America
Does U.S. Afghanistan Policy Have a Future?
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
Musk appointed co-director of Pentagon future warfare initiative
The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, has assumed the co-directorship of a Pentagon initiative focused on the future of warfare, known as “Project Meridian”.
Musk’s new role was announced by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth.
Musk, who has long expressed his conviction that wars will ultimately be fought with autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles, will advise the project as co-director alongside Palmer Luckey, founder of defence start-up Anduril, and former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich.
In a memorandum issued at the Pentagon, Hegseth stated that the group would “examine the battlefields of the future” and “determine which weapons and technologies warfighters must employ to achieve dominance in these environments.”
During his “State of the Force” address at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Hegseth said:
“The best predictors of future conflict do not reside exclusively within the Pentagon. Obvious biases and risks arise when we task ourselves with both framing the questions and answering them.”
Hegseth stated that this initiative would commence immediately and that, following his address, he would convene with Musk, Luckey, and Gingrich at a secure location.
Project Meridian will have 120 days to “ruthlessly map the trajectory of wars, domains, and technologies”, a process that will culminate in the public disclosure of its findings alongside a classified annex.
Hegseth outlined an expansive mandate extending “from beneath the surface of the Earth to beyond the Moon.”
Rather than formulating new military strategies or policies, the panel will seek to identify “the domains we must seize and the capabilities we must master”, focusing on the effort to “discover, develop, and field” the weapons and systems that next-generation American troops may require.
The group is expected to submit a report containing recommendations to him by the end of January.
In 2024, Musk remarked: “Future wars will be entirely about drones and hypersonic missiles.” This was merely one of several similar statements he has made in recent years.
For Musk, whose oversight role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) ended in turmoil and escalated into a dispute with President Donald Trump over Trump’s spending bill, this appointment marks his formal return to government in an official capacity.
Musk and Trump ultimately reconciled, and Musk attended a meeting on artificial intelligence safety at the White House this week alongside other technology leaders.
Meridian forms part of a broader push announced by Hegseth to restructure the military around autonomous warfare and rapidly advancing technologies.
Hegseth announced the establishment of the Autonomous Warfare Command (AUTOWARCOM), a new four-star combatant command endowed with what he termed “service-like authorities” to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the joint force.
The Department of War will also begin phasing in new occupational frameworks across all military branches to establish specialised career tracks for what Hegseth described as “the next generation of autonomous warfighters.”
“We should have conceived an Autonomous Warfare Command a decade ago,” Hegseth said, explaining that Meridian aims to gaze far enough ahead to enable the military to anticipate the next technological shift rather than lag behind.
America
Pentagon breach exposes personal records of three million people
A cyberattack targeting the US Department of War’s personnel database has resulted in the leak of personal information belonging to approximately 3 million people.
Speaking to ABC News, a Pentagon official stated that the system accessed by unauthorised individuals contained the records of 2,760,000 living persons and 294,000 deceased individuals.
The Military Times portal, which first broke the news, had reported the number of affected individuals as approximately 4 million based on two sources. The Pentagon official subsequently conveyed different figures to ABC News.
The leak encompasses Social Security numbers and duty information belonging to military personnel and civilian employees. According to an official notification examined by Military Times, the compromised records may also include names, dates of birth, contact information, sex, race, and military occupational specialties.
The unauthorised access to the information system of the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) lasted for approximately nine months, between October 2025 and 16 July 2026.
ABC News reported that the access in question was obtained by a small number of third-party users. The vulnerability was closed after it was identified.
The DMDC is considered one of the Pentagon’s primary personnel records centres. More than 60 million records belonging to active-duty personnel, reservists, civilian staff, contractors, retirees, veterans, and military family members are stored at the centre.
The Pentagon has not detected any evidence that the leaked data has been misused. Military Times reported that affected individuals were offered identity restoration and credit history monitoring services.
A similar data breach previously occurred on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) recruitment website, FBIJobs.gov. According to information obtained by ABC News from internal communications and sources, the FBI is considering the possibility that data belonging to its entire staff may have been stolen.
The New York Times (NYT) examined a portion of the stolen FBI records. Home addresses, telephone numbers, official email addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, hiring dates, and emergency contact details for relatives were identified within these documents.
The database also contained unit designations, duty roles, and information regarding the supervisors of personnel. Some records revealed assignments within counterintelligence and counternarcotics units, as well as departments examining threats originating from Russia, China, and Iran.
Ciaran Martin, the former head of the UK National Cyber Security Centre, noted that this type of breach could directly affect the FBI’s operational capabilities.
The hacker group known as ShinyHunters had announced that it had seized medical data and security clearance records alongside files belonging to tens of thousands of active and former FBI employees.
Experts evaluating the matter for the NYT warned that this information could be used to track agents, threaten their families, or compile dossiers by foreign intelligence services.
The ShinyHunters group initially threatened to release the data unless the bureau withdrew an advisory it had published concerning the group’s attack methods.
The group later asserted that it had never intended to leak the information and characterised its action as an advertising campaign.
In a report published in May, Reuters noted that the personal data of US military personnel had been used in surveillance and attack preparations.
According to the agency, Washington’s adversaries gained the ability to pinpoint areas where troops were concentrated by exploiting commercially available location data. US lawmakers at the time criticised the Pentagon for failing to adequately protect the personal data of military personnel.
America
Canada diversifies oil and gas exports away from US
US President Donald Trump’s trade policy and the Washington administration’s push to increase Venezuelan oil imports are prompting Canada to diversify its energy exports.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, recent developments are accelerating Canada’s development of new oil and natural gas projects.
Steps taken by the Ottawa administration, which aspires to become an energy superpower, are seen as potentially strengthening the country’s position in global markets.
In Canada, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer and fifth-largest natural gas producer, the energy sector accounts for approximately one-fifth of total exports.
Almost all of the country’s natural gas exports and approximately 90% of its oil exports go to the US.
The newspaper writes that the trade war with Washington and the atmosphere of confrontation entered into with Iran have heightened Canada’s desire to turn to alternative markets outside the US.
Officials plan to increase shipments of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) to European and Asian markets.
Accelerating infrastructure investments in line with this target, Canada is also shortening approval processes. The government is prioritising the construction of an oil pipeline extending specifically to the west coast.
According to the newspaper’s estimate, if major pipeline projects are implemented, Canada’s daily oil transport capacity could rise to 6.8 million barrels by 2034.
Routes heading to the west coast will make up approximately 30% of this capacity.
The Canadian administration is simultaneously advancing LNG export projects. According to the report, these investments could allow approximately 55% of Canadian natural gas exports to be directed to markets outside the US by the early or mid-2030s.
While the government expands tax incentives for the oil and natural gas sector, the province of Alberta also plans to overhaul its royalty system.
However, the newspaper notes that implementing the new projects requires heavy investment, and the process depends on the final decisions taken by producers as well as the completion of regulatory approval processes.
The expansion of pipeline and LNG infrastructure could gradually reduce Canada’s dependence on the US market while raising its share in the global energy market.
The Canadian Prime Minister’s demand to reduce reliance on the US market had also come to the fore in July.
According to Carney’s statement, the province of Alberta submitted a plan for a pipeline spanning more than 1,000 kilometres to the west coast of British Columbia.
Targeted for completion by September 2027, the line will reach the Pacific coast by following an existing corridor through the mountainous terrain.
This shift in energy comes at a time of strained relations with the US. Donald Trump said that if Canada obtains associate member status in the European Union, he could halt trade with Europe in certain sectors and impose high tariffs.
As reported by the Associated Press, Trump characterised such a rapprochement as a “potentially hostile act”.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had proposed opening the path for Canada to become the EU’s first associate member. The terms of this associate membership status, which is not defined in EU treaties, are not yet clear and require the approval of member states to enter into force.
Canada, which does not seek full membership, aims for maximum rapprochement with the EU.
Following Trump’s return to the White House, relations between Washington and Ottawa deteriorated. The Trump administration, which repeatedly called on Canada to become the “51st state” of the US, introduced additional tariffs.
In July, the US began imposing 50% tariffs on certain Canadian-origin goods.
-
Europe5 days agoEuropean unions urge governments to scrap all Palantir deals
-
Diplomacy5 days agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul highlights irreversible shift to multipolarity
-
Europe1 week agoEmmanuel Todd says West faces collapse amid Ukraine and Iran crises
-
Europe1 week agoEuropean intelligence chiefs divide over risk of Russian attack
-
Diplomacy1 week agoEast-West Forum in Istanbul to debate multipolarity and global order
-
Middle East1 week agoSharaa says 7 October must not shape Israel policy on Syria
-
America1 week agoRepublican support for Trump’s war with Iran drops sharply in polls
-
Middle East1 week agoPalestinian factions confront legitimacy crisis at Istanbul talks
