Connect with us

Published

on

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”.

***

On 29 February 2020, weeks before the world was crippled by the COVID-19 pandemic, America signed a peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar.

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.

British troops prepare to depart upon the end of operations for U.S. Marines and British combat troops in Helmand October 27, 2014
Image:
British troops departed upon the end of operations in Helmand in October 2014, although a small number remained

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.

Former RAF pilot

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.

A former commander of Task Force Helmand

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.

In this 2011 photo, Afghan children play on a destroyed Soviet - made armored tank in Panjshir north of Kabul, Afghanistan. Pic: AP
Image:
The rusting Soviet tanks in the Panjshir Valley are relics of a long history of resistance. Pic: AP

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.

The Taliban has been slowly gaining more territories, forcing thousands to flee into neighbouring Iran and Pakistan
Map shows Taliban gains in Afghanistan
Taliban gains in Afghanistan 15 August

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.

Afghanistan residents cling to plane in desperate bid to leave Taliban-controlled Kabul.
Image:
Some Afghans were so desperate to escape the Taliban that they clung to a plane as it tried to take off from Kabul

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.

Continue Reading

World

‘Nobody likes Trump’: Sky News finds defiance on the streets of Tehran

Published

on

By

'Nobody likes Trump': Sky News finds defiance on the streets of Tehran

To the sound of mournful chants and the slow beat of drums, they march, whipping their backs with metal flails.

It is an ancient ceremony going back almost 14 centuries – the Shia commemoration of Ashura.

But this year in particular has poignant significance for Iranians.

The devout remember the betrayal and death of the Imam Hussein as if it happened yesterday.

The Shia commemoration of Ashura in Tehran, 2025
Image:
Iranians gather ahead of Ashura

The Shia commemoration of Ashura in Tehran, 2025

We filmed men and women weep as they worshipped at the Imamzadeh Saleh Shrine in northern Tehran.

The grandson of the Prophet Muhammad was killed by the armies of the Caliph Yazid in the seventh century Battle of Karbala.

More on Iran

Shia Muslims mark the anniversary every year and reflect on the virtue it celebrates – of resistance against oppression and injustice. But more so than ever this year, in the wake of Israel and America’s attacks on their country.

The story is one of prevailing over adversity and deception. A sense of betrayal is keenly felt here by people and officials.

The Shia commemoration of Ashura in Tehran, 2025
Image:
Men and women weeped as they worshipped at the Imamzadeh Saleh Shrine

Many Iranians believe they were lured into pursuing diplomacy as part of a ruse by the US.

Iran believed it was making diplomatic progress in talks with America, which it hoped could lead to a deal. Then Israel launched its attacks and, instead of condemning them, the US joined in.

“Death to Israel” chants resounded outside the mosque in skies that for 12 days were filled with the sounds of Israeli jets.

There is a renewed sense of defiance here.

One man told us: “The lesson to be learned from Hussein is not to give in to oppression, even if it is the most powerful force in the world.”

I don't think about Trump. Nobody likes him," one woman tells Sky News
Image:
‘I don’t think about Trump. Nobody likes him,’ one woman tells Sky News

A woman was dismissive about the US president.

“I don’t think about Trump. Nobody likes him. He always wants to attack too many countries.”

Pictures on billboards nearby link Imam Hussein’s story and current events. They show the seventh century imam on horseback alongside images of modern missiles and drones from the present day.

The Shia commemoration of Ashura
The billboard illustrates the 7th century imam on horseback alongside missiles and drones from the present day

Other huge signs remember the dead. Iran says almost 1,000 people were killed in the strikes, many of them women and children.

Officially Iran is projecting defiance, but not closing the door to diplomacy.

Government spokeswoman Dr Fatemeh Mohajerani told Sky News that Israel should not even think about attacking again.

“We are very strong in defence, and as state officials have announced, this time Israel will receive an even stronger response compared to previous times. We hope that Israel will not make such a mistake.”

Government spokeswoman Dr Fatemeh Mohajerani told Sky News that Israel should not even think about attacking again
Image:
Dr Fatemeh Mohajerani said it would be a mistake for Israel to attack again

But there is also a hint of conciliation. Senior Iranian officials have told Sky News back-channel efforts are under way to explore new talks with the US.

Israel had hoped its attacks could topple the Iranian leadership. Those hopes proved unfounded. The government is in control here.

For many Iranians it seems quite the opposite happened – the 12-day war has brought them closer together.

Continue Reading

World

Two security workers injured after grenades thrown at aid site, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says

Published

on

By

Two security workers injured after grenades thrown at aid site, Gaza Humanitarian Foundation says

Two American security workers in Gaza were injured after grenades were thrown during food distribution in Khan Younis, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) has said.

In a statement, the US and Israeli-backed aid group said a targeted terrorist attack was carried out at one of its sites in southern Gaza on Saturday morning.

The two Americans injured “are receiving medical treatment and are in stable condition,” it said, adding that the delivery of aid was “otherwise successful” and that “no local aid workers or civilians were harmed”.

GHF didn’t say exactly when the incident happened but claimed Hamas was behind the attack, adding: “GHF has repeatedly warned of credible threats from Hamas, including explicit plans to target American personnel, Palestinian aid workers, and the civilians who rely on our sites for food.

“Today’s attack tragically affirms those warnings.”

Later, the aid group posted a picture on social media, which it said showed “fragments of a grenade packed with ball bearings” that was used in the attack.

Asked by Sky’s US partner network, NBC News, whether the two injured individuals were responsible for handing out aid or were responsible for providing security, GHF said they were “American security workers” and “two American veterans.”

More on Gaza

The aid group did not provide specific evidence that Hamas was behind the attack.

The US and Israeli-backed group has been primarily responsible for aid distribution since Israel lifted its 11-week blockade of the Gaza Strip in May.

Read more:
Hamas gives ‘positive’ response to ceasefire proposal
Outcry as Israeli strike hits school
94 killed in Israeli strikes in Gaza, health staff say

Follow The World
Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

It comes after Sky News analysis showed GHF aid distributions are associated with a significant increase in deaths in Gaza.

According to Gaza’s health ministry, 600 Palestinians have been killed while seeking aid from GHF sites as of 3 July, which charities and the UN have branded “death traps”.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press has reported that Israeli-backed American contractors guarding GHF aid centres in Gaza are using live ammunition and stun grenades.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Contractors allege colleagues ‘fired on Palestinians’

GHF has vehemently denied the accusations, adding that it investigated AP’s allegations and found them to be “categorically false”.

Israel’s military added that it fires only warning shots and is investigating reports of civilian harm.

It denies deliberately shooting at any innocent civilians and says it’s examining how to reduce “friction with the population” in the areas surrounding the distribution centres.

Continue Reading

World

Hamas gives ‘positive’ response to ceasefire proposal but asks for amendments

Published

on

By

Hamas gives 'positive' response to ceasefire proposal but asks for amendments

Hamas has said it has “submitted its positive response” to the latest proposal for a ceasefire in Gaza to mediators.

The proposal for a 60-day ceasefire was presented by US President Donald Trump, who has been pushing hard for a deal to end the fighting in Gaza, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set to visit the White House next week to discuss a deal.

Mr Trump said Israel had agreed to his proposed ceasefire terms, and he urged Hamas to accept the deal as well.

Hamas’ “positive” response to the proposal had slightly different wording on three issues around humanitarian aid, the status of the Israeli Defence Forces inside Gaza and the language around guarantees beyond the 60-day ceasefire, a source with knowledge of the negotiations revealed.

But the source told Sky News: “Things are looking good.”

The mother of Anas Al-Basyouni mourns his loss shortly after he was killed while on his way to an aid distribution center, during his funeral at Shifa Hospital in Gaza City on Thursday, July 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)
Image:
A woman cries after her son was killed while on his way to an aid distribution centre. Pic: AP/Jehad Alshrafi

Hamas said it is “fully prepared to immediately enter into a round of negotiations regarding the mechanism for implementing this framework” without elaborating on what needed to be worked out in the proposal’s implementation.

The US said during the ceasefire it would “work with all parties to end the war”.

More on Hamas

A Hamas official said on condition of anonymity that the truce could start as early as next week.

An Israeli army tank advances in the Gaza Strip, as seen from southern Israel. Pic: AP/Leo Correa
Image:
An Israeli army tank advances in the Gaza Strip, as seen from southern Israel. Pic: AP/Leo Correa

But he added that talks were needed first to establish how many Palestinian prisoners would be released in return for each freed Israeli hostage and to specify the amount of humanitarian aid that will be allowed to enter Gaza during the ceasefire.

He said negotiations on a permanent ceasefire and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza in return for the release of the remaining hostages would start on the first day of the truce.

Hamas has been seeking guarantees that the 60-day ceasefire would lead to a total end to the nearly 21-month-old war, which caused previous rounds of negotiations to fail as Mr Netanyahu has insisted that Israel would continue fighting in Gaza to ensure the destruction of Hamas.

The Hamas official said that Mr Trump has guaranteed that the ceasefire will extend beyond 60 days if necessary to reach a peace deal, but there is no confirmation from the US of such a guarantee.

Speaking to journalists on Air Force One, Mr Trump welcomed Hamas’s “positive spirit” to the proposal, adding that there could be a ceasefire deal by next week.

Palestinians dispersing away from tear gas fired at an aid distribution site in Gaza. Pic: AP
Image:
Palestinians dispersing away from tear gas fired at an aid distribution site in Gaza. Pic: AP

Lian Al-Za'anin, center, is comforted by relatives as she mourns the loss of her father, Rami Al-Za'anin, who was killed while heading to an aid distribution hub, at the morgue of the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, on Thursday, July 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Jehad Alshrafi)
Image:
A girl mourns the loss of her father, who was killed while heading to an aid distribution hub. Pic: AP/Jehad Alshrafi

Hamas also said it wants more aid to flow through the United Nations and other humanitarian agencies, which comes as the UN human rights officer said it recorded 613 Palestinians killed in Gaza within a month while trying to obtain aid.

Most of them were said to have been killed while trying to reach food distribution points by the controversial US- and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).

The spokeswoman for the UN human rights office, Ravina Shamdasani, said the agency was not able to attribute responsibility for the killings, but added that “it is clear that the Israeli military has shelled and shot at Palestinians trying to reach the distribution points” operated by GHF.

Read more:
The man in the room acting as backchannel for Hamas in negotiations with US
GHF reacts to claims US contractors fired at Palestinians
Deaths in Gaza rise significantly when GHF distributes aid

Palestinians carry aid packages near the GHF distribution centre in Khan Younis. Pic: AP/Abdel Kareem Hana
Image:
Palestinians carry aid packages near the GHF distribution centre in Khan Younis. Pic: AP/Abdel Kareem Hana

Ms Shamdasani said that of the total tallied, 509 killings were “GHF-related”, meaning at or near its distribution sites.

The GHF accused the UN of taking its casualty figures “directly from the Hamas-controlled Gaza health ministry” and of trying “to falsely smear our effort”, which echoed statements to Sky News by the executive director of GHF, Johnnie Moore.

Mr Moore called the UN figures a “disinformation campaign” that is “meant to shut down our efforts” in the Gaza Strip.

Continue Reading

Trending