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

Donald Trump announces sweeping global trade tariffs – including 10% on UK imports

Published

on

By

Donald Trump announces sweeping global trade tariffs - including 10% on UK imports

Donald Trump has announced a 10% trade tariff on all imports from the UK – as he unleashed sweeping tariffs across the globe.

Speaking at a White House event entitled “Make America Wealthy Again”, the president held up a chart detailing the worst offenders – which also showed the new tariffs the US would be imposing.

“This is Liberation Day,” he told a cheering audience of supporters, while hitting out at foreign “cheaters”.

Follow live: Trump tariffs latest

He claimed “trillions” of dollars from the “reciprocal” levies he was imposing on others’ trade barriers would provide relief for the US taxpayer and restore US jobs and factories.

Mr Trump said the US has been “looted, pillaged, raped, plundered” by other nations.

President Donald Trump holds a signed executive order during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Image:
Pic: AP

His first tariff announcement was a 25% duty on all car imports from midnight – 5am on Thursday, UK time.

Mr Trump confirmed the European Union would face a 20% reciprocal tariff on all other imports. China’s rate was set at 34%.

The UK’s rate of 10% was perhaps a shot across the bows over the country’s 20% VAT rate, though the president’s board suggested a 10% tariff imbalance between the two nations.

It was also confirmed that further US tariffs were planned on some individual sectors including semiconductors, pharmaceuticals and critical mineral imports.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump’s tariffs explained

The ramping up of duties promises to be painful for the global economy. Tariffs on steel and aluminium are already in effect.

The UK government signalled there would be no immediate retaliation.

Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said: “We will always act in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers. That’s why, throughout the last few weeks, the government has been fully focused on negotiating an economic deal with the United States that strengthens our existing fair and balanced trading relationship.

“The US is our closest ally, so our approach is to remain calm and committed to doing this deal, which we hope will mitigate the impact of what has been announced today.

“We have a range of tools at our disposal and we will not hesitate to act. We will continue to engage with UK businesses including on their assessment of the impact of any further steps we take.

“Nobody wants a trade war and our intention remains to secure a deal. But nothing is off the table and the government will do everything necessary to defend the UK’s national interest.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Who showed up for Trump’s tariff address?

The EU has pledged to retaliate, which is a problem for Northern Ireland.

Should that scenario play out, the region faces the prospect of rising prices because all its imports are tied to EU rules under post-Brexit trading arrangements.

It means US goods shipped to Northern Ireland would be subject to the EU’s reprisals.

The impact of a trade war would be expected to be widely negative, with tit-for-tat tariffs risking job losses, a ramping up of prices and cooling of global trade.

Research for the Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested more than 25,000 direct jobs in the UK car manufacturing industry alone could be at risk from the tariffs on car exports to the US.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had said the tariff costs could not be absorbed by manufacturers and may lead to a review of output.

The tariffs now on UK exports pose a big risk to growth and the so-called headroom Chancellor Rachel Reeves was forced to restore to the public finances at the spring statement, risking further spending cuts or tax rises ahead to meet her fiscal rules.

Read more:
What do Trump’s tariffs mean for the UK?
The rewards and risks for US as trade war intensifies

A member of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), David Miles, told MPs on Tuesday that US tariffs at 20% or 25% maintained on the UK for five years would “knock out all the headroom the government currently has”.

But he added that a “very limited tariff war” that the UK stays out of could be “mildly positive”.

He said: “There’s a bit of trade that will get diverted to the UK, and some of the exports from China, for example, that would have gone to the US, they’ll be looking for a home for them in the rest of the world.

“And stuff would be available in the UK a bit cheaper than otherwise would have been. So there is one, not central scenario at all, which is very, very mildly potentially positive to the UK. All the other ones which involve the UK facing tariffs are negative, and they’re negative to very different extents.”

Continue Reading

World

Israel announces military operation expanding in Gaza to seize ‘large areas’

Published

on

By

Israel announces military operation expanding in Gaza to seize 'large areas'

Israel is beginning a major expansion of its military operation in Gaza and will seize large areas of the territory, the country’s defence minister said.

Israel Katz said in a statement that there would be a large scale evacuation of the Palestinian population from fighting areas.

In a post on X, he wrote: “I call on the residents of Gaza to act now to remove Hamas and return all the hostages. This is the only way to end the war.”

He said the offensive was “expanding to crush and clean the area of terrorists and terrorist infrastructure and capture large areas that will be added to the security zones of the State of Israel”.

The expansion of Israel’s military operation in Gaza deepens its renewed offensive.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that had begun in January ended in March as Israel launched various air strikes on targets across Gaza.

The deal had seen the release of dozens of hostages and hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, but collapsed before it could move to phase two, which would have involved the release of all hostages and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

26 March: Anti-Hamas chants heard at protest in Gaza

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had already issued evacuation warnings to Gazans living around the southern city of Rafah and towards the city of Khan Yunis, telling them to move to the al Mawasi area on the shore, which was previously designated a humanitarian zone.

Israeli forces have already set up a significant buffer zone within Gaza, having expanded an area around the edge of the territory that had existed before the war, as well as a large security area in the so-called Netzarim corridor through the middle of Gaza.

This latest conflict began when Hamas launched an attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking around 250 hostages.

The ensuing Israeli offensive has killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Read more:
Father demands protection after Gaza aid workers’ deaths
Anti-Hamas chants heard at rare protest in Gaza

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Bodies of aid workers found in Gaza

Aid group Doctors Without Borders warned on Wednesday that Israel’s month-long siege of Gaza means some critical medications are now short in supply and are running out, leaving Palestinians at risk of losing vital healthcare.

“The Israeli authorities’ have condemned the people of Gaza to unbearable suffering with their deadly siege,” said Myriam Laaroussi, the group’s emergency coordinator in Gaza.

“This deliberate infliction of harm on people is like a slow death; it must end immediately.”

Continue Reading

World

‘Liberation day is here’: But what will it mean for global trade?

Published

on

By

'Liberation day is here': But what will it mean for global trade?

“Liberation day” was due to be on 1 April. But Donald Trump decided to shift it by a day because he didn’t want anyone to think it was an April fool.

It is no joke for him and it is no joke for governments globally as they brace for his tariff announcements.

It is stunning how little we know about the plans to be announced in the Rose Garden of the White House later today.

It was telling that we didn’t see the President at all on Tuesday. He and all his advisers were huddled in the West Wing, away from the cameras, finalising the tariff plans.

Follow the events of Liberation Day live as they unfold

Three key figures are central to it all.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is the so-called ‘measured voice’. A former hedge fund manager, he has argued for targeted not blanket tariffs.

Peter Navarro is Trump’s senior counsellor for trade and manufacturing. A long-time aide and confidante of the president, he is a true loyalist and a firm believer in the merits of tariffs.

More on Donald Trump

His economic views are well beyond mainstream economic thought – precisely why he appeals to Trump.

‘Stop that crap’: Trump adviser Peter Navarro reacts to Sky News correspondent’s question over tariffs

The third key character is Howard Lutnick, the commerce secretary and the biggest proponent of the full-throttle liberation day tariff juggernaut.

The businessman, philanthropist, Trump fundraiser and billionaire (net worth ranging between $1bn and $2bn) has been among the closest to Trump over the past 73 days of this presidency – frequently in and out of the West Wing.

If anything goes wrong, observers here in Washington suspect Trump will make Lutnick the fall guy.

What are Donald Trump’s tariffs, what is ‘liberation day’ and how does it all affect the UK?

And what if it does all go wrong? What if Trump is actually the April fool?

“It’s going to work…” his press secretary said when asked if it could all be a disaster, driving up the cost of living for Americans and creating global economic chaos.

“The president has a brilliant team who have been studying these issues for decades and we are focussed on restoring the global age of America…” Karoline Leavitt said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Days of US being ripped off are over’

Dancing to the president’s tune

My sense is that we should see “liberation day” not as the moment it’s all over in terms of negotiations for countries globally as they try to carve out deals with the White House. Rather it should be seen as the start.

Trump, as always, wants to be seen as the one calling the shots, taking control, seizing the limelight. He wants the world to dance to his tune. Today is his moment.

But beyond today, alongside the inevitable tit-for-tat retaliation, expect to see efforts by nations to seek carve-outs and to throw bones to Trump; to identify areas where trade policies can be tweaked to placate the president.

Even small offerings which change little in a material sense could give Trump the chance to spin and present himself as the winning deal maker he craves to be.

One significant challenge for foreign governments and their diplomats in Washington has been engaging the president himself with proposals he might like.

Negotiations take place with a White House team who are themselves unsure where the president will ultimately land. It’s resulted in unsatisfactory speculative negotiations.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Treasury minister: ‘We’ll do everything to secure a deal’

Too much faith placed in the ‘special relationship’?

The UK believes it’s in a better position than most other countries globally. It sits outside the EU giving it autonomy in its trade policy, its deficit with the US is small, and Trump loves Britain.

It’s true too that the UK government has managed to accelerate trade conversations with the White House on a tariff-free trade partnership. Trump’s threats have forced conversations that would normally sit in the long grass for months.

Yet, for now, the conversations have yielded nothing firm. That’s a worry for sure. Did Keir Starmer have too much faith in the ‘special relationship’?

Downing Street will have identified areas where they can tweak trade policy to placate Trump. Cars maybe? Currently US cars into the UK carry a 10% tariff. Digital services perhaps?

US food? Unlikely – there are non-tariff barriers on US food because the consensus seems to be that chlorinated chicken and the like isn’t something UK consumers want.

Easier access to UK financial services maybe? More visas for Americans?

For now though, everyone is waiting to see what Trump does before they either retaliate or relent and lower their own market barriers.

Continue Reading

Trending