What's new

Terrorism threat has moved’ from Afghanistan, says top US envoy | Asia News

xyx007

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
3,340
Reaction score
1
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
aljazeera.com

‘Terrorism threat has moved’ from Afghanistan, says top US envoy | Asia News


5-6 minutes

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken defends decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, saying Washington needed to focus on China and the pandemic.
United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has defended the country’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, saying the “terror” threat had moved elsewhere and that Washington needed to refocus resources on challenges such as China and the pandemic.
President Joe Biden announced last week that nearly 2,500 US troops would leave Afghanistan before this year’s 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks that triggered America’s longest war.
The unconditional withdrawal – four months later than a deadline agreed with the Taliban last year – comes despite a deadlock in peace talks between the armed group and the Afghan government.
“The terrorism threat has moved to other places. And we have other very important items on our agenda, including the relationship with China, including dealing with everything from climate change to COVID,” Blinken told broadcaster ABC’s This Week programme.
“And that’s where we have to focus our energy and resources.”

Blinken met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as senior US officials in Kabul last week and briefed them on Biden’s announcement that he was ending “the forever war,” which began in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Blinken told ABC the US had “achieved the objectives that we set out to achieve”.
“Al-Qaeda has been significantly degraded. Its capacity to conduct an attack against the United States now from Afghanistan is not there,” he said.
The Pentagon has about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan from a high of more than 100,000. Thousands more serve as part of a 9,600-strong NATO force, which will withdraw at the same time.
The delay in withdrawal – even by just over four months – has angered the Taliban, which has threatened to resume hostilities against US forces.
Blinken however said Washington would be able to see any move by the Taliban “in real-time” and take action.
“So if they start something up again, they’re going to be in a long war that’s not in their interest either,” he said.
‘No guarantees about future post-pullout’
Meanwhile, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said no one can offer guarantees about Afghanistan’s future after US troops leave, even as he stressed the US would stay focused on “terrorist threats” emanating from the country.
Sullivan was asked on the TV network Fox News’ Sunday programme about the risk of a repeat of what happened in Iraq, where ISIL (ISIS) fighters seized territory after US troops withdrew in 2011. That led then-President Barack Obama to send troops back into Iraq.

Sullivan said Biden had no intention of sending American forces back to Afghanistan, but he added: “I can’t make any guarantees about what will happen inside the country. No one can.”
“All the United States could do is provide the Afghan security forces, the Afghan government and the Afghan people resources and capabilities, training and equipping their forces, providing assistance to their government. We have done that and now it is time for American troops to come home and the Afghan people to step up to defend their own country.”
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected what he said were “false analogies” with the war in Vietnam as well as any suggestion his government was at risk of folding under Taliban pressure after US troops leave.
Afghan security forces were capable of defending the country, he said.
“The Afghan defence and security forces have been carrying over 90 percent of the operations in the last two years,” Ghani said in an interview with the CNN network.
Former President Donald Trump said in a statement that leaving Afghanistan was “a wonderful and positive thing to do,” but called for a more rapid departure. Trump had set a May 1 deadline to withdraw.
Last week, CIA director William Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee that America’s ability to collect intelligence and act against violent threats in Afghanistan will diminish after the departure of US troops.
A United Nations report in January said there were as many as 500 al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and that the Taliban maintained a close relationship with the group. The Taliban denies al-Qaeda has a presence in Afghanistan.
Announcing his decision to withdraw troops, Biden said the US would monitor the threat, reorganise counterterrorism capabilities and keep substantial assets in the region to respond to threats to the US emerging from Afghanistan.
“He has no intention of taking our eye off the ball,” Sullivan said of the president. “We have the capacity, from repositioning our capabilities over the horizon, to continue to suppress the terrorist threat in Afghanistan.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
aljazeera.com

‘Terrorism threat has moved’ from Afghanistan, says top US envoy | Asia News


5-6 minutes

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken defends decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, saying Washington needed to focus on China and the pandemic.
United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has defended the country’s decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, saying the “terror” threat had moved elsewhere and that Washington needed to refocus resources on challenges such as China and the pandemic.
President Joe Biden announced last week that nearly 2,500 US troops would leave Afghanistan before this year’s 20th anniversary of the September 11 attacks that triggered America’s longest war.
The unconditional withdrawal – four months later than a deadline agreed with the Taliban last year – comes despite a deadlock in peace talks between the armed group and the Afghan government.
“The terrorism threat has moved to other places. And we have other very important items on our agenda, including the relationship with China, including dealing with everything from climate change to COVID,” Blinken told broadcaster ABC’s This Week programme.
“And that’s where we have to focus our energy and resources.”

Blinken met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as well as senior US officials in Kabul last week and briefed them on Biden’s announcement that he was ending “the forever war,” which began in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Blinken told ABC the US had “achieved the objectives that we set out to achieve”.
“Al-Qaeda has been significantly degraded. Its capacity to conduct an attack against the United States now from Afghanistan is not there,” he said.
The Pentagon has about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan from a high of more than 100,000. Thousands more serve as part of a 9,600-strong NATO force, which will withdraw at the same time.
The delay in withdrawal – even by just over four months – has angered the Taliban, which has threatened to resume hostilities against US forces.
Blinken however said Washington would be able to see any move by the Taliban “in real-time” and take action.
“So if they start something up again, they’re going to be in a long war that’s not in their interest either,” he said.
‘No guarantees about future post-pullout’
Meanwhile, White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said no one can offer guarantees about Afghanistan’s future after US troops leave, even as he stressed the US would stay focused on “terrorist threats” emanating from the country.
Sullivan was asked on the TV network Fox News’ Sunday programme about the risk of a repeat of what happened in Iraq, where ISIL (ISIS) fighters seized territory after US troops withdrew in 2011. That led then-President Barack Obama to send troops back into Iraq.

Sullivan said Biden had no intention of sending American forces back to Afghanistan, but he added: “I can’t make any guarantees about what will happen inside the country. No one can.”
“All the United States could do is provide the Afghan security forces, the Afghan government and the Afghan people resources and capabilities, training and equipping their forces, providing assistance to their government. We have done that and now it is time for American troops to come home and the Afghan people to step up to defend their own country.”
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani rejected what he said were “false analogies” with the war in Vietnam as well as any suggestion his government was at risk of folding under Taliban pressure after US troops leave.
Afghan security forces were capable of defending the country, he said.
“The Afghan defence and security forces have been carrying over 90 percent of the operations in the last two years,” Ghani said in an interview with the CNN network.
Former President Donald Trump said in a statement that leaving Afghanistan was “a wonderful and positive thing to do,” but called for a more rapid departure. Trump had set a May 1 deadline to withdraw.
Last week, CIA director William Burns told the Senate Intelligence Committee that America’s ability to collect intelligence and act against violent threats in Afghanistan will diminish after the departure of US troops.
A United Nations report in January said there were as many as 500 al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and that the Taliban maintained a close relationship with the group. The Taliban denies al-Qaeda has a presence in Afghanistan.
Announcing his decision to withdraw troops, Biden said the US would monitor the threat, reorganise counterterrorism capabilities and keep substantial assets in the region to respond to threats to the US emerging from Afghanistan.
“He has no intention of taking our eye off the ball,” Sullivan said of the president. “We have the capacity, from repositioning our capabilities over the horizon, to continue to suppress the terrorist threat in Afghanistan.”


In the face of Allah's lions, the United States has also acknowledged the Taliban Islamic government.
Govt of Pakistan has snubbed their request to base a number of troops in Pakistan incase they need to take an action
 
. . . . . . .
Govt of Pakistan has snubbed their request to base a number of troops in Pakistan incase they need to take an action
They don't need to keep uniform ground troops in Pakistan or Afghanistan. As long as they have drones in the air and spies on the ground.....USA can disrupt any Al-Qaeda types. If stronger actions are required....USN carrier battle groups will be sent. Pakistan will probably permit overflight of any strike packages.

Its not like the 90's...Al-Qaeda types are better off going to some other part of the world where there is minimal threat of attack from external states. That's what I find funny about reporters that keep saying if the USA leave Afghanistan then Al-Qaeda will return :lol:. Its safer for Al-Qaeda types in some other lawless part of the world....heck London or Berlin are better choices (democratic freedoms).
 
Last edited:
.
So who do they plan on invading next? :rofl::rofl:
The so called terrorist threat wasn't there in the first place I believe.
They are calling china the next enemy and they know the harsh consequences of invading china and its allies.
 
.
The so called terrorist threat wasn't there in the first place I believe.
They are calling china the next enemy and they know the harsh consequences of invading china and its allies.

They will probably invade Myanmar and try to use it and India against China as they used Afghanistan and Pakistan against the USSR.
 
. .
They will probably invade Myanmar and try to use it and India against China as they used Afghanistan and Pakistan against the USSR.
I think these days it's changed not like in the past.
These days there are no super powers but multiple powers. Attacking chinese allies like that means china can damage USA economy without firing a bullet. China has such capabilities i.e it's cyber army hacking capabilities or stop trading with USA means hurting US economy really good as US industries depend on china manufactured or imported goods.
 
.
Not even close.
This is the same BBC who was once anti-Taliban, and suddenly writing something isn't exceptional West double standard? Bad Taliban now become good Taliban.
I still remember this Mullah Omar's wording. He said, "America never win any war, and we never lost any battle."


just my two cents :-)
 
Last edited:
.
This is the same BBC who was once anti-Taliban, and suddenly writing something isn't exceptional West double standard? Bad Taliban now become good Taliban.
I still remember this Mullah Omar's wording. He said, "America never win any war, and we never lost any battle."


just my two cents :-)

We need to sift through the rhetoric. There is way too much hyperbole surrounding the Taliban built up since the Soviet War.

Firstly, they are not Allah's lions. Just because they claim themselves to be does not mean that they are. Their unkempt beards do not give them any super-Islamic powers nor do they exonerate them from their grossly un-Islamic acts. Secondly, their governments are anything but "Islamic". They are more tribal and archaic than anything else. Thirdly, they have lost countless battles. The West did not just occupy Afghanistan for 20 years because they said please. Fourthly, this isn't a victory I would celebrate. The Afghans just kept on taking the beating until it was not in the US' best interest to dish out more. The Afghan loss would have been more stark had the country already not been in the 9th century when the invasion began. +100,000 Afghan casualties just since 2009 tells it all.

They are a group of warring tribal folk with their own brand of "Islam" who have kept on fighting, with foreign support, using gorilla tactics against an invading force. If we support them then it is only because it is in our best interest to do so. That really is it. Don't romanticize them, you'll start idealizing them.
 
Last edited:
.
Back
Top Bottom