Afghanistan

US pauses visas for all Afghan passport holders, halts asylum requests | Donald Trump News

Pause on visas and halting of asylum applications comes after shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, DC.

The US State Department has announced it is “immediately” pausing issuing visas for individuals travelling on Afghan passports to protect “public safety”, as President Donald Trump administration’s immigration crackdown intensifies in the wake of a deadly attack on two National Guard members.

The announcement on Friday came as United States immigration authorities said they are also halting decisions on all asylum applications for the foreseeable future.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed in a post on X on Friday that the State Department had “paused visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports”.

The move comes after authorities named Afghan national Rahmanaullah Lakanwal as the main suspect in Wednesday’s shooting in Washington, DC, which killed one National Guard member and left another in critical condition.

“The United States has no higher priority than protecting our nation and our people,” Rubio said.

Lakanwal is alleged to have ambushed West Virginia National Guard members Sarah Beckstrom and Andrew Wolfe in an unprovoked attack as they patrolled near the White House.

On Thursday evening, the Trump administration confirmed that 20-year-old Beckstrom had died from her injuries, while 24-year-old Wolfe remains in critical condition.

The CIA confirmed this week that Lakanwal had worked for the spy agency in Afghanistan before emigrating to the US shortly after the withdrawal of Western forces from the country in 2021.

The office of US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, announced on Friday that the charges against Lakanwal had been upgraded to first-degree murder, along with two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed.

In a separate announcement on Friday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) director Joseph Edlow said the agency had also paused all asylum decisions in the interest of the “safety of the American people”.

“USCIS has halted all asylum decisions until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible,” Edlow said in a post on X.

A day earlier, Edlow said he had ordered “a full-scale, rigorous re-examination of every green card for every alien from every country of concern” at the direction of Trump.

The moves are the latest in a series of escalating restrictions imposed on immigration into the US at Trump’s urging.

Trump, who called the deadly Washington, DC, shooting a “terrorist attack”, has on several occasions over recent days attacked former President Joe Biden’s administration’s immigration policies, including the granting of visas to Afghan nationals who worked with US forces in Afghanistan.

Lakanwal came to the US under a Biden-era programme known as “Operation Allies Welcome”, following the US withdrawal in 2021.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Thursday, Trump ordered authorities to re-examine all green card applications from 19 “countries of concern”, before saying he planned to suspend immigration from “all Third World countries”.

He did not define the term “Third World”, but the phrase is often used as a shorthand for developing countries in the Global South.

Trump also said that he would “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our Country”.

“[I will] denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquillity, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western civilization,” he said.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has already taken aggressive measures to restrict immigration, announcing in October his administration would accept only 7,500 refugees in 2026 – the lowest number since 1980.



Source link

Trump gambles on plan to bring home some U.S. troops from Afghanistan

President Trump has a lot riding on a precarious agreement with Taliban militants to end America’s longest war. But the process, which began over the weekend, is fraught with obstacles that could lengthen the conflict rather than conclude it.

The first step in the deal agreed to by the U.S. and the Taliban is a seven-day period of “reduced violence” in which neither side attacks. The period began Saturday and includes a moratorium on the roadside explosive devices, rockets and suicide bombers that have been the Taliban trademark and continued as recently as last month.

It falls short of a cease-fire, which the Taliban consistently refused to consider. But if the weeklong pause is declared a success, U.S. and Taliban leaders will sign a deal in Doha, Qatar, on Feb. 29 that begins the drawdown of American troops in exchange for Taliban vows to fight terrorism and stop attacks against the United States.

“This [reduction in violence phase] will serve as a test period of Taliban intent and control of their forces, and as a proof of concept of their commitment to the peace process,” senior State Department official Molly Phee said last week.

“It has taken a lot of work, frankly, to get to this point. But we believe we have established the conditions that can transform the trajectory of the conflict,” she added. “It is high time for the parties to begin moving off the battlefield and into a political process.”

Phee is deputy to Zalmay Khalilzad, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan who has led more than a year of negotiations with a Taliban team that includes men once jailed in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

As of Thursday, Taliban attacks and U.S. airstrikes had fallen off significantly and the truce was largely holding, U.S. officials said.
.

But numerous obstacles will complicate the next phase, which includes bringing the Afghan government into talks with the Taliban and other domestic organizations. The government has been kept out of negotiations until now, in part because Taliban leaders don’t recognize it.

Some critics worry that in a rush to secure an election-year troop withdrawal, Trump might agree to terms that fail to protect U.S. counterterrorism operations or hard-fought civil rights in Afghanistan. Others say conditions for withdrawing U.S. troops are as good now as they ever will be.

“This is a long shot under the best of circumstances,” said Bruce Riedel, a veteran CIA officer who specialized in the region and advised Democratic and Republican White Houses. “Trump badly wants to claim a victory.”

But Riedel said one hard part will be working directly with the Taliban without undercutting the Afghan government, which Washington has backed throughout the nearly two decades of U.S. intervention launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “We are stuck in a war with no easy way out without leaving one side in the lurch,” he said.

Complicating matters even more, the Trump administration now finds itself in the odd position of entering into important deals with the Taliban without a clear partner in the Afghan government.

Official presidential election results announced last week — nearly five months after the vote — gave the victory to incumbent President Ashraf Ghani. But his chief rival, Abdullah Abdullah, has refused to recognize that outcome and declared himself the victor. Within days, the opposing camps deployed their own security forces in an increasingly tense Kabul, and regional warlords were choosing sides.

When asked about the election results, Pompeo declined to endorse Ghani.

Negotiating with the Taliban presents its own challenges. Like the rest of Afghan society, the sprawling group is riven by tribal and regional rivalries. And it has killed hundreds of Americans.

It remains to be seen what happens if attacks against Americans resume after the seven-day pause. Officials say they will deal with such attacks on a case-by-case basis. But Trump has said killing Americans is a red line. He hastily backed out of a deal with the Taliban last fall after it launched an attack that killed a U.S. soldier.

The agreement to be signed Feb. 29 calls for an initial U.S. troop withdrawal over a five-month period. The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Austin “Scotty” Miller, has told Pentagon officials he can safely reduce the U.S. troop level from the roughly 12,000 service members now there to 8,600.

Pentagon officials have insisted that even the first round of withdrawals will be conditioned on Taliban leaders not permitting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups on Afghan territory.

Other officials have also pressed for limiting troop withdrawals unless violence levels remain low and Taliban leaders follow through on promises to hold planned power-sharing talks with Afghan government negotiators.

Whether the U.S. insists on those conditions before making steep troop reductions will depend to a large degree on Trump, said a senior U.S. Defense official who did not want to be quoted speaking about the internal deliberations.

Critics fear that as his reelection campaign moves into full swing this summer, Trump may order troop withdrawals whether or not the looming Afghan peace talks go smoothly, in order to be seen as delivering on his promise to end an era of lengthy U.S. overseas wars.

Trump “wants to bring the force levels down. He’s made that clear. The question is whether he is willing to do it if things start to fall apart. And they usually do in Afghanistan,” a senior Defense official said.

The Pentagon plans to continue its training of Afghan army and police, even as it sharply cuts overall force levels. “A big part” of the remaining U.S. force will be focused on that training, said another U.S. Defense official, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Miller has also developed options for continuing military operations against Al Qaeda, Islamic State and other terrorist groups, using forces stationed in the region but outside Afghanistan, if necessary.

As long as the Afghan peace talks remain on track, Pentagon officials believe counterterrorism operations can be carried out with relatively small numbers of special operations troops and airstrikes.

Douglas Lute, a retired U.S. Army general who coordinated fighting in Afghanistan late in the George W. Bush administration and under President Obama, said improved U.S. intelligence in the region and a diminished Al Qaeda threat bode well for security.

“We have intelligence access that we didn’t have before,” Lute said. “We’re much better than we were back when we were simply launching cruise missiles into the desert.”

U.S. officials have also pressed NATO members and other countries with troops in Afghanistan not to exit too hastily. There are roughly 8,000 non-U.S. foreign troops there now, and a quick exit of many of them would force steeper cutbacks in critical training programs.

It is unclear whether the agreement will include a timetable or explicit language committing Washington to a complete pullout of its troops. But it’s unlikely the Taliban would sign on to a deal that does not at least theoretically hold that out as the goal, said Laurel Miller, the former acting special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan at the State Department.

“You have to look at the U.S.-Taliban agreement as the easy part of the deal,” she said. “It’s a viable first step. Whether that first step leads to further steps is still an open question.”

She said the likely message that the administration is sending the Afghan government is: We’re leaving, so you better make the best deal you can. And if you do, we will support you with aid.

However, she added, “If the U.S. withdraws its troops, I’m deeply skeptical that the U.S. Congress is going to continue to send billions of dollars a year to prop up the Afghan government.”

Congress has appropriated nearly $137 billion in aid for Afghanistan since 2002, with about 63% earmarked for security forces and 26% for development projects, according to a report last month by the Congressional Research Service. In 2020, the White House is seeking $4.8 billion in military assistance and $400 million in economic aid.

Another wild card is Pakistan, which has backed the Taliban and benefited from the unrest in its neighbor. Although Pompeo has invested considerable time courting senior Pakistani officials, Islamabad’s support for peace talks is unclear.

Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary for Defense, said that while she is concerned Trump might “lose patience and pull the plug,” she believed chances for a broad agreement were the best they have been “across three administrations.”

“While we have been fighting this for 20 years, the Afghans have been fighting this for 40,” she said, referring to the civil war and Soviet intervention that predated U.S. involvement. “So there is a degree of exhaustion on both sides and a degree of stalemate.”

Source link

What are the risks of Afghanistan-Pakistan tensions escalating? | News

More attacks in both countries despite peace efforts.

Pakistan has been accused of launching air strikes that killed civilians in Afghanistan, a day after three Pakistani security personnel were killed in a bombing.

Recent peace efforts and a temporary ceasefire have failed.

What’s driving the violence – and what are the risks?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests:

Obaidullah Baheer – Adjunct lecturer at the American University of Afghanistan

Sahar Khan – Security analyst focusing on South Asia

Hameed Hakimi – Associate fellow in the Asia-Pacific Programme at Chatham House

Source link

Afghanistan-Pakistan Tensions Spike Amid Border Attacks and Militancy

Tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated on Tuesday after the Taliban accused Pakistani forces of air strikes in eastern Afghanistan that killed nine children and a woman. Islamabad has not commented. The bombardments follow a series of recent attacks in Pakistan, which Islamabad attributes to militants operating from Afghan soil. Last month saw the deadliest confrontation between the two neighbors since the Taliban seized power in 2021, with dozens killed in air strikes and ground clashes along the 2,600 km (1,600-mile) border.

Accusations and Counter-Accusations

Pakistan claims that militants, particularly the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), are based in Afghanistan and launch attacks into its territory. Recent high-profile attacks include a suicide bombing in Islamabad that killed 12 civilians and bombings targeting paramilitary forces in Peshawar and Waziristan.

The Taliban administration denies sheltering Pakistani militants and says it does not permit Afghan soil to be used for attacks against other nations. A ceasefire signed in Doha in October collapsed after Kabul refused to provide written guarantees against militant activities, leaving Pakistan frustrated.

Who Are the Pakistani Taliban (TTP)?

Formed in 2007, the TTP is a jihadist organization based primarily in northwest Pakistan, drawing ideological inspiration from al-Qaeda. While historically allied with the Afghan Taliban, the TTP has carried out major attacks on markets, schools, military bases, and security forces in Pakistan. Despite repeated military campaigns, Pakistan has struggled to eliminate the group completely.

After the Taliban Took Power in Afghanistan

Initially welcomed by Pakistan in 2021, the Taliban’s return to power has not reduced cross-border threats. Islamabad accuses Afghanistan of harboring TTP fighters and Baloch insurgents seeking independence in western Pakistan. Pakistan also alleges that India is supporting these groups through Afghanistan a claim New Delhi denies.

Implications for the Region and the World

The renewed Afghanistan-Pakistan tensions threaten regional stability in South Asia. Persistent cross-border militancy could destabilize both nations, strain relations with neighboring India, and potentially create a vacuum for other extremist groups. Global powers, including the U.S., China, and the EU, face challenges in balancing security cooperation, counterterrorism efforts, and humanitarian concerns in a region critical for trade, energy routes, and counterterrorism strategy.

Analysis

This situation highlights how state fragility and ungoverned spaces fuel persistent conflict. Pakistan’s security concerns are genuine, but unilateral strikes risk escalating violence and civilian casualties. Meanwhile, the Taliban in Kabul faces the difficult task of balancing governance, legitimacy, and regional diplomacy while being accused of harboring militants. Globally, the crisis underscores the fragility of peace in border regions where militant groups exploit political and geographic fault lines, showing that even well-intentioned interventions can have unintended consequences if not coordinated carefully.

With information from Reuters.

Source link

Column: Trump and the Taliban have one goal in common: getting U.S. troops out of Afghanistan

On Saturday, after 19 years of war, the United States and the Taliban began what both sides delicately called a seven-day “reduction of violence” in Afghanistan, a trial attempt at a partial truce. If the experiment works, they have set Feb. 29 for a ceremony to sign an agreement that would launch broader peace negotiations.

The Taliban has a good reason to keep its promise to pause offensive operations for a week: Under the proposed deal, the U.S. will withdraw about one-fourth of its roughly 12,000 troops from Afghanistan by this summer. It’s one goal the Taliban shares with President Trump, who wants to run for reelection claiming he is ending the United States’ longest war.

But the larger peace process that is supposed to follow will be far more difficult — and the Taliban is not the only complicating factor.

There’s also Trump’s impatience and his penchant for disrupting slow-moving diplomatic efforts at whim.

As early as 2012, Trump declared the U.S. war in Afghanistan “a complete waste” and said it was time to pull out. If something goes wrong in the Afghan peace process — and something surely will — will he check his impulse to declare victory and leave?

The plan negotiated by Trump’s special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, has plenty of moving parts. Its text hasn’t been released, but officials and others say it is almost identical to a draft deal Khalilzad reached in September.

According to their accounts, the deal calls for the United States to trim its troop presence from about 12,000 to 8,600 by July — and later, if all goes well, to zero. Or as the Taliban put it in a statement Friday, the deal would lead to “the withdrawal of all foreign forces … so that our people can live a peaceful and prosperous life under the shade of an Islamic system.”

The Taliban must agree not to harbor Islamic State, Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups that seek to attack the West. The plan even provides for U.S. forces and the Taliban to cooperate on counterterrorism.

Peace negotiations among all Afghan factions are supposed to begin within 10 days after the plan is signed. But the government in Kabul led by President Ashraf Ghani is mired in an internal power struggle and could prove incapable of acting as an effective player.

Those talks could lead to a new constitution and give the Taliban a major role in a future Afghan government.

Keeping that complex process on track will require Washington to stay involved in Afghanistan with both diplomatic muscle and continued financial aid — which means Congress will have to buy in.

That hasn’t happened. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and other Republican hawks are already grumbling about trusting the Taliban and the folly, in their view, of reducing troops below 8,600.

One question is practical: U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy Al Qaeda, which launched the 9/11 attacks from its sanctuary there, and to push the Taliban out of power. Can U.S. counterterrorism needs be met without troops in Afghanistan?

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, who helped run the war under two presidents, says the answer is yes.

“The threat is not what it was in 2001. Al Qaeda is much diminished,” he told me. “And we’re much better at counterterrorism than we were back when we were simply launching cruise missiles into the desert.”

Other questions could be difficult in a different way.

Most Americans have concluded that the U.S. war in Afghanistan turned into a tragic, expensive failure once it expanded beyond unseating Al Qaeda. The explicit U.S. recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political force makes that verdict official.

And allowing the Taliban to win a share of power — or potentially dominate the government in Kabul — will diminish whatever hope remains of helping Afghanistan become a recognizable democracy.

Americans once congratulated themselves for freeing Afghanistan’s women from Islamic extremism. Taliban leaders have said they intend to protect women’s rights to education and employment, but their track record — closing schools, barring women from public life, and worse — inspires little confidence.

Many, including Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, are pessimistic.

“We encouraged women to step forward,” Crocker told me. “Now it appears they’re expendable.”

Trump has disrupted his own diplomacy more than once. When the U.S. and Taliban reached a tentative deal last September, Trump impulsively decided that he wanted Taliban leaders to fly to Camp David for a splashy ceremony three days before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

The Taliban, which isn’t big on photo ops, refused. Republicans in Congress also denounced the idea of honoring the leaders of a guerrilla force who had killed 1,800 Americans by bringing them to the presidential retreat in Maryland. Trump announced that he was canceling the deal entirely, blamed the Taliban for an attack that killed a U.S. serviceman in Kabul, and pronounced the peace talks “dead.”

Khalilzad needed almost six months to bring the deal back to life.

If the Feb. 29 deal holds, Trump will claim credit for cutting U.S. troops in Afghanistan down to 8,600 — the same number deployed when President Obama left office.

But what Trump really wants is to announce —in an election year, no less — that those troops are on their way home, too.

Given the complexities of Afghan politics, that’s probably impossible. Diplomats warn that putting pressure on the Afghans to conclude a peace agreement could scuttle the process.

If Trump wants to withdraw troops as part of a comprehensive deal — one that avoids chaos, meets U.S. counterterrorism needs and gives Afghanistan a chance at peace — he’ll need to exercise unwonted self-restraint.

After three years as president, he doesn’t have many diplomatic achievements to his name. He’s staged disruptive events, including summit meetings with Kim Jong Un, trade wars and withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran, but produced few tangible accomplishments.

Launching a peace process for Afghanistan, if it succeeds, could be his most substantive achievement — but only if he gets out of his own way.

Source link

Amid Regional Isolation, Taliban Seeks Economic Lifeline from India

Afghanistan’s Taliban trade minister, Alhaj Nooruddin Azizi, visited India to encourage more investments and trade between the two countries. This visit comes as both nations seek to strengthen their relationship amid declining ties with Pakistan. Recently, India upgraded its ties by reopening its embassy in Kabul, which had been closed since the Taliban took power in 2021.

Azizi is scheduled to meet with Indian officials, including the trade and foreign ministers, as well as local traders and investors. The discussions will focus on boosting economic cooperation, enhancing trade relations, and creating investment opportunities while also improving Afghanistan’s role in regional transportation.

Due to recent border closures with Pakistan after armed clashes, Afghanistan seeks access to essential goods like grains and medicines. India is also actively involved in trade through the Iranian port of Chabahar, which provides an alternate route for goods, reducing Kabul’s reliance on Pakistan. Despite historical friendship, India does not recognize the current Taliban government, but relations are evolving due to shared concerns about Pakistan and China.

With information from Reuters

Source link

Pakistan says Islamabad, South Waziristan bombers were Afghan nationals | News

Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi says both fighters who carried out suicide attacks on Islamabad and South Waziristan were Afghan nationals.

Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi has said both suicide bombers involved in the two attacks in the country this week were Afghan nationals, as authorities announced having made several arrests.

Naqvi made the remarks in parliament on Thursday during a session carried live on television.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

On Wednesday, at least 12 people were killed and more than 30 were injured, several of them critically, when a suicide bomber blew himself up at the entrance of the Islamabad District Judicial Complex.

The Counter-Terrorism Department in Punjab province’s Rawalpindi said seven suspects were detained in connection with the Islamabad blast. The alleged perpetrators were apprehended from Rawalpindi’s Fauji Colony and Dhoke Kashmirian, the Dawn daily reported, while a raid was also conducted in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province.

Burned out car at bomb site.
Firefighter douses a vehicle after a blast outside a court building in Islamabad [Reuters]

The other suicide attack took place on Monday at a college in South Waziristan, KP.

Cadet College, which is near the Afghan border, came under attack when an explosive-laden vehicle rammed its main gate. Two attackers were killed at the main gate, while three others managed to enter, according to police.

Relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have been severely strained in recent years, with Islamabad accusing fighters sheltering across the border of staging attacks inside Pakistan. Kabul denies giving haven to armed groups to attack Pakistan.

Dozens of soldiers were killed in border clashes between the two countries last month, as well as several civilians.

On Tuesday, Pakistani Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said Pakistan may launch strikes inside Afghanistan following the attacks this week, saying the country was “in a state of war”.

“Anyone who thinks that the Pakistan Army is fighting this war in the Afghan-Pakistan border region and the remote areas of Balochistan should take today’s suicide attack at the Islamabad district courts as a wake-up call,” he said.

Pakistan passes bill giving army chief immunity for life

In a separate development on Thursday, Pakistan’s parliament approved a sweeping constitutional amendment, granting lifetime immunity to the current army chief, boosting the military’s power, which was previously reserved only for the head of state, despite widespread criticism from opposition parties and critics.

The 27th amendment, passed by a two-thirds majority, also consolidates military power under a new chief of defence forces role and establishes a Federal Constitutional Court.

The changes grant army chief Asim Munir, recently promoted to field marshal after Pakistan’s clash with India in May, command over the army, air force and the navy.

Munir, like other top military brass, would enjoy lifelong protection.

Any officer promoted to field marshal, marshal of the air force, or admiral of the fleet will now retain rank and privileges for life, remain in uniform, and enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings.

The amendment also bars courts from questioning any constitutional change “on any ground whatsoever”.

Source link

Pakistan says Afghanistan talks deadlocked after deadly border clashes | News

Afghan official says four Afghan civilians were killed and five others wounded in border clashes.

Talks in Istanbul between Pakistan and Afghanistan are at a deadlock, Islamabad said, a day after both sides accused each other of mounting border clashes that risked breaching a ceasefire brokered by Qatar.

The update on the talks by Pakistan’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar on Friday came after an Afghan official said four Afghan civilians were killed and five others wounded in clashes between Pakistani and Afghan forces along their shared border despite the joint negotiations.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

There was no immediate comment from Kabul about the Pakistani claim.

In a statement thanking Turkiye and Qatar for mediating the talks, Tarar maintained that the Afghan Taliban has failed to meet pledges it made with the international community about curbing “terrorism” under a 2021 Doha peace accord.

Tarar said that Pakistan “will not support any steps by the Taliban government that are not in the interest of the Afghan people or neighboring countries.” He did not elaborate further, but added that Islamabad continues to seek peace and goodwill for Afghans but will take “all necessary measures” to protect its own people and sovereignty.

Ali Mohammad Haqmal, head of the Information and Culture Department in Spin Boldak, blamed Pakistan for initiating the shooting. However, he said Afghan forces did not respond amid ongoing peace talks between the two sides in Istanbul.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said Afghanistan initiated the shooting.

“Pakistan remains committed to ongoing dialogue and expects reciprocity from Afghan authorities”, Pakistan’s Ministry of Information said.

The ministry said the ceasefire remained intact.

Andrabi said Pakistan’s national security adviser, Asim Malik, is leading the Pakistani delegation in the talks with Afghanistan. The Afghan side is being led by Abdul Haq Wasiq, director of general intelligence, according to Mujahid.

He said that Pakistan had handed over its demands to mediators “with a singular aim to put an end to cross-border terrorism,” and that “mediators are discussing Pakistan’s demands with the Afghan Taliban delegation, point by point.”

Strained ties

Islamabad accuses Kabul of harbouring armed groups, particularly the Pakistan Taliban (Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP), which regularly claims deadly attacks in Pakistan. The Afghan Taliban deny sheltering the group.

Many Pakistan Taliban leaders and fighters are believed to have taken refuge in Afghanistan since the Afghan Taliban’s return to power in 2021, further straining ties between the two countries.

Turkiye said at the conclusion of last week’s talks that the parties had agreed to establish a monitoring and verification mechanism to maintain peace and penalise violators.

Fifty civilians were killed and 447 others wounded on the Afghan side of the border during clashes that began on October 9, according to the United Nations. At least five people died in explosions in Kabul that the Taliban government blamed on Pakistan.

The Pakistani army reported 23 of its soldiers were killed and 29 others wounded, without mentioning civilian casualties.

Source link

Dick Cheney, former vice president who unapologetically supported wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, dies at 84

Richard B. Cheney, the former vice president of the United States who was the architect of the nation’s longest war as he plotted President George W. Bush’s thunderous global response to the 9/11 terror attacks, has died.

Vexed by heart trouble for much of his adult life, Cheney died Monday night due to complications of pneumonia and cardiac and vascular disease, according to a statement from his family. He was 84.

“For decades, Dick Cheney served our nation, including as White House Chief of Staff, Wyoming’s Congressman, Secretary of Defense, and Vice President of the United States,” the statement said. “Dick Cheney was a great and good man who taught his children and grandchildren to love our country, and to live lives of courage, honor, love, kindness, and fly fishing. We are grateful beyond measure for all Dick Cheney did for our country. And we are blessed beyond measure to have loved and been loved by this noble giant of a man.”

To supporters and detractors alike, Cheney was widely viewed as the engine that drove the Bush White House. His two-term tenure capped a lifetime of public service, both in Congress and on behalf of four Republican presidents.

It often fell to Cheney, not President Bush, to make an assertive, unapologetic case for the American-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and for the controversial antiterrorism measures such as the Guantánamo Bay prison. And after the election of President Obama, it was once again Cheney, not Bush, who stood among the new president’s fiercest critics on national security.

In an October 2009 speech — one emblematic of the role he embraced after leaving the White House — Cheney blasted the Obama administration for opening a probe of “enhanced” interrogations of suspected terrorists conducted during the Bush years.

“We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys,” he said. The rhetoric was textbook Cheney: blunt, unvarnished, delivered with authority.

While Cheney at the time was attempting to occupy the leadership vacuum in the GOP in the age of Obama, there was little doubt that he also was motivated to preserve a legacy that appears to be as much his as former President Bush‘s. For eight years, Cheney redrew the lines that defined the vice presidency in a way no predecessor had. His office enjoyed greater autonomy than others before it, while working to keep much of his influence from plain sight. That way of operating led to a challenge before the Supreme Court as well as a criminal investigation over a leak of classified information.

Moreover, the image of a powerful backroom operator managing the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” combined with his service as Defense secretary during the Persian Gulf War and his stint as a chairman of defense contracting giant Halliburton, made Cheney a towering bête noire to liberals worldwide. To them, he embodied a dangerous fusion of politics and the military-industrial complex — and they viewed his every move with deep suspicion.

To his champions, however, he was the firm-jawed, hulking, resolute defender of American interests.

Standing with the administration was more than a duty to Cheney; it was an article of faith. The invasion of Iraq “was the right thing to do, and if we had to do it over again, we’d do exactly the same thing,” Cheney said in a 2006 interview, even as the nation slowly learned that U.S. intelligence suggesting Saddam Hussein’s regime possessed weapons of mass destruction was simply not true.

Three years earlier, Cheney had pledged that the U.S. would be greeted in Iraq as “liberators” — a comment that haunted him as insurgents in the country gained strength, killed thousands of allied troops and extended the conflict for years. The war in Afghanistan would drag on for 20 years, ending in 2021 as it had begun, with the Taliban back in control.

While Cheney will largely be remembered for his leading role in the response to the 9/11 terror attacks, he had long worked the corridors of power in Washington. He was a White House aide to President Nixon and later chief of staff to President Ford. As a member of the House from Wyoming, he rose quickly to become part of the Republican leadership during the 1980s. In the early ’90s, he ran the Pentagon during the Gulf War.

Richard Bruce “Dick” Cheney was born in Lincoln, Neb., on Jan. 30, 1941, and spent much of his teenage years in Casper, Wyo. His father worked for the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.

As a young man, he was more interested in hunting, fishing and sports than in academics, and a stint at Yale University was short-lived. He eventually obtained bachelor’s and master’s degrees from the University of Wyoming and studied toward a doctorate at the University of Wisconsin.

In 1964, he married Lynne Ann Vincent, who became a lifelong political partner while strongly influencing Cheney’s conservatism. Daughter Elizabeth, who was elected to Congress in 2017, was born in 1966 and her sister, Mary, arrived three years later. The sisters became embittered years later when Elizabeth — who preferred Liz — took a stance opposing same-sex marriage, which seemed a slap to Mary and her wife. Cheney, however, offered his support for such unions, an early GOP voice for same-sex marriage. Years later, he came to Liz’s defense when she broke with fellow Republicans and voted to impeach President Trump following the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. In addition to his wife and daughters, Cheney is survived by seven grandchildren.

A fellowship sent Cheney to Washington, where he soon began working for a politically shrewd House member who also was a lifetime influence, Donald H. Rumsfeld. When Rumsfeld joined the Nixon administration, Cheney followed.

After Ford succeeded Nixon in the wake of Watergate, Rumsfeld served as chief of staff, with Cheney at his side. Ford eventually appointed Rumsfeld secretary of Defense, and Cheney, at 34, ran the White House. Even then, his calm reserve was a hallmark.

Although nearly everyone working for him was older, “He was very self-assured,” James Cannon, a member of Ford’s White House team, said years later. “It didn’t faze him a bit to be chief of staff.”

Ford lost a narrow election to Jimmy Carter in 1976, but Cheney’s Washington career was just getting underway. He headed back to Casper and in little more than a year was running for Congress.

His health, though, already was a factor. In 1978, at age 37 and in the midst of a primary election campaign, he had a heart attack, the first of several. He would undergo multiple surgeries, including a quadruple bypass, two angioplasties, installation of a heart pump and — in 2012 — a transplant. His frequent trips to the hospital and seeming indestructibility provided fodder for late-night talk show hosts during Cheney’s vice presidency.

With the help of television ads reminding voters that Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson had served full White House terms despite having had heart attacks, he narrowly won the Republican nomination and, in November 1978, secured election to the House of Representatives from Wyoming’s single district.

In Congress, he was known as a listener more interested in problem-solving than conservative demagoguery, even as he quietly built a voting record that left no doubt about where he stood on the political spectrum. He quickly moved into the ranks of GOP leadership.

Cheney stepped into the public spotlight after he was named Defense secretary by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. As the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War cooled, Cheney was charged with overseeing a Pentagon that was more fractious than usual. In a test of political and managerial will, he oversaw major reductions in the Defense budget, a profound downsizing of forces and the closing of obsolete military bases. He helped implement the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989 to oust the country’s leader, Manuel Noriega, for drug trafficking and racketeering.

But Cheney — along with his hand-picked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell — made his mark in the American response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Cheney played a key role in persuading the Saudi royal family to allow American troops to be stationed in Saudi Arabia to defend against a looming attack from Hussein’s forces.

The Cheney-led Pentagon then shifted to offense in 1991, amassing an enormous American force that totaled more than 500,000 soldiers, nearly twice the number employed in the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The U.S. military, with help from allied countries, overwhelmed the Iraqi forces in Kuwait in only 43 days and easily entered Iraq.

Characteristically, Cheney would defend the then-controversial decision to halt the U.S. advance toward Baghdad, which left Hussein in power. “I would guess if we had gone in there, we would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country,” he said in a 1992 speech. “We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.”

Cheney’s efforts to station U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, considered critical to the push to repel Iraq, would have unforeseen ramifications. The military presence there helped radicalize young Islamic militants such as Osama bin Laden.

After President Clinton’s victory in 1992, Cheney left government service. Three years later, he assumed the helm of Halliburton, one of the world’s leading oil field companies and a prominent military contractor. The company thrived under Cheney’s leadership: Its relationship with the Pentagon flourished, its international operations expanded and Cheney grew wealthy.

In 2000, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, the Republican nominee for president, asked Cheney to head up the search for his running mate, then ultimately chose Cheney for the job instead. He brought to the ticket an element of maturity and Washington gravitas that the inexperienced Bush did not possess.

Cheney’s lack of design on the presidency, and his willingness to return to government 10 days shy of his 60th birthday, seemingly gave Bush the benefit of his experience and earned Cheney a measure of trust — and thus authority — commanded by few presidential advisors.

Once in office, Cheney, mindful of lessons learned in the Ford White House, sought to revitalize an executive office he believed had become too hemmed in by Congress and the courts. He termed it a “restoration.”

“After Watergate, President Ford said there was an imperiled president, not an imperial presidency,” said presidential historian Robert Dallek. Cheney, he said, felt “he badly needed to expand the powers of the presidency to assure the national security.”

In office barely a week, Cheney created a national energy policy task force in response to rising gasoline prices. A series of meetings with top officials from the oil, natural gas, electricity and nuclear industries were closed to the public, and Cheney refused to reveal the names of the participants. Cheney would exert similar influence over environmental policy and, with an office on Capitol Hill, forcefully advance the president’s legislative agenda.

A lawsuit seeking information about the task force made its way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the vice president’s favor in 2004. One of the justices in the majority was Antonin Scalia, who was a friend and, it was later revealed, had recently gone duck hunting with the vice president.

Another hunting trip gone awry earned Cheney embarrassing headlines in 2006 when he accidentally shot and wounded a member of the party with a round of birdshot while quail hunting on a Texas ranch.

More troubling to Cheney was a federal criminal probe in connection with the 2003 leak of the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson. The investigation resulted in the conviction four years later of Cheney aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby was later pardoned by President Trump.

Cheney, however, will be largely remembered for his unwavering belief that the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq — especially the latter — were essential, a stance he maintained even as the missions in both theaters evolved from rooting out suspected terrorists to nation-building, and even as the casualties skyrocketed and it became clear the 20-year mission was doomed.

When U.S. troops and civilians were pulled out of Afghanistan in a fraught and fatal departure in 2021, it was Cheney’s daughter who spoke up.

“We’ve now created a situation where as we get to the 20th anniversary of 9/11, we are surrendering Afghanistan to the very terrorist organization that housed al Qaeda when they plotted and planned the attacks against us,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R.-Wyo.) said.

The former vice president’s steely resolve was captured years later in “Vice,” a 2018 biographical drama in which Christian Bale portrayed Cheney as a brainy yet uncompromisingly uncharismatic leader.

It was Cheney who insisted early on that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. “There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us,” Cheney said in August 2002. The U.S. eventually determined that Iraq had no such weapons.

He argued forcefully that Hussein was linked to the 2001 terror attacks. When other administration officials fell silent, Cheney continued to make the connections even though no shred of proof was ever found. In a 2005 speech, he called the Democrats who accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war “opportunists” who peddled “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage.

Cheney also frequently defended the use of so-called extreme interrogation methods, such as waterboarding, on al Qaeda operatives. He did so in the final months of the Bush administration, as both the president’s and Cheney’s public approval ratings plunged.

“It’s a good thing we had them in custody and it’s a good thing we found out what they knew,” he said in a 2008 speech to a friendly crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

“I’ve been proud to stand by him, the decisions he made,” Cheney said of Bush. “And would I support those same decisions today? You’re damn right I would.”

Oliphant and Gerstenzang are former Times staff writers.

Staff writer Steve Marble contributed to this story.

Source link

Deadly earthquake hits northern Afghanistan | Earthquakes News

A magnitude 6.3 earthquake has shaken northern Afghanistan, killing at least 20 people and injuring more than 500, a health official says, adding that the numbers could increase.

The quake’s epicentre on Monday was located 22km (14 miles) west-southwest of the town of Khulm, and it struck at 12:59am (20:29 GMT on Sunday) at a depth of 28km (17 miles), the United States Geological Survey said.

Sharafat Zaman, a spokesperson for the Ministry of Public Health, said 534 injured people and 20 bodies had been brought to hospitals in Balkh and Samangan provinces. Rescuers were on the scene and the figures were changing, he added.

In the nearby province of Badakhshan, the quake damaged or destroyed 800 houses in one village in the Shahr-e-Bozorg district, said Ihsanullah Kamgar, spokesperson for the provincial police headquarters.

However, due to a lack of internet service in the remote area, there were still no accurate casualty figures, he added.

Yousaf Hammad, a spokesperson for the Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority, said most of the injured suffered minor wounds and were discharged after treatment.

In the Afghan capital, Kabul, the Ministry of Defence announced that rescue and emergency teams had reached the quake-affected areas in Balkh and Samangan, which suffered the most damage, and were transporting the injured and assisting others.

The Defence Ministry said a rockslide briefly blocked a main mountain highway linking Kabul with Mazar-i-Sharif but the road was later reopened. It said some people who had been injured and trapped along the highway were transported to hospital.

Source link

At least seven dead after magnitude-6.3 earthquake hits Afghanistan

At least eight people have died after an earthquake struck northern Afghanistan, say local authorities, with the toll expected to rise as rescue efforts continue.

Some 180 people have also been left injured, Samin Joyenda, a health department spokesman of a nearby province told the BBC.

The earthquake struck Mazar-e-Sharif, which is home to around 500,000 people, in the early hours of Monday, at around 01:00 local time (20:30 GMT).

It had a magnitude of 6.3 and a depth of 28km (17mi, according to the US Geological Survey, and was marked at an orange alert level, which indicates “significant casualties” are likely.

Haji Zaid, a Taliban spokesman in Balkh province – of which Mazar-e Sharif is the capital – wrote earlier on X that “many people are injured” in the Sholgara district, just south of Mazar-e- Sharif.

He said they had received “reports of minor injuries and superficial damages from all districts of the province”.

“Most of the injuries were caused by people falling from tall buildings,” he wrote.

Mazar-e Sharif is home to more than 500,000 people. Many of the city’s residents rushed to the streets when the quake struck, as they feared their houses would collapse, AFP reported.

The Taliban spokesman in Balkh also posted a video on X appearing to show debris strewn across the ground at the Blue Mosque, a local landmark in Mazar-e-Sharif.

The religious complex is believed to house the tomb of the first Shia Imam – a religious leader believed to hold divine knowledge. It’s now a site where pilgrims gather to pray and celebrate religious events.

Khalid Zadran, a Taliban spokesman for the police in Kabul, wrote on X that police teams were “closely monitoring the situation”.

Numerous fatalities were also reported in Samangan, a mountainous province near Mazar-e-Sharif, according to its spokesman.

The quake on Monday comes after a 6.0 magnitude earthquake struck Afghanistan’s mountainous eastern region in late August, killing more than 1,000 people.

That earthquake was especially deadly as the rural houses in the region were typically made of mud and timber. Residents were trapped when their houses collapsed during the quake.

Afghanistan is very prone to earthquakes because of its location on top of a number of fault lines where the Indian and Eurasian tectonic plates meet.

Source link

Powerful magnitude 6.3 quake hits north Afghanistan’s Hindu Kush region | Earthquakes News

The earthquake comes two months after the deadliest quake in recent Afghan history, which killed thousands of people.

A powerful 6.3 magnitude earthquake has struck northern Afghanistan, according to the US Geological Survey (USGS), two months after a quake killed thousands of people in the impoverished nation’s east.

The USGS said overnight Sunday into Monday that the quake hit at a revised depth of 28km (17 miles) in Kholm, near the city of Mazar-i-Sharif in the Hindu Kush region, at 12:59 am local time (20:29 GMT). It was felt by correspondents with the AFP news agency based in the capital Kabul.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The agency had initially given the depth as 10km (6 miles).

Local authorities broadcast emergency telephone numbers for people to call, but did not immediately report any deaths or injuries.

In Mazar-i-Sharif, many people ran into the street in the middle of the night, fearing their homes might collapse, an AFP correspondent observed.

The Taliban authorities have had to deal with several major quakes since returning to power in 2021, including one in 2023 in the western Herat region on the border with Iran that killed more than 1,500 people and destroyed more than 63,000 homes.

A shallow 6.0-magnitude quake struck this year on August 31 in the country’s east, killing more than 2,200 people – the deadliest tremor in recent Afghan history.

Earthquakes are common in the country, particularly along the Hindu Kush mountain range, near where the Eurasian and Indian tectonic plates meet.

Afghanistan is contending with multiple crises after decades of war: endemic poverty, severe drought and the influx of millions of Afghans forced back home by neighbouring Pakistan and Iran.

Many modest Afghan homes are shoddily built and poor infrastructure hampers rescue efforts after natural disasters like quakes.

Since 1900, northeastern Afghanistan has been hit by 12 earthquakes with a magnitude above 7.0, according to Brian Baptie, a seismologist with the British Geological Survey.

Source link