[brid autoplay=”true” video=”826374″ player=”23886″ title=”Bay%20of%20Pigs%20Veteran%20says%20Cuban%20people%20would%20rather%20die%20than%20continue” duration=”140″ description=”undefined” uploaddate=”2021-07-14″ thumbnailurl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/thumb/826374_t_1626275520.png” contentUrl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/sd/826374.mp4″]
By Jenny Goldsberry
President Biden announced Monday that he will be addressing the situation in Afghanistan Monday afternoon, following reports of violence in the country. Meanwhile, Biden is set to meet his goal of withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan early. So far, there are around 5,000 troops still remaining.
First, when Biden was asked “Is the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan now inevitable?” he responded with a profound “no.”
“Because you have the Afghan troops at 300,000 well-equipped, as well as any army in the world,” Biden said then. “Against something like 75,000 Taliban. It is not inevitable.”
Now, as Sara Carter reported, Taliban fighters are nearing the capital of Kabul. Sources close to Biden have admitted that they are actively searching for nearby countries to take in refugees on the run from the Taliban. As a result, Biden will be speaking on the situation.
“I will be addressing the nation on Afghanistan at 3:45 PM ET today,” the president tweeted Monday.
But the scramble to readdress the problem comes too little too late for most. Even some Democratic lawmakers have turned on Biden over the crisis. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) made a statement begging for “decisive action.”
“Dire conditions on the ground persist today and without swift, decisive action from the administration, Afghan civilians will suffer or die at the hands of the Taliban,” Shaheen wrote. She also expressed a desire to see the current refugee program expanded for women. “A failure to act now will seal their fate, and the generation of girls who grew up with freedoms, education and dreams of building their country’s future will die with them,” her statement read.
Then Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) released a similar statement expressing regret that Biden hadn’t “carefully planned to prevent violence and instability.”
“We must act swiftly to protect Americans and our Afghan allies and partners on the ground,” his statement read. “We cannot abandon those who fought by our side who now face mortal danger from the Taliban’s takeover. We have a moral obligation to act immediately to protect their lives and a national security imperative to ensure that Afghan soil does not again become a source of terrorist attacks on our allies and our homeland.”
You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism.
You may like
Trump: Tanks to Ukraine could escalate to use of ‘NUKES’
Former President Donald Trump stated bluntly on Truth Social, “FIRST COME THE TANKS, THEN COME THE NUKES. Get this crazy war ended, NOW. So easy to do!”
Trump was referring to the escalation of war in Ukraine. He, like many other commentators and lawmakers, are warning that the decision to continue sending weapons – and now tanks – could potentially lead to the use of “nuclear weapons.”
It’s mission creep and it’s dangerous, they say.
Why? Because Russian President Valdimir Putin has indicated in two different speeches that he would use nuclear weapons to defend Russia, if needed. Those warnings are not just bluster but a very real possibility.
And the escalation of war is visible.
Russia launched 55 missiles strikes across Ukraine Thursday, leaving 11 dead. The strikes come one day after the United States and Germany agreed to send tanks to Ukraine in an effort to aide the country. 47 of the 55 missiles were shot down according to Ukraine’s Air Force command.
Eleven lives were lost and another 11 were injured additionally leaving 35 buildings damaged in the wake of the attacks. According to The New York Times, Denys Shmyhal, said in a post on Telegram. “The main goal is energy facilities, providing Ukrainians with light and heat,” he said.
Ukraine is now demanding that they need F-16 fighter jets. In a post on twitter Ukrainian lawmaker, Oleksiy Goncharenko said, “Missiles again over Ukraine. We need F16.”
Morning. Missiles again over Ukraine. We need F16.
— Oleksiy Goncharenko (@GoncharenkoUa) January 26, 2023
The US has abstained from sending advanced jets in the chances that a volatile decision could foster more dangerous attacks like former President Trump’s post on Truth referred to. If the US did authorize the decision to lend Ukraine the F-16 jets Netherlands’ foreign minister, Wopke Hoekstra, would be willing to supply them. According to The New York Times, Hoekstra told Dutch lawmakers, “We are open-minded… There are no taboos.”
F-16 fighter jets are complex to work on, they are not the average aircraft that can be learned in a matter of weeks. It can take months for pilots to learn how to fly these birds. European and US officials have the concern that Ukrainian forces could potentially use the jets to fly into Russian airspace and launch attacks on Russian soil.
Western allies are trying to avoid such a provocation, because that could lead to nuclear warfare in reference to what Putin has said he would do to defend his country.
You may like
Featured6 days ago
REPORT: Exorcists called to drive out demons from Nancy Pelosi’s home
Elections23 hours ago
Judge orders Biden’s DHS to release files on agents accused of censoring election ‘misinformation’
Immigration4 days ago
NYC Mayor turning cruise ship terminal into migrant shelter, ‘our city is at its breaking point’
Environment5 days ago
Major border town on ‘brink of collapse’ as migrants ruin agriculture, overrun hospitals and resources