Afghanistan: Biden defends US pullout, warns Taliban leaders - Newstrends
Connect with us

News

Afghanistan: Biden defends US pullout, warns Taliban leaders

Published

on

President Joe Biden says he has no regrets in withdrawing the United States troops from Afghanistan despite searing images of chaos in Kabul that exposed the limits of US power and plunged him into the worst crisis of his presidency.

He spoke Monday on the US pullout after scenes of bedlam dominated television news channels for days.

Biden blamed the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan on Afghan political leaders who fled the country and the unwillingness of the US-trained Afghan army to fight the militant group.

He warned Taliban leaders that they would face “devastating force” should they interfere with the US pullout.

“I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America’s war-fighting in Afghanistan and maintain a laser focus on our counterterrorism mission,” he said.

Biden was forced to send US troop reinforcements to Kabul to ensure a safe withdrawal of American diplomatic personnel and civilians as well as Afghan citizens who worked with the United States and could face reprisals.

Full speech of Joe Biden’s remarks on Afghanistan

Good afternoon.

I want to speak today to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan, the developments that have taken place in the last week and the steps we’re taking to address the rapidly evolving events.

My national security team and I have been closely monitoring the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and moving quickly to execute the plans we had put in place to respond to every contingency, including the rapid collapse we’re seeing now.

I’ll speak more in a moment about the specific steps we’re taking. But I want to remind everyone how we got here and what America’s interests are in Afghanistan.

We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, and make sure Al Qaeda could not use Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again. We did that. We severely degraded Al Qaeda and Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden and we got him.

That was a decade ago. Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to have been nation-building. It was never supposed to be creating a unified, centralized democracy. Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on the American homeland.

I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nation-building. That’s why I opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when I was vice president. And that’s why as president I’m adamant we focus on the threats we face today, in 2021, not yesterday’s threats.

Today a terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan. Al Shabab 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. These threats warrant our attention and our resources. We conduct effective counterterrorism missions against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don’t have permanent military presence. If necessary, we’ll do the same in Afghanistan. We’ve developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to keep our eyes firmly fixed on the direct threats to the United States in the region, and act quickly and decisively if needed.

When I came into office, I inherited a deal that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S. forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, just a little over three months after I took office. U.S. forces had already drawn down during the Trump administration from roughly 15,500 American forces to 2,500 troops in country. And the Taliban was at its strongest militarily since 2001.

The choice I had to make as your president was either to follow through on that agreement or be prepared to go back to fighting the Taliban in the middle of the spring fighting season. There would have been no cease-fire after May 1. There was no agreement protecting our forces after May 1. There was no status quo of stability without American casualties after May 1. There was only a cold reality of either following through on the agreement to withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more American troops back into combat in Afghanistan and lurching into the third decade of conflict.

I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces. That’s why we’re still there. We were clear about the risks. We planned for every contingency. But I always promised the American people that I will be straight with you.

The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had anticipated. So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight. If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.

American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force of some 300,000 strong. Incredibly well equipped. A force larger in size than the militaries of many of our NATO allies. We gave them every tool they could need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force, something the Taliban doesn’t have. Taliban does not have an air force. We provided close air support. We gave them every chance to determine their own future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.

There are some very brave and capable Afghan special forces units and soldiers. But if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance to the Taliban now, there is no chance that one year — one more year, five more years or 20 more years — that U.S. military boots on the ground would have made any difference.

Here’s what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. The political leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were down. They would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan bearing the brunt of the fighting for them. And our true strategic competitors, China and Russia, would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.

When I hosted President Ghani and Chairman Abdullah at the White House in June, and again when I spoke by phone to Ghani in July, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Afghanistan should prepare to fight their civil wars after the U.S. military departed. To clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the Afghan people. We talked extensively about the need for Afghan leaders to unite politically. They failed to do any of that. I also urged them to engage in diplomacy, to seek a political settlement with the Taliban. This advice was flatly refused. Mr. Ghani insisted the Afghan forces would fight, but obviously he was wrong.

 

So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay: How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more lives, American lives, is it worth, how many endless rows of headstones at Arlington National Cemetery? I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the mistakes we’ve made in the past. The mistake of staying and fighting indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces. Those are the mistakes we cannot continue to repeat because we have significant vital interest in the world that we cannot afford to ignore.

 

I also want to acknowledge how painful this is to so many of us. The scenes that we’re seeing in Afghanistan, they’re gut-wrenching, particularly for our veterans, our diplomats, humanitarian workers — for anyone who has spent time on the ground working to support the Afghan people. For those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan, and for Americans who have fought and served our country in Afghanistan, this is deeply, deeply personal. It is for me as well.

I’ve worked on these issues as long as anyone. I’ve been throughout Afghanistan during this war, while the war was going on, from Kabul to Kandahar, to the Kunar Valley. I’ve travelled there on four different occasions. I’ve met with the people. I’ve spoken with the leaders. I spent time with our troops, and I came to understand firsthand what was and was not possible in Afghanistan. So now we’re focused on what is possible.

We will continue to support the Afghan people. We will lead with our diplomacy, our international influence and our humanitarian aid. We’ll continue to push for regional diplomacy and engagement to prevent violence and instability. We’ll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Afghan people, of women and girls, just as we speak out all over the world.

I’ve been clear, the human rights must be the centre of our foreign policy, not the periphery. But the way to do it is not through endless military deployments. It’s with our diplomacy, our economic tools and rallying the world to join us.

 

Let me lay out the current mission in Afghanistan: I was asked to authorize, and I did, 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan for the purpose of assisting in the departure of U.S. and allied civilian personnel from Afghanistan, and to evacuate our Afghan allies and vulnerable Afghans to safety outside of Afghanistan. Our troops are working to secure the airfield and ensure continued operation on both the civilian and military flights. We’re taking over air traffic control. We have safely shut down our embassy and transferred our diplomats. Our diplomatic presence is now consolidated at the airport as well.

 

Over the coming days we intend to transport out thousands of American citizens who have been living and working in Afghanistan. We’ll also continue to support the safe departure of civilian personnel — the civilian personnel of our allies who are still serving in Afghanistan. Operation Allies Refuge, which I announced back in July, has already moved 2,000 Afghans who are eligible for special immigration visas and their families to the United States. In the coming days, the U.S. military will provide assistance to move more S.I.V.-eligible Afghans and their families out of Afghanistan.

We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable Afghans who work for our embassy. U.S. nongovernmental organizations and Afghans who otherwise are a great risk in U.S. news agencies — I know there are concerns about why we did not begin evacuating Afghan civilians sooner. Part of the answer is some of the Afghans did not want to leave earlier, still hopeful for their country. And part of it because the Afghan government and its supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as they said, a crisis of confidence.

American troops are performing this mission as professionally and as effectively as they always do. But it is not without risks. As we carry out this departure, we have made it clear to the Taliban: If they attack our personnel or disrupt our operation, the U.S. presence will be swift, and the response will be swift and forceful. We will defend our people with devastating force if necessary. Our current military mission is short on time, limited in scope and focused in its objectives: Get our people and our allies as safely and quickly as possible. And once we have completed this mission, we will conclude our military withdrawal. We will end America’s longest war after 20 long years of bloodshed.

The events we’re seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of military force would ever deliver a stable, united, secure Afghanistan, as known in history as the graveyard of empires. What’s happening now could just as easily happen five years ago or 15 years in the future. We have to be honest, our mission in Afghanistan made many missteps over the past two decades.

I’m now the fourth American president to preside over war in Afghanistan. Two Democrats and two Republicans. I will not pass this responsibility on to a fifth president. I will not mislead the American people by claiming that just a little more time in Afghanistan will make all the difference. Nor will I shrink from my share of responsibility for where we are today and how we must move forward from here. I am president of the United States of America, and the buck stops with me.

I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not regret my decision to end America’s war-fighting in Afghanistan and maintain a laser focus on our counterterrorism mission, there and other parts of the world. Our mission to degrade the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and kill Osama bin Laden was a success. Our decades-long effort to overcome centuries of history and permanently change and remake Afghanistan was not, and I wrote and believed it never could be.

I cannot and will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in another country’s civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss. This is not in our national security interest. It is not what the American people want. It is not what our troops who have sacrificed so much over the past two decades deserve. I made a commitment to the American people when I ran for president that I would bring America’s military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. While it’s been hard and messy and, yes, far from perfect, I’ve honoured that commitment.

More importantly, I made a commitment to the brave men and women who serve this nation that I wasn’t going to ask them to continue to risk their lives in a military action that should’ve ended long ago. Our leader did that in Vietnam when I got here as a young man. I will not do it in Afghanistan.

I know my decision will be criticized. But I would rather take all that criticism than pass this decision on to another president of the United States, yet another one, a fifth one. Because it’s the right one, it’s the right decision for our people; the right one for our brave service members who risked their lives serving our nation. And it’s the right one for America.

Thank you. May God protect our troops, our diplomats and all brave Americans serving in harm’s way.

Loading

Business

Dangote Refinery Sets ₦525 Per Share for Landmark IPO

Published

on

Dangote Refinery IPO to start at N525/share
For ₦5,250, Nigerians could soon own a piece of the refinery that has reshaped the country’s fuel market.

(more…)

Loading

Continue Reading

News

Hate Speech, Threats During Campaigns Attract ₦10m Fine, 12 Months Jail – INEC

Published

on

Hate Speech, Threats During Campaigns Attract ₦10m Fine, 12 Months Jail – INEC
Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Chairman Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan

Hate Speech, Threats During Campaigns Attract ₦10m Fine, 12 Months Jail – INEC

The electoral commission says inflammatory rhetoric crosses into intimidation when it incites ethnic or religious hostility, as political actors ramp up campaign activities ahead of the 2027 general elections.

ABUJA, Nigeria – The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has warned politicians and political parties against using abusive, inflammatory, or threatening language during campaigns for the 2027 general elections, cautioning that offenders risk heavy financial penalties and possible imprisonment under the Electoral Act 2026. INEC’s Chief Press Secretary and Media Adviser to its Chairman, Adedayo Oketola, in a telephone interview on Sunday, said campaign rhetoric crosses the legal threshold into electoral intimidation the moment it moves beyond robust partisan debate or policy critique and enters the realm of coercion, hate speech, or the threat of harm. He cited Section 96 of the Electoral Act 2026, which states: “A political campaign or slogan shall not be tainted with abusive language directly or indirectly likely to injure religious, ethnic, tribal or sectional feelings.” The law further prohibits “abusive, intemperate, slanderous or base language, insinuations, innuendoes designed or likely to provoke violent reaction or emotions” in political campaigns. According to Oketola, rhetoric becomes punishable intimidation when it incites ethnic, religious, or regional hostility through language explicitly designed to provoke violent emotions or target specific groups. He explained that campaigns transition into outright intimidation when they threaten force or violence—whether by directly or indirectly warning voters, candidates, or electoral officials of physical harm, economic reprisal, or social ostracisation to compel or suppress support for a candidate. He stressed that political campaigns must not create an atmosphere of fear calculated to deter voter turnout or disenfranchise specific demographics.

Oketola disclosed that Section 96(7) of the Electoral Act 2026 prescribes severe statutory penalties for offenders. Candidates convicted of abusive campaign offences face a maximum fine of ₦5 million or imprisonment for 12 months, while political parties found liable risk a fine of ₦10 million for the first offence, and ₦2 million for each subsequent violation. While clarifying that INEC is not a security agency, Oketola explained that Section 95 of the Electoral Act 2026 explicitly prescribes the security architecture for political rallies in relation to the operational roles of the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and other security institutions. He noted that beyond inter-agency security coordination, INEC is statutorily empowered to monitor political campaigns and enforce compliance with the Code of Conduct for Political Parties.

READ ALSO:

The warning comes amid a fresh wave of threats by political office holders against dissenting voters, as parties intensify preparations for the 2027 elections. Among the most prominent cases is that of Osun East Senator, Francis Adenigba Fadahunsi, who was invited and questioned by the Nigeria Police Force over a viral video in which he was heard telling All Progressives Congress (APC) supporters in Ilesa, “Until the day of election, when you see any Accord party member here in Ilesa, kill them.” Governor Ademola Adeleke rejected his media office’s subsequent clarification, describing the remarks as a national security threat and demanding his arrest. Fadahunsi later claimed the video was AI-generated and that his statement was metaphorical—a “call to kill by votes.” In the Federal Capital Territory, the Chairman of Kuje Area Council, Samuel Danjuma Shekwolo, stirred controversy after warning residents who do not support the APC to relocate ahead of 2027. Amnesty International Nigeria condemned the remarks as a “call to violence” and an attack on freedom of association. In Borno State, the Commissioner for Youth and Sports Development, Sainna Buba, threatened that those who refuse to support the APC in 2027 “will be flogged,” while separately warning that anyone who crossed the ruling party would have a finger broken. In Yobe State, the state chairman of the APC, Alhaji Mohammed Gadaka, triggered widespread condemnation after urging married women to leave their husbands if the men stood in the way of their voting for the party—promising to personally settle the “new bride price” for any woman who ended her marriage on account of her loyalty to the party. He later withdrew the remark following public outcry. Other flashpoints include Kebbi State, where the Chairman of Gwandu Local Government Area, Alhaji Atiku Ahmad Mandiya, told supporters that anyone who spoke against Governor Nasir Idris “should be dealt with,” and Ebonyi State, where Governor Francis Nwifuru warned newly inaugurated local government chairmen that they would be removed from office if they failed to deliver their councils to the APC in 2027.

The International Republican Institute (IRI), in a pre-election assessment of Nigeria’s democratic environment, warned that persistent insecurity and election-related political violence are the biggest threats to Nigeria’s 2027 general elections. IRI President Daniel Twining stressed that where voters, candidates, and observers cannot participate without fear of violence or intimidation, technical improvements and legal safeguards have only limited effect. The IRI mission further warned that economic hardship, insecurity, and declining public trust in INEC pose significant threats to the credibility of the 2027 elections. It said grievances over the management of the 2023 presidential election continue to shape perceptions of INEC, while uncertainty over the implementation of new electoral provisions could deepen distrust. The mission recommended that INEC conduct more robust stress tests of its systems and mock elections to identify potential challenges with the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and the INEC Result Viewing (IReV) portal. The National Peace Committee, through its Election Security Information Hub, recorded 2,510 election-related security incidents across the country in just 14 months, affecting at least 70 off-cycle elections, bye-elections and reruns since 2023. Zamfara, Borno, Kaduna, Niger, Benue and Plateau were identified as the states worst affected, with banditry, kidnapping and terrorism posing continuing threats to electoral activities.

Oketola insisted that electoral integrity cannot be preserved by INEC alone, describing it as a collective stakeholder duty. “The Nigeria Police Force and other security agencies have a clear duty to prevent the breakdown of law and order during political campaigns,” he said. He added that the media must actively play its watchdog role by calling out purveyors of incendiary statements, while traditional and religious leaders must also wade in, using their moral authority to encourage politicians to eschew inflammatory rhetoric and avoid provoking violence in the country. “Political campaigns should be platforms of competing ideas, not theatres of war,” Oketola said.

Hate Speech, Threats During Campaigns Attract ₦10m Fine, 12 Months Jail – INEC

Loading

Continue Reading

News

Market Fire in Indonesia Kills 11, Including Six Children

Published

on

Market Fire in Indonesia Kills 11, Including Six Children

Market Fire in Indonesia Kills 11, Including Six Children

A blaze in Central Papua province destroyed about 40 buildings and left a community in mourning, with authorities investigating the cause.

JAKARTA, Indonesia – At least 11 people, including six children, have died after a fire tore through a market and nearby buildings in Indonesia’s eastern Papua region, police said on Monday. The fire broke out shortly after midnight local time in Paniai, Central Papua province, and quickly spread to several shophouses, according to local police spokesman Henry Manurung. “During the inspection, officers found 11 victims who had died with burn injuries. Of the 11 victims, five of them were adults, while the other six were children,” Henry said in a statement. He said the children were aged between two and nine years old. The blaze raged for more than three hours, destroying at least 40 kiosks and houses despite the deployment of fire trucks and water cannons. Authorities were still investigating the cause of the fire.

READ ALSO:

Henry attributed the difficulty in extinguishing the blaze to the arrangement of the buildings in the area. “The intensity of the blaze and the fact that the houses and stalls were all packed tightly together made the firefighting process take quite a long time,” he said. Deadly fires are relatively common in Indonesia, where densely packed buildings and inadequate fire-safety measures can make blazes difficult to contain.

This tragedy follows a series of deadly fires in Indonesia in recent years, highlighting ongoing safety concerns. In December 2025, 22 people were killed when fire swept through a seven-storey office building in Central Jakarta. Police said an exploding drone battery on the ground floor was the likely cause. Also in December 2025, a fire at a shop in Central Jakarta killed 7 people. In 2023, an explosion at a nickel-processing plant in eastern Indonesia killed at least 12 people.

Market Fire in Indonesia Kills 11, Including Six Children

Loading

Continue Reading

Trending