Skip to content

Biden Fulfills Trump’s Ambition of Withdrawing From Afghanistan

biden - tropas afganistan

Leer en Español

[Leer en español]

Paradoxically, Biden fulfills Trump’s dream. The president of the United States announced this Wednesday the withdrawal of troops in Afghanistan, as Donald Trump wanted.

“It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home.” Biden said.

The president’s announcement was applauded by his allies, the same ones who went so far as to criticize the former Republican president for making the same proposal last year.

“It is time to end America’s longest war. It is time for American troops to come home.” Biden said. (EFE)

In November 2020, Trump said he wanted “all” soldiers to be home for Christmas. The former president always criticized U.S. military interventions abroad and called them “costly and ineffective”; however as he was the one who proposed to reduce troops in Iraq, he received countless criticisms from those who today praise Biden.

Traditional media such as CNN, New York Times or NBC, came to affirm or quote those who claimed that it was a “dangerous” measure. Today, the same media remain silent without criticizing as they did with Trump in the White House.

When Trump spoke of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, CNN ran some articles with expert opinions stating that leaving the place “was a surrender of the United States and a betrayal towards the Afghan government“.

Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and editor of FDD’s Long War Journal, told CNN at the time “that if the plan turned out as expected, it amounts to a betrayal.”

“The United States is 100 % betraying the Afghan people, the Afghan government, and the Afghan military in order to get out of the country,” Roggio told CNN, adding that “this peace deal is essentially a surrender for the United States.”

The New York Times (NYT) did something similar, when Trump announced the troop drawdown, the paper noted that it was a surrender to the Taliban “where the United States would get nothing in return.”

“The Taliban wanted the U.S. to leave Afghanistan, Turkey wanted the U.S. out of Syria and North Korea wanted them to stop military exercises with South Korea. Trump has now to some extent obliged all 3- but without getting much in return.” the Times analysis noted.

This time, however, the NYT, only quoted Biden: “We went to Afghanistan because of a horrible attack that happened 20 years ago […] That can’t explain why we should stay there in 2021.”

Once upon a time, @nytimes told us that Trump’s decision was a capitulation to the Taliban where we would get nothing in return – as if blood not shed and treasure not spent means nothing.

But Biden’s call? Well, for some reason these concerns seem to have evaporated. pic.twitter.com/1eYzfFv8uA

— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) April 14, 2021

TIME magazine, the same magazine that proudly chronicled the left’s conspiracy to lose Trump the election, also displayed its own contradiction in covering the story.

“Biden’s move brings to an end America’s longest war, a long simmering conflict that meant solemn sacrifice for military families and changed so much of day-to-day life for all Americans, even if they don’t immediately realize it,” they tweeted.

Yet in 2018 TIME tweeted, “Can Donald Trump accept defeat in Afghanistan?” referring to the former president’s promise to withdraw American soldiers from Iraq.

The images speak for themselves and have left evidence of how conveniently the mainstream media changed its editorial line in favor of the Democratic administration.

This did not only happen with the press that has taken a condescending stance towards Biden; look at attitudes such as those of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, who shamelessly changed her mind within months of the announcement about the troops in Afghanistan.

Pelosi v.s. Pelosi pic.twitter.com/IOjuWNvq78

— Michael Duncan (@MichaelDuncan) April 15, 2021

On November 17th, 2020, just five months ago, Pelosi wrote criticizing Trump: “This hasty withdrawal does not appear to have a strategic plan that adequately anticipates contingencies, especially related to terrorism and the protection of our military, diplomats and development presence.”

“We can ill afford to lose the hard-won gains in the pillars of security, economic development and governance made in Afghanistan.” she noted.

Five months later, this Wednesday, April 14, she wrote: “The Biden Administration’s announced timeline for the safe, strategic and orderly departure of American troops from Afghanistan is an important and welcomed development. As Speaker, I support this transition and President Biden’s leadership to protect the safety of our troops and the security of the American people, which must be our priority.”

It causes suspicion that in just months Pelosi has changed her mind and conveniently now does agree to a full troop withdrawal.


Just as it happened with the media and Pelosi, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) also decided to change its mind. This Wednesday, April 14, the Atlantic Alliance agreed to a “safe and coordinated” departure of the nearly 10,000 troops, including Americans, that still remain in Iraq.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said it is not an easy decision and involves risks but added that “we face a dilemma because the alternative to leaving is to be prepared for an indefinite long-term military commitment.”

However, when Trump was president, Stoltenberg’s words were different, he went so far as to warn of the “high price” that could be paid “if the United States and allied forces left Afghanistan too quickly.”

In the face of Trump’s intentions, Stoltenberg remarked that there was a risk that Iraq could once again become a platform for international terrorists to organize attacks.

Sabrina Martín Rondon is a Venezuelan journalist. Her source is politics and economics. She is a specialist in corporate communications and is committed to the task of dismantling the supposed benefits of socialism // Sabrina Martín Rondon es periodista venezolana. Su fuente es la política y economía. Es especialista en comunicaciones corporativas y se ha comprometido con la tarea de desmontar las supuestas bondades del socialismo

Leave a Reply