Politics

Last Troops Exit Afghanistan, Ending America’s Longest War

Published

5 years ago

August 30, 2021

A carry team loads a transfer case with the remain of Navy Corpsman Maxton W. Soviak, 22, of Berlin Heights, Ohio, into a transfer vehicle during a casualty return at Dover Air Force Base, Del., Sunday, Aug. 29, 2021, for the 13 service members killed in the suicide bombing in Kabul, Afghanistan, on Aug. 26. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan late Monday, ending America’s longest war and closing a chapter in military history likely to be remembered for colossal failures, unfulfilled promises and a frantic final exit that cost the lives of more than 180 Afghans and 13 U.S. service members, some barely older than the war.

Hours ahead of President Joe Biden’s Tuesday deadline for shutting down a final airlift, and thus ending the U.S. war, Air Force transport planes carried a remaining contingent of troops from Kabul airport. Thousands of troops had spent a harrowing two weeks protecting the airlift of tens of thousands of Afghans, Americans and others seeking to escape a country once again ruled by Taliban militants.

In announcing the completion of the evacuation and war effort. Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said the last planes took off from Kabul airport at 3:29 p.m. Washington time, or one minute before midnight in Kabul. He said a number of American citizens, likely numbering in “the very low hundreds,” were left behind, and that he believes they will still be able to leave the country.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken put the number of Americans left behind at under 200, “likely closer to 100,” and said the State Department would keep working to get them out. He praised the military-led evacuation as heroic and historic and said the U.S. diplomatic presence would shift to Doha, Qatar.

Biden said military commanders unanimously favored ending the airlift, not extending it. He said he asked Blinken to coordinate with international partners in holding the Taliban to their promise of safe passage for Americans and others who want to leave in the days ahead.

The airport had become a U.S.-controlled island, a last stand in a 20-year war that claimed more than 2,400 American lives.

The closing hours of the evacuation were marked by extraordinary drama. American troops faced the daunting task of getting final evacuees onto planes while also getting themselves and some of their equipment out, even as they monitored repeated threats — and at least two actual attacks — by the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate. A suicide bombing on Aug. 26 killed 13 American service members and some 169 Afghans.

The final pullout fulfilled Biden’s pledge to end what he called a “forever war” that began in response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, Washington and rural Pennsylvania. His decision, announced in April, reflected a national weariness of the Afghanistan conflict. Now he faces criticism at home and abroad, not so much for ending the war as for his handling of a final evacuation that unfolded in chaos and raised doubts about U.S. credibility.

The U.S. war effort at times seemed to grind on with no endgame in mind, little hope for victory and minimal care by Congress for the way tens of billions of dollars were spent for two decades. The human cost piled up — tens of thousands of Americans injured in addition to the dead.

More than 1,100 troops from coalition countries and more than 100,000 Afghan forces and civilians died, according to Brown University’s Costs of War project.

In Biden’s view the war could have ended 10 years ago with the U.S. killing of Osama bin Laden, whose al-Qaida extremist network planned and executed the 9/11 plot from an Afghanistan sanctuary. Al-Qaida has been vastly diminished, preventing it thus far from again attacking the United States.

Congressional committees, whose interest in the war waned over the years, are expected to hold public hearings on what went wrong in the final months of the U.S. withdrawal. Why, for example, did the administration not begin earlier the evacuation of American citizens as well as Afghans who had helped the U.S. war effort and felt vulnerable to retribution by the Taliban?

It was not supposed to end this way. The administration’s plan, after declaring its intention to withdraw all combat troops, was to keep the U.S. Embassy in Kabul open, protected by a force of about 650 U.S. troops, including a contingent that would secure the airport along with partner countries. Washington planned to give the now-defunct Afghan government billions more to prop up its army.

Biden now faces doubts about his plan to prevent al-Qaida from regenerating in Afghanistan and of suppressing threats posed by other extremist groups such as the Islamic State group’s Afghanistan affiliate. The Taliban are enemies of the Islamic State group but retain links to a diminished al-Qaida.

The final U.S. exit included the withdrawal of its diplomats, although the State Department has left open the possibility of resuming some level of diplomacy with the Taliban depending on how they conduct themselves in establishing a government and adhering to international pleas for the protection of human rights.

The speed with which the Taliban captured Kabul on Aug. 15 caught the Biden administration by surprise. It forced the U.S. to empty its embassy and frantically accelerate an evacuation effort that featured an extraordinary airlift executed mainly by the U.S. Air Force, with American ground forces protecting the airfield. The airlift began in such chaos that a number of Afghans died on the airfield, including at least one who attempted to cling to the airframe of a C-17 transport plane as it sped down the runway.

By the evacuation’s conclusion, well over 100,000 people, mostly Afghans, had been flown to safety. The dangers of carrying out such a mission came into tragic focus last week when the suicide bomber struck outside an airport gate.

Speaking shortly after that attack, Biden stuck to his view that ending the war was the right move. He said it was past time for the United States to focus on threats emanating from elsewhere in the world.

“Ladies and gentlemen,” he said, “it was time to end a 20-year war.”

The war’s start was an echo of a promise President George W. Bush made while standing atop of the rubble in New York City three days after hijacked airliners slammed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center.

“The people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!” he declared through a bullhorn.

Less than a month later, on Oct. 7, Bush launched the war. The Taliban’s forces were overwhelmed and Kabul fell in a matter of weeks. A U.S.-installed government led by Hamid Karzai took over and bin Laden and his al-Qaida cohort escaped across the border into Pakistan.

The initial plan was to extinguish bin Laden’s al-Qaida, which had used Afghanistan as a staging base for its attack on the United States. The grander ambition was to fight a “Global War on Terrorism” based on the belief that military force could somehow defeat Islamic extremism. Afghanistan was but the first round of that fight. Bush chose to make Iraq the next, invading in 2003 and getting mired in an even deadlier conflict that made Afghanistan a secondary priority until Barack Obama assumed the White House in 2009 and later that year decided to escalate in Afghanistan.

Obama pushed U.S. troop levels to 100,000, but the war dragged on though bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in 2011.

When Donald Trump entered the White House in 2017 he wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan but was persuaded not only to stay but to add several thousand U.S. troops and escalate attacks on the Taliban. Two years later his administration was looking for a deal with the Taliban, and in February 2020 the two sides signed an agreement that called for a complete U.S. withdrawal by May 2021. In exchange, the Taliban made a number of promises including a pledge not to attack U.S. troops.

Biden weighed advice from members of his national security team who argued for retaining the 2,500 troops who were in Afghanistan by the time he took office in January. But in mid-April he announced his decision to fully withdraw.

The Taliban pushed an offensive that by early August toppled key cities, including provincial capitals. The Afghan army largely collapsed, sometimes surrendering rather than taking a final stand, and shortly after President Ashraf Ghani fled the capital, the Taliban rolled into Kabul and assumed control on Aug. 15.

Some parts of the country modernized during the U.S. war years, and life for many Afghans, especially women and girls, improved measurably. But Afghanistan remains a tragedy, poor, unstable and with many of its people fearing a return to the brutality the country endured when the Taliban ruled from 1996 to 2001.

The U.S. failures were numerous. It degraded but never defeated the Taliban and ultimately failed to build an Afghan military that could hold off the insurgents, despite $83 billion in U.S. spending to train and equip the army.

Up Next

AP Sources: Intel Shows Extremists to Attend Capitol Rally

Don't Miss

State Representative Marie Woodson Travels to Haiti with Envoy to Address Political and Humanitarian Crisis in the Nation

Click to comment

Florida

FIU Becomes First Florida University to Launch CORE Emergency Management Partnership

Published

2 days ago

August 26, 2026

FNN NEWS

MIAMI, Fla. (FNN) — Florida officials announced the launch of the Coalition for Operational Readiness in Education, or CORE, Program at Florida International University, beginning an initiative designed to strengthen the state’s emergency management workforce through partnerships with colleges, universities and technical and trade schools.

The program will connect higher education institutions with the Florida Division of Emergency Management and other state agencies to provide students with specialized education and training in emergency management.

CORE is also expected to provide opportunities for students to earn industry-recognized certificates and establish pathways to jobs with emergency management offices and private-sector industry partners across Florida.

FIU First to Launch CORE

Florida International University in Miami is the first institution where CORE is being rolled out.

State officials said 11 institutions have committed to participating, with the long-term goal of expanding the initiative to every college, university, technical school and trade school in Florida.

The statewide expansion would create a pipeline of students trained for careers involving disaster preparedness, emergency response and recovery.

Building Florida’s Emergency Management Workforce

Florida’s exposure to hurricanes and other natural disasters has made emergency preparedness and response a major state priority.

Officials said maintaining Florida’s emergency management capabilities requires developing the next generation of professionals who will work before, during and after disasters and other emergencies.

The CORE partnerships are designed to connect classroom education with professional training, certifications and employment opportunities.

Education-to-Employment Pipeline

The program is intended to create a more direct pathway from education to careers in emergency management.

Through partnerships involving state agencies, educational institutions and industry organizations, students could gain specialized training while developing credentials recognized by employers.

The initiative could also help state and local emergency management agencies develop a larger pool of trained candidates as Florida’s population and emergency-response needs continue to grow.

Statewide Expansion Planned

While the program begins at FIU, officials said the broader objective is statewide.

The goal is to eventually establish CORE partnerships throughout Florida’s higher education and workforce-training system, including universities, colleges, technical schools and trade schools.

Florida officials also envision CORE becoming a workforce-development model that other states could replicate.

Key Takeaways

Program: Coalition for Operational Readiness in Education (CORE)
Initial launch: Florida International University in Miami
State partner: Florida Division of Emergency Management and other state agencies
Participating institutions: 11 institutions have committed so far
Training: Specialized emergency management education and workforce preparation
Credentials: Industry-recognized certificates
Career component: Pathways to emergency management agencies and industry employers
Long-term goal: Expand CORE to colleges, universities, technical schools and trade schools throughout Florida
National objective: Develop a Florida workforce model that could be replicated in other states

Florida

Byron Donalds Selects Miami-Dade Sen. Bryan Avila as Running Mate in Florida Governor’s Race

Published

3 days ago

August 25, 2026

FNN NEWS

MIAMI, Fla. (FNN) — Republican gubernatorial nominee Byron Donalds selected Florida state Sen. Bryan Avila of Miami-Dade County as his running mate for lieutenant governor, adding a South Florida lawmaker to the GOP ticket for the 2026 general election.

Donalds announced Avila as his choice Tuesday, Aug. 25, at Miami’s historic Freedom Tower, a location closely associated with South Florida’s Cuban exile community.

The selection puts Avila alongside Donalds as Republicans turn their attention to the general election and the race to succeed Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Who Is Bryan Avila?

Avila is a Republican state senator from Miami-Dade County and previously served in the Florida House of Representatives.

His selection gives the Donalds ticket a prominent South Florida presence and adds a lawmaker with experience in both chambers of the Florida Legislature.

The Miami announcement also places immigration, communism, economic opportunity and Florida’s relationship with Latin American communities near the center of the Republican ticket’s general-election messaging.

Road to the General Election

With Avila joining the ticket, Donalds now moves toward the November general election with the Republican nominees for governor and lieutenant governor in place.

The lieutenant governor selection is one of Donalds’ most consequential decisions since securing the Republican nomination, helping define the geographic, political and demographic strategy of his statewide campaign.

Florida

Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee Chair Christine Hunschofsky Faces Lawsuits, Election Complaints

Published

4 days ago

August 24, 2026

FNN NEWS

Who is next? Lawsuits and Florida election complaints put the incoming House Democratic leader’s oversight of political attacks, campaign spending and tactics against former Democratic lawmakers under scrutiny

ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Incoming Florida House Democratic Leader Christine Hunschofsky, a former Parkland mayor is facing growing scrutiny over campaign tactics by the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, the party-affiliated committee she chairs, as former Democratic lawmakers challenge political attacks through lawsuits and Florida election complaints.

The disputes are placing increased scrutiny on Christine Hunschofsky, chair of the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, and Cassidy Whitaker, the committee’s caucus director for the 2026 election cycle.

The controversy goes beyond ordinary party infighting, with former Democratic lawmakers alleging that FHDCC used opposition research and campaign communications containing false or misleading information to attack members of its own party.

Those allegations raise questions about the committee’s research, approval process and campaign tactics — and whether House Democratic leaders can rebuild trust with lawmakers targeted by the same political organization they are expected to help lead.

Former Democratic lawmakers are now turning to the courts and Florida’s election complaint process to challenge FHDCC-linked campaign tactics, intensifying scrutiny of the committee’s leadership, spending, opposition research and oversight.

The lawsuits and complaints remain allegations. They do not establish that Hunschofsky, FHDCC or others violated the law.

But the controversy is no longer simply an internal Democratic campaign fight.

FHDCC Faces Real Legal Challenges

State Representative-Elect and former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III sued FHDCC and other defendants in Miami-Dade County over allegedly defamatory election communications.

Former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales has separately challenged campaign communications involving FHDCC through litigation in Orange County and Florida’s election complaint process.

The cases involve separate elections and allegations and must be decided on their individual evidence.

State Rep.-elect Daphne Campbell, a former state senator and former state representative, told Florida National News in a phone interview that she is considering filing a defamation lawsuit as well.

Together, however, they place FHDCC’s campaign practices under greater scrutiny and create a leadership test for Hunschofsky as she prepares to lead Florida House Democrats.

Hunschofsky’s Leadership Under Scrutiny

Hunschofsky’s position as chair does not automatically make her personally liable for every communication, expenditure or decision made by FHDCC.

But leadership brings accountability for how an organization operates.

Political attack campaigns require research, writing, production, vendors, financing and distribution. FHDCC’s internal structure determines how those activities are authorized and supervised.

That makes Hunschofsky’s authority, knowledge and oversight relevant as the committee responds to legal challenges involving its campaign activity.

The central issue is straightforward: What happened under the FHDCC banner, and what responsibility did its leadership have for it?.

Party Establishment vs. Voters’ Choice

The controversy also exposes a deeper tension between party leadership and voters who expect to choose representatives based on the priorities of their communities.

Political parties can recruit, endorse and financially support candidates.

Voters make the final choice.

Heavy intervention by a party organization in a Democratic primary can create the perception that party leaders are trying to make that choice for voters.

That can damage trust when voters believe local experience, constituent service and understanding of their community matter more than the preferences of party leadership.

Democrats Spending Money Fighting Democrats

The internal battles come as Florida Democrats face a larger electoral challenge.

Republicans hold substantial power in Tallahassee, while Democrats need financial resources to compete for legislative seats and statewide offices.

Money spent attacking Democrats in expensive Democratic primaries cannot simultaneously be spent challenging Republicans.

FHDCC has the right to participate in elections within the law. But intraparty battles followed by lawsuits and election complaints create a political question about whether those resources are advancing the committee’s broader mission of electing Democrats.

Minority Democrats and Party Trust

The disputes also involve former minority Democratic lawmakers.

Bush and Campbell are Black. Morales is Puerto Rican, Hispanic.

That does not establish racial or ethnic discrimination by Hunschofsky or FHDCC.

But former minority Democratic lawmakers turning to courts and election regulators over tactics associated with their own party creates a political challenge for Democrats, who depend heavily on Black and Hispanic voters.

Those voters have the same interest as every Florida voter in accurate campaign information, fair elections and political organizations that follow the rules.

A Political Standard That Should Apply to Both Parties

The controversy also creates an uncomfortable comparison for Democrats who have criticized President Donald Trump’s aggressive treatment of political opponents.

The lawsuits and election complaints do not establish that FHDCC copied Trump’s strategy or adopted a “Trump playbook.”

But they raise a broader question of consistency.

Democrats who demand accountability when Republicans exercise political power aggressively should be prepared to apply the same standards to organizations within their own party.

Republicans should do the same when allegations involve their side.

Fairness cannot depend on which party benefits.

From Political Fight to Legal Process

Negative campaigning and opposition research are legal and receive substantial First Amendment protection.

Political committees, however, remain subject to election laws, campaign-finance requirements and civil law.

A lawsuit does not prove defamation.

FHDCC’s separate argument that it cannot be sued.

An election complaint does not prove an election-law violation.

Neither automatically creates a criminal investigation.

If evidence ultimately supports potential criminal conduct, the appropriate law-enforcement agency or prosecutor — not political parties, candidates or news organizations — determines whether an investigation is warranted.

The principle protects everyone: allegations must be proven, due process must be respected and political influence should not shield proven violations.

Who Is Next?

The growing legal disputes leave FHDCC with a political problem extending beyond Bush, Morales and Campbell.

Who is next on the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee’s target list?

No Democrat is entitled to immunity from legitimate political criticism simply because that candidate belongs to the party.

But candidates should be able to expect political organizations to play by the rules.

The same principle applies to Republicans.

Political organizations can fight hard, expose legitimate weaknesses and spend money advocating for their candidates.

They still have to follow the law.

Hunschofsky Faces a Leadership Test

Hunschofsky is not watching the controversy from outside the organization.

She chairs the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee while preparing to lead Florida House Democrats, including minority Democratic lawmakers who were targeted by the committee’s campaign attacks.

The lawsuits and election complaints therefore put FHDCC’s governance, campaign strategy and financial oversight directly within the public debate surrounding her leadership.

The courts will determine the civil allegations before them. Election regulators will determine matters within their jurisdiction. If evidence independently supports potential criminal violations, law-enforcement authorities can determine whether an investigation is warranted.

For Hunschofsky, the leadership test is whether the committee she chairs can defend its campaign practices, account for its spending and maintain the trust of Democratic voters while the allegations move through Florida’s courts and election-enforcement system.

The lawsuits and election complaints remain allegations. They are not findings that Hunschofsky or FHDCC violated the law.

For Florida voters, the standard should be simple:

Play by the rules. Follow the evidence. Apply the law equally.

Florida National News is seeking comment from Hunschofsky and FHDCC regarding the lawsuits, election complaints, campaign spending and committee oversight. FNN will update this report with responses and significant developments.