Connect with us

AMERICA

Does U.S. Afghanistan Policy Have a Future?

Published

on

Crises often define presidential legacies. Jimmy Carter had the Iran hostage crisis, Bill Clinton the Balkans, George W. Bush the September 11 terror attacks, and Donald Trump the pandemic. Across decades, Americans may easily forget Afghanistan, given its small size and relative isolation. Still, the country has nevertheless played an outsized role in shaping American presidential legacies, both before and after the United States’ two-decade direct military involvement in the country.

A Look Into the Past: America and Afghanistan

Carter had to react to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan less than two months after Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Fearing that events in Afghanistan would reinforce the growing perception that he was weak and America humiliated, Carter responded by boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

President Ronald Reagan’s willingness to arm the Mujahedeen ultimately allowed him to celebrate a second-term victory much needed after the Iran-Contra Affair tarnished his legacy.

President George H.W. Bush appointed Peter Tomsen to be ambassador to Afghanistan, but he did not send him after the country descended into civil war. Bush may have considered that neglect prudent, but history does not treat the American withdrawal from Afghan affairs kindly. While the Mujahedin were not the Taliban, both Reagan and Bush now face criticism for unleashing Islamists, deferring Afghanistan’s future to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and being oblivious to or ignoring the consequences of their decisions.

Clinton continued to neglect the country; he believed that he could contain the growing Al Qaeda threat emerging from Afghanistan with an “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism mission best represented by one-off missile strikes on Al Qaeda camps and Taliban facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan following the August 1998 Al Qaeda attacks in Kenya and Tanzania.

9/11 and Afghanistan

The September 11, 2001 terror attacks returned Afghanistan to the forefront of American policy attention, where it would remain for the next 20 years. Each of the four presidents who oversaw U.S. policy made significant blunders. President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq created a distraction that hampered and politicized the war effort.

President Barack Obama leveraged his successful killing of Osama Bin Laden into an excuse to seek closure to the war on terror, failing to recognize that the scourge of extremism in Afghanistan extended beyond a single man. He followed his June 4, 2009, Cairo “New Beginning” speech and pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison with secret negotiations that led to the Doha process. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s quip, “You don’t make peace with your friends. You have to be willing to engage with your enemies,” reflected an unwillingness to consider how engagement and financial incentives could actually empower the Taliban.

Donald Trump was little better. Ending “the forever war” became a mantra. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster unsuccessfully tried to tame Trump’s urge to cut and run. Trump appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as special envoy to find a way to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

A Turning Point: Joe Biden and Afghanistan

Following his decision to curtail his re-election bid, Biden released a statement highlighting his achievements; he did not mention Afghanistan despite his earlier self-praise about ending America’s longest war.

While it is easy with the benefit hindsight to criticize his predecessors’ approach to Afghanistan, how does Biden compare?

Biden harbored a decades-long disdain for Afghanistan. During a lunch President Hamid Karzai hosted for visiting U.S. senators, then-Senator Biden dismissed Karzai’s assessment of the role of Pakistan in providing sanctuary to the Taliban by boasting, “Pakistan is 50 times more important than Afghanistan to the United States.” Biden left the lunch angrily and abruptly. As vice president, Biden criticized the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. He not only opposed Obama’s troop surge, but he also considered resigning in protest. Upon rising to the presidency, Biden promised to undo almost all of Trump’s agenda but maintained the flawed Doha deal.  Unlike the previous presidents who recognized sacrifices Afghans made on behalf of their own and American security, Biden has repeatedly criticized Afghanistan and its people, declaring, “Afghanistan is not predisposed to unity.”  He was shameless in his inconsistency. In 2001, for example, he voted for the U.S. military intervention but two decades later said he was against “that war in Afghanistan from the very beginning.” Biden then elevated the Taliban as U.S. security partner, by selectively ignoring almost everything the Taliban did or said.

The Afghanistan of 2024

Before the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan was a poor but relatively peaceful, developing nation. The U.S. intervention allowed Afghanistan to resume its trajectory as a developing, modern polity. Millions of Afghan girls and women enrolled and matriculated at schools and universities, rose to public office, served in the military or opened private business. Today, under Taliban control, Afghanistan is a living hell and has once again become a global terror hub.

As the 2024 campaign continues, previous U.S. missteps in Afghanistan and a refusal to acknowledge their own mistakes have deterred both presidential candidates from articulating their own Afghan strategy. This is unfortunate. As with other totalitarian regimes, the Taliban’s rein of terror, misogyny and oppression will give rise to liberation and resistance movements. The new US strategy must be to empower democratic groups, and both women and human rights defenders.

Only a democratic Afghanistan can align Afghans’ needs for a responsible government with the broader demand for a terrorism-free Afghanistan.

The author is Dr. Davood Moradian. He is the founder and the first director-general of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies (AISS). He earned a doctorate degree from University of St Andrews (Scotland). His doctorate thesis was on the conception of punishment in ancient Greece, Islam and International Justice.

AMERICA

Microsoft urges Trump to address Russian and Chinese ‘cyber threats’

Published

on

Microsoft President Brad Smith has called on Donald Trump to take decisive action against cyber-attacks originating from Russia, China, and Iran, citing an alarming rise in state-sponsored hacking targeting U.S. government officials and election campaigns.

Speaking to The Financial Times (FT), Smith, who also serves as the company’s executive vice president and chief legal officer, emphasized that cybersecurity “deserves to be a more prominent issue in international relations.” He urged the incoming Trump administration to send a strong message to deter hostile nations.

“I hope the Trump administration will push harder against nation-state cyberattacks, particularly from Russia, China, and Iran. We cannot tolerate the level of attacks we have seen today,” Smith stated.

Rise in ransomware attacks

Smith pointed to a surge in ransomware attacks on U.S. companies, frequently carried out by criminal organizations that he said are often “tolerated … and in some cases, even facilitated” by the Russian government.

Adding to the concerns, U.S. law enforcement officials last week accused China of conducting a widespread cyber espionage campaign, infiltrating multiple American telecommunications networks ahead of the election.

According to Microsoft, its customers face more than 600 million cyber-attacks daily, underscoring the urgent need for robust defensive measures.

Progress under Biden administration

Smith acknowledged that the Joe Biden administration has made “tremendous progress in strengthening cybersecurity defenses.” However, he stressed the need for additional measures to deter and dissuade other nations from engaging in such activities.

A recent Microsoft study revealed that nation-state groups and criminal gangs are increasingly collaborating, sharing tools, and conducting joint operations to target vulnerable systems.

In his testimony before the U.S. Senate in September, Smith highlighted that Russia, China, and Iran have ramped up digital efforts to interfere in global elections, including those in the United States.

Microsoft faces security criticism

Despite its advocacy for stronger cybersecurity measures, Microsoft itself has faced scrutiny over its own security practices.

In March, a report by the U.S. Cybersecurity Review Board criticized the company’s security culture, describing it as “inadequate.” The report highlighted several “avoidable mistakes” that allowed Chinese hackers to access hundreds of email accounts hosted on Microsoft’s cloud systems, including those of senior U.S. government security officials.

In response, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella pledged to prioritize security “above all else,” including linking employee compensation to improved security outcomes. The company has also begun implementing changes to its Windows operating system to enable faster recovery from incidents such as the global IT outage caused by a flawed CrowdStrike security update in July.

Call for exporting digital technologies to the Middle East and Africa

Beyond cybersecurity, Smith commented on the potential impact of a second Trump administration on the technology sector. He noted that anticipated changes to merger and acquisition regulations in the U.S. could be offset by heightened scrutiny in other regions.

Smith also renewed his call for the U.S. government to “help accelerate the export of key American digital technologies” to regions like the Middle East and Africa. This appeal comes in the wake of export controls imposed by the Biden administration on artificial intelligence chips over fears they could be diverted to China.

“We really need to standardize processes so that American technology can get to these other parts of the world as quickly as Chinese technology,” Smith stated.

Continue Reading

AMERICA

Biden plans to write off Ukraine’s $4.6bn debt ahead of Trump

Published

on

President Joe Biden’s administration has officially notified Congress of its intention to forgive Ukraine’s $4.65 billion debt, a move tied to ongoing efforts to support the country amid its conflict with Russia.

This debt represents half of the $9 billion provided to Kyiv as part of the $61 billion aid package approved by Washington in April. Unlike other forms of assistance, this funding was issued as conditionally repayable loans, with provisions allowing the United States President to cancel up to 50% of the debt if deemed necessary.

In a statement, the U.S. State Department explained that the debt cancellation is intended to “help Ukraine win” and serves the national interests of the U.S., the EU, G7+, and NATO.”

According to Bloomberg, President Biden is determined to maximize aid to Ukraine before President-elect Donald Trump assumes office. However, the decision to write off the debt has drawn sharp criticism from Republicans.

Republican Senator Rand Paul argued that the Biden administration’s decision places undue financial burden on the American public. He pledged to demand a vote in the Senate to challenge the proposal.

Despite this, Bloomberg notes that any effort to overturn the debt cancellation would require approval from both houses of Congress, a scenario that appears unlikely given the Democratic majority in the Senate. Furthermore, President Biden holds veto power, making reversal of the decision even more challenging.

Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced plans to exhaust all remaining aid approved by Congress before President Trump’s inauguration on January 20.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan emphasized that one of the administration’s key goals is to position Ukraine as strongly as possible—both militarily and at the negotiating table.

Pentagon officials reported that $9.3 billion in military aid is currently in the pipeline. Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh confirmed plans for weekly arms deliveries to Kyiv, with the aim of expediting aid distribution before the presidential transition.

On November 20, the Pentagon unveiled an additional $275 million military aid package for Ukraine, further underscoring the administration’s commitment to strengthening Ukraine’s defense capabilities.

Continue Reading

AMERICA

Donald Trump taps Howard Lutnick to lead Commerce Department

Published

on

Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate Wall Street investor and campaign donor Howard Lutnick as the new head of the U.S. Department of Commerce, placing the billionaire at the forefront of implementing the sweeping tariffs promised during his presidential campaign.

Lutnick, who co-chaired Trump’s transition team, had previously been considered for the role of Treasury Secretary. He is also the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, a prominent investment firm.

In a statement on Tuesday, Trump declared that Lutnick would be “directly responsible” for leading the Commerce Department and overseeing the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR).

The USTR, established in 1974 to manage negotiations with U.S. trading partners, traditionally reports directly to the president. If confirmed by the Senate, the 63-year-old Lutnick will play a pivotal role in aiding U.S. businesses and executing Trump’s proposed tariffs on international trade partners.

Trump has outlined plans for a 60% tariff on imports from China and a global tariff of up to 20%, signaling a major shift in U.S. trade policy.

Lutnick, despite lacking prior government experience, has been a steadfast advocate for Trump’s economic agenda. During a New York campaign rally, Lutnick remarked, “When was America great? At the turn of the century, our economy was floundering! That was 125 years ago. We had no income tax and all we had were tariffs.”

While Lutnick has emerged as a major donor to Trump, he has also supported establishment Democrats and Republicans in the past, including Chuck Schumer and Jeb Bush. He contributed to both Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 campaigns, hosting a fundraiser for her in 2015. Lutnick maintains a personal friendship with the Clintons, noting their attendance at a Cantor Fitzgerald fundraiser in September 2022.

Lutnick has also maintained a long-standing relationship with Trump, even appearing on The Celebrity Apprentice in 2008. He disclosed to the Financial Times in October that he has donated over $10 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign and another $500,000 to the transition team, totaling approximately $75 million.

Treasury Secretary selection process still uncertain

The position of Treasury Secretary, one of the most significant roles in Trump’s administration, remains undecided. Lutnick’s name has been floated for the role, though he faces competition from hedge fund manager Scott Bessent, private equity billionaire Marc Rowan, and former Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh.

Marc Rowan, the CEO of Apollo Global Management, has emerged as a leading contender and is expected to meet with Trump to present his case. Rowan’s supporters cite his extensive expertise in financial markets, though competition remains fierce.

Forecasting site Polymarket currently lists Warsh as the favorite for Treasury Secretary, followed by Bessent, Rowan, and William Hagerty. If unsuccessful in his bid for Treasury Secretary, Bessent is reportedly vying for the chairmanship of the National Economic Council.

Trump names Mehmet Oz to run Medicare and Medicaid

Trump also announced on Tuesday his nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Describing Oz as “one of the most talented physicians” capable of “making America healthy again,” Trump expressed confidence in Oz’s ability to reduce waste and fraud within the nation’s largest government agency.

Dr. Oz, a former heart surgeon and Columbia University professor, rose to prominence as Oprah Winfrey’s health expert before hosting his own popular talk show. However, his career has been controversial, with critics accusing him of promoting scientifically dubious theories and unproven treatments.

Oz’s political experience includes a 2022 Senate race in Pennsylvania, where he was endorsed by Trump but ultimately lost to Democrat John Fetterman.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey