Since Operation Prosperity Guardian was announced just over 10 days ago, 1,200 merchant ships have traveled through the Red Sea region, and none had been hit by drone or missile strikes, Vice Adm. Brad Cooper said in an Associated Press interview, although the U.S. military said that one ship reported being struck by a missile late Saturday.
Cooper said earlier that day that additional countries are expected to sign on to the mission. Denmark was the latest, announcing Friday it plans to send a frigate to the mission that Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced during a visit to Bahrain, where the Navy’s 5th Fleet is based, saying that “this is an international challenge that demands collective action.”
The narrow Bab el-Mandeb Strait connects the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea and then the Suez Canal. The crucial trade route links markets in Asia and Europe. The seriousness of the attacks, several of which have damaged vessels, led multiple shipping companies to order their vessels to hold in place and not enter the strait until the security situation improved. Some major shippers were sending their ships around Africa and the Cape of Good Hope, adding time and costs to the journeys.
Currently there are five warships from the United States, France, and the United Kingdom patrolling the waters of the southern Red Sea and the western Gulf of Aden, said Cooper, who heads the 5th Fleet. Since the operation started, the ships have shot down a total of 17 drones and four anti-ship ballistic missiles, he said.
The U.S. military said Saturday it shot down two anti-ship ballistic missiles fired toward a Maersk container ship in the Red Sea after the ship reported it had been hit by a missile. Two Navy destroyers responded to the call for help, and the Denmark-owned vessel was reportedly seaworthy and no injuries were noted, according to a statement from U.S. Central Command. Hours later, four Houthi boats fired at the same ship and tried to board, Central Command said. U.S. forces on two helicopters responded to the distress call and were also fired upon before they sank three of the Houthi vessels and killed the crews, Central Command said. The fourth boat fled the area. No damage to U.S. personnel or equipment was reported.
There have been about two dozen attacks on international shipping by the Houthis since Oct. 19.
Austin discussed the situation with the Dutch defense minister, Kajsa Ollongren, and they condemned the attacks as unacceptable and “profoundly destabilizing” to international order and global commerce, the Pentagon said Saturday.
The U.S. has said that more than 20 nations are participating in the security mission, but a number of those nations have not acknowledged it publicly.
“I expect in the coming weeks we’re going to get additional countries,” Cooper said, noting Denmark’s recent announcement.
Cooper said the coalition is in direct communication with commercial ships to provide guidance on “maneuvering and the best practices to avoid being attacked,” and working closely with the shipping industry to coordinate security.
An international task force had been set up in April 2022 to improve maritime security in the region. But Cooper said Operation Prosperity Guardian has more ships and a persistent presence to assist vessels.
Since the operation started, the Houthis have stepped up their use of anti-ship ballistic missiles, Cooper said. “We are cleareyed that the Houthi reckless attacks will likely continue,” he said.
The Houthis seized Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, in 2014, launching a grinding war against a Saudi-led coalition that sought to restore the government. The militants have sporadically targeted ships in the region, but the attacks increased since the start of the Israel-Hamas war.
The Houthi threatened to attack any vessel they believe is either going to or coming from Israel. That has escalated to apparently any vessel, with container ships and oil tankers flagged to countries such as Norway and Liberia being attacked or drawing missile fire.
The shipping company Maersk had announced earlier that it had decided to re-route its ships that have been paused for days outside the strait and Red Sea, and send them around Africa instead. Maersk announced Dec. 25 that it was going to resume sending ships through the strait, citing the operation. Cooper said another shipping company had also resumed using the route.
“Commerce is definitely flowing,” Cooper said.
Subscribe to the CFO Daily newsletter to keep up with the trends, issues, and executives shaping corporate finance. Sign up for free.
U.S. Army soldiers watch as fellow Coalition soldiers pass by near the entrance to the International Zone on May 30, 2021 in Baghdad, Iraq.
John Moore | Getty Images News | Getty Images
The U.S. military carried out retaliatory air strikes on Monday in Iraq after a one-way drone attack earlier in the day by Iran-aligned militants that left one U.S. service member in critical condition and wounded two other U.S. personnel, officials said.
The back-and-forth clash was the latest demonstration of how the Israel-Hamas war is rippling across the Middle East, creating turmoil that has turned U.S. troops at bases in Iraq and Syria into targets.
Iran-aligned groups in Iraq and Syria oppose Israel’s campaign in Gaza and hold the United States partly responsible.
At President Joe Biden’s direction, the U.S. military carried out the strikes in Iraq at 1:45 GMT, likely killing “a number of Kataib Hezbollah militants” and destroying multiple facilities used by the group, the U.S. military said.
“These strikes are intended to hold accountable those elements directly responsible for attacks on coalition forces in Iraq and Syria and degrade their ability to continue attacks. We will always protect our forces,” said General Michael Erik Kurilla, head of U.S. Central Command, in a statement.
A U.S. base in Iraq’s Erbil that houses U.S. forces came under attack from a one-way drone earlier on Monday, leading to the latest U.S. casualties.
The base has been repeatedly targeted. Reuters reported on another significant drone attack in October on the barracks at the Erbil base on Oct. 26, which penetrated U.S. air defenses but failed to detonate.
The Pentagon did not disclose details about the identity of the service member who was critically wounded or offer more details on the injuries sustained in the attack. It also did not offer details on how this drone appeared to penetrate the base’s air defenses.
“My prayers are with the brave Americans who were injured,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement.
The White House National Security Council said Biden was briefed on the attack on Monday and ordered the Pentagon to prepare response options against those responsible.
“The President places no higher priority than the protection of American personnel serving in harm’s way. The United States will act at a time and in a manner of our choosing should these attacks continue,” NSC spokesperson Adrienne Watson said.
Still, it is unclear if the latest U.S. retaliation will deter future action against U.S. forces, who are deployed in Iraq and Syria to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State militants.
The U.S. military has already come under attack at least 100 times in Iraq and Syria since the Israel-Hamas war began in October, usually with a mix of rockets and one-way attack drones.
The U.S. embassy compound in Baghdad also came under mortar fire earlier in December, the first time it had been attacked in more than a year, in a major escalation.
That includes setting up a U.S.-led maritime coalition to safeguard Red Sea commerce following a series of drone and missile attacks against commercial vessels by Houthi militants in Yemen.
The Pentagon said on Thursday that more than 20 countries have agreed to participate in the new U.S.-led coalition, known as Operation Prosperity Guardian.
John Dickerson reports on Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s visit to Israel, a new international task force to protect shipping in the Red Sea, and negotiations in Washington over new border and immigration measures.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
Pressure is growing on Israel to scale back its military campaign after the IDF confirmed they mistakenly killed three hostages who they say were waving a white flag. At a rally in Tel Aviv over the weekend, Israelis demanded a deal to bring the remaining hostages home. CBS News’ Ramy Inocencio has the latest from Tel Aviv and Charlie D’Agata has a report on Hamas’ tunnel network.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
BERLIN (AP) — Five U.S. servicepeople were killed when a military helicopter crashed over the eastern Mediterranean Sea during a training mission, U.S. officials said Sunday.
The military’s European Command said all five crew members on board were killed when the aircraft went down “during a routine air refueling mission as part of military training.”
The military first announced the crash on Saturday and said that the cause is under investigation, but there are no indications of any hostile activity involved. It said on Sunday that “search and rescue efforts began immediately, including nearby U.S. military aircraft and ships.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement that “we mourn the tragic loss of five U.S. service members during a training accident in the Mediterranean Sea early Saturday morning.”
“While we continue to gather more information about this deadly crash, it is another stark reminder that the brave men and women who defend our great nation put their lives on the line each and every day to keep our country safe,” he said.
European Command said that out of respect for the families of the service members and in line with Department of Defense policy, the identities of the crew members are being withheld for 24 hours until the families of those killed have been notified.
It wasn’t immediately clear which military service the aircraft belonged to. The Air Force has sent additional squadrons to the region and the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier, which has an array of aircraft on board, has also been operating in the eastern Mediterranean.
Footage has emerged of the first reported flight of the U.S. Air Force’s new nuclear stealth bomber.
The Northrop GrummanB-21 “Raider” was captured on video flying outside an aircraft manufacturing plant in Palmdale, California, on Friday. The test flight comes less than a year after the Raider was introduced to the public and less than a month after it was seen carrying out taxi tests on a runway.
On its website, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote the B-21 Raider “is expected to serve within a larger family of systems for conventional long-range strike, including intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; electronic attack; communication; and other capabilities.”
The Pentagon noted the design of the nuclear-capable aircraft allows it to be manned or operated remotely, and it is capable of employing “a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.”
Perhaps most notable about the B-21 Raider is that it’s considered a “stealth” aircraft, which are often referred to as being “invisible” due to the bombers being hard for adversaries to detect on radar.
The B-21 Raider is pictured during a ceremony at Northrop Grumman’s Air Force Plant 42 in Palmdale, California, on December 2, 2022. Images and videos of the Raider’s first flight on Friday were shared on social media. Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images
Reuters reported there are six test B-21s in production now, and the Air Force is expected to buy at least 100 of the aircraft to replace B-1 and B-2 bombers.
The Raider’s maiden flight on Friday was not announced by the Air Force, but spectators on the ground captured it in the air and posted images and videos on social media.
Among those that recorded the Raider was Matt Hartman, a freelance photojournalist, who posted a clip on X (formerly Twitter) of the B-21 soaring overhead.
Moshe Schwartz, a reporter for the website Yeshiva World News, also posted a clip on X of the B-21 flying near Palmdale.
Ann Stefanek, a U.S. Air Force spokesperson, told Reuters: “The B-21 Raider is in flight testing. Flight testing is a critical step in the test campaign managed by the Air Force Test Center and 412th Test Wings B-21 Combined Test Force.”
Newsweek reached out to the U.S. Air Force and Northrop Grumman via email for further comment.
When the Raider was unveiled in a December 2022 ceremony, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin delivered remarks about the new bomber.
“It can handle anything from gathering intel to battle management to integrating with our allies and partners,” Austin said. “And it will work seamlessly across domains, and theaters, and across the joint force.”
Speaking about the Raider’s stealth capabilities, the defense secretary said that “fifty years of advances in low-observable technology have gone into this aircraft, and even the most sophisticated air-defense systems will struggle to detect a B-21 in the sky.”
Austin added: “The B-21’s edge will last for decades to come.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
The Biden administration underlined its public and fulsome show of support for Israel Friday as two of its most senior national security officials visited the Middle East ahead of an expected Israeli ground incursion into Gaza.
Behind the scenes, however, the US faces a difficult diplomatic challenge – providing support for Israel’s “legitimate security operations” while trying to mitigate the devastating impact on civilians and prevent the war from expanding out to further fronts.
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin arrived in Israel for meetings with senior leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He pledged unwavering US solidarity, echoing a message delivered by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Tel Aviv a day prior.
Blinken, meanwhile, is engaged in extensive shuttle diplomacy to press “countries to help prevent the conflict from spreading, and to use their leverage with Hamas to immediately and unconditionally release the hostages,” he said Thursday. Following his departure from Israel Thursday, Blinken traveled to Jordan to meet with King Abdullah II and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and then on to Doha for meetings with senior Qatari officials. He also briefly stopped in Bahrain before landing Saudi Arabia on Friday evening. He will also visit the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt before returning to the United States Sunday.
In public remarks, Blinken and Austin both offered full-throated support for Israel’s actions in the wake of the brutal Hamas attack last weekend, which killed 1,300 people, including 27 Americans. The subsequent Israeli air strikes on Gaza have killed nearly 1,800 people, according to the Palestinian health ministry.
“No county can tolerate having a terrorist group come in, slaughter its people in the most unconscionable way, and live like that. What Israel’s doing is not retaliation. What Israel is doing is defending the lives of its people and, as I said, trying to make sure that this cannot happen again,” Blinken said at a press conference in Doha Friday.
“This is no time for neutrality, or for false equivalence or for excuses for the inexcusable,” Austin said at another press conference in Tel Aviv Friday.
US administration officials have not publicly urged de-escalation or called for a ceasefire.
They have discussed “with Israel the importance of taking every possible precaution to avoid harming civilians,” Blinken said Friday – a discussion that comes as Israel’s actions are likely to face immense scrutiny from nations in the region, human rights groups, and progressive lawmakers in Washington. On Friday, the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent a letter to President Joe Biden and Blinken urging them to call on the Israel Defense Forces to show restraint in Gaza. to show restraint in Gaza.
In remarks Friday, Biden said the US was working “urgently to address the humanitarian crisis” in Gaza, noting that “we can’t lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians had nothing to do with Hamas.”
In his meetings in Tel Aviv Thursday, Blinken pressed Israeli officials on the need to establish safe zones for civilians inside Gaza, a senior State Department official said Friday.
“We do want to find some way to establish some sort of safe area where the people who live in Gaza City can go to be saved from Israel security operations,” the official explained. “It’s work that’s still coming together.”
“I can tell you from the meetings we had with Prime Minister Netanyahu and the security cabinet yesterday, it is something that they are actively focused on and actively working on,” they added.
The US is also working with Egypt and Israel to try to establish a humanitarian corridor for supplies to come into Gaza and for American citizens and other civilians to evacuate to Egypt.
The specter of imminent military action is looming, though, and it is unclear if the mechanisms can be set up in time. The Israeli military warned the 1.1 million people living in northern Gaza to evacuate their homes – an order that the United Nations decried as impossible to undertake “without devastating humanitarian consequences.”
Some Palestinian-Americans have received their first set of instructions that family members stuck in Gaza may be able to evacuate into Egypt on Saturday afternoon, according to emails shared with CNN. The US State Department’s Consular Affairs Crisis Management System told family members that on Saturday the Rafah Crossing “may be open.”
“We understand the security situation is difficult, but if you wish to depart Gaza you may want to take advantage of this opportunity,” the CACMS email said.
A State Department spokesperson told CNN they “are actively discussing this with our Israeli and Egyptian counterparts.”
“We support safe passage for civilians,” they said. “We are working with our Israeli and Egyptian partners to establish a safe humanitarian corridor both for Gazans trying to flee this war and to ensure humanitarian assistance reaches those in need within the territory.”
The US is scrambling to try to stop adversaries like Hezbollah and Iran – who have threatened to join the war – from doing so.
“A big part of my own conversations here throughout this trip, including today, following up the next couple of days, is working with other countries to make sure that they’re using their own contacts, their own influence, their own relationship to make that case – that no one else should be taking this moment to choose to create more trouble in some other place,” Blinken said.
This story has been updated with additional reporting.
BRUSSELS — Defense ministers flying into the Belgian capital for a NATO meeting starting Wednesday were expecting to spend their time backing Ukraine — instead, they find their intel briefings full of a region mostly forgotten in the past two years: the Middle East.
From the White House’s new military support for Israel to emergency meetings across European capitals, to a fumbled EU response to the crisis, NATO allies are grappling with a renewed sense of urgency over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas’ surprise attacks on Israel over the weekend has led to the Israeli government’s vow of total retaliation in the Gaza Strip, with a record number of 300,000 reservists already drafted within 48 hours.
The timing is an inconvenience for the Ukrainians, who aim to galvanize further support from NATO countries in what will be the first defense ministers’ meeting following a NATO leaders’ summit in July that saw beefed-up pledges for Ukraine’s security and military support.
Oleksandr Merezhko, chairman of the Ukrainian parliament’s committee on foreign policy, acknowledged the “fears” among his compatriots over whether the West can stay focused on Russia’s invasion while also dealing with the ongoing Israeli-Hamas situation.
“I can only speak for myself. Yes, there are such fears,” Merezhko told POLITICO. “But, at the same time, I think that in the end it will not be a problem, because the USA is such a powerful country in economic and military terms.”
While Ukraine’s new Defense Minister Rustem Umerov is scheduled to get hours of attention, Israel is also expected to be discussed — at least on the sidelines.
“I would be surprised if the situation in the Middle East isn’t mentioned at the meeting,” said a NATO diplomat granted anonymity to speak freely. A second diplomat said they expected strong interest in what U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had to say.
The interest isn’t unusual because Israel has a longtime partnership with NATO, another diplomat pointed out, so it would only be “natural” for the alliance to be concerned about its next steps.
Just a week before the Hamas attack, Dutch Admiral Rob Bauer, the chair of the NATO Military Committee, visited Israel to meet with President Isaac Herzog and military officials. Bauer also visited the Gaza border crossing, where he praised the Israeli military’s “unique expertise in underground counterterrorism activity.”
While the line from the White House is that the United States can deal with two regional crises at the same time, domestic skeptics of helping Ukraine are already piling on.
“Israel is facing existential threat. Any funding for Ukraine should be redirected to Israel immediately,” Josh Hawley, a Republican senator allied with former President Donald Trump, said on social media.
Pledges for Kyiv
U.S. officials are trying to dispel Ukrainian concerns, pointing out that the two countries have differing needs because they face very different threats.
“On the question of whether or not U.S. support for Israel could possibly come at the expense of U.S. support for Ukraine, we don’t anticipate any major challenges in that regard,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Julianne Smith told reporters on Tuesday. “I suspect the United States will be able to stay focused on our partnership and commitment to Israel’s security, while also meeting our commitments and promise to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends its territory.”
Hamas’ surprise attacks on Israel over the weekend has led to the Israeli government’s vow of total retaliation in the Gaza Strip | Eyad Baba/AFP via Getty Images
“I think allies no doubt will want to talk about what happened in Israel and express their solidarity. We’ve seen all members of the alliance issue their own national statements — really in real time almost as the attack was ongoing. And I suspect that will be part of our conversation,” Smith said.
Ukraine still remains a key focus for this week’s NATO meeting.
It begins on Wednesday with the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a regular gathering of NATO and Ukrainian ministers to discuss what weapons to give Ukraine. It will be followed by the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, a format that’s already in its fourth edition since it was created in July, when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy attended the NATO Summit in Lithuania.
“I anticipate that the emphasis will be mostly on air defense and ammunition although no doubt the Ukrainians will come in with a variety of other requests,” Smith said. “It always is an organic meeting where ministers step forward and offer assistance in real time.”
Shortly before the NATO meeting, Umerov, the Ukrainian defense minister, reached out to his Dutch counterpart, Kajsa Ollongren, on Ukraine’s “urgent needs” for air defense systems, long-range missiles and artillery. The Netherlands has also been leading on the F-16 fighter jet training for Ukraine’s pilots.
That’s a sign that the alliance can juggle both Ukraine and Israel, Ollongren told POLITICO.
“Splits? No. But I think of course there will also be attention and focus on Israel and how the situation is developing over there,” she said. “But I think it’s very important, it’s a good thing that we are meeting tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, to underline that the support for Ukraine is not affected.”
CORRECTION: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of the Dutch defense minister’s name: it is Kajsa Ollongren.
[ad_2]
Veronika Melkozerova, Stuart Lau, Paul McLeary and Laura Kayali
The attack has killed at least 70 people in Israel so far, and hundreds more are reportedly injured. The multi-front attack began with rocket fire, and then expanded as Hamas members invaded Israel from Gaza. In a televised address, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the country is “at war” and swore the militants “will pay an unprecedented price.” The Associated Press reported that nearly 200 people have died in Palestine, with hundreds of injuries reported, in Israel’s response.
President Joe Biden called Netanyahu Saturday morning. The Israeli president said Mr. Biden “emphasized that the U.S. stands alongside Israel” and “fully supports” the country’s right to self-defense. Netanyahu characterized Biden’s support as “unreserved.”
The White House told CBS News that Mr. Biden, who met with Netanyahu last month, has been briefed on the situation and will “continue to receive updates” as officials “remain in close contact with Israeli partners.”
Police officers evacuate a woman and a child from a site hit by a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip, in Ashkelon, southern Israel, Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023.
Tsafrir Abayov / AP
In a statement, National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said the U.S. “unequivocally condemns the unprovoked attacks” and “stands firmly with the Government and people of Israel.” Watson said that national security adviser Jake Sullivan has communicated with Israeli national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken shared a similar statement, noting that the U.S. “condemns the appalling attacks by Hamas terrorists against Israel, including civilians and civilian communities.”
“There is never any justification for terrorism,” said Blinken.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said that he is “closely monitoring developments” in Israel.
“Our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself remains unwavering, and I extend my condolences to the families of those who lost their lives in this abhorrent attack on civilians,” Austin said. “Over the coming days the Department of Defense will work to ensure that Israel has what it needs to defend itself and protect civilians from indiscriminate violence and terrorism.”
Congressional leaders react
The leaders of both political parties have also issued statements about the situation. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, called the attacks “absolutely horrific” in a statement shared on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter.
“The U.S. stands with Israel in its unwavering right to defend itself. I stand ready to ensure Israel has the support to do so,” Schumer said.
The terrorist attacks by Hamas on the people of Israel are absolutely horrific. The U.S. stands with Israel in its unwavering right to defend itself. I stand ready to ensure Israel has the support to do so. My prayers are with the dead, reported hostages, and hundreds injured.
Rep, Patrick McHenry, Republican of North Carolina, the speaker pro tempore and temporary leader of congressional Republicans after Rep. Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, was ousted from the speakership earlier this week, called Israel the U.S.’ “most sacred ally” on X.
“America stands with Israel,” McHenry said. “The Israeli people have our unwavering support and the Israeli government has every right to defend its citizens against this act of war.”
America stands with Israel.
The vicious attack on our most sacred ally by Hamas terrorists cannot stand. The Israeli people have our unwavering support and the Israeli government has every right to defend its citizens against this act of war. 🇮🇱
Sen. Ben Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement that he condemned “the brazen and ongoing terrorist attack.”
“I mourn those lost and my heart goes out to their families. May their memory be for a blessing,” Cardin said. “Just as the United States stood by Israel after it was attacked exactly 50 years ago on Yom Kippur, today we stand by Israel in this time of crisis. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I am committed to ensuring that Israel has what it needs to defend itself and its citizens, today and every day.”
The chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, called the attack “unprovoked and despicable” in a statement.
“Today, Hamas terrorists launched an unprovoked and despicable attack on Israeli civilians,” he said. “The United States must stand firmly beside our friend and partner Israel as it defends its security and its citizens,” and he said the committee would “continue to monitor the situation closely.”
GOP hopefuls speak about attack
Several candidates campaigning for the 2024 Republican party presidential nomination have also condemned the attack on social media and in statements to the media.
Former President Donald Trump, who has not appeared at debates but is leading the polls, issued a statement calling the attacks “a disgrace” and criticizing Mr. Biden’s handling of the Middle East.
“These Hamas attacks are a disgrace and Israel has every right to defend itself with overwhelming force,” Trump said. “Sadly, American taxpayer dollars helped fund these attacks, which many reports are saying came from the Biden Administration. We brought so much peace to the Middle East through the Abraham Accords, only to see Biden whittle it away at a far more rapid pace than anyone possible. Here we go again.”
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who criticized fellow candidate Vivek Ramaswamy for comments he had made suggesting the U.S. cut funding to Israel during the first Republican presidential debate, issued a statement calling Hamas “a bloodthirsty terrorist organization … determined to kill as many innocent lives as possible.”
“Hamas has declared war on Israel on the Jewish holiday of Shemini Atzeret and the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War,” Haley said. “…The reports out of Israel are horrific with a stunning number of dead and wounded and should be universally condemned. Israel has every right to defend its citizens from terror. We must always stand with Israel and against this Iranian regime.”
Ramaswamy’s team said in a statement that they are “appalled by the Hamas attack” and “stand with Israel.”
On X, Florida governor Ron DeSantis called on the U.S. to “stand with Israel.”
The dastardly terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent Israeli civilians by Iran-backed terror group Hamas deserve a swift and lethal response.
Israel not only has the right to defend itself against these attacks, it has a duty to respond with overwhelming force.
“The dastardly terrorist attacks perpetrated against innocent Israeli civilians by Iran-backed terror group Hamas deserve a swift and lethal response,” DeSantis wrote. “Israel not only has the right to defend itself against these attacks, it has a duty to respond with overwhelming force. I stand with Israel. America must stand with Israel.”
Former Vice President Mike Pence, who is also running for president, shared an article about the violence on X and called Israel the country’s “most cherished ally.”
Every American should condemn the unprovoked and massive attack on Israel by terrorists in Hamas. Our prayers are with the families and soldiers of our most cherished ally. @netanyahu says Israel is “at war” America Stands With Israel🇺🇸🇮🇱 https://t.co/D1M8y5EjCe
Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives for a U.S. Senate bipartisan Artificial Intelligence Insight Forum at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., Sept. 13, 2023.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Three Democratic members of the Senate Committee on Armed Services have asked the Pentagon for information about SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, and whether he “directed the unilateral disabling or impediment of function of Starlink satellite communications terminals used by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in southern Ukraine in 2022,” or ever had the authority to do so.
Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois wrote a letter Friday to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to express their “serious concerns about whether Musk has personally intervened to undermine a key U.S. partner at a critical juncture.”
Their questions follow the publication of a biography of Elon Musk, who is CEO of SpaceX and automaker Tesla, and owner and chief technology officer of the social network X, formerly known as Twitter. In the book, author Walter Isaacson wrote that a Ukrainian drone submarine attack on Russian warships was disrupted by a disconnect from Starlink, ordered by Musk.
Excerpts from the book raised alarm bells in Washington, among NATO allies and in the Ukrainian capital. After they were published, Musk painted himself as a peacekeeper and wrote on social media that he did not disconnect Starlink over Crimea, but rather denied a request by Ukraine to provide it there. He wrote, “If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation.” Isaacson has issued a correction to his biography stating that connectivity had already been disabled in the affected area, and that Musk had simply refused a request to turn it on.
Musk also argued, as he has in the past, that Ukraine should strike a “truce” with Russia. Musk’s “peace plan” argument was shouted down by Ukraine officials, politicians and Putin experts.
On Tuesday, in an interview with CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Isaacson discussed SpaceX developing a military-grade version of Starlink, which would help resolve concerns expressed by Musk regarding the satellite networks’ use in war.
CNBC asked the U.S. Department of Defense several questions pertaining to SpaceX, including whether the department would be re-evaluating any of the company’s government contracts, whether Musk’s calls for a truce between Ukraine and Russia reflect the U.S. government’s position and whether Musk’s conduct, including taking personal meetings with Putin in the past, had been in line with the terms of contracts awarded to his company.
A spokesperson for the department, Jeff Jurgensen, told CNBC via email, “The Department does contract with Starlink for satellite communication services in support of our Ukrainian partners,” but declined to offer further details or answer the specific questions posed.
He added that the Department of Defense “continues to work closely with commercial industry to ensure we have the right capabilities the Ukrainians need to defend themselves — and more broadly — the kind of communication and space-related capabilities necessary to accomplish our own global missions and support our national defense strategy.”
Earlier in the week, Sen. Warren called for a Congressional probe of Musk and SpaceX. “Congress needs to investigate what’s happened here, and whether we have adequate tools to make sure foreign policy is conducted by the government and not by one billionaire,” Warren said Monday, Bloomberg first reported.
SpaceX is currently working to obtain a new license from the Federal Aviation Administration and approvals from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to resume test flights for its Starship Super Heavy launch vehicle from its Boca Chica, Texas, facility. An earlier test flight this year resulted in an explosion and a mishap investigation overseen and recently completed by the FAA.
The company plans to use Starship to launch and deploy its next generation Starlink satellites. Musk also envisions Starship taking astronauts and supplies to the moon, and eventually, Mars.
August is the month when oppressive humidity causes the mass evacuation of official Washington. In 2021, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki piled her family into the car for a week at the beach. Secretary of State Antony Blinken headed to the Hamptons to visit his elderly father. Their boss left for the leafy sanctuary of Camp David.
Explore the October 2023 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.
They knew that when they returned, their attention would shift to a date circled at the end of the month. On August 31, the United States would officially complete its withdrawal from Afghanistan, concluding the longest war in American history.
The State Department didn’t expect to solve Afghanistan’s problems by that date. But if everything went well, there was a chance to wheedle the two warring sides into some sort of agreement that would culminate in the nation’s president, Ashraf Ghani, resigning from office, beginning an orderly transfer of power to a governing coalition that included the Taliban. There was even discussion of Blinken flying out, most likely to Doha, Qatar, to preside over the signing of an accord.
It would be an ending, but not the end. Within the State Department there was a strongly held belief: Even after August 31, the embassy in Kabul would remain open. It wouldn’t be as robustly staffed, but some aid programs would continue; visas would still be issued. The United States—at least not the State Department—wasn’t going to abandon the country.
There were plans for catastrophic scenarios, which had been practiced in tabletop simulations, but no one anticipated that they would be needed. Intelligence assessments asserted that the Afghan military would be able to hold off the Taliban for months, though the number of months kept dwindling as the Taliban conquered terrain more quickly than the analysts had predicted. But as August began, the grim future of Afghanistan seemed to exist in the distance, beyond the end of the month, not on America’s watch.
July 30, 2021: Joe Biden speaks to reporters before departing the White House for Camp David. (Anna Moneymaker / Getty)
That grim future arrived disastrously ahead of schedule. What follows is an intimate history of that excruciating month of withdrawal, as narrated by its participants, based on dozens of interviews conducted shortly after the fact, when memories were fresh and emotions raw. At times, as I spoke with these participants, I felt as if I was their confessor. Their failings were so apparent that they had a desperate need to explain themselves, but also an impulse to relive moments of drama and pain more intense than any they had experienced in their career.
During those fraught days, foreign policy, so often debated in the abstract, or conducted from the sanitized remove of the Situation Room, became horrifyingly vivid. President Joe Biden and his aides found themselves staring hard at the consequences of their decisions.
Even in the thick of the crisis, as the details of a mass evacuation swallowed them, the members of Biden’s inner circle could see that the legacy of the month would stalk them into the next election—and perhaps into their obituaries. Though it was a moment when their shortcomings were on obvious display, they also believed it evinced resilience and improvisational skill.
And amid the crisis, a crisis that taxed his character and managerial acumen, the president revealed himself. For a man long caricatured as a political weather vane, Biden exhibited determination, even stubbornness, despite furious criticism from the establishment figures whose approval he usually craved. For a man vaunted for his empathy, he could be detached, even icy, when confronted with the prospect of human suffering.
When it came to foreign policy, Joe Biden possessed a swaggering faith in himself. He liked to knock the diplomats and pundits who would pontificate at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Munich Security Conference. He called them risk-averse, beholden to institutions, lazy in their thinking. Listening to these complaints, a friend once posed the obvious question: If you have such negative things to say about these confabs, then why attend so many of them? Biden replied, “If I don’t go, they’re going to get stale as hell.”
From 12 years as the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—and then eight years as the vice president—Biden had acquired a sense that he could scythe through conventional wisdom. He distrusted mandarins, even those he had hired for his staff. They were always muddying things with theories. One aide recalled that he would say, “You foreign-policy guys, you think this is all pretty complicated. But it’s just like family dynamics.” Foreign affairs was sometimes painful, often futile, but really it was emotional intelligence applied to people with names that were difficult to pronounce. Diplomacy, in Biden’s view, was akin to persuading a pain-in-the-ass uncle to stop drinking so much.
One subject seemed to provoke his contrarian side above all others: the war in Afghanistan. His strong opinions were grounded in experience. Soon after the United States invaded, in late 2001, Biden began visiting the country. He traveled with a sleeping bag; he stood in line alongside Marines, wrapped in a towel, waiting for his turn to shower.
On his first trip, in 2002, Biden met with Interior Minister Yunus Qanuni in his Kabul office, a shell of a building. Qanuni, an old mujahideen fighter, told him: We really appreciate that you have come here. But Americans have a long history of making promises and then breaking them. And if that happens again, the Afghan people are going to be disappointed.
Biden was jet-lagged and irritable. Qanuni’s comments set him off: Let me tell you, if you even think of threatening us … Biden’s aides struggled to calm him down.
In Biden’s moral code, ingratitude is a grievous sin. The United States had evicted the Taliban from power; it had sent young men to die in the nation’s mountains; it would give the new government billions in aid. But throughout the long conflict, Afghan officials kept telling him that the U.S. hadn’t done enough.
The frustration stuck with him, and it clarified his thinking. He began to draw unsentimental conclusions about the war. He could see that the Afghan government was a failed enterprise. He could see that a nation-building campaign of this scale was beyond American capacity.
As vice president, Biden also watched as the military pressured Barack Obama into sending thousands of additional troops to salvage a doomed cause. In his 2020 memoir, A Promised Land, Obama recalled that as he agonized over his Afghan policy, Biden pulled him aside and told him, “Listen to me, boss. Maybe I’ve been around this town for too long, but one thing I know is when these generals are trying to box in a new president.” He drew close and whispered, “Don’t let them jam you.”
Biden developed a theory of how he would succeed where Obama had failed. He wasn’t going to let anyone jam him.
In early February 2021, now-President Biden invited his secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, into the Oval Office. He wanted to acknowledge an emotional truth: “I know you have friends you have lost in this war. I know you feel strongly. I know what you’ve put into this.”
Over the years, Biden had traveled to military bases, frequently accompanied by his fellow senator Chuck Hagel. On those trips, Hagel and Biden dipped in and out of a long-running conversation about war. They traded theories on why the United States would remain mired in unwinnable conflicts. One problem was the psychology of defeat. Generals were terrified of being blamed for a loss, living in history as the one who waved the white flag.
It was this dynamic, in part, that kept the United States entangled in Afghanistan. Politicians who hadn’t served in the military could never summon the will to overrule the generals, and the generals could never admit that they were losing. So the war continued indefinitely, a zombie campaign. Biden believed that he could break this cycle, that he could master the psychology of defeat.
Biden wanted to avoid having his generals feel cornered—even as he guided them to his desired outcome. He wanted them to feel heard, to appreciate his good faith. He told Austin and Milley, “Before I make a decision, you’ll have a chance to look me in the eyes.”
The date set out by the Doha Agreement, which the Trump administration had negotiated with the Taliban, was May 1, 2021. If the Taliban adhered to a set of conditions—engaging in political negotiations with the Afghan government, refraining from attacking U.S. troops, and cutting ties with terrorist groups—then the United States would remove its soldiers from the country by that date. Because of the May deadline, Biden’s first major foreign-policy decision—whether or not to honor the Doha Agreement—would also be the one he seemed to care most about. And it would need to be made in a sprint.
In the spring, after weeks of meetings with generals and foreign-policy advisers, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan had the National Security Council generate two documents for the president to read. One outlined the best case for staying in Afghanistan; the other made the best case for leaving.
This reflected Biden’s belief that he faced a binary choice. If he abandoned the Doha Agreement, attacks on U.S. troops would resume. Since the accord had been signed, in February 2020, the Taliban had grown stronger, forging new alliances and sharpening plans. And thanks to the drawdown of troops that had begun under Donald Trump, the United States no longer had a robust-enough force to fight a surging foe.
Biden gathered his aides for one last meeting before he formally made his decision. Toward the end of the session, he asked Sullivan, Blinken, and Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to leave the room. He wanted to talk with Austin and Milley alone.
Instead of revealing his final decision, Biden told them, “This is hard. I want to go to Camp David this weekend and think about it.”
It was always clear where the president would land. Milley knew that his own preferred path for Afghanistan—leaving a small but meaningful contingent of troops in the country—wasn’t shared by the nation he served, or the new commander in chief. Having just survived Trump and a wave of speculation about how the U.S. military might figure in a coup, Milley was eager to demonstrate his fidelity to civilian rule. If Biden wanted to shape the process to get his preferred result, well, that’s how a democracy should work.
On April 14, Biden announced that he would withdraw American forces from Afghanistan. He delivered remarks explaining his decision in the Treaty Room of the White House, the very spot where, in the fall of 2001, George W. Bush had informed the public of the first American strikes against the Taliban.
Biden’s speech contained a hole that few noted at the time. It scarcely mentioned the Afghan people, with not even an expression of best wishes for the nation that the United States would be leaving behind. The Afghans were apparently only incidental to his thinking. (Biden hadn’t spoken with President Ghani until right before the announcement.) Scranton Joe’s deep reserves of compassion were directed at people with whom he felt a connection; his visceral ties were with American soldiers. When he thought about the military’s rank and file, he couldn’t help but project an image of his own late son, Beau. “I’m the first president in 40 years who knows what it means to have a child serving in a war zone,” he said.
Biden also announced a new deadline for the U.S. withdrawal, which would move from May 1 to September 11, the 20th anniversary of the attack that drew the United States into war. The choice of date was polemical. Although he never officially complained about it, Milley didn’t understand the decision. How did it honor the dead to admit defeat in a conflict that had been waged on their behalf? Eventually, the Biden administration pushed the withdrawal deadline forward to August 31, an implicit concession that it had erred.
But the choice of September 11 was telling. Biden took pride in ending an unhappy chapter in American history. Democrats might have once referred to Afghanistan as the “good war,” but it had become a fruitless fight. It had distracted the United States from policies that might preserve the nation’s geostrategic dominance. By leaving Afghanistan, Biden believed he was redirecting the nation’s gaze to the future: “We’ll be much more formidable to our adversaries and competitors over the long term if we fight the battles for the next 20 years, not the last 20.”
August 6–9
In late June, Jake Sullivan began to worry that the Pentagon had pulled American personnel and materiel out of Afghanistan too precipitously. The rapid drawdown had allowed the Taliban to advance and to win a string of victories against the Afghan army that had caught the administration by surprise. Even if Taliban fighters weren’t firing at American troops, they were continuing to battle the Afghan army and take control of the countryside. Now they’d captured a provincial capital in the remote southwest—a victory that was disturbingly effortless.
Sullivan asked one of his top aides, Homeland Security Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, to convene a meeting for Sunday, August 8, with officials overseeing the withdrawal. Contingency plans contained a switch that could be flipped in an emergency. To avoid a reprise of the fall of Saigon, with desperate hands clinging to the last choppers out of Vietnam, the government made plans for a noncombatant-evacuation operation, or NEO. The U.S. embassy would shut down and relocate to Hamid Karzai International Airport (or HKIA, as everyone called it). Troops, pre-positioned near the Persian Gulf and waiting at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina, would descend on Kabul to protect the airport. Military transport planes would haul American citizens and visa holders out of the country.
By the time Sherwood-Randall had a chance to assemble the meeting, the most pessimistic expectations had been exceeded. The Taliban had captured four more provincial capitals. General Frank McKenzie, the head of U.S. Central Command, filed a commander’s estimate warning that Kabul could be surrounded within about 30 days—a far faster collapse than previously predicted.
McKenzie’s dire warning did strangely little to alter plans. Sherwood-Randall’s group unanimously agreed that it was too soon to declare a NEO. The embassy in Kabul was particularly forceful on this point. The acting ambassador, Ross Wilson, wanted to avoid cultivating a sense of panic in Kabul, which would further collapse the army and the state. Even the CIA seconded this line of thinking.
August 12
At 2 a.m., Sullivan’s phone rang. It was Mark Milley. The military had received reports that the Taliban had entered the city of Ghazni, less than 100 miles from Kabul.
The intelligence community assumed that the Taliban wouldn’t storm Kabul until after the United States left, because the Taliban wanted to avoid a block‑by‑block battle for the city. But the proximity of the Taliban to the embassy and HKIA was terrifying. It necessitated the decisive action that the administration had thus far resisted. Milley wanted Sullivan to initiate a NEO. If the State Department wasn’t going to move quickly, the president needed to order it to. Sullivan assured him that he would push harder, but it would be two more days before the president officially declared a NEO.
With the passage of each hour, Sullivan’s anxieties grew. He called Lloyd Austin and told him, “I think you need to send someone with bars on his arm to Doha to talk to the Taliban so that they understand not to mess with an evacuation.” Austin agreed to dispatch General McKenzie to renew negotiations.
August 13
Austin convened a videoconference with the top civilian and military officials in Kabul. He wanted updates from them before he headed to the White House to brief the president.
Ross Wilson, the acting ambassador, told him, “I need 72 hours before I can begin destroying sensitive documents.”
“You have to be done in 72 hours,” Austin replied.
The Taliban were now perched outside Kabul. Delaying the evacuation of the embassy posed a danger that Austin couldn’t abide. Thousands of troops were about to arrive to protect the new makeshift facility that would be set up at the airport. The moment had come to move there.
Abandoning an embassy has its own protocols; they are rituals of panic. The diplomats had a weekend, more or less, to purge the place: to fill its shredders, burn bins, and disintegrator with documents and hard drives. Anything with an American flag on it needed destroying so it couldn’t be used by the enemy for propaganda purposes.
Wisps of smoke would soon begin to blow from the compound—a plume of what had been classified cables and personnel files. Even for those Afghans who didn’t have access to the internet, the narrative would be legible in the sky.
August 14
On Saturday night, Antony Blinken placed a call to Ashraf Ghani. He wanted to make sure the Afghan president remained committed to the negotiations in Doha. The Taliban delegation there was still prepared to agree to a unity government, which it might eventually run, allocating cabinet slots to ministers from Ghani’s government. That notion had broad support from the Afghan political elite. Everyone, even Ghani, agreed that he would need to resign as part of a deal. Blinken wanted to ensure that he wouldn’t waver from his commitments and try to hold on to power.
Although Ghani said that he would comply, he began musing aloud about what might happen if the Taliban invaded Kabul prior to August 31. He told Blinken, “I’d rather die than surrender.”
August 15
The next day, the presidential palace released a video of Ghani talking with security officials on the phone. As he sat at his imposing wooden desk, which once belonged to King Amanullah, who had bolted from the palace to avoid an Islamist uprising in 1929, Ghani’s aides hoped to project a sense of calm.
During the early hours, a small number of Taliban fighters eased their way to the gates of the city, and then into the capital itself. The Taliban leadership didn’t want to invade Kabul until after the American departure. But their soldiers had conquered territory without even firing a shot. In their path, Afghan soldiers simply walked away from checkpoints. Taliban units kept drifting in the direction of the presidential palace.
Rumors traveled more quickly than the invaders. A crowd formed outside a bank in central Kabul. Nervous customers jostled in a chaotic rush to empty their accounts. Guards fired into the air to disperse the melee. The sound of gunfire reverberated through the nearby palace, which had largely emptied for lunch. Ghani’s closest advisers pressed him to flee. “If you stay,” one told him, according to The Washington Post, “you’ll be killed.”
This was a fear rooted in history. In 1996, when the Taliban first invaded Kabul, they hanged the tortured body of the former president from a traffic light. Ghani hustled onto one of three Mi‑17 helicopters waiting inside his compound, bound for Uzbekistan. The New York Times Magazinelater reported that the helicopters were instructed to fly low to the terrain, to evade detection by the U.S. military. From Uzbekistan, he would fly to the United Arab Emirates and an ignominious exile. Without time to pack, he left in plastic sandals, accompanied by his wife. On the tarmac, aides and guards grappled over the choppers’ last remaining seats.
When the rest of Ghani’s staff returned from lunch, they moved through the palace searching for the president, unaware that he had abandoned them, and their country.
At approximately 1:45 p.m., Ambassador Wilson went to the embassy lobby for the ceremonial lowering of the flag. Emotionally drained and worried about his own safety, he prepared to leave the embassy behind, a monument to his nation’s defeat.
Wilson made his way to the helicopter pad so that he could be taken to his new outpost at the airport, where he was told that a trio of choppers had just left the presidential palace. Wilson knew what that likely meant. By the time he relayed his suspicions to Washington, officials already possessed intelligence that confirmed Wilson’s hunch: Ghani had fled.
Jake Sullivan relayed the news to Biden, who exploded in frustration: Give me a break.
Later that afternoon, General McKenzie arrived at the Ritz-Carlton in Doha. Well before Ghani’s departure from power, the wizened Marine had scheduled a meeting with an old adversary of the United States, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.
Baradar wasn’t just any Taliban leader. He was a co-founder of the group, with Mullah Mohammed Omar. McKenzie had arrived with the intention of delivering a stern warning. He barely had time to tweak his agenda after learning of Ghani’s exit.
McKenzie unfolded a map of Afghanistan translated into Pashto. A circle had been drawn around the center of Kabul—a radius of about 25 kilometers—and he pointed to it. He referred to this area as the “ring of death.” If the Taliban operated within those 25 kilometers, McKenzie said, “we’re going to assume hostile intent, and we’ll strike hard.”
McKenzie tried to bolster his threat with logic. He said he didn’t want to end up in a firefight with the Taliban, and that would be a lot less likely to happen if they weren’t in the city.
Baradar not only understood; he agreed. Known as a daring military tactician, he was also a pragmatist. He wanted to transform his group’s inhospitable image; he hoped that foreign embassies, even the American one, would remain in Kabul. Baradar didn’t want a Taliban government to become a pariah state, starved of foreign assistance that it badly needed.
But the McKenzie plan had an elemental problem: It was too late. Taliban fighters were already operating within the ring of death. Kabul was on the brink of anarchy. Armed criminal gangs were already starting to roam the streets. Baradar asked the general, “Are you going to take responsibility for the security of Kabul?”
McKenzie replied that his orders were to run an evacuation. Whatever happens to the security situation in Kabul, he told Baradar, don’t mess with the evacuation, or there will be hell to pay. It was an evasive answer. The United States didn’t have the troops or the will to secure Kabul. McKenzie had no choice but to implicitly cede that job to the Taliban.
Baradar walked toward a window. Because he didn’t speak English, he wanted his adviser to confirm his understanding. “Is he saying that he won’t attack us if we go in?” His adviser told him that he had heard correctly.
As the meeting wrapped up, McKenzie realized that the United States would need to be in constant communication with the Taliban. They were about to be rubbing shoulders with each other in a dense city. Misunderstandings were inevitable. Both sides agreed that they would designate a representative in Kabul to talk through the many complexities so that the old enemies could muddle together toward a common purpose.
Soon after McKenzie and Baradar ended their meeting, Al Jazeera carried a live feed from the presidential palace, showing the Taliban as they went from room to room, in awe of the building, seemingly bemused by their own accomplishment.
August 15: Taliban fighters take control of the presidential palace in Kabul. (Associated Press)
They gathered in Ghani’s old office, where a book of poems remained on his desk, across from a box of Kleenex. A Talib sat in the president’s Herman Miller chair. His comrades stood behind him in a tableau, cloth draped over the shoulders of their tunics, guns resting in the crooks of their arms, as if posing for an official portrait.
August 16
The U.S. embassy, now relocated to the airport, became a magnet for humanity. The extent of Afghan desperation shocked officials back in Washington. Only amid the panicked exodus did top officials at the State Department realize that hundreds of thousands of Afghans had fled their homes as civil war swept through the countryside—and made their way to the capital.
The runway divided the airport into halves. A northern sector served as a military outpost and, after the relocation of the embassy, a consular office—the last remaining vestiges of the United States and its promise of liberation. A commercial airport stared at these barracks from across the strip of asphalt.
The commercial facility had been abandoned by the Afghans who worked there. The night shift of air-traffic controllers simply never arrived. The U.S. troops whom Austin had ordered to support the evacuation were only just arriving. So the terminal was overwhelmed. Afghans began to spill onto the tarmac itself.
The crowds arrived in waves. The previous day, Afghans had flooded the tarmac late in the day, then left when they realized that no flights would depart that evening. But in the morning, the compound still wasn’t secure, and it refilled.
In the chaos, it wasn’t entirely clear to Ambassador Wilson who controlled the compound. The Taliban began freely roaming the facility, wielding bludgeons, trying to secure the mob. Apparently, they were working alongside soldiers from the old Afghan army. Wilson received worrying reports of tensions between the two forces.
The imperative was to begin landing transport planes with equipment and soldiers. A C‑17, a warehouse with wings, full of supplies to support the arriving troops, managed to touch down. The crew lowered a ramp to unload the contents of the jet’s belly, but the plane was rushed by a surge of civilians. The Americans on board were no less anxious than the Afghans who greeted them. Almost as quickly as the plane’s back ramp lowered, the crew reboarded and resealed the jet’s entrances. They received permission to flee the uncontrolled scene.
But they could not escape the crowd, for whom the jet was a last chance to avoid the Taliban and the suffering to come. As the plane began to taxi, about a dozen Afghans climbed onto one side of the jet. Others sought to stow away in the wheel well that housed its bulging landing gear. To clear the runway of human traffic, Humvees began rushing alongside the plane. Two Apache helicopters flew just above the ground, to give the Afghans a good scare and to blast the civilians from the plane with rotor wash.
Only after the plane had lifted into the air did the crew discover its place in history. When the pilot couldn’t fully retract the landing gear, a member of the crew went to investigate, staring out of a small porthole. Through the window, it was possible to see scattered human remains.
Videos taken from the tarmac instantly went viral. They showed a dentist from Kabul plunging to the ground from the elevating jet. The footage evoked the photo of a man falling to his death from an upper story of the World Trade Center—images of plummeting bodies bracketing an era.
Over the weekend, Biden had received briefings about the chaos in Kabul in a secure conference room at Camp David. Photographs distributed to the press showed him alone, talking to screens, isolated in his contrarian faith in the righteousness of his decision. Despite the fiasco at the airport, he returned to the White House, stood in the East Room, and proclaimed: “If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision. American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.”
August 17
John Bass was having a hard time keeping his mind on the task at hand. From 2017 to 2020, he had served as Washington’s ambassador to Afghanistan. During that tour, Bass did his best to immerse himself in the country and meet its people. He’d planted a garden with a group of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and hosted roundtables with journalists. When his term as ambassador ended, he left behind friends, colleagues, and hundreds of acquaintances.
Now Bass kept his eyes on his phone, checking for any word from his old Afghan network. He moved through his day dreading what might come next.
Yet he also had a job that required his attention. The State Department had assigned him to train future ambassadors. In a seminar room in suburban Virginia, he did his best to focus on passing along wisdom to these soon‑to‑be emissaries of the United States.
As class was beginning, his phone lit up. Bass saw the number of the State Department Operations Center. He apologized and stepped out to take the call.
“Are you available to talk to Deputy Secretary Sherman?”
The familiar voice of Wendy Sherman, the No. 2 at the department, came on the line. “I have a mission for you. You must take it, and you need to leave today.” Sherman then told him: “I’m calling to ask you to go back to Kabul to lead the evacuation effort.”
Ambassador Wilson was shattered by the experience of the past week and wasn’t “able to function at the level that was necessary” to complete the job on his own. Sherman needed Bass to help manage the exodus.
Bass hadn’t expected the request. In his flummoxed state, he struggled to pose the questions he thought he might later regret not having asked.
“How much time do we have?”
“Probably about two weeks, a little less than two weeks.”
“I’ve been away from this for 18 months or so.”
“Yep, we know, but we think you’re the right person for this.”
Bass returned to class and scooped up his belongings. “With apologies, I’m going to have to take my leave. I’ve just been asked to go back to Kabul and support the evacuations. So I’ve got to say goodbye and wish you all the best, and you’re all going to be great ambassadors.”
Because he wasn’t living in Washington, Bass didn’t have the necessary gear with him. He drove straight to the nearest REI in search of hiking pants and rugged boots. He needed to pick up a laptop from the IT department in Foggy Bottom. Without knowing much more than what was in the news, Bass rushed to board a plane taking him to the worst crisis in the recent history of American foreign policy.
August 19–25
About 30 hours later—3:30 a.m., Kabul time—Bass touched down at HKIA and immediately began touring the compound. At the American headquarters, he ran into the military heads of the operation, whom he had worked with before. They presented Bass with the state of play. The situation was undeniably bizarre: The success of the American operation now depended largely on the cooperation of the Taliban.
The Americans needed the Taliban to help control the crowds that had formed outside the airport—and to implement systems that would allow passport and visa holders to pass through the throngs. But the Taliban were imperfect allies at best. Their checkpoints were run by warriors from the countryside who didn’t know how to deal with the array of documents being waved in their faces. What was an authentic visa? What about families where the father had a U.S. passport but his wife and children didn’t? Every day, a new set of Taliban soldiers seemed to arrive at checkpoints, unaware of the previous day’s directions. Frustrated with the unruliness, the Taliban would sometimes simply stop letting anyone through.
August 24: Afghan families hoping to flee the country arrive at Hamid Karzai International Airport at dawn. (Jim Huylebroek)
Abdul Ghani Baradar’s delegation in Doha had passed along the name of a Taliban commander in Kabul—Mawlawi Hamdullah Mukhlis. It had fallen to Major General Chris Donahue, the head of the 82nd Airborne Division, out of Fort Bragg, to coordinate with him. On September 11, 2001, Donahue had been an aide to the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, and had been with him on Capitol Hill when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
Donahue told Pentagon officials that he had to grit his teeth as he dealt with Mukhlis. But the Taliban commander seemed to feel a camaraderie with his fellow soldier. He confided to Donahue his worry that Afghanistan would suffer from brain drain, as the country’s most talented minds evacuated on American airplanes.
In a videoconference with Mark Milley, back at the Pentagon, Donahue recounted Mukhlis’s fears. According to one Defense Department official in the meeting, his description caused Milley to laugh.
“Don’t be going local on me, Donahue,” he said.
“Don’t worry about me, sir,” Donahue responded. “I’m not buying what they are selling.”
After Bass left his meeting with the military men, including Donahue, he toured the gates of the airport, where Afghans had amassed. He was greeted by the smell of feces and urine, by the sound of gunshots and bullhorns blaring instructions in Dari and Pashto. Dust assaulted his eyes and nose. He felt the heat that emanated from human bodies crowded into narrow spaces.
The atmosphere was tense. Marines and consular officers, some of whom had flown into Kabul from other embassies, were trying to pull passport and visa holders from the crowd. But every time they waded into it, they seemed to provoke a furious reaction. To get plucked from the street by the Americans smacked of cosmic unfairness to those left behind. Sometimes the anger swelled beyond control, so the troops shut down entrances to allow frustrations to subside. Bass was staring at despair in its rawest form. As he studied the people surrounding the airport, he wondered if he could ever make any of this a bit less terrible.
Bass cadged a room in barracks belonging to the Turkish army, which had agreed, before the chaos had descended, to operate and protect the airport after the Americans finally departed. His days tended to follow a pattern. They would begin with the Taliban’s grudging assistance. Then, as lunchtime approached, the Talibs would get hot and hungry. Abruptly, they would stop processing evacuees through their checkpoints. Then, just as suddenly, at six or seven, as the sun began to set, they would begin to cooperate again.
Bass was forever hatching fresh schemes to satisfy the Taliban’s fickle requirements. One day, the Taliban would let buses through without question; the next, they would demand to see passenger manifests in advance. Bass’s staff created official-looking placards to place in bus windows. The Taliban waved them through for a short period, then declared the placard system unreliable.
Throughout the day, Bass would stop what he was doing and join videoconferences with Washington. He became a fixture in the Situation Room. Biden would pepper him with ideas for squeezing more evacuees through the gates. The president’s instinct was to throw himself into the intricacies of troubleshooting. Why don’t we have them meet in parking lots? Can’t we leave the airport and pick them up? Bass would kick around Biden’s proposed solutions with colleagues to determine their plausibility, which was usually low. Still, he appreciated Biden applying pressure, making sure that he didn’t overlook the obvious.
At the end of his first day at the airport, Bass went through his email. A State Department spokesperson had announced Bass’s arrival in Kabul. Friends and colleagues had deluged him with requests to save Afghans. Bass began to scrawl the names from his inbox on a whiteboard in his office. By the time he finished, he’d filled the six-foot‑by‑four-foot surface. He knew there was little chance that he could help. The orders from Washington couldn’t have been clearer. The primary objective was to load planes with U.S. citizens, U.S.-visa holders, and passport holders from partner nations, mostly European ones.
In his mind, Bass kept another running list, of Afghans he had come to know personally during his time as ambassador who were beyond his ability to rescue. Their faces and voices were etched in his memory, and he could be sure that, at some point when he wasn’t rushing to fill C‑17s, they would haunt his sleep.
“Someone on the bus is dying.”
Jake Sullivan was unnerved. What to do with such a dire message from a trusted friend? It described a caravan of five blue-and-white buses stuck 100 yards outside the south gate of the airport, one of them carrying a human being struggling for life. If Sullivan forwarded this problem to an aide, would it get resolved in time?
Sullivan sometimes felt as if every member of the American elite was simultaneously asking for his help. When he left secure rooms, he would grab his phone and check his personal email accounts, which overflowed with pleas. This person just had the Taliban threaten them. They will be shot in 15 hours if you don’t get them out. Some of the senders seemed to be trying to shame him into action. If you don’t do something, their death is on your hands.
Throughout late August, the president himself was fielding requests to help stranded Afghans, from friends and members of Congress. Biden became invested in individual cases. Three buses of women at the Kabul Serena Hotel kept running into logistical obstacles. He told Sullivan, “I want to know what happens to them. I want to know when they make it to the airport.” When the president heard these stories, he would become engrossed in solving the practical challenge of getting people to the airport, mapping routes through the city.
When Wendy Sherman, the deputy secretary of state, went to check in with members of a task force working on the evacuation, she found grizzled diplomats in tears. She estimated that a quarter of the State Department’s personnel had served in Afghanistan. They felt a connection with the country, an emotional entanglement. Fielding an overwhelming volume of emails describing hardship cases, they easily imagined the faces of refugees. They felt the shame and anger that come with the inability to help. To deal with the trauma, the State Department procured therapy dogs that might ease the staff’s pain.
The State Department redirected the attention of its sprawling apparatus to Afghanistan. Embassies in Mexico City and New Delhi became call centers. Staff in those distant capitals assumed the role of caseworkers, assigned to stay in touch with the remaining American citizens in Afghanistan, counseling them through the terrifying weeks.
Sherman dispatched her Afghan-born chief of staff, Mustafa Popal, to HKIA to support embassy workers and serve as an interpreter. All day long, Sherman responded to pleas for help: from foreign governments’ representatives, who joined a daily videoconference she hosted; from members of Congress; from the cellist Yo‑Yo Ma, writing on behalf of musicians. Amid the crush, she felt compelled to go down to the first floor, to spend 15 minutes cuddling the therapy dogs.
The Biden administration hadn’t intended to conduct a full-blown humanitarian evacuation of Afghanistan. It had imagined an orderly and efficient exodus that would extend past August 31, as visa holders boarded commercial flights from the country. As those plans collapsed, the president felt the same swirl of emotions as everyone else watching the desperation at the airport. Over the decades, he had thought about Afghanistan using the cold logic of realism—it was a strategic distraction, a project whose costs outweighed the benefits. Despite his many visits, the country had become an abstraction in his mind. But the graphic suffering in Kabul awakened in him a compassion that he’d never evinced in the debates about the withdrawal.
After seeing the abject desperation on the HKIA tarmac, the president had told the Situation Room that he wanted all the planes flying thousands of troops into the airport to leave filled with evacuees. Pilots should pile American citizens and Afghans with visas into those planes. But there was a category of evacuees that he now especially wanted to help, what the government called “Afghans at risk.” These were the newspaper reporters, the schoolteachers, the filmmakers, the lawyers, the members of a girls’ robotics team who didn’t necessarily have paperwork but did have every reason to fear for their well-being in a Taliban-controlled country.
This was a different sort of mission. The State Department hadn’t vetted all of the Afghans at risk. It didn’t know if they were genuinely endangered or simply strivers looking for a better life. It didn’t know if they would have qualified for the visas that the administration said it issued to those who worked with the Americans, or if they were petty criminals. But if they were in the right place at the right time, they were herded up the ramp of C‑17s.
In anticipation of an evacuation, the United States had built housing at Camp As Sayliyah, a U.S. Army base in the suburbs of Doha. It could hold 8,000 people, housing them as the Department of Homeland Security collected their biometric data and began to vet them for immigration. But it quickly became clear that the United States would fly far more than 8,000 Afghans to Qatar.
As the numbers swelled, the United States set up tents at Al Udeid Air Base, a bus ride away from As Sayliyah. Nearly 15,000 Afghans took up residence there, but their quarters were poorly planned. There weren’t nearly enough toilets or showers. Procuring lunch meant standing in line for three or four hours. Single men slept in cots opposite married women, a transgression of Afghan traditions.
The Qataris, determined to use the crisis to burnish their reputation, erected a small city of air-conditioned wedding tents and began to cater meals for the refugees. But the Biden administration knew that the number of evacuees would soon exceed Qatar’s capacity. It needed to erect a network of camps. What it created was something like the hub-and-spoke system used by commercial airlines. Refugees would fly into Al Udeid and then be redirected to bases across the Middle East and Europe, what the administration termed “lily pads.”
In September, just as refugees were beginning to arrive at Dulles International Airport, outside Washington, D.C., four Afghan evacuees caught the measles. All the refugees in the Middle East and Europe now needed vaccinations, which would require 21 days for immunity to take hold. To keep disease from flying into the United States, the State Department called around the world, asking if Afghans could stay on bases for three extra weeks.
In the end, the U.S. government housed more than 60,000 Afghans in facilities that hadn’t existed before the fall of Kabul. It flew 387 sorties from HKIA. At the height of the operation, an aircraft took off every 45 minutes. A terrible failure of planning necessitated a mad scramble—a mad scramble that was an impressive display of creative determination.
Even as the administration pulled off this feat of logistics, it was pilloried for the clumsiness of the withdrawal. The New York Times’ David Sanger had written, “After seven months in which his administration seemed to exude much-needed competence—getting more than 70 percent of the country’s adults vaccinated, engineering surging job growth and making progress toward a bipartisan infrastructure bill—everything about America’s last days in Afghanistan shattered the imagery.”
Biden didn’t have time to voraciously consume the news, but he was well aware of the coverage, and it infuriated him. It did little to change his mind, though. In the caricature version of Joe Biden that had persisted for decades, he was highly sensitive to shifts in opinion, especially when they emerged from columnists at the Post or the Times. The criticism of the withdrawal caused him to justify the chaos as the inevitable consequence of a difficult decision, even though he had never publicly, or privately, predicted it. Through the whole last decade of the Afghan War, he had detested the conventional wisdom of the foreign-policy elites. They were willing to stay forever, no matter the cost. After defying their delusional promises of progress for so long, he wasn’t going to back down now. In fact, everything he’d witnessed from his seat in the Situation Room confirmed his belief that exiting a war without hope was the best and only course.
So much of the commentary felt overheated to him. He said to an aide: Either the press is losing its mind, or I am.
August 26
Every intelligence official watching Kabul was obsessed with the possibility of an attack by ISIS-Khorasan, or ISIS‑K, the Afghan offshoot of the Islamic State, which dreamed of a new caliphate in Central Asia. As the Taliban stormed across Afghanistan, they unlocked a prison at Bagram Air Base, freeing hardened ISIS‑K adherents. ISIS‑K had been founded by veterans of the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban who had broken with their groups, on the grounds that they needed to be replaced by an even more militant vanguard. The intelligence community had been sorting through a roaring river of unmistakable warnings about an imminent assault on the airport.
As the national-security team entered the Situation Room for a morning meeting, it consumed an early, sketchy report of an explosion at one of the gates to HKIA, but it was hard to know if there were any U.S. casualties. Everyone wanted to believe that the United States had escaped unscathed, but everyone had too much experience to believe that. General McKenzie appeared via videoconference in the Situation Room with updates that confirmed the room’s suspicions of American deaths. Biden hung his head and quietly absorbed the reports. In the end, the explosion killed 13 U.S. service members and more than 150 Afghan civilians.
August 29–30
The remains ofthe dead service members were flown to Dover Air Force Base, in Delaware, for a ritual known as the dignified transfer: Flag-draped caskets are marched down the gangway of a transport plane and driven to the base’s mortuary.
So much about the withdrawal had slipped beyond Biden’s control. But grieving was his expertise. If there was one thing that everyone agreed Biden did more adroitly than any other public official, it was comforting survivors. The Irish journalist Fintan O’Toole once called him “the Designated Mourner.”
August 29: President Biden watches as the remains of a Marine killed in the attack on Hamid Karzai International Airport are returned to Dover Air Force Base. (Associated Press)
Accompanied by his wife, Jill; Mark Milley; Antony Blinken; and Lloyd Austin, Biden made his way to a private room where grieving families had gathered. He knew he would be standing face to face with unbridled anger. A father had already turned his back on Austin and was angrily shouting at Milley, who held up his hands in the posture of surrender.
When Biden entered, he shook the hand of Mark Schmitz, who had lost his 20-year-old son, Jared. In his sorrow, Schmitz couldn’t decide whether he wanted to sit in the presence of the president. According to a report in TheWashingtonPost, the night before, he had told a military officer that he didn’t want to speak to the man whose incompetence he blamed for his son’s death. In the morning, he changed his mind.
Schmitz told the Post that he couldn’t help but glare in Biden’s direction. When Biden approached, he held out a photo of Jared. “Don’t you ever forget that name. Don’t you ever forget that face. Don’t you ever forget the names of the other 12. And take some time to learn their stories.”
“I do know their stories,” Biden replied.
After the dignified transfer, the families piled onto a bus. A sister of one of the dead screamed in Biden’s direction: “I hope you burn in hell.”
Of all the moments in August, this was the one that caused the president to second-guess himself. He asked Press Secretary Jen Psaki: Did I do something wrong? Maybe I should have handled that differently.
As Biden left, Milley saw the pain on the president’s face. He told him: “You made a decision that had to be made. War is a brutal, vicious undertaking. We’re moving forward to the next step.”
That afternoon, Bidenreturned to the Situation Room. There was pressure, from the Hill and talking heads, to push back the August 31 deadline. But everyone in the room was terrified by the intelligence assessments about ISIS‑K. If the U.S. stayed, it would be hard to avoid the arrival of more caskets at Dover.
As Biden discussed the evacuation, he received a note, which he passed to Milley. According to a White House official present in the room, the general read it aloud: “If you want to catch the 5:30 Mass, you have to leave now.” He turned to the president. “My mother always said it’s okay to miss Mass if you’re doing something important. And I would argue that this is important.” He paused, realizing that the president might need a moment after his bruising day. “This is probably also a time when we need prayers.”
Biden gathered himself to leave. As he stood from his chair, he told the group, “I will be praying for all of you.”
On the morning of the 30th, John Bass was cleaning out his office. An alarm sounded, and he rushed for cover. A rocket flew over the airport from the west and a second crashed into the compound, without inflicting damage.
Bass, ever the stoic, turned to a colleague. “Well, that’s about the only thing that hasn’t happened so far.” He was worried that the rockets weren’t a parting gift, but a prelude to an attack.
Earlier that morning, though, Bass had implored Major General Donahue to delay the departure. He’d asked his military colleagues to remain at the outer access points, because there were reports of American citizens still making their way to them.
Donahue was willing to give Bass a few extra hours. And around 3 a.m., 60 more American-passport holders arrived at the airport. Then, as if anticipating a final burst of American generosity toward refugees, the Taliban opened their checkpoints. A flood of Afghans rushed toward the airport. Bass sent consular officers to stand at the perimeter of concertina wire, next to the paratroopers, scanning for passports, visas, any official-looking document.
An officer caught a glimpse of an Afghan woman in her 20s waving a printout showing that she had received permission to enter the U.S. “Wow. You won the lottery twice,” he told her. “You’re the visa-lottery winner and you’ve made it here in time.” She was one of the final evacuees hustled into the airport.
Around 7 a.m., the last remaining State Department officials in Kabul, including Bass, posed for a photo and then walked up the ramp of a C-17. As Bass prepared for takeoff, he thought about two numbers. In total, the United States had evacuated about 124,000 people, which the White House touted as the most successful airlift in history. Bass also thought about the unknown number of Afghans he had failed to get out. He thought about the friends he couldn’t extricate. He thought about the last time he’d flown out of Kabul, 18 months earlier, and how he had harbored a sense of optimism for the country then. A hopefulness that now felt as remote as the Hindu Kush.
August 31: President Biden delivers remarks on the end of the war in Afghanistan. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty)
In a command center in the Pentagon’s basement, Lloyd Austin and Mark Milley followed events at the airport through a video feed provided by a drone, the footage filtered through the hazy shades of a night-vision lens. They watched in silence as Donahue, the last American soldier on the ground in Afghanistan, boarded the last C-17 to depart HKIA.
Five C‑17s sat on the runway—carrying “chalk,” as the military refers to the cargo of troops. An officer in the command center narrated the procession for them. “Chalk 1 loaded … Chalk 2 taxiing.”
As the planes departed, there was no applause, no hand-shaking. A murmur returned to the room. Austin and Milley watched the great military project of their generation—a war that had cost the lives of comrades, that had taken them away from their families—end without remark. They stood without ceremony and returned to their offices.
Across the Potomac River, Biden sat with Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken, revising a speech he would deliver the next day. One of Sullivan’s aides passed him a note, which he read to the group: “Chalk 1 in the air.” A few minutes later, the aide returned with an update. All of the planes were safely away.
Some critics had clamored for Biden to fire the advisers who had failed to plan for the chaos at HKIA, to make a sacrificial offering in the spirit of self-abasement. But Biden never deflected blame onto staff. In fact, he privately expressed gratitude to them. And with the last plane in the air, he wanted Blinken and Sullivan to join him in the private dining room next to the Oval Office as he called Austin to thank him. The secretary of defense hadn’t agreed with Biden’s withdrawal plan, but he’d implemented it in the spirit of a good soldier.
America’s longest war was now finally and officially over. Each man looked exhausted. Sullivan hadn’t slept for more than two hours a night over the course of the evacuation. Biden aides sensed that he hadn’t rested much better. Nobody needed to mention how the trauma and political scars might never go away, how the month of August had imperiled a presidency. Before returning to the Oval Office, they spent a moment together, lingering in the melancholy.
The Navy on Monday joined the Army and Marine Corps in operating without Senate-confirmed military leaders because of Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s hold on top military nominations.
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday in a ceremony Monday morning relinquished his office as required by statute, and Adm. Lisa Franchetti took over in an acting capacity.
It’s the first time in the history of the Defense Department that three military services are without Senate-confirmed leaders, according to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
“This is unprecedented. It is unnecessary and it is unsafe. And this sweeping hold is undermining America’s military readiness,” Austin said in remarks at Monday’s ceremony.
The vice service chiefs for the Navy, Army and Marine Corps are now leading each respective service in an acting capacity and continuing certain responsibilities of their current role. All three of the vice chiefs have been nominated by President Biden for the top positions, including Franchetti, who would be the first-ever female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if the Senate confirms her.
Blank photo frames where military service chiefs normally are pictured at the Pentagon.
Eleanor Watson
Their nominations are part of the approximately 300 military nominations held up in the Senate.
Tuberville has put a blanket hold on top military nominations to protest the Defense Department’s policy that grants leave and reimburses travel costs for service members to seek reproductive care, including abortions. Tuberville has said he will keep the hold until the Defense Department rescinds the policy or Congress passes it into law.
The Defense Department estimates the hold could impact more than 650 military nominations by the end of the year, which would have domino effects on their families and the officers’ replacements.
Tuberville’s hold prevents the usual unanimous consent process for confirming nominations, but it does not stop the Senate from bringing each nomination to the floor for a vote. The Senate has so far declined to take this approach because of the amount of time it could take.
The Congressional Research Service estimates that if the Senate worked on only military nominations eight hours a day, it would take more than 80 days to confirm the nominations.
With neither the Pentagon or Tuberville budging, the impasse threatens to impact the nomination of Gen. C.Q. Brown as the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – the nation’s top military officer – who would take office when Gen. Mark Milley’s term is up at the end of September.
US service members deployed on the Afghanistan withdrawal mission will receive the Presidential Unit Citation, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin announced Thursday, the two-year anniversary of the withdrawal.
“In recognition of teams that operated and excelled under these difficult and dangerous conditions, I am proud to announce the approval of the Presidential Unit Citation for the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, the Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force-Crisis Response-Central Command, and Joint Task Force 82 of the 82nd Airborne Division and its supporting units,” Austin said in a statement.
“Today, our hearts and our prayers are with the brave Americans who volunteered to keep our country safe, with the Gold Star families whose loved ones fell in Afghanistan, with the military families who endured so much over those two decades, and with the veterans who still carry the memories and the scars of war,” Austin said. “The war in Afghanistan is over, but our gratitude to the Americans who fought it is unending.”
Army National Guard and Reserve soldiers will be among those who are receiving the citation, an Army spokesman told CNN. The Air Force does not appear to be included in the units receiving citations under Thursday’s announcement, an Air Force official said, though Pentagon spokesman Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said at a news briefing on Thursday that more units could receive the citation in the future.
“So in the statement that we put out today, it highlighted the units that have currently been awarded that recognition. I’d refer you to the services right now for their current statuses. That’s not to say there won’t be others,” Ryder said. “That’s just where we’re at right now at this point in time.”
The US service members involved in the chaotic withdrawal helped evacuate thousands of civilians from Hamid Karzai International Airport. In his statement on Thursday, Austin recognized “the 2,461 U.S. service members who never made it home” from the war, “including the 13 courageous troops taken from us in the attack at Abbey Gate in the final hours of the war.”
The announcement of the citation comes just days after the families of some of those 13 service members were on Capitol Hill demanding answers and accountability over their children’s deaths. During a roundtable with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, convened by Republican Chairman Mike McCaul, parents of the troops killed at Abbey Gate claimed they’d been lied to by officials in the military and Biden administration.
The Biden administration conducted an after-action review of the Afghanistan withdrawal and released a summary of findings in April this year. The summary largely placed blame for the conditions that led to the frenzied withdrawal on the Trump administration, though a State Department after-action review released in June said both administrations made decisions that had “serious consequences” for security in Afghanistan.
Indeed, the security of Afghanistan fell apart in the weeks leading up to the withdrawal as the Taliban swept through Kabul and took over the presidential palace and President Ashraf Ghani fled the country. What followed was days of chaos and confusion as civilians fled to the Kabul airport in hopes of being evacuated with the US and allied military partners.
US forces manning the gates of the airport were forced into impossible situations of deciding which civilians and families had the appropriate paperwork to be let into HKIA and ultimately out of the country. The mayhem culminated on August 26, when a suicide bomber detonated at Abbey Gate, killing 11 Marines, one Navy corpsman, and a soldier, along with more than 170 Afghan civilians.
The Defense Department has not released an unclassified after-action review, though the official investigation into the Abbey Gate bombing, conducted by US Central Command, was released last year.
On August 31, 2022, Austin announced that “all units” involved in the withdrawal mission would receive the Meritorious Unit Commendation “or its equivalent.” He also directed an “expedited review of all units” present during the withdrawal “to identify those units or individuals that meet the high standards of the Presidential Unit Citation or appropriate individual awards.”
The citation is used, Austin said in August 2022, to recognize extraordinary heroism for military units “in action against an armed enemy.”
Both the Army and Marine Corps applauded the unit citations on Thursday. Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division “demonstrated heroic discipline and courage.”
“It is a privilege to recognize these soldiers for their actions during the tumultuous days of August 2021 and to honor their courage at a time when the entire Nation relied on them to complete their mission – which they did with great distinction,” Wormuth said.
A statement from the Marine Corps echoed the same, saying the citation is “a testament to the incredible dedication, sacrifice, and professionalism embodied by the men and women of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force – Crisis Response (Central Command), who rapidly deployed into harm’s way to protect and defend Afghan civilians.”
While the Air Force does not appear to be included in Thursday’s announcement, thousands of airmen have received other awards, including Distinguished Flying Crosses and Bronze Star medals for their actions during the withdrawal.
Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama is defending his block of all senior military promotions over his objections to a Pentagon policy on abortion access. Tuberville has blocked more than 250 promotions, including the heads of the armed services. David Martin reports from the Pentagon.
Be the first to know
Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.
China’s defense minister defended sailing a warship across the path of an American destroyer and Canadian frigate transiting the Taiwan Strait, telling a gathering of some of the world’s top defense officials in Singapore on Sunday that such “freedom of navigation” patrols are a provocation to China.
The Chinese warship intercepted the USS Chung-Hoon and the HMCS Montreal on Saturday as they transited the strait between the self-governed island of Taiwan, which China claims as its own territory, and mainland China. The Chinese vessel overtook the American ship and then veered across its bow at a distance of 150 yards in an “unsafe manner,” according to the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.
The U.S. guided-missile destroyer slowed to 10 knots to avoid a collision, the command said in a statement.
A Chinese warship came within 150 yards of hitting the USS Chung-Hoon during a joint Canada-U.S. mission sailing through the Taiwan Strait, June 3, 2023.
Global News
In his first international public address since becoming defense minister in March, Gen. Li Shangfu told the Shangri-La Dialogue that China doesn’t have any problems with “innocent passage” but that “we must prevent attempts that try to use those freedom of navigation (patrols), that innocent passage, to exercise hegemony of navigation.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told the same forum Saturday that Washington would not “flinch in the face of bullying or coercion” from China and would continue regularly sailing through and flying over the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea to emphasize they are international waters, countering Beijing’s sweeping territorial claims.
The U.S. has said a Chinese J-16 fighter jet late last month “performed an unnecessarily aggressive maneuver” while intercepting a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance aircraft over the South China Sea, flying directly in front of the plane’s nose.
Those and previous incidents have raised concerns of a possible accident occurring that could lead to an escalation between the two nations at a time when tensions are already high.
Li suggested the U.S. and its allies had created the danger, and should instead should focus on taking “good care of your own territorial airspace and waters.”
“The best way is for the countries, especially the naval vessels and fighter jets of countries, not to do closing actions around other countries’ territories,” he said through an interpreter. “What’s the point of going there? In China we always say, ‘Mind your own business.'”
In a wide-ranging speech, Li reiterated many of Beijing’s well-known positions, including its claim on Taiwan, calling it “the core of our core interests.”
He accused the U.S. and others of “meddling in China’s internal affairs” by providing Taiwan with defense support and training, and conducting high-level diplomatic visits.
“China stays committed to the path of peaceful development, but we will never hesitate to defend our legitimate rights and interests, let alone sacrifice the nation’s core interests,” he said.
“As the lyrics of a well-known Chinese song go: ‘When friends visit us, we welcome them with fine wine. When jackals or wolves come, we will face them with shotguns.'”
In his speech the previous day, Austin broadly outlined the U.S. vision for a “free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific within a world of rules and rights.”
In the pursuit of such, Austin said the U.S. was stepping up planning, coordination and training with “friends from the East China Sea to the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean” with shared goals “to deter aggression and to deepen the rules and norms that promote prosperity and prevent conflict.”
Li scoffed at the notion, saying “some country takes a selective approach to rules and international laws.”
“It likes forcing its own rules on others,” he said. “Its so-called rules-based international order never tells you what the rules are and who made these rules.”
By contrast, he said, “we practice multilateralism and pursue win-win cooperation.”
Li is under American sanctions that are part of a broad package of measures against Russia — but predate its invasion of Ukraine — that were imposed in 2018 over Li’s involvement in China’s purchase of combat aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles from Moscow.
The sanctions, which broadly prevent Li from doing business in the United States, do not prevent him from holding official talks, American defense officials have said.
Still, he refused Austin’s invitation to talk on the sidelines of the conference, though the two did shake hands before sitting down at opposite sides of the same table together as the forum opened Friday.
Austin said that was not enough.
“A cordial handshake over dinner is no substitute for a substantive engagement,” Austin said.
The U.S. has noted that since 2021 — well before Li became defense minister — China has declined or failed to respond to more than a dozen requests from the U.S. Defense Department to talk with senior leaders, as well as multiple requests for standing dialogues and working-level engagements.
Li said that “China is open to communications between our two countries and also between our two militaries,” but without mentioning the sanctions, said exchanges had to be “based on mutual respect.”
“That is a very fundamental principle,” he said. “If we do not even have mutual respect, then our communications will not be productive.”
He said that he recognized that any “severe conflict or confrontation between China and the U.S. will be an unbearable disaster for the world,” and that the two countries need to find ways to improve relations, saying they were “at a record low.”
“History has proven time and again that both China and the United States will benefit from cooperation and lose from confrontation,” he said.
“China seeks to develop a new type of major-country relationship with the United States. As for the U.S. side, it needs to act with sincerity, match its words with deeds, and take concrete actions together with China to stabilize the relations and prevent further deterioration,” Li said.
SINGAPORE—Insisting that he didn’t know how they had made such a simple mistake, an embarrassed U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reportedly excused himself from the Shangri-La Dialogue Asian defense summit Friday after realizing America was not in Asia. “Oh God, sorry about that, we’re not even in the right ballpark here,” said the Defense Secretary, who reportedly grew visibly flushed after learning from an aide that the closest part of the Asian continent was nearly 5,000 miles away from the United States, before slowly slinking out of the gathering of allied nations. “Maybe we saw the letter ‘A’ and just assumed it was about us? Sorry, I don’t know why we’re here. Everyone just get on with whatever you were doing. We’ll see ourselves out.” At press time, Austin had reportedly paused at the catering table and grabbed a handful of hors d’oeuvres to at least make the 19 hour and 45 minute plane trip worth something.
Asia Pacific leaders are in Singapore for this weekend’s Shangri-La Dialogue, Asia’s eminent defense summit where the region’s security issues will be in sharp focus. The United States said China declined an invitation for their defense ministers to meet at the June 2-4 meeting.
Ted Aljibe | Afp | Getty Images
Will they, or won’t they?
Ahead of this weekend’s Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, much speculation centered on a possible meeting between U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and his Chinese counterpart Li Shangfu.
Both are among the global defense leaders who will gather in the city-state to discuss the most pressing security challenges in Asia.
“It doesn’t surprise me there is no meeting, given the strained relationship now,” said Drew Thompson, a former U.S. defense official who is now a senior visiting research fellow at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in Singapore.
CNBC Politics
Read more of CNBC’s politics coverage:
“Any meeting between Austin and Li would reassure other countries in the region, but I don’t think it would change the security dynamic or the potential for instability.”
Regional concerns were underscored recently with the Pentagon saying that a Chinese fighter jet made an “unnecessarily aggressive maneuver” against an American reconnaissance plane in the South China Sea late last week.
Under President Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has grown more hawkish on the global stage, particularly in its historic claims over Taiwan and the South China Sea. The latter is a strategic waterway rich with resources such as oil and gas.
It has been a flashpoint in Asia-Pacific for at least the last decade as China has grown more assertive with its burgeoning economic clout bolstering its global influence. Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have competing claims to parts of the waterway, a vital trade route.
“We’re caught in the sort of security dilemma in the region,” said Chin-Hao Huang, author of “Power and Restraint in China’s Rise” and associate professor of political science at Yale-NUS College in Singapore.
“Some countries may be trying to bolster their own defense capabilities, in order to deter any kind of threat emanating from China, but China will interpret this defense build-up as an affront and they in turn double down and accelerate their military advancements,” he added.
China’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a CNBC request for comment.
At a regular press briefing on May 19, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said China has no taste for “coercion and bullying” when asked about U.S. foreign policy. “We have always taken a clear-cut stand against hegemony, unilateralism and coercive diplomacy.”
“This kind of action reaction dynamic actually causes a great deal of concern and actually increases tensions, compounded by a lack of trust and dialogue,” Huang added.
The Shangri-La Dialogue, organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies and now in its 20th iteration, offers nations an opportunity to engage in dialogue. The forum is typically characterized by a flurry of bilateral and multilateral meetings on the sidelines of the main program.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will deliver this year’s keynote address on Friday.
“What you are seeing is the emergence of a regional security architecture,” said Thompson of the LKY School. “The region is really coming together with a common interest in regional security and stability.”
Read more about China from CNBC Pro
This is underscored by the range of bilateral and multilateral initiatives that have emerged in the last few years, including the new strategic agreement between Vietnam and the Philippines, improving relations between Japan and South Korea and the resumption of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between Australia, Japan, India and the U.S.
“China has the option to be a part of this, if they choose to,” Thompson added. “But Beijing would need to effectively change its approach and consider the impact of coercive policies towards its neighbors, whether it’s military pressure towards Taiwan, economic coercion against Korea and Japan, or simply not recognizing international law.”
Upcoming opportunities include the G20 leaders’ meeting in New Delhi in September and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders’ meeting in San Francisco in November.
Until then, the specter of these feuding superpowers will likely cast a pall on all other nations.
“The U.S. will try to drum up its role and influence, with increasing reliance on its military advantages and capabilities because it is concerned with losing its superpower status,” Huang from Yale-NUS said.
“From Asia, however, the priorities may be rather different,” he added. “Instead of engaging in an all-out arms race, countries in the region respond to and deal with China pragmatically because they are in such close geographical proximity and often cannot afford to take on tough rhetoric or containment-like approaches that emphasize military capabilities.”
He said the most important thing to regional stability is ensuring that there is continued access to trade and economic development.
“So, there’s a bit of a disconnect with U.S. foreign policy approaches that tend to over-emphasize military or security deterrence as the default response to China’s rise,” Huang added.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said it was “unfortunate” China declined a US offer to speak at a defense summit this week in Singapore and that the ongoing lack of communication could result in “an incident that could very, very quickly spiral out of control.”
“(Y)ou’ve heard me talk a number of times about the importance of countries, with large, with significant capabilities, being able to talk to each other so you can manage crises and prevent things from spiraling out of control unnecessarily,” Austin said at a news conference Thursday in Japan with Japanese Minster of Defense Yasukazu Hamada.
“And as we take a look at some of the things that China is doing in the international airspace in the region and international waterways, you know, the provocative intercepts of our aircraft and also our allies’ aircraft, that’s very concerning, and we would hope that they would alter their actions. But since they haven’t yet, I’m concerned about, at some point, having an incident that could very, very quickly spiral out of control,” Austin said, adding that he would “welcome any opportunity to engage” with China’s leadership.
The Pentagon said earlier this week that China refused a US proposal for Austin to meet with his Chinese counterpart Li Shangfu at the Shangri-La Dialogue security forum in Singapore this week. China’s defense ministry blamed the US for their refusal, saying the responsibility for ongoing tension between the two countries’ militaries “lies entirely with the US side.”
The comments come as Chinese President Xi Jinping told China’s national security officials to think about “worst case” scenarios and prepare for “stormy seas,” as the ruling Communist Party hardens efforts to counter any perceived internal and external threats.
Relations between the two countries have been increasingly strained in recent months, especially after former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to the self-governing island of Taiwan last August and the US’ decision to shoot down a Chinese spy balloon that transited over sensitive US military sites in February.
China declined an invitation for its minister of defense to meet with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin on the sidelines of an annual international defense summit in Singapore later this week, the Pentagon said late Monday.
“The [People’s Republic of China] informed the U.S. that they have declined our early May invitation for Secretary Austin to meet with PRC Minister of National Defense Li Shangfu in Singapore this week,” Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said in a statement.
Both Austin and Li are scheduled to travel to Singapore to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue on June 2-4 and give remarks. Austin met with Li’s predecessor on the sidelines of the summit last year, but Austin has not spoken with Li since he assumed his position in March 2023.
“I have reached out to my counterpart on a number of occasions,” Austin told Congress earlier this month. “There’s a new minister of defense in the seat now. I’ve reached out to him. I’ve sent him a letter and — and I offered to talk as well. I’ll continue to do that. I think that’s critical.”
Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin delivers remarks during the U.S. Naval Academy Graduation and Commissioning Ceremony at the Naval Academy May 26, 2023 in Annapolis, Maryland.
Earlier this month, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met with China’s top diplomat Wang Yi in Vienna, Austria, and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo met with her Chinese counterpart in Washington, D.C.
A senior defense official said late Monday that since 2021, China has declined or failed to respond to over a dozen requests from the Department of Defense for key leader engagements, multiple requests for standing dialogues, and nearly ten working-level engagements.
Ryder in his statement said the Pentagon will continue to seek open lines of communication with Chinese counterparts at multiple levels “as part of responsibly managing the relationship.”
RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AP) — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin sought Friday to tamp down any discord between the U.S. and its allies over the massive U.S. leak of classified documents, as he met with defense leaders from around the globe to coordinate additional military aid to Ukraine.
Acknowledging that the other nations have closely followed the issue, Austin hit the subject head on in his opening remarks to start the meeting. The move underscored the gravity of the situation, since many of the documents distributed online revealed details on the status of the war in Ukraine and the ongoing delivery of weapons and other equipment to Ukrainian forces in battle — intelligence matters the other defense officials are keenly involved in.
“I take this issue very seriously,” Austin said at the start of the daylong session at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. “And we will continue to work closely and respectfully with our deeply valued allies and partners. “
Austin said he’d spoken to allies and partners about the matter, and “I’ve been struck by your solidarity and your commitment to reject efforts to divide us. And we will not let anything fracture our unity.”
The meeting marks the one-year anniversary of the creation by Austin of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group. This is the 11th time the defense leaders have met to coordinate aid to the invaded country. They have vowed to support Ukraine in its fight against Russian forces for as long as it takes. But the document leaks pose a multi-pronged concern.
Some allies in the room may be more wary about sharing intelligence and other information with the U.S,. fearing it might spill out to the public. Others may worry that the U.S. will clamp down on its own dissemination of intelligence involving the war, leaving them less informed.
The unease comes at a crucial time. Ukrainian leaders are gearing up for the launch of a spring counteroffensive to try and take back territory gained by the Russians, hoping to give Kyiv a stronger position if the warring sides try to negotiate peace.
So far, Austin and others have insisted that the intelligence leak hasn’t driven a wedge between the U.S. and its allies and partners. But the stunning breach exposing closely held intelligence has sparked international concern and raised fresh questions about America’s ability to safeguard its secrets.
Airman 1st Class Jack Teixeira, a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, has been charged under the Espionage Act with unauthorized retention and transmission of classified national defense information. He served as an information technology specialist and held a top secret security clearance, which gave him access to highly classified programs.
Teixeira, 21, is accused of sharing highly classified military documents about Russia’s war in Ukraine and other top national security issues in a chat room on Discord, a social media platform that started as a hangout for gamers.
U.S. Air Force leaders said earlier this week that they were investigating how a lone airman could access and distribute possibly hundreds of highly classified documents. The Air Force has also taken away the intelligence mission from the Air National Guard 102nd Intelligence Wing based in Cape Cod, where Teixeira served, pending further review.