The Taliban’s triumphant march into Kabul seven days ago was the result of long-term planning and rank opportunism.
For weeks, Western leaders had insisted it just wouldn’t happen; in one heated briefing with journalists, the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Nicholas Carter, even attacked the media for being unpatriotic and claimed that NATO forces had scored a strategic victory.
But for 72 hours over an August weekend, and with many senior officials away on their summer holidays, the world watched wide-eyed as the Taliban made their way into the central squares of city after city and finally through the gates of Kabul itself.
So how did this happen? How did 20 years of hard fighting, close mentoring, and vast financial investment unravel in only 11 days?
How did the “greatest military force ever assembled”, as George W Bush called it, not manage to defeat a group of mere “country boys”, as Gen Carter described them?
For this article, Sky News has spoken to a series of serving and retired military commanders, intelligence officials, and politicians. Between them they have decades of experience in Afghanistan. They tell a story of abandonment that has “left a stain on the West”, political short-sightedness that “demonstrates an ignorance of history and culture” and a future that is “uncertain, unpredictable, and will almost certainly come back to bite”.
From The White House briefing room in Washington DC, president Donald Trump described American forces as “the greatest fighters in the world”, but said “it’s time, after all these years, to bring our people home”.
Around the same time in Kabul, his defense secretary Mark Esper admitted “the road ahead won’t be easy”, while Afghanistan’s then-president Ashraf Ghani, standing next to the American but not a part of the talks, said his government was “ready to negotiate with the Taliban”.
From NATO to the UN, Berlin to London, the deal was welcomed with caution. Although many failed to share the American optimism, most knew the day had been long coming and accepted it.
“We went in together and we will leave together,” the alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said at the time.
Britain’s defence secretary, initially a cautious supporter of the deal, has since described it as “rotten”, but too late. At the time Britain and other allies kept on message, afraid of angering Washington. On reflection, perhaps they should have spoken out sooner.
After the deaths of 2,400 US troops, 457 British troops and more than 60,000 Afghans, this was the beginning of the end – just not how anyone expected it.
It isn’t possible to point to a precise moment when everything started to unravel. Instead a series of events culminated over a relatively short period that, in the words of a military commander with knowledge of the situation, “sapped the confidence of the Afghan forces and passed the initiative to the enemy”.
The departure of civilian contractors, many of them ex-military, removed the network of logistical and engineering support so vital to any war effort.
But it was perhaps the loss of allied air support that crippled the fighting power of the Afghan forces and left them so exposed on the battlefield.
“For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed,” one former RAF pilot told us.
“We trained them to fight like that.
“You suddenly remove this safety blanket and they’re on their own; they knew that, and even worse, so did the Taliban.
“The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.”
Although the US continued limited airstrikes against Taliban positions, they weren’t enough to halt the advance, and besides, the Pentagon had made clear that support would come to an end by September.
“(US President Joe) Biden and others can say what they like about the failings of the Afghan Security Forces in recent weeks, but they merely expose their lack of understanding of warfare – it is not about numbers, or even training or equipment. It is about morale, will and confidence,” is the blunt assessment of one former head of British forces in Helmand Province.
“The US and NATO’s abandonment left them floundering, devoid of belief and fighting spirit. By contrast it buoyed the Taliban, giving them an unwarranted sense of legitimacy. The result, while swifter than most informed people expected, was pretty much inevitable.”
Through July, as the Taliban advance grew momentum, Afghan forces withdrew from some of the rural areas to concentrate on major routes, border crossings and key cities. It was a deliberate strategy to protect the bits that mattered, but the strategy of an army already on the run.
In late July, I met the Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib on a visit to London. He tried to put a brave spin on events: “Losing districts means we can focus on other areas. It’s not as bad as the Taliban would have you believe – they are winning the media war but not the military one.”
But Mr Mohib, who has since fled Afghanistan, knew by then that things weren’t looking good.
“The Americans probably didn’t realise how dependent the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces]were on our NATO partners. The withdrawal has had a devastating impact. The Taliban are like zombies: kill or be killed.”
Despite this downbeat assessment, Mr Mohib was still devising his national security strategy for the coming six months; if he had any inkling of what was coming, he never let on.
For years they had gone into the fight with ground knowledge from our ISR assets (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance), knowing they could then call-in air power if needed…
The truth is, most NATO forces wouldn’t fight without this backup, and yet we were expecting the Afghans to.
Through my many trips to Afghanistan perhaps one message was more consistent than any other, no more so than when I stood in the hills outside Kabul and watched new officer recruits tackling an assault course.
This “Sandhurst in the Sand” academy was supposed to be Britain’s legacy to Afghanistan, and I was repeatedly told how it was a “generational commitment” to train, mentor and nurture the commanding officers who would ensure stability and peace long after NATO left.
“We need to be here for years, possibly decades,” a British soldier told me at the time. “When an entire generation has passed through these gates and the head of the Afghan Armed Forces has been trained by us, here at this academy, then it will be ok to leave.”
That was only three years ago. The commitment will never be fulfilled.
On my last visit to Kabul, the city felt different to previous trips. Afghans oversaw security, manned checkpoints, and guarded major buildings. NATO forces sped across the capital in armoured vehicles but stayed largely behind the scenes. It was very clear there had been a deliberate shift in responsibilities.
The Taliban still launched attacks from rural strongholds, and although the attrition rate among Afghan soldiers was high – too high – they were just about holding the peace. As far as NATO commanders were concerned, it was a workable situation.
“The more we stepped back, the more they stood up, but international assistance in the background was vital,” one former commander of Task Force Helmand reflected.
“They have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.”
The US withdrawal cut this short.
President Biden inherited the Trump peace plan but didn’t change it. In fact he expediated it by a few months, eager to make good on a campaign promise to bring America’s longest war to an end.
In recent days Mr Biden has sought to justify his decision by arguing that remaining in the country for another “ten, fifteen years” would have made little difference. Maybe he’s right, we’ll never know, but few outside of government share that view.
The Afghan soldiers have the capacity for great courage and resilience, but the development of real institutional resilience was work in progress – it takes decades, not years, to grow institutions, particularly against the backdrop of Afghanistan’s wider challenges.
For one recently retired British general, with long operational experience in the Middle East, the politicians are to blame for what the country is going through now.
“As an Afghan, who do you trust more: the countryman who says he will kill you, or the foreigner who says he will protect you? When we lead, or fight alongside ‘native troops’, they will perform wonders, but their own commanders and political masters routinely betray them by corruption or refusal to accept responsibility.
“The US withdrawal and the inevitable collapse of the Afghan security forces means that every other aspect of our 20-year engagement (political, institutional, educational, social, health etc) has also collapsed.
“What was an ‘economy of force’ operation (very little blood, and relatively small amounts of treasure, given our overall investment in Afghanistan, rightly or wrongly) was needlessly and avoidably halted, with all the predictable consequences, so Joe Biden could meet a totally artificial deadline.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised
He is not alone in pointing the finger at Washington.
“Yes, exit was Trump’s policy,” tweeted the former British ambassador Tom Fletcher. “Yes, he would have communicated and executed it in an even clumsier, more crass way. But we expect empathy, strategy and wisdom from Biden. His messaging targeted Trump’s base, not the rest of world and not allies past or future.”
Others are angry at their own party.
One British Conservative MP texted to say: “I don’t really see the point of being in the Tory party anymore”, while another simply messaged three words: “Tragic. Unnecessary. Shameful.”
A few days before the collapse of Kabul, Britain’s Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, himself a former soldier, broke diplomatic cover to reveal that he had tried to persuade some fellow NATO allies to stay in Afghanistan once the US had left. He failed, and by then it was too late.
The appetite to operate without American backup just wasn’t there – this chaotic episode has exposed NATO’s weaknesses and shone a harsh light on years of defence cuts that have left the British Armed Forces either unable or unwilling to go it alone.
President Biden’s criticism of Afghan forces for failing to stand up to the Taliban has been widely criticised. As a nation Afghans have paid a far, far higher toll than any other, but as the inevitable became clear, they deserted their posts and in some cases the country altogether.
On Saturday 14 August, the day before Kabul fell, 24 Afghan helicopters carrying almost 600 servicemen flew in secret to Uzbekistan.
Hundreds more crossed the Amu Darya river on Afghanistan’s northern border, but were detained by Uzbek border troops.
Others made for the Panjshir Valley, north of Kabul in the Hindu Kush. The lush, mountainous region is still dotted with rusting tanks, destroyed during the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, relics of a long history of resistance. If an uprising against the Taliban is going to come from anywhere, it will be the Panjshir, the one corner of Afghanistan the Taliban doesn’t control.
By Sunday lunchtime it was all but over. By now the Taliban was inside the capital, and en route to the Presidential Palace.
Knowing the game was up, soldiers changed out of their combat fatigues and melted into the crowds, fearful of Taliban retribution.
Western capitals watched aghast. The few official statements that did come out were largely out of touch and outpaced by the fast-moving events on the ground.
Remarkably some still called for a “political solution”, but there was nothing left to negotiate. The Taliban had won.
NATO might have abandoned Afghanistan first, but the country’s president and senior leadership followed swiftly afterwards.
Ashraf Ghani fled with his family and close aides. Reports said he was denied entry to Turkmenistan; he eventually surfaced in the United Arab Emirates, vowing to return and fight but Mr Ghani, not hugely popular when in power, is even less so after deserting his country.
Echoing the thoughts of so many who deployed in service of their country, one officer, still serving at the top of the chain, wrote to say: “The abandonment of our Afghan partners is a stain on the West. It leaves those who sweated, fought, suffered (and continue to suffer) and grieved feeling horrified and betrayed.”
One intelligence source defended accusations they didn’t see it coming, saying: “We did.
“Ok, maybe the speed of the Taliban advance took us a bit by surprise, but a swift Taliban overthrow was one of the scenarios we put to politicians. The problem is, they either didn’t want to hear it, or didn’t know what to do with it.”
MI6 and the CIA could do nothing but stand back and watch as the Taliban ripped through.
“I felt like crying,” another British intelligence officer confided. “We’ve spent decades trying to understand the country, building networks and relationships to ultimately keep Britain safe. Within days it was all undone. We go back to the drawing board. Many of the assets, who risked their lives to help us, are now in grave danger.”
In 20 years of conflict and reconstruction, however, Afghanistan has been undeniably transformed.
Education attendance is up, especially among girls; women have been able to work and represent their country in government, sport and music; roads have been tarmacked, improving transport links; and access to medical services, especially maternity care is vastly better. When widows and injured veterans reasonably ask: “Was it all worth it?”, these are the improvements they can be rightly proud of.
But for all that, the enduring images that publishers will put on the front covers, when the historians write the final accounts of yet another failed intervention in this graveyard of empires, will be two moments in the dying days of this mission. One is the heartbreaking sight of babies being passed over barbed wire to helpless soldiers by mothers so desperate, that they can see no other way.
The other is a photograph of Afghan men, clinging to the side of a giant US C17 transport aircraft as it gathers pace down the runway of Kabul airport leaving Afghanistan behind, in the hands of the Taliban.
For 20 years, as the fighting raged and death toll increased, the Taliban waited, believing NATO would eventually run out of patience. It turns out, they were right.
An 18-month-old boy and his 10-year-old sister are among 25 people who were killed in a series of Israeli strikes on central parts of Gaza, hospital officials have said.
Sixteen people were initially reported to have been killed in two strikes on the central Nuseirat refugee camp on Thursday, but officials from the Al Aqsa hospital said bodies continued to be brought in.
The hospital said they had received 21 bodies from the strikes, including some transferred from the Awda hospital, where they had been taken the day before.
Strikes on a motorcycle in Zuwaida and on a house in Deir al Balah on Friday killed four more, hospital officials said, bringing the overall toll to 25.
Five children and seven women are among those who have been confirmed dead.
The mother of the 18-month-old boy is missing and his father was killed in an Israeli strike four months ago, the family has said.
The Palestinian news agency WAFA earlier reported that 57 people had died in the Israeli strikes.
The Israeli military did not comment on the specific strikes but said its troops had identified and eliminated “several armed terrorists” in central Gaza.
It also said its forces had eliminated “dozens of terrorists” in raids in northern Gaza’s Jabalia area – home to one of the territory’s refugee camps.
Advertisement
It comes as the Israeli military said on Friday it killed senior Hamas official Izz al Din Kassab, describing him as one of the last high-ranking members, in an airstrike in Khan Younis.
The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) have over the past few weeks resumed intense operations in the north of Gaza, claiming they are seeking to stop Hamas, the militant group ruling Gaza, from regrouping.
Meanwhile, top UN officials said in a statement on Friday that the situation in northern Gaza is “apocalyptic” and the entire Palestinian population in the area is at “imminent risk of dying from disease, famine and violence”.
The overall number of people killed in Gaza in the 13-month war is more than 43,000, officials from the Hamas-run health ministry in the territory, who do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, reported this week.
It comes as at least 41 people were killed in Israeli strikes on Lebanon’s Baalbek region on Friday, the regional governor said.
The deaths were confirmed hours after Lebanon’s health ministry said 30 people had been killed in Israeli strikes on the country in the past 24 hours.
It is not clear if any of those killed in the Baalbek region were included in that figure.
In recent days, Israel has intensified its airstrikes on the northeast city of Baalbek and nearby villages, as well as different parts of southern Lebanon, prompting roughly 60,000 people to flee their homes, according to Hussein Haj Hassan, a Lebanese official representing the region.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:20
Israel has issued evacuation orders for people living in parts of Lebanon
Israel’s military said in a statement that attacks “in the area of Beirut” had targeted Hezbollah weapons manufacturing sites, command centres and other infrastructure.
Israeli planes also pounded Beirut’s southern suburb of Dahiyeh overnight, destroying dozens of buildings in several neighbourhoods, according to the Lebanese state news agency.
More than 2,800 people have been killed and 13,000 wounded since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah escalated after Hamas’s 7 October attack last year, Lebanon’s Health Ministry said.
Meanwhile, in northern Israel, seven people, including three Israelis and four Thai nationals, were killed by projectiles fired from Lebanon on Thursday, Israeli medics said.
North Korea says it will support Russia in its war with Ukraine “until the day of victory” – after the US warned thousands of Pyongyang’s troops are set to enter combat in the coming days.
North Korea’s foreign minister Choe Son Hui hailed Vladimir Putin’s “wise leadership” ahead of talks in Moscow on Friday, and insisted that Russia will “achieve a great victory”.
“We also assure that until the day of victory we will firmly stand alongside our Russian comrades,” she added.
US secretary of state Antony Blinken has said thousands of North Korean troops are stationed near Ukraine’s border and are set to enter combat in the coming days.
Mr Blinken said 10,000 soldiers have been deployed to Russia, with up to 8,000 in the Kursk border region, and indicated they would be used on the frontline.
He added that the troops have been trained by Russian forces in artillery, drones and “basic infantry operations, including trench clearing”.
In an interview with South Korean TV channel KBS, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy condemned the West’s response to the deployment as “nothing, it’s zero”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:38
North Korean troops near Ukraine border, US says
Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Friday that he had “nothing to add to what has already been said” on the US claims, and thanked Ms Choe for North Korea’s support.
A mutual defence pact was agreed during their summit, meaning the countries will help each other if they are attacked.
Speaking in Moscow, Ms Choe accused the US and South Korea of plotting a nuclear strike against her country.
She provided no evidence to back her claim, but spoke of regular consultations between Washington and Seoul, at which she alleged such plotting took place.
More than 200 people have died in Spain after nearly a year’s worth of rain fell in a matter of hours.
On Friday, there were at least 205 confirmed deaths in Valencia, two in Castilla La Mancha, and one in Andalusia.
Local authorities issued warnings late on Tuesday, but many say this gave them next-to-no time to prepare for the conditions that had killed dozens by Wednesday.
Here we look at what caused the flooding – and why they could happen again.
How quickly did the floods hit?
Heavy rain had already begun in parts of southern Spain on Monday.
In contrast to areas like Malaga, where residents told Sky News it had been “chucking it down for two days”, the rain did not start in the worst-hit region of Valencia until around 7pm on Tuesday.
At 8pm, people in Valencia received smartphone alerts warning them not to leave their homes.
Advertisement
But by then, many were already trapped in dangerous conditions, particularly in the south of the city where a major road had flooded, leaving drivers stuck in their cars.
By Wednesday morning, more than 50 people had been found dead.
The Chiva area of Valencia had been hit by 491 litres per square metre of rain in eight hours. Only around 65 l/m2 usually falls in the whole of October.
Storms spread west on Wednesday night and into Thursday, bringing deadly conditions to Andalusia and Castilla La Mancha as well.
What caused them?
Heavy rain is not uncommon across eastern Spain at this time of year.
It’s caused by a weather phenomenon called DANA – ‘depresion aislada en niveles altos’ in Spanish – which translates as ‘isolated low-pressure system at high levels’.
DANA occurs when:
1) Cold air from the north moves south;
2) Warm air then blows over the Mediterranean, rising quickly and forming heavy clouds;
3) The low pressure from the north gets blocked by the high pressure above the water, causing it to slow down or stop completely.
This creates storm-like conditions that cannot move anywhere else – so the rain falls over the same area for a sustained period of time.
What role did climate change play?
General flash floods and those caused by DANA specifically have struck Spain long before humans started warming the climate.
But climate change is making heavy rain worse, and therefore more dangerous.
That’s because hotter air is able to hold more moisture. So when it rains, it unleashes more water.
The current 1.3C increase in global temperatures since pre-industrial times means the air can carry about 9% more moisture.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:47
What caused the floods in Spain?
And higher sea surface temperatures in the Mediterranean are a “key driver” of strong storms, said Dr Marilena Oltmanns, research scientist at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton.
The world is on track for 3.1C warming by the end of this century, which is expected to make rain heavier still, increasing the chances of flash flooding and giving areas little time to respond.
Imperial College London’s lead for its World Weather Attribution (WWA) group Dr Friederike Otto says there is “no doubt about it”.
“These explosive downpours were intensified by climate change,” she says.
Professor Mark Smith, an expert in water science and health at the University of Leeds, adds that hotter summers also dry out the soil in the ground, which means it absorbs less rain – and more of it flows into rivers and lakes – which flood quicker.
Will they keep happening?
A red weather warning is in place for the Huelva area of Andalusia until Friday afternoon.
Beyond the warning period, storms are set to continue across parts of Spain for several days.
In the longer term, Dr Marilena Oltmanns says: “Given the long-term warming trend, both in the sea surface temperatures in the Mediterranean region and the global air temperature, we expect the events like the currently observed one in Spain to become more frequent.”
Chiva and the surrounding worst-hit area also suffers from the unfortunate geography of being in a river catchment – where water feeds into the River Turia – and close to the mountains. And is not far from the sea.
That means water has little chance to absorb into the land and so builds up very quickly.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
This makes it all the more imperative that forecasts are accurate, authorities prepare accordingly, and residents respond quickly.
Professor Hannah Cloke, professor of Hydrology at the University of Reading, describes people dying in their cars and being swept away in the street as “entirely avoidable”.
“This suggests the system for alerting people to the dangers of floods in Valencia has failed,” she says.
“People need to understand that extreme weather warnings for floods are very different from regular weather reports. We need to consider flood warnings totally differently, more like fire alarms or earthquake sirens, and less like the way we browse daily weather forecasts on our phones or on the TV.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:15
Residents: ‘No one came to rescue us’
Gareth Redmond-King, international analyst at the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), says Spain’s tragedy should serve as a “wake-up call” to the UK.
“This is not about future events in a far-off place with a dramatically different climate from the UK. Spain is one of our nearest neighbours,” he warns.