the people of Afghanistan.”

Along with those in Kabul, hundreds of Afghan diaspora members and activists worldwide, including in Washington, DC, raised their voices in support.

During a press briefing at the State Department on Tuesday last week, department spokesperson Vedant Patel said the US has no intention of acknowledging the Taliban regime, and that the Taliban’s ongoing human rights violations, particularly against women and girls, are a major obstacle to its goal of being recognised internationally.

Share Button

Adil Ray Sparks Firey GMB Row By Pointing Out A Pretty Major Flaw In Rwanda Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Good Morning Britain’s Adil Ray locked horns with a guest on Thursday morning after he pointed out an obvious inconsistency in its approach to refugees.

While presenting the ITV show, Adil was discussing the government’s failed attempts to fly asylum seekers who arrive at British shores via illegal means to Rwanda with The Times’ political sketch writer Quentin Letts.

Explaining how Ukrainians seeking refuge here were able to apply online while the process for those coming from other countries, such as war-torn Afghanistan, was more difficult, Adil said: “The Afghans do not have an online visa system.”

When Letts tried to say he wasn’t sure if there was a system available to the Afghans looking to resettle in the UK, Adil interjected: “I’m telling you there’s not.”

Looking exasperated, Letts said: “You’ve asked me on this programme, you never let me actually answer a question.

“There are procedures, there are perfectly legal procedures, for people to come in. But what the people using the boats are doing is they’re paying money to scoot around the rules.”

Migrants who arrive into the UK by crossing the Channel are at the centre of the government’s new policy.

The Home Office has repeatedly justified this controversial new approach by claiming the route is unsafe and that the human traffickers who send the asylum seekers across must be deterred.

For comparison, the government opened up several different schemes to help home Ukrainians fleeing the Russian invasion following intense public pressure.

But, as Adil pointed out, many people travelling to the UK across the Channel are doing so “because there are no legal routes” available for them.

“There are legal routes,” Letts said in response.

“There aren’t actually,” he persisted.

Adil and Letts continued to speak over each other, until the guest eventually said: “I give up! There’s no point.”

“It’s my job to correct you, Quentin,” the GMB presenter explained.

“It’s not actually, your job is – you ask me a question, and you don’t let me answer it.”

“That’s not the point,” Adil continued. “Do you accept that first of all, there aren’t the legal routes, there isn’t an online system like the Ukrainians have.”

“Look, people on the boats are paying money to smugglers to get round the rules.”

“Because there are no legal routes.”

Letts sighed loudly and said, “forget it,” waving his hand dismissively.

The presenter persisted: “You can’t avoid that question.”

“There’s no point talking to you,” gesturing to the other people sat on the GMB panel, Letts added: “Four of you against me, it’s just absolutely pointless.”

At which point the other presenter, Kate Garraway, chipped in: “No one’s against you! It’s about looking at the facts.”

The clash comes two days after the European Court of Human Rights ruled against the first Rwanda flight which was supposed to take refugees out of the country.

The sudden move from the European court has left some factions in the Conservative Party furious, while the government has promised it will not give up on its attempts to remove illegal immigrants to East Africa.

Share Button

Boris Johnson Says It’s ‘Total Rhubarb’ He Authorised Afghan Pet Evacuation

Posted on by
Reply

Boris Johnson has denied personally intervening to authorise the evacuation of dogs from Afghanistan.

The prime minister said claims that he had ordered the controversial airlift himself were “total rhubarb”.

Johnson has come under fresh pressure after the emergence of a leaked email suggesting that the PM had “authorised” the evacuation of animals from former Royal Marine Paul “Pen” Farthing’s Nowzad charity as the Taliban re-took control of the country.

The mission coincided with Operation Pitting, which saw the RAF manage to evacuate thousands of British citizens trapped in Kabul.

Asked about his involvement during a visit to Wales, the PM said: “This whole thing is total rhubarb. I was very proud of what our armed services did with Op Pitting and it was an amazing thing to move 15,000 people out of Kabul in the way that we did.

“I thought it was additionally really good that we were able to help those vets who came out as well.”

Asked if he directly intervened in the process, Johnson replied: “Absolutely not. The military always prioritised human beings and that was quite right, and I think that we should be incredibly proud of Op Pitting and what is achieved.”

The row reignited on Wednesday when the Commons foreign affairs committee published an email in which a Foreign Office official said “the PM has just authorised” the animal evacuation.

Shadow defence secretary John Healey said: “Once again, the Prime Minister has been caught out lying about what he has been doing and deciding.

“He should never have given priority to flying animals out of Afghanistan while Afghans who worked for our armed forces were left behind.”

But on Thursday, the prime minister’s official spokesman said the Foreign Office official who sent the email had been mistaken.

He said: “It’s not uncommon in Whitehall for a decision to be interpreted or portrayed as coming directly from the Prime Minister even when that’s not the case and it’s our understanding that’s what happened in this instance. We appreciate it was a frenetic time for those officials dealing with this situation.”

Earlier, work and pensions secretary Therese Coffey said she was “absolutely confident” that the PM played no part in the animal airlift.

Share Button

Six Terror Plots Foiled In UK During Pandemic, MI5 Chief Reveals

Posted on by
Reply

Handout . via Reuters

MI5 Director General Ken McCallum has revealed details about thwarted attacks on UK soil

The head of the UK’s security service has revealed that six “late stage” terror plots were foiled during the coronavirus pandemic. 

MI5′s director general Ken McCallum said in the last four years the organisation has disrupted 31 attack plots in Britain.

He told the BBC’s Today programme: “That number includes mainly Islamist attack plots but also a growing number of attack plots from right wing terrorists.”

He said the covid crisis had not diminished the threat, adding: “Even during the pandemic period which we have all been enduring for the past two years, we have had to disrupt six late-stage attack plots.

“So, the terrorist threat to the UK, I am sorry to say is a real and enduring thing.”

Asked if there will be a terror attack while he leads the organisation, he replied: “Of course there are likely to be terrorist attacks on UK soil on my watch. We wish it were not so.”

He also said the UK faces a “consistent global struggle” to defeat extremism, as part of an interview marking the 20th anniversary of the September 11 attack. 

Share Button

Final UK Evacuation Flight For Afghan Nationals Leaves Kabul, MoD Confirms

Posted on by
Reply

The final UK evacuation flight purely for Afghan nationals has left Kabul airport, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.

Any further flights which will now leave Kabul under the UK’s evacuation operation will have UK diplomatic and military personnel on board.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that the final flight purely for evacuations under Operation Pitting had departed from Kabul.

It is understood any further flights would be able to transport those still needing evacuation, but would now also include personnel travelling back to the UK.

WAKIL KOHSAR via Getty Images

Taliban Badri fighters, a “special forces” unit, stand guard as Afghans, hoping to leave Afghanistan, wait at the main entrance gate of Kabul airport on August 28, 2021, following the Taliban stunning military takeover of Afghanistan.

It comes as British ambassador to Afghanistan Sir Laurie Bristow said it was “time to close this phase” of the evacuation effort.

In a video posted on Twitter, Sir Laurie – who has remained in Afghanistan processing those who needed to leave the country – said: “The team here have been working until the very last moment to evacuate British nationals, Afghans and others at risk.

“Since the 13th of August, we’ve brought nearly 15,000 people to safety, and about 1,000 military, diplomatic, civilian personnel have worked on Operation Pitting in Kabul, many, many more elsewhere.

“Thursday’s terrorist attack was a reminder of the difficult and dangerous conditions in which Operation Pitting has been done. And sadly I attended here yesterday the ceremony to pay our respects to the 13 US soldiers who died.”

General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said Operation Pitting – the effort to evacuate UK nationals and eligible Afghans from Kabul airport – had “gone as well as it could do in the circumstances”.

On BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, the head of the UK armed forces spoke of the “heartbreaking” judgment calls military personnel had been forced to make.

“We haven’t been able to bring everybody out and that has been heartbreaking, and there have been some very challenging judgments that have had to be made on the ground,” Sir Nick said.

“And I think that, you know, people like me, who have had a very, very long association with this country, we are forever receiving messages and texts from our Afghan friends that are very distressing, so we’re all living this in the most painful way.”

Analysis — By Paul Waugh

What Keir Starmer called “a sad and a dark day” for the UK’s role in Afghanistan just got sadder and darker. The latest news, that two British nationals and the child of a British national were among those killed by the suicide bomb attacks outside Kabul airport, underlined the sense of unfolding tragedy.

While the primary responsibility for the murders undeniably lies with barbaric Islamist terrorists, Boris Johnson is now facing even greater political pressure over his own handling of the wider policy on Afghanistan.

In many ways, Johnson’s hands have of course been tied by his heavy reliance on the Americans. Joe Biden’s refusal to shift his political commitment to the August 31 withdrawal deadline has driven events, though the US president’s failure to keep allies like the UK in the loop has left a bitter taste for many of them.

As for the so-called “special relationship” between the UK and US, the phrase feels even more of a polite fiction than usual. Despite British ministers having gone public in calling for an extension to the airport evacuation, it took Biden just seven minutes into his conference call with the G7 this week to announce he was not budging.

Read more…

 As the evacuation flights to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire came to an end, Labour’s shadow defence secretary John Healey told Sky News: “This is the brutal truth, despite getting more than 14,000 people out, there are probably 1,000 Afghans who have worked with us over two decades in Afghanistan, helped our troops, our aid workers, our diplomats, that we promised to protect, but we’re leaving behind.

“And I know those troops in particular will feel our failure on this as a country is a betrayal of many of those who risked their own lives to work alongside us.”

ALASTAIR GRANT via Getty Images

Members of the British armed forces 16 Air Assault Brigade walk to the air terminal after disembarking a Royal Airforce Voyager aircraft at Brize Norton, Oxfordshire on August 28, 2021, as the troops return from assisting with the evacuation of people from Kabul airport in Afghanistan.

Tom Tugendhat, a Tory MP who fought in Afghanistan, said he was disappointed the evacuation effort was coming to an end.

The former army officer and now chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee told BBC Breakfast: “I’m extremely sad about this and I very much hope that it might go beyond the August deadline but we found out a few days ago that it wasn’t, so I was expecting it.

“It still leaves me extremely sad that so many of my friends have been left behind.”

Questioned over whether the UK could have done better when withdrawing personnel from Afghanistan, Mr Tugendhat said: “In the last week, probably not, but this has been a sprint finish after a not exactly sprint start.”

“There are going to be questions to be asked to the Foreign Secretary about the processing in the UK in recent weeks that we’re going to have to see what the answers are.”

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace previously admitted there were between 800 and 1,100 Afghans eligible under the Afghan Relocation and Assistance Policy (Arap) scheme who would be left behind, while around 100 and 150 UK nationals will remain in Afghanistan, although Mr Wallace said some of those were staying willingly.

But a number of MPs have said that based on the correspondence they had received asking for help, they thought this was an underestimation.

In the early hours of Saturday, the US military conducted an airstrike against a member of so-called Islamic State in Afghanistan who was believed to be involved in planning attacks against the US in Kabul.

The strike killed one individual, and US spokesman navy captain William Urban said they knew of no civilian casualties.

It comes after two British adults and the child of a British national – understood to be a teenager – were killed in a bombing on Thursday, with another adult and child injured.

The BBC reported a London taxi driver, Mohammad Niazi, had been killed in the Kabul attack after flying out to help his family return home, but it was not confirmed if he was one of the UK nationals referred to by the Foreign Office.

Meanwhile, The Times reported that the injured child, believed to be aged under 10, was related to one of the adults killed.

Share Button

Donald Trump Suggests Osama Bin Laden Wasn’t That Big A Deal, Says He Only Had ‘One Hit’

Posted on by
Reply

With just weeks to go before the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, former US President Donald Trump suggested the man behind them, Osama bin Laden, wasn’t that bad and only had “one hit.”

Trump made the callous and false comment during an interview about the crisis in Afghanistan on conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt’s show Thursday morning.

After trashing President Joe Biden’s handling of the US withdrawal from the country, Trump bragged about two terror chiefs killed under his own administration: ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Iranian General Qasem Soleimani.

He claimed that both men were much bigger targets than bin Laden, who was killed in 2011 under former President Barack Obama’s leadership.

“Now, just so you understand, Soleimani is bigger by many, many times than Osama bin Laden,” Trump said. “The founder of ISIS is bigger by many, many times, al-Baghdadi, than Osama bin Laden.” 

“Osama bin Laden had one hit, and it was a bad one, in New York City, the World Trade Center,” Trump said, ignoring Bin Laden’s other deadly attacks. “But these other two guys were monsters. They were monsters.”

“And I kept saying for years, why aren’t they getting them? For years, I said it,” Trump continued. “I got them. The press doesn’t talk about it. They don’t talk about it because they don’t want to talk about it.”

Bin Laden was a founder of al-Qaeda and the mastermind behind multiple mass-casualty terror attacks, including the 1998 US embassy bombings that killed more than 200 people and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 US Navy sailors. He also oversaw the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people.

The former president also blustered that he “got 100%” of ISIS.

“ISIS is tougher than the Taliban, and nastier than the Taliban. And ISIS was watching, and then they were, they didn’t exist anymore,” he said.

At least 12 US troops and 60 Afghans are dead after two suicide bombers and gunmen attacked crowds at the Kabul airport on Thursday. The Pentagon believes the attack was carried out by an Islamic State offshoot group, named ISIS-K.

Trump has repeatedly railed against Biden over his handling of Afghanistan since it was overthrown by Taliban insurgents, even though Trump cut a peace deal with the Taliban last year that included a withdrawal of US troops by May 1 and the release of 5,000 Taliban fighters.

Share Button

Donald Trump Mocked For Repeatedly Botching Name Of ISIS Offshoot In Fox News Ramble

Posted on by
Reply

Donald Trump is still struggling with names.

In a Fox News interview with Sean Hannity on Thursday, the former US president claimed he “knocked out 100 percent of the ISIS caliphate” but that a “new ISIS” has formed: “ISIS-X.” 

The group operating in Afghanistan, which claimed responsibility for Thursday’s deadly attack in Kabul, is actually ISIS-K, which stands for Islamic State Khorasan.

Khorasan is a historical term for Afghanistan and the surrounding region.   

Trump eventually got the name right.

As is his tendency, however, he didn’t admit he botched it, only that he was predicting the future.

“They’ll have an ISIS-X pretty soon, which is gonna be worse than ISIS-K,” he told Hannity.  

His critics fired back: 

Share Button

Joe Biden Warns ‘A Lot Could Still Go Wrong’ With Afghanistan Evacuations

Posted on by
Reply

US President Joe Biden touted on Sunday the surging number of Afghanistan evacuations carried out so far by the United States, but acknowledged that such a massive operation does not come “without pain and loss.”

The White House said that the US has evacuated 30,300 people out of Afghanistan since August 14, including more than 13,000 people over the weekend. That brings the total evacuated by the US to about 35,500 since July, though the president stressed in a televised address that “we have a long way to go, and a lot could still go wrong.”

“Let me be clear, the evacuation of thousands of people from Kabul is going to be hard and painful no matter when it started, when we began,” Biden said. “It would have been true if we had started a month ago, or a month from now. There is no way to evacuate this many people without pain and loss, [like] those heartbreaking images you see on television. It’s just a fact.”

The British military said earlier Sunday that at least seven Afghans died in a panicked crush of thousands of people trying to flee the country at Kabul’s international airport, in an attempted exodus resulting from the Taliban taking over just a week ago. Others may have been trampled, suffocated or experienced heart attacks as Taliban fighters fired shots into the air to try and drive back crowds from the airport ― the last spot still held by the US military.

Some of the seven who were killed had plunged to their deaths after clinging on to a US plane as it took off on August 16, while thousands of others poured on to the tarmac in a desperate attempt to escape life under Taliban rule. Photos and video showed Afghans passing babies and small children above their heads so Western soldiers could raise them over walls and ensure their safety.

“My heart aches for those people you see,” Biden said on Sunday. “We are proving, though, that we can move thousands of people a day out of Kabul. We’re bringing out citizens, NATO allies, Afghanis who in fact have helped us in the war effort ― but we have a long way to go, and a lot could still go wrong. But to move out 30,000 people in just over a week, that’s a great testament to the men and women on the ground in Kabul.”

Earlier on Sunday, national security adviser Jake Sullivan told CNN that 23 US military flights had evacuated about 3,900 people from Afghanistan, with an additional 3,900 airlifted by 35 non-US military flights, in the past 24 hours. Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin activated the Civil Reserve Air Fleet program, requesting 18 aircraft from US carriers to assist in transporting Afghan refugees after they’ve been evacuated to other countries.

To help continue the evacuations safely, the US has extended the “safe zone” perimeter around the Kabul airport to expand access to people trying to flee the country. This change includes changing the gate operations, which Biden explained is why the military has been able to increase the number of evacuees. 

The president said that the Taliban “have been cooperative with regard to changing the perimeter” during discussions, but when asked by a reporter if he trusts Taliban promises, Biden said: “I don’t trust anybody, including you.”

Biden did say that the Taliban have not taken action against US forces so far during the evacuation, and “by and large” have followed through on allowing Americans to pass through. But the president also emphasised that US troops and Afghans still face danger at the airport, such as terrorists like ISIS and its Afghan affiliate ISIS-K who may “seek to exploit the situation ― including trying to strike from a distance.”

The president said he still hopes to meet the August 31 evacuation deadline out of Kabul, but is currently having discussions for the potential of extending the timeline to make sure the US can evacuate as many people as possible.

The chaotic rollout of Biden’s evacuation plan has unleashed bipartisan anger, though many officials and experts stress that this is not on one administration, but on decades of government and military officials. Still, with the evacuation occurring under the current White House that has a lackluster record on refugee issues, advocates are blasting Biden for not moving fast enough and claiming the president is more focused on avoiding political attacks than on helping vulnerable people abroad.

“I had a basic decision to make. I either withdraw America from a 20-year war ― that depending whose analysis you accept cost us $150 million a day for 20 years or $300 million a day for 20 years ― where we lost 2,248 Americans dead and 20,722 wounded,” Biden said, pulling out a card he says he always carries that tells him the war’s casualty count. 

“I either increase the number of forces we keep there, and keep that going, or I end the war. And I decided to end the war.”

Share Button