&w=3840&q=100)
Hegseth orders review of Afghanistan withdrawal, Kabul airport bombing
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered another review of the US military's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, and of the suicide bombing at the Kabul airport that killed American troops and Afghans.
President Donald Trump and Hegseth have repeatedly blasted the Biden administration for the withdrawal, which Hegseth said Tuesday was disastrous and embarrassing. He said the new review will interview witnesses, analyze the decision-making and get the truth.
There have already been multiple reviews of the withdrawal by the Pentagon, US Central Command, the State Department and Congress, which have involved hundreds of interviews and studies of videos, photographs and other footage and data. It's unclear what specific new information the new review is seeking.
The Abbey Gate bombing during the final days of the Afghanistan withdrawal killed 13 US service members and 170 Afghans, and wounded scores more. It triggered widespread debate and congressional criticism, fueled by searing photographs of desperate Afghans trying to crowd into the airport to get out of Kabul, with some clinging to US military aircraft as they were taking off.
A detailed US military review was ordered in 2023 to expand the number of people interviewed, after a Marine injured in the blast said snipers believed they saw the possible bomber but couldn't get approval to take him out.
The findings, released in 2024, refuted those assertions and concluded that the bombing was not preventable. A congressional review was highly critical of the withdrawal, saying the Biden administration did not adequately prepare for it or for all the contingencies and put personnel in danger.
Others, however, have faulted the State Department for not moving quickly enough to decide on an evacuation, resulting in a rush to get out as the Taliban took control of the country. Critics have also blamed Trump for making a deal with the Taliban in 2020 when he was president to remove US troops from Afghanistan, which decreased the number of forces on the ground as the pullout went on.
Both Trump and then-President Joe Biden wanted an end to the war and US troops out of Afghanistan.
The new review will be led by Sean Parnell, the assistant to the secretary of defense for public affairs. He will convene a panel that will provide updates at appropriate times, but there is no time frame or deadline for any report, which is very unusual.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
25 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Trump admin wants to sell 1 million barrels of diesel fuel reserve for $100 mn
The Trump administration wants to put a 1 million barrel cache of diesel fuel on the market, saying the reserve meant to provide an emergency supply of home heating oil for the Northeast has never been used for its intended purpose. The sale and closure of the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve would generate $100 million to be used for deficit reduction, according to Department of Energy budget details recently made public. The sale of the reserve would require approval by Congress, which gave the Biden administration the green light to sell off and close a 1 million barrel emergency cache of gasoline last year. The diesel fuel reserve, which is housed in commercial storage facilities across the Northeast, was used in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy in 2012 to provide fuel for emergency responders in New York and New Jersey, as well as in the wake of snow storms that same year, according to the Energy Department.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
America's campus wars and its China connection
The US announced last week it is revoking the visas of hundreds of Chinese nationals studying and researching in high-value science and engineering fields. This sweeping decision by the Trump administration represents a major escalation in tensions with Beijing and is aimed at curbing what it describes as the Chinese Communist Party's efforts to steal US intellectual property through academic institutions. The decision has triggered protests from American universities and reignited debates about immigration, openness, and national security. But it also marks a turning point. For the first time in decades, the US is limiting academic access on national security grounds—a move that, while controversial, is not without justification. As someone who has taught at Duke, Stanford, Harvard, and Carnegie Mellon, I have long believed in the power of openness. The US has led in innovation precisely because it has welcomed the world's brightest minds. Over the last four decades, its top universities have drawn extraordinary talent from countries like China and India. These students have earned advanced degrees, contributed to major breakthroughs, launched start-ups, and helped build the US tech economy. Many of my students from China and India were among the most diligent, creative, and capable I have taught. At Carnegie Mellon's Silicon Valley campus, where I taught a course on exponential innovation — covering Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics, cybersecurity, and synthetic biology — more than half of the class was Chinese. Most of them were outstanding and will no doubt go on to do great things. But not all Chinese students come to the US solely to learn. In 2005, I was teaching a course and conducting research at Duke University comparing engineering education in the US, China, and India. One Chinese student stood out — not for academic excellence, but for disinterest. When I asked him why he had enrolled, he told me plainly: His father was in the Chinese military, and he had been sent — on a government scholarship — to study, make contacts, and report back. Years later, a European institute contacted me to verify a recommendation letter I had supposedly written for him. I had written no such letter. It had been forged — presumably to help him gain access to sensitive research. In other cases, I met Chinese students who openly said they were on Chinese military-sponsored programmes. They worked hard to align themselves with professors conducting cutting-edge research in photonics, quantum devices, and advanced materials—fields with clear military applications. To be clear, this is not the norm. I estimate that only a small, single-digit percentage of Chinese students are sent abroad with such strategic intentions. But even a small number, when operating in critical research environments, can have an outsized impact. What troubles me more is how US universities often look the other way. At every institution where I taught, professors routinely received invitations from Chinese universities to collaborate or attend conferences — with business-class airfare, honorariums, and perks for spouses. Visiting researchers from Chinese State-linked institutions were welcomed with little scrutiny. Everyone seemed to treat it as business as usual. I myself received dozens of such invitations. I declined nearly all of them, except for a research trip to Hong Kong organised by the New York Academy of Sciences which paid $5,000. I also hosted Chinese scholars at Stanford and CMU, receiving modest stipends. At the time, my colleagues assured me this was routine and did not require disclosure. But in hindsight, I see how easily these engagements can blur into influence operations, especially in the absence of transparency. Meanwhile, America's own immigration system continues to undermine its competitiveness. Because it is so difficult for foreign students to stay after graduation, nearly all of my Chinese students returned home. They took with them the knowledge, networks, and experience they gained in the US — and many will now use that to advance China's strategic goals. If the class had been made up of 80% American citizens and 20% foreign students committed to contributing to the US, that would have felt balanced. But what I witnessed was lopsided. I increasingly worried that I might be helping train technologists who would later compete with democratic countries. That was one of the reasons I chose to step away from teaching. This doesn't warrant blanket bans. The US must remain open to the world's talent, but it also must be smart. Visa and research screening should include affiliations, risk, and research domains. If a student or researcher has ties to the Chinese military or a State-backed research initiative, they should not be allowed into the country or granted access to sensitive technologies or federally funded labs. Universities must also be held accountable. They should be required to fully disclose all foreign funding sources. Faculty should not be permitted to accept undisclosed compensation or enter into informal partnerships with institutions tied to adversarial governments. Sensitive research, particularly in dual-use technologies, must be governed by stronger security protocols — on par with those used by government contractors and national laboratories. China is not just another academic peer. It is a surveillance State, a strategic rival, and an authoritarian regime with a declared ambition to dominate critical technologies. It does not separate research from national interest, unlike democracies such as the US and India, which must now work together to protect the integrity of their institutions. Vivek Wadhwa is CEO, Vionix Biosciences. The views expressed are personal.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Tariff Tracker, June 2: Renewed US-China spat brings fears of rare earth shortage to the fore
Dear reader, Last week, US President Donald Trump's tariffs were held invalid by a US trade court, and this order was then stayed by an appeals court, allowing things to persist as they are. We are now entering the third month since his 'Liberation Day' tariff announcements, which allowed the US to charge a 10% baseline tariff on all trading partners, and country-specific rates on those countries with which the US has maintained trade deficits. He subsequently announced a pause on the latter for 90 days. Trump's goal all along has been to bring the countries of the world to the bargaining table to seek trade deals with the US. His claims of 90 trade deals within 90 days, however, may have been far more ambitious than originally imagined. Thus far, the US has finalised a trade agreement with the UK, has engaged in talks with India with a view towards a staggered trade agreement, and will meet the EU over the coming weeks to finalise a trade agreement. Since his return to the White House, Trump has repeatedly singled out China for refusing to play ball. He slapped a 10% fentanyl tariff on China (currently at 20%) and increased US tariffs on Chinese goods to an eye-watering 145% by early April. China has responded at every turn, restricting rare earths exports through an elaborate licensing system, citing a national security risk, and taxing US exports of coal and Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). So, when the two countries announced on May 12 that they had found a common ground, investors and markets worldwide heaved a sigh of relief. The truce had reduced mutual tariffs by 115% and was set to last 90 days. However, the waters are choppy again, and this weekend, both countries have accused each other of not honouring the truce. China's Commerce Ministry on Monday (June 2) accused the US of 'seriously violating' the truce the two nations had concluded in Geneva last month. This follows Trump's claim on Friday (May 30) that China had 'totally violated' the agreement, over American concerns over the sluggishness in clearing rare earth exports from China. Rare earth metals, or rare earth elements (REEs), are a group of 17 chemical elements on the periodic table, with similar chemical properties and silver-coloured in appearance. Despite their name, REEs are not as rare. However, it is unusual to find concentrated and economically mineable deposits of REEs, despite their relative abundance compared to silver, gold or platinum. And crucially, China holds unparalleled expertise in refining REEs compared to other nations. The rare earths sought by the US are vital in the manufacture of high-value goods, ranging from everyday items like smartphones and electronic displays, to those in the fields of defence and clean energy. China has held indisputable dominance over rare earths since the 1990s, supplying 85-95% of global demand. China has weaponised rare earths exports in the past, restricting these exports to Japan in 2010 over a fishing trawler dispute, and more recently to the US between 2023 and 2025. And on April 4 this year, China announced another set of rare earth restrictions following Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff announcements. While the presence of smuggling and alternate suppliers helped to arrest the threat in the past, such a move may not be viable now. On May 22, economist Alan Beattie wrote in The Financial Times that the April 4 restrictions by China involve finished items, specifically magnets, which are currently made only by a few Chinese companies. Alternatives to China do not currently exist, which has increased the prices of rare earths in the interim. This round of export controls relies on end-user licensing requirements for materials that can be used for both civilian and military purposes, potentially affecting electric vehicles and F-35 fighter jets. He noted that the US was especially vulnerable, given its limited attempts to increase rare earth manufacturing and processing, and retaining minimal stockpiles of critical minerals. 'Trump has risked a geoeconomic war with China without any discernible attempt to prepare or even assess the dangers,' Beattie warned. Supply chain shortages are already being reported worldwide. Since April, rare earth exports from China have halved, according to a Reuters report, even as companies contend with the vague and tedious application process for permits. American automakers have been the hardest hit, The New York Times reported on Monday. Rare earths are an important component of the magnets for the electric motors that run brakes, steering and fuel injectors. Magnets are also used in the motors in luxury car seats, as well as factory robots. The report cited executives warning of rollbacks in automobile production in the midwestern and southern states over the coming weeks. In India too, automakers have expressed fears of having to shut production within days if the Indian government does not intervene, The Indian Express reported last month. China has now alleged that the US imposed several restrictions against it, including AI chip export control guidance, limiting sales of chip design software – electronic design automation (EDA) – to China, and announcing the revocation of visas for Chinese students, the ministry said. 'The US has continuously provoked new trade frictions, exacerbating uncertainty and instability in bilateral economic and trade relations,' the Commerce Ministry said. 'Instead of reflecting on its own actions, it unjustly shifts blame, baselessly accusing China of violating the consensus, which gravely deviates from the facts. China firmly rejects these unwarranted accusations.' On Sunday, China also accused the US of trying to 'sow division', following comments by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth at a defence conference in Singapore. Hegseth described China as an 'imminent' threat, and said China was 'credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific', even preparing for 'the real deal' of invading Taiwan. 'Hegseth deliberately ignored the call for peace and development by countries in the region, and instead touted the cold war mentality for bloc confrontation, vilified China with defamatory allegations, and falsely called China a 'threat',' the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in connecting with Chinese President Xi Jinping over a call to iron out the differences, something which has thus far not materialised.
