Afghanistan finally moves into the Lose column

[Anonymous Bosch]

I’m not sure what to make of people sending kids to the region and then calling out their ‘missing from school’ emails — all on Biden.

The reason there are dozens of American students now stuck in Afghanistan is because the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel there. So, that happened.

At what point does one need to take responsibility for actually traveling there in May? The State Department uses 4 levels of travel advisories.
1. Exercise Normal Precautions
2. Exercise Increased Caution
3. Reconsider Travel
4. Do Not Travel

Are you saying that in May the State Department had them at level 1? Or even level 2? Or 3? That's what it sounds like you are saying.

I'm saying they would never have been able to make the trip to Afghanistan in the first place without tacit State Department approval. But I'm sure blaming children for their irresponsible conduct in wanting to be with their father in his final days living with terminal cancer will work out swimmingly.

[El Guapo]

I’m not sure what to make of people sending kids to the region and then calling out their ‘missing from school’ emails — all on Biden.

The reason there are dozens of American students now stuck in Afghanistan is because the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel there. So, that happened.

At what point does one need to take responsibility for actually traveling there in May? The State Department uses 4 levels of travel advisories.
1. Exercise Normal Precautions
2. Exercise Increased Caution
3. Reconsider Travel
4. Do Not Travel

Are you saying that in May the State Department had them at level 1? Or even level 2? Or 3? That's what it sounds like you are saying.

I'm saying they would never have been able to make the trip to Afghanistan in the first place without tacit State Department approval. But I'm sure blaming children for their irresponsible conduct in wanting to be with their father in his final days living with terminal cancer will work out swimmingly.

What exactly did the State Department tell them? Or does "Do Not Travel" qualify as tacit approval to travel?

[malchior]

IIRC they were at level 3...but so was much of Europe at the time due to COVID. That said, a focus on the level sort of blows past the nuance that there was further guidance being issued and people have different risk tolerances as we unfortunately are seeing everyday. It's debatable where 'blame' should fall. I especially don't know if its fair to pin the kids on Biden but they may stick nonetheless.

[Unagi]

when he declared in his ABC news interview, "if there's American citizens left, we're gonna stay to get them all out."

I never listened to that interview before.

And - my goodness, if you read that interview and do not come away with the very clear message that Biden is going to be moving 'everyone' out by Aug 31st - you are not listening to the answers he keeps giving...

Now yes - at the very end, Biden finally slips and says the one stupid line you quote.... but man - if you read the whole exchange on that, it's SO CLEAR that Biden is saying that 'at the rate they are moving' they should be able to get the #s that are left out..... But he doesn't (because it's absurd) want to commit to "we will break this whole deal entirely and bring in troops again if there is a single American we can't seem to get out..."...

BIDEN: The commitment holds to get everyone out that, in fact, we can get out and everyone that should come out. And that's the objective. That's what we're doing now, that's the path we're on. And I think we'll get there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So Americans should understand that troops might have to be there beyond August 31st?

BIDEN: No. Americans should understand that we're gonna try to get it done before August 31st.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if we don't, the troops will stay--

BIDEN: If -- if we don't, we'll determine at the time who's left.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And?

BIDEN: And if you're American force -- if there's American citizens left, we're gonna stay to get them all out.

And after NOT getting that answer the 6 other times he asked Biden the same question.... Now that STEPHANOPOULOS got his little sound-bite, he never asked again.

[Drazzil]

Who the heck was feeding him that information? 'The best army'. Good grief. Top to bottom a monumental fuckup. I'm almost ready to let Biden off the hook and just blame ... everything. We spend so much money on a national security apparatus that is just blatantly clown shoes.

I forgot where I saw it but there's a study floating out there with some pretty damning evidence that contractors weaken the militaries ability in just about every field they touch. Who knew that handing out massive no bid contracts for non working weapons, and other materials would affect the DOD so much?

[Unagi]

IIRC they were at level 3...but so was much of Europe at the time due to COVID.

But they weren't. They were at level 4. I mean, unless you have some evidence beyond what I provided?

[malchior]

IIRC they were at level 3...but so was much of Europe at the time due to COVID.

But they weren't. They were at level 4. I mean, unless you have some evidence beyond what I provided?

That's right. I went back and looked. FWIW so was much of Europe at the time. My recollection was they were the same level. In any case, my point was that these are blanket advisories. They aren't some contract and they have nothing to do with politics of it. We don't do nuance anymore. Kids are in danger! Left behind! Sure, the parents took on excess risk and it might not be fair to pin it on Biden...but none of that unfortunately matters.

[Unagi]

IIRC they were at level 3...but so was much of Europe at the time due to COVID.

But they weren't. They were at level 4. I mean, unless you have some evidence beyond what I provided?

That's right. I went back and looked. FWIW so was much of Europe at the time. My recollection was they were the same level. In any case, my point was that these are blanket advisories. They aren't some contract and they have nothing to do with politics of it. We don't do nuance anymore. Kids are in danger! Left behind! Sure, the parents took on excess risk and it might not be fair to pin it on Biden...but none of that unfortunately matters.

But I'm not trying to argue that it matters in our current world of politics... I am arguing only that it may matter to you, me, AB, and people on this forum... Right??????


I can't begin to tell you how many of your (good) posts could just as easily be waved away with: but none of that unfortunately matters...


My point is just that I can't be (in this example... I take these on a case by case basis) mad at the Biden administration for "abandoning American's" that willingly brought themselves there in the middle of the evacuation and couldn't get themselves out. I think that AB is saying I should be.

I'm certainly frustrated that they are stuck there. And I am willing to bet that Biden is too and is indeed doing things to try and get everyone out (without getting wrapped up in more years of troops being stationed there).

edit:
BTW, I will also add that I think Biden (well, most likely advisors, etc.) did make mistakes here, clearly - and it annoys me to no end that he squirms so much and can't be more honest about that aspect, while still explaining what parts were not 'mistakes', but part of the risks.... and that yes, this was bound to be a mess eventually...

I can't imagine how much more fucked up things could be under the previous President, and there is no doubt the level of lying and deflection would have dwarfed what we are seeing here.

[Anonymous Bosch]

What exactly did the State Department tell them? Or does "Do Not Travel" qualify as tacit approval to travel?

Bugger if I know. But it's reasonable to surmise this would probably not have been the first time many of these children chose to spend time visiting their families in Afghanistan. As I understand it, these are mostly children of Afghan refugees from the 1990s. Sacramento has one of the largest Afghanistan refugee populations in the world; fine, upstanding Americans all, as are their children. So these trips were typically sort of a "see what we left" experience. And sure, travel advisories may well have been in place during their previous excursions to Afghanistan. In which case they were that much more likely to have become inured to them, in a similar way as routinely clicking the "accept" button on terms and agreement documents without ever reading them.

[Unagi]

What exactly did the State Department tell them? Or does "Do Not Travel" qualify as tacit approval to travel?

Bugger if I know. But it's reasonable to surmise this would probably not have been the first time many of these children chose to spend time visiting their families in Afghanistan. As I understand it, these are mostly children of Afghan refugees from the 1990s. Sacramento has one of the largest Afghanistan refugee populations in the world; fine, upstanding Americans all, as are their children. So these trips were typically sort of a "see what we left" experience. And sure, travel advisories may well have been in place during their previous excursions to Afghanistan. In which case they were that much more likely to have become inured to them, in a similar way as routinely clicking the "accept" button on terms and agreement documents without ever reading them.

This is not agreeing to a website cookie... this is traveling to Afghanistan where it's perfectly clear what the risks are.

[malchior]

But I'm not trying to argue that it matters in our current world of politics... I am arguing only that it may matter to you, me, AB, and people on this forum... Right??????

This is fair. And I'm not trying to stuff the discussion into solely that box. It was meant to be a facet.

I can't begin to tell you how many of your (good) posts could just as easily be waved away with: but none of that unfortunately matters...


My point is just that I can't be (in this example... I take these on a case by case basis) mad at the Biden administration for "abandoning American's" that willingly brought themselves there in the middle of the evacuation and couldn't get themselves out. I think that AB is saying I should be.

I'm certainly frustrated that they are stuck there. And I am willing to bet that Biden is too and is indeed doing things to try and get everyone out (without getting wrapped up in more years of troops being stationed there).

Right. I think a little bit of the point I'm trying to make is not coming across right. But that's my fault. What I'm trying to get at is this is a bit (lot?) complex and we're going to get real answers eventually beyond the blunt politics of the moment. However, I still suspect Biden does deserve some real blame here for their situation. By that I mean that State might have said to Do Not Travel but what I was trying to convey that the warning level is just an advisory and there is more to read beyond that. State said don't go to Macedonia for instance because of COVID. And evaluating the risk of traveling, contemporaneous to that time we had Biden talking about Afghan stability and the great army there. He was publicly saying there was plenty of time for us to leave, etc. Much like COVID - the devil is in the mixed messaging. And when I say Biden might actually take some blame - it'll come down to that mixed messaging, the lack of planning, and lack of clear communications when things went sideways. It's probably too early to say anything with clarity but there is plenty of blame to go around here.

[Anonymous Bosch]

What exactly did the State Department tell them? Or does "Do Not Travel" qualify as tacit approval to travel?

Bugger if I know. But it's reasonable to surmise this would probably not have been the first time many of these children chose to spend time visiting their families in Afghanistan. As I understand it, these are mostly children of Afghan refugees from the 1990s. Sacramento has one of the largest Afghanistan refugee populations in the world; fine, upstanding Americans all, as are their children. So these trips were typically sort of a "see what we left" experience. And sure, travel advisories may well have been in place during their previous excursions to Afghanistan. In which case they were that much more likely to have become inured to them, in a similar way as routinely clicking the "accept" button on terms and agreement documents without ever reading them.

This is not agreeing to a website cookie... this is traveling to Afghanistan where it's perfectly clear what the risks are.

I did not say that it was. It's an analogy. When one makes or draws an analogy between two articles, you show that they are similar in some way, i.e. in this case, the inuredness that develops from habituation.

[Zarathud]

Remember that Trump didn’t even care about POWs because it was their fault for being captured by the enemy.

Biden squirms because, at some level, he cares and knows the truth. But we’re too outraged that someone walking into danger is hurt. Unless it’s happening inside the US, then it’s freedom.

[El Guapo]

What exactly did the State Department tell them? Or does "Do Not Travel" qualify as tacit approval to travel?

Bugger if I know. But it's reasonable to surmise this would probably not have been the first time many of these children chose to spend time visiting their families in Afghanistan. As I understand it, these are mostly children of Afghan refugees from the 1990s. Sacramento has one of the largest Afghanistan refugee populations in the world; fine, upstanding Americans all, as are their children. So these trips were typically sort of a "see what we left" experience. And sure, travel advisories may well have been in place during their previous excursions to Afghanistan. In which case they were that much more likely to have become inured to them, in a similar way as routinely clicking the "accept" button on terms and agreement documents without ever reading them.

But like, you made this specific assertion:

The reason there are dozens of American students now stuck in Afghanistan is because the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel there. So, that happened.

So...what's the basis for your statement that the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel?

[dbt1949]

I read an article today where the Taliban are mad because we disabled or destroyed our equipment when we left.

[Unagi]

This is not agreeing to a website cookie... this is traveling to Afghanistan where it's perfectly clear what the risks are.

I did not say that it was. It's an analogy. When one makes or draws an analogy between two articles, you show that they are similar in some way, i.e. in this case, the inuredness that develops from habituation.

I understand perfectly well that you were using an analogy. I mostly think and communicate with analogies... But analogies only have value if they the share the key similarity that one claims 'is the point'.

We all click 'Accept' because we believe full well that we will not be in violation of the software's EULA... It's the key point in the reason we don't read the actual EULA.

This is about travelling to Afghanistan, and the analogy of pencil whipping an EULA and claiming that "Oh well hell, Afghanistan has been ranked "Do Not Travel" for years" is similar to that mentality is not a good analogy at all. IMHO.

If anyone should understand the nature of the situation/threat/accuracy of our government's claims, etc... (even well beyond the State Departments advisories) I would think it would be someone with relatives there, etc.

And you started this all by claiming that the State Department told them it was safe. "So, that happened".... but now you are saying: The State Department made the mistake of just always saying it was not safe... and that made these families just roll their eyes - and feel like it was probably safe?

[Anonymous Bosch]

What exactly did the State Department tell them? Or does "Do Not Travel" qualify as tacit approval to travel?

Bugger if I know. But it's reasonable to surmise this would probably not have been the first time many of these children chose to spend time visiting their families in Afghanistan. As I understand it, these are mostly children of Afghan refugees from the 1990s. Sacramento has one of the largest Afghanistan refugee populations in the world; fine, upstanding Americans all, as are their children. So these trips were typically sort of a "see what we left" experience. And sure, travel advisories may well have been in place during their previous excursions to Afghanistan. In which case they were that much more likely to have become inured to them, in a similar way as routinely clicking the "accept" button on terms and agreement documents without ever reading them.

But like, you made this specific assertion:

The reason there are dozens of American students now stuck in Afghanistan is because the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel there. So, that happened.

So...what's the basis for your statement that the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel?

The State Department obviously had to sanction such trips in order for them to occur at all, and they chose to do so despite their awareness of a pending, conspicuous withdrawal of U.S. troops. That was the pivotal difference between previous trips, dangerous as they may have been, and what transpired here. Pointing to hackneyed, boilerplate travel advisories does not absolve the State Department of their culpability in permitting those trips to happen, which is only compounded by the administration's subsequent decision to abandon innocent American citizens behind enemy lines after the POTUS specifically promised, "if there's American citizens left, we're gonna stay to get them all out." As Politico reported, there are Biden administration officials that also acknowledge this, albeit anonymously:

Not everyone in the administration shared the commander in chief’s confidence. “I am absolutely appalled and literally horrified we left Americans there,” one administration official told POLITICO. “It was a hostage rescue of thousands of Americans in the guise of a NEO [noncombatant evacuation operation], and we have failed that no-fail mission.” Another White House official said that the mission isn’t accomplished if they left Americans behind.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Majority of Interpreters, Other U.S. Visa Applicants Were Left Behind in Afghanistan

U.S. still doesn’t have reliable data on who was evacuated from Afghanistan, a senior State Department official says

WASHINGTON—The U.S. estimates it left behind the majority of Afghan interpreters and others who applied for visas to flee Afghanistan, a senior State Department official said on Wednesday, despite frantic efforts to evacuate those at risk of Taliban retribution.

In the early days of the evacuation effort, thousands of Afghans crowded Kabul’s airport seeking a way to flee the country. Some made it through without paperwork, while American citizens and visa applicants were unable to enter and board flights out.

The U.S. still doesn’t have reliable data on who was evacuated, nor for what type of visas they may qualify, the official said, but initial assessments suggested most visa applicants didn’t make it through the crush at the airport.

“I would say it’s the majority of them,” the official estimated. “Just based on anecdotal information about the populations we were able to support.”

The Special Immigrant Visa program set up in 2009 aimed to help those at risk of Taliban reprisal for helping the U.S., including interpreters for the U.S. military and diplomatic and foreign aid workers.

The Biden administration has been under intense pressure by lawmakers, veterans and other advocates to do more to help the more than 20,000 Afghans who had already applied for visas when the U.S. decided to withdraw. Including their family members, as many as 100,000 Afghans may be eligible for relocation.

The U.S. had only just begun airlifting those in the final stages of the process when Kabul fell.

The U.S. and its allies evacuated more than 123,000 people out of Afghanistan on a combination of military, commercial and charter flights in the final weeks of the mission.

The State Department says it doesn’t have reliable data on the composition, but it says about 6,000 were U.S. citizens. It says fewer than 200 Americans that wanted to leave have been left behind.

Some of the Americans remaining in Afghanistan belong to families comprised of a mix of U.S. citizens, green-card holders, and kin with neither U.S. citizenship nor permanent residency.

“The reluctance of mixed-status families seems to register with [the U.S. government] as not wanting to leave,” said Morwari Zafar, an Afghan-American anthropologist who founded The Sentient Group, a development consulting firm. “The access afforded to them by their status competes with their social and personal obligation to stay with loved ones.”

The majority of those evacuated were Afghans, including those that worked for foreign embassies, aid programs, media and some that had simply made it through the crowd but had no paperwork.

“Everybody who lived it is haunted by the choices we had to make and by the people we were not able to help,” the State Department official said.

On Friday, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said the U.S. had evacuated 7,000 Special Immigrant Visa applicants to the U.S. It wasn’t clear whether the figure included family members.

The State Department has repeatedly said it lacks complete data on the composition of the evacuation population.

“Much of that information is going to be forthcoming once these individuals have cycled through transit points in the Middle East, in Europe, and for those who are being relocated to the United States, relocated here,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said Tuesday.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the State Department’s Special Immigrant Visa program was ill-suited for the circumstances the U.S. faced in Afghanistan.

“The SIV program is obviously not designed to accommodate what we just did, in evacuating over 100,000 people,” he told reporters Wednesday. Mr. Austin, briefing reporters for the first time since all American forces withdrew from Afghanistan on Monday, said the program is “designed to be a slow process.”

“For the type of operation we just conducted, I think we need a different kind of capability,” he said.

Among the visa applicants left behind was an Afghan interpreter who was part of a 2008 mission to rescue then- Sen. Joe Biden and two other senators when their helicopter made an emergency landing in blinding snow in a valley 20 miles southeast of Bagram Air Field.

His application had been snagged in the bureaucracy when the Taliban took over, and now he is in hiding.

On Tuesday, the interpreter, identified only as Mohammed to protect his identity, made an appeal for help to Mr. Biden in The Wall Street Journal.

“Don’t forget me,” he said.

In response to the story, Ron Klain, the White House chief of staff, said the U.S. wouldn’t forget him.

“We’re going to cut through the red tape,” he told MSNBC. “We’re going to get him and other SIVs out.”

In the final days of the evacuation leading to the withdrawal of all U.S. troops on Monday, the U.S. focused its efforts on U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The State Department senior official said that efforts to help get the most vulnerable Afghans through the crowds and into the airport were hindered by the threat of an attack by Islamic State, limited access points to the airport, and Taliban checkpoints in the approaches to the airport.

In addition, “every credential we tried to provide electronically was immediately disseminated to the widest possible pool,” the State Department official told reporters.

[El Guapo]

The State Department obviously had to sanction such trips in order for them to occur at all,

Is that true, though? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm not really sure whether the State Department has a formal approval process for anything like this.

[Blackhawk]

*sigh*

Yes, we get it.

[Blackhawk]

/edit - removing reply to a post that was deleted.

[Anonymous Bosch]

The State Department obviously had to sanction such trips in order for them to occur at all,

Is that true, though? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm not really sure whether the State Department has a formal approval process for anything like this.

I honestly do not know precisely what was required of U.S. citizens previously seeking to travel to Afghanistan. Though I strongly suspect there must have been some process in place and communication with the State Department/U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan necessary for those trips to occur.

[Isgrimnur]

The State Department can invalidate passports for certain countries. DPRK is on that list.

At Level 4: Do Not Travel, there are 99 countries on that list. The majority say, "If you decide to travel to..."

[gilraen]

The State Department obviously had to sanction such trips in order for them to occur at all,

Is that true, though? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm not really sure whether the State Department has a formal approval process for anything like this.

It's really hard to tell what kind of approval process they had in place for something like this. Some of the news articles mention that these students were in Afghanistan "on special visas" to visit family. That implies that someone (embassy? State? DHS?) was involved in the approval process, but there's no other information (or what kind of waivers you have to sign before knowingly traveling to a war zone).

[El Guapo]

The State Department obviously had to sanction such trips in order for them to occur at all,

Is that true, though? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm not really sure whether the State Department has a formal approval process for anything like this.

It's really hard to tell what kind of approval process they had in place for something like this. Some of the news articles mention that these students were in Afghanistan "on special visas" to visit family. That implies that someone (embassy? State? DHS?) was involved in the approval process, but there's no other information (or what kind of waivers you have to sign before knowingly traveling to a war zone).

Usually visas are an issue for the recipient country, though Afghanistan could well be a special case, I suppose.

[$iljanus]

The State Department obviously had to sanction such trips in order for them to occur at all,

Is that true, though? That's not a rhetorical question - I'm not really sure whether the State Department has a formal approval process for anything like this.

It's really hard to tell what kind of approval process they had in place for something like this. Some of the news articles mention that these students were in Afghanistan "on special visas" to visit family. That implies that someone (embassy? State? DHS?) was involved in the approval process, but there's no other information (or what kind of waivers you have to sign before knowingly traveling to a war zone).

Usually visas are an issue for the recipient country, though Afghanistan could well be a special case, I suppose.

From a cursory search you need entry and exit visas issued by the Afghan government so that would be at their embassy. I don't know if they have a consulate on US soil so perhaps they got the appropriate documents in another country? As of now, the US State Department has declared travel to Afghanistan as "unsafe" but I don't think there's a travel ban like the one we had for Cuba.

Edit: There are consulates in DC and NYC. But with the change in government I wonder how that all works out?

[Holman]

[Isgrimnur]

[Anonymous Bosch]

Also, will there be any real accountability for this aspect of the debacle?



Somehow, I doubt it.

[Isgrimnur]

US-funded equipment <> US military equipment.

[gbasden]

US-funded equipment <> US military equipment.

Were they somehow going to go into the countryside to collect the weaponry that we gave to the previous government? Once that government fell and the Taliban moved in towards Kabul, how were we going to repossess that gear?

[Isgrimnur]

We're not. Any more than we went back into South Vietnam to try and recover the military equipment we gave to them. We gave it to them. The money was gone when we bought it. What they did with it after that is their fault.

[Holman]

US-funded equipment <> US military equipment.

Were they somehow going to go into the countryside to collect the weaponry that we gave to the previous government? Once that government fell and the Taliban moved in towards Kabul, how were we going to repossess that gear?

And almost everywhere Kabul's army surrendered without a fight, handing over their weapons.

(Fun fact: at the end of both the first and second Iraq Wars, it was more cost-effective simply to destroy our tanks in place rather than to ship them home. A modern military AFV with a few hundred miles and a few fights on it isn't worth the cost of renovation.)

[Jeff V]

The reason there are dozens of American students now stuck in Afghanistan is because the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel there. So, that happened.

It was safe to travel there in May. August...not so much.

[Drazzil]

I’m not sure what to make of people sending kids to the region and then calling out their ‘missing from school’ emails — all on Biden.

The reason there are dozens of American students now stuck in Afghanistan is because the State Department told them in May that it was safe to travel there. So, that happened.

Anyone with half a brain should have skedaddled a month before the US left. Especially when provinces started falling. 4 months is a lifetime in Afgan government terms.... Actually now that I think of it. Several lifetimes. I wonder if measuring things by Afgan governments would catch on?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Some useful perspective on the Foreign Service’s precipitous attrition rate, and the role it played in the SIV evacuation fustercluck…

This personnel crisis in the State Department is a big part of the story of why the SIVs evac was so messy.

Many FSOs struggled heroically but as a bureaucracy the State Dept was in shambles after 4 years of Trump on top of a decade of budget cuts, brain-drains & hiring freezes.

"One-third of the current U.S. diplomatic force is eyeing the exit door while actively looking for a new job."

The crisis in the foreign service is even worse than I thought. A @WarOnTheRocks essay usefully explains the problems besetting the State Dept.
warontherocks.com/2021/09/wh…

[dbt1949]

I see now where we're sending money to the Afghans thru the UN. <sigh>
Why don't we just send a container ship full of Hershy bars? Everybody loves them ne'er do wells can hog them all in a secret bank account.

[Kraken]

I see now where we're sending money to the Afghans thru the UN. <sigh>
Why don't we just send a container ship full of Hershy bars? Everybody loves them ne'er do wells can hog them all in a secret bank account.

Opinion unformed; information needed.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I see now where we're sending money to the Afghans thru the UN. <sigh>
Why don't we just send a container ship full of Hershy bars? Everybody loves them ne'er do wells can hog them all in a secret bank account.

Opinion unformed; information needed.

U.S. seen funding humanitarian aid for Afghanistan, but not its goverment

WASHINGTON, Sept 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress is likely to finance U.N. and other agencies providing humanitarian assistance for Afghanistan but there is virtually no chance it will directly fund a new Taliban-led government, congressional aides said on Friday.

The United States has been a massive funder of Afghanistan since its 2001 invasion to topple the Taliban, setting aside roughly $130 billion for security, governance and development and humanitarian needs.

Aides to the Democrats who control both houses of Congress and to Republicans said lawmakers were nearly certain to provide humanitarian aid for internally displaced Afghans and refugees but not to the government itself, at least for now.

"It would be difficult to convince members of Congress to do anything that would appear to be supporting the Taliban government," said a senior Senate Democratic aide, citing the absence of oversight and a reluctance "to support a government that is anathema to us."

A senior Senate Republican aide concurred.

"Republicans would absolutely not support giving money to the Taliban," the Republican aide said, saying they do not want to provide any money until Americans and Afghans who worked with the United States can leave Afghanistan.

While aides said there was an understanding that agencies such as the World Food Program and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees would need funds, the Republican said lawmakers would want strict conditions on how it is spent.

[dbt1949]

I still think most of that money is going to help the Taliban and the corrupt brokers.