Mediaboss Marketing

It is a pleasure to be back at MIT (albeit virtually). I had a wonderful year at the university as a graduate student in 1988/9; came back as UK Foreign Secretary in 2010 to give the Compton Lecture, arguing for a national and regional political settlement to end the war in Afghanistan; and then in 2011, after the electorate relieved me of my governmental responsibilities, came back to the Political Science Department for a week of teaching. It is a source of pride to come back this year to receive the Muh Award

The bookends for this talk are the changed geopolitical environment since I was a graduate student. I completed my Masters thesis in the summer of 1989, and vividly remember watching on TV the scenes in Tiananmen Square as I house-sat in leafy Belmont. Few of us had the sense that the post-war order was about to be turned upside-down by the fall of the Berlin Wall less than six months later. The idea of the End of History was only just going into academic articles. Certainly there was no sense that we were about to enter weeks in which decades happen.

This became the era of the Third Wave of Democracy, so called because the number of countries democratizing tripled from 25 to 75 in the span of a decade.[1] From Eastern Europe to Southern Africa to Latin America to the Far East, the tools of authoritarian rule did not seem to work anymore.

A new future was quite suddenly in view (perhaps too suddenly for clear thought). Not the end of arguments about the good society. Not the end of protest about equality or governance or foreign policy. Not the end of wars based on ethnicity or religion after all the 1990s were the decade of the Rwandan genocide. But the emergence of an arguable case that political history had a settled destination, reached at different speeds, in systems based on accountable government, human rights, and political democracy. In this telling, the Cold War had two sides. One was democratic, the other autocratic. The democratic side won. And history would bring more victories for democratic governance.

That is one bookend. The other is the present day. The contrast is stark. Not the Third Wave of Democracy but what the scholars at the Varieties of Democracy project at the University of Gothenburg call the Third Wave of Autocratization. Across the world, democratic systems based on fair elections and the rule of law are in retreat. Here is what they are talking about:

Professor Larry Diamond of Stanford University says all types of regimes are becoming less liberal.[7] The data from the Gothenberg database put numbers on this. In the past decade 10 countries have moved from liberal democracies to electoral democracies where rights have been circumscribed.[8] Poland is an example of a democracy where the ruling party has consolidated and often abused its power. 13 countries moving from democratic ranking to electoral autocracies. This includes India, which was previously the worlds largest democracy. And 5 autocratic regimes moving into the most harsh category, closed autocracy. Whats happening in China fits this category.

Two academics, James Robinson and MITs Daron Acemoglu, have explained in their brilliant book The Narrow Corridor,[9] why this should not be a surprise. There is nothing natural about liberal democracy. If anything it is an unnatural creation, and certainly one that takes perpetual nurture if it is to endure.

Today I want to apply a particular lens to this story and link it to developments in foreign affairs. That lens is the idea of impunity. Its traditionally been a legal term, but I want to use it as a tool of political and policy analysis. As you know, impunity means the absence of consequence for an action, and in the case of an illegal action, the absence of punishment for that action. In more colloquial terminology, impunity is the exercise of power without responsibility, what the British PM Stanley Baldwin called the refuge of the harlot throughout the ages.

I am going to make three claims today.

First, that there is a growing age of impunity that is the international or foreign relations counterpart of democratic recession at home. Systems and cultures of impunity are leading to more acts of impunity.

Second, that international impunity is on the rise in international conflicts around the world because of a shift in power against the aspirations of the rules-based order established after 1945. I want to highlight two elements. Autocratic regimes are stronger. They insist that what happens within a country is only the responsibility of that state. And they have found unexpected bedfellows in this assertion of national sovereignty, and against the assertion of universal rights, in democratic states that are in retreat, turning inward, reasserting national sovereignty (as well as domestic focus) themselves and reeling from foreign policy failures.

The third claim is that to fight against international impunity we do not need new ideas about the laws of war or the rights of individuals. The ideas in the UN Charter and associated documents are good ones. What we need is a defining idea for how to defend them, a focus on some key issues, and the mobilization of the assets of government, private sector and civil society to do so. Since power has shifted against the defense of universal rights, a reversal of the trend depends on more than quoting laws to men with swords. It requires countervailing power to change their calculus.

The Rise in Impunity

When a coach of children is bombed in Yemen, when health facilities are bombed in Syria, when civilians are denied humanitarian aid in Ethiopia or Nigeria, we are seeing impunity because there is no consequence or punishment. At best there is pleading to stop.

The data is striking. There are more civilian victims of war. An average of 34,000 civilians are killed in conflict each year, more than double the average five years ago and nearly seven times the average in 2008.[10]

More civilians are fleeing conflict. A record 79.5 million refugees and displaced people around the world.[11] But its not just total numbers, its the way conflict is displacing more people. In conflicts since 1945, an average of 5 people were displaced for every one person killed. In the Syrian war, that ratio has been 25 to 1.[12]

There are more aid workers killed. 121 aid workers are killed each year on average, including several of my IRC colleagues, compared with an average of 53 aid workers killed each year in 2004.[13]

There are more attacks on health facilities. Since the UN passed a resolution condemning attacks on hospitals in May 2016, there have been 2,387 attacks on health worldwide[14] from the Ebola epicenter of the DRC to warzones in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. Far from abating during the global pandemic, these attacks have only worsened, with more health care workers and patients killed in 2020 than in 2019.

More children are living close to high intensity conflict. Today 160 million children are living in areas of high-intensity conflict according to Save the Children.[15] Thats more than the number of children who live in the United States and Europe combined.

There is more ethnic cleansing. The civil society group Genocide Watch lists 13 ongoing Genocide Emergencies where ethnic cleansing massacres are ongoing.[16] These involve powerful countries not just small rogue states.

And there is a remarkable direct link between poverty and conflict: nearly fifty per cent of the worlds extreme poor live in conflict and fragile states,[17] and that percentage is growing every year.

So there is the first claim: that there is a clear trend of growing international lawlessness and norm-lessness. Interestingly enough, the latest National Intelligence Council report, Global Trends 2040,[18] highlights the rule of law as one of the threatened norms of the global order.

This trend has been enabled by what the Munich Security Conference calls Westlessness the retreat of the West part of the second claim to which I now want to turn.

Shifts in the Balance of Power

The second claim is that this trend towards impunity in international affairs is a symptom of a shift in the balance of power. Those ready to abuse international rules have less reason to fear that they will be held accountable. There never was a Golden Age, but after the traumas of genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s and the massacre in Srebrenica in former Yugoslavia, there was a determined attempt to live up to the promises of the post-Second World War settlement, culminating in the so-called Responsibility to Protect principle in 2005. This was a unanimously agreed resolution of the UN General Assembly which promised that if nation-states abused the rights of their own citizens, then the international community had a responsibility to uphold them. That seems like another world today, because in many ways it is.

The causes of this shift are multiple but the essential dynamic is simple. There is less chance today that war crimes will be punished. And of course the confidence of combatants that war crimes will be unpunished is reinforced every time a war crime is unpunished. So there is a vicious circle in play.

The reasons for this shift are deep rooted. Three seem especially important:

So there has been a power shift. Secretary Blinken said recently: Look at the countries that run roughshod over the rights of their own people. Theyre almost always the same countries that flout internationally accepted rules beyond their borders.[20] The whole point of the UN Charter and the associated founding documents was to mitigate against this tendency, by creating rights for people against the over-mighty power of the state, and institutions with the mandate to defend those rights. Countries could choose their own political system, democracy or dictatorship, monarchy or republic, but they would sign on to international rules.

Just as Robinson and Acemoglu argue that at the national level, there is a constant, day-in, day-out struggle between the state and society to walk the narrow corridor between the fear and repression wrought by despotic states on the one hand and the violence and lawlessness that emerge in their absence, so international relations needs the rights of individuals to be upheld against the rights of states, or the result is despotism and impunity. This takes a balance of power, and that is what is missing in the worlds war zones.

The Need for Countervailing Power

The third claim is that the battle ahead, for those of us who fear a world of impunity, is to build the force of accountability to counter the abuse of power. I think this is a better way of encapsulating the challenge or the mission than building the power of democracy. Sure, I want to see democracy strengthened, notably in countries that are democratic but whose democracy is under assault. But democracy is the strongest form of political accountability and cannot be built on sand.

70 years ago, JK Galbraith published his book American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power. It offered a powerful critique of the development of the American economy after the Second World War, notably in the way concentrations of economic power at the corporate level were a threat to the interests and well-being of ordinary Americans. His answer was not anti-trust, though he did not oppose it, but the development of market and non-market institutions that could countervail the power of the big corporates. Where there were big producers, he favored big retailers. Where there were corporate consortia, he favored countervailing power from government. Where there were unorganized workers, he favored labor (trade) unions. As he put it: Liberalism will be identified with the buttressing of weak bargaining positions in the economy; conservatism will be identified with positions of original power.

I think Galbraiths concept needs to be brought back to life today. I can see applications in the national economy, where market concentration is again on the rise, fueled by political and legal attacks on the role of government in the economy.

However, to my thesis today, the idea of countervailing power has relevance in curbing the abuse of state power not just private power. And it needs to apply in the international domain not just the national one.

I am glad that the Biden Administration supports a meeting of liberal democracies to discuss how to defend the rule of law and democratic practice. But the big decision is not to have a meeting. It is to decide the agenda.

I would like to see it discuss defense of democratic institutions against cyber-attack; a common front to tackle laundering of money from autocratic states; common positions on the regulation of anti-social media; common positions on global trade issues, linked to human rights standards.

But I also want to see them take common action in international fora to impose costs on those who abuse international law. If impunity is the absence of consequence for actions, then accountability must be about creating consequences, and thereby worrying military commanders and political leaders about their actions.

In fact, I would go further, and say that if the rights to life of civilians in war zones cannot be defended, when they have been codified in international law, then we have less chance of defending other rights that are important, whether that be the rights of protestors against their government or the rights of women against abuse by men or the rights of minorities to freedom of religion or thought or sexuality.

So the idea that should animate the drive against impunity is that of countervailing power. The issues should include those of life and death, to curb the abuse of power that my colleagues and I at the International Rescue Committee see every day, as we work to help people whose lives are shattered by conflict and disaster survive, recover and gain control of their lives.

And the coalition that needs to be mustered should engage government, private sector and civil society. None alone will be enough. A world where accountability, not impunity, is on the rise, needs pressure comes from government, civil society and the private sector together.

Governments in the West need to get their own house in order. They need to combine their weight in political fora to apply political pressure for adherence to the laws of war. At the United Nations they need to be calling for genuinely independent and comprehensive investigations of war crimes wherever they happen. They need to be supporting efforts to use their own legal systems as in the recent German cases of Syrians accused of war crimes to hold people accountable. They need to be using military-to-military contacts, military training, and military coalitions of which they are part to stand against the drift to impunity in conflict. And they need to be engaging the private sector.

We have seen in the recent Georgia and Texas voting rights cases the power of major corporates like Coca-Cola and Dell to take a stand. This should be the demand of those who engage with governments who flout the rule of international law. If you are a weapons manufacturer, or a financier of weapons manufacturers, who thinks it is wrong for your weapons to be used to target civilians, then you have a duty to speak up and act up.

Money is often used to grease the wheels of impunity through corruption and patronage, but it can be a force for accountability if channeled properly. This includes targeted economic sanctions against individuals committing atrocities, such as freezing their bank accounts. This also means divestment and suspension of aid by public and private actors. For example insurance companies should decline to provide coverage for companies and countries engaged in activities that violate international humanitarian law. The drift to impunity will not be stopped without those with economic power taking a stand.

There is special responsibility on tech and media companies, because control of the information space is critical to sustaining systems of impunity. In conflict zones around the world, effective news blackouts are the norm not the exception. Breaking the blackout takes political pressure, but also requires technological innovation, to make it safe for civilians to record what is happening, and then get the information out.

And then there is civil society. The New York Times and independent actors like Bellingcat and the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights have done more to expose abuse of international law in Syria than any UN commission. This should be the inspiration to expose and hold accountable those perpetrating the worst atrocities.

The next decade promises to be a race or a fight between accountability and impunity, within our own countries and internationally. That applies in politics, in economics, even in respect of the environment, where ecological plunder can be considered a form of impunity, albeit a longstanding one. Impunity offers quick solutions, but feels brittle. Accountability courts the accusation of being slow. But the methodical tortoise sometimes beats the hyperactive hare.

The End of History was the Kool-Aid of the end of the Cold War. It was misdiagnosed. But the impulse that protested, unsuccessfully, at Tiananmen Square, and successfully in East Berlin, was strong and clear. It was the impulse for power to be held accountable. The coming age of impunity is only inevitable if we let it be so.

[1] V-Dem. (2021). Autocratization Turns Viral - Democracy Report 2021.

[2] The Economist. (2 February 2021). Economist Intelligence Unit - Democracy Index 2020.

[3] Foa, Roberto Stefan and Mounk, Yascha. (1 March 2019). When Democracy Is No Longer the Only Path to Prosperity. The Wall Street Journal.

[4] V-Dem. (2021). Autocratization Turns Viral - Democracy Report 2021.

[5] Ibid.

[6] The Economist. (2 February 2021). Economist Intelligence Unit - Democracy Index 2020.

[7] Diamond, Larry. (March/April 2008). The Democratic Rollback. Foreign Affairs.

[8] V-Dem. (2021). Autocratization Turns Viral - Democracy Report 2021.

[9] Acemoglu, Daron and Robinson, James A. The Narrow Corridor. New York, Penguin Press, 2019.

[10] Calculation of five-year annual rolling average based on data from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. Number of Reported Civilian Fatalities from Direct Targeting by Country-Year.

[11] United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (18 June 2020). Global Trends: Force Displacement in 2019.

[12] Feldstein, Steven (17 July 2018). Rethinking the Impact of War: Elevating Protections for the Displaced. Social Science Research Network.

[13] Calculation of five-year annual rolling average based on data from Aid Worker Security Database.

[14] World Health Organization. Surveillance System for Attacks on Health Care.

[15] Save the Children. (2020). Killed and Maimed: A Generation of Violations.

[16] Genocide Watch. Current Alerts.

[17] The World Bank. (2020). Fragility and Conflict: On the Front Lines of the Fight Against Poverty.

[18] National Intelligence Council. (March 2021). Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World.

[19] Peace Research Institute of Oslo.(March 2019.) Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946-2018.

[20] U.S. Department of State. (30 March 2021). Secretary Antony J. Blinken On Release of the 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

About the IRC

The International Rescue Committee responds to the worlds worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is at work in over 40 countries and over 20 U.S. citieshelping people to survive, reclaim control of their future, and strengthen their communities.Learn more at http://www.rescue.org and follow the IRC on Twitter & Facebook.

See the rest here:
MIT's Robert A. Muh Award in the Humanities, Arts & Social Sciences Awarded to David Miliband, President and CEO of the IRC - International Rescue...

Overstay? No need to pay.

The Biden administration is easing up on scofflaw illegal immigrants by pulling the plug on President Trumps program to fine them for defying court-issued deportation orders and forgiving all the debts racked up under the policy.

We can enforce our immigration laws without resorting to ineffective and unnecessary punitive measures, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said Friday.

Under a Trump-issued January 2017 executive order, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued steep fines to non-citizens who refused to leave the country when ordered to do so.

Penalties started at $3,000 and could mount by up to $500 a day in one case adding up to a staggering $497,777, NPR reported in 2019.

But the agency was unable to collect on most of the bills, CNN reported, only recouping about 1 percent of the fines issued.

Getty Images

Getty Images

"If you like the Oscars so much, we should have...

The Department of Homeland Security stopped issuing penalties in January, the agency said and added that it intends to work with the Department of Treasury to cancel the existing debts of those who had been fined.

Read more here:
Biden forgives Trump's fines on illegal immigrants who refused deportation - New York Post

President Biden is considering creating an anti-corruption task force to address mass migration coming from Central America, a top U.S. official announced Thursday.

Special Envoy to the Triangle Nations, Ricardo Zuniga, told reporters the task force would help local prosecutors manage corruption contributing to human rights abuses.

HARRIS TO TRAVEL TO GUATEMALA, MEXICO AMID CRITICISM OVER BORDER CRISIS

"Governance addressing corruption is at the center ofwhat the Biden administration is focusing on," Zuniga said.

Illegal immigration at the U.S. southern border has risen steeply this year, with migrants coming predominately from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Biden has said he will take on the immigration crisis by reversing Trump-era policies and addressing the "root causes" contributing to migrants fleeing the Northern Triangle countries in Central America.

Zuniga told reporters Thursday the White House will release a proposal next month to disperse $4 billion over a four-year period. The plan is set to focus on promoting governance and transparency, economic development and security.

Biden tasked Vice President Kamala Harris with taking on the complex immigration crisis, and she is set to travel to Mexico and Guatemala "soon," the administration announced last week.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS DEMAND ANSWERS FROM VP HARRIS ON 'POLITICALLY MOTIVATED' BORDER DECISION

"We're also addressing structural problems [that have] infected so many lives and Central America, whether they regard insecurity or lack of opportunities," Zuniga said, applauding Harris"leadership."

The United States will also be imposing sanctions on Central American officials involved in corruption by barring their travelto the U.S., and assessing financial penalties.

"We have a mandate from the U.S. Congress to develop lists of officials who are involved in corruption and to propose actions against them," Zuniga said.

The Special Envoytraveled to Guatemala and El Salvador earlier this month, but was refused a meeting by Salvadorian President Nayib Bukele, who accused the administration of ill-treatmentsignalinga tough road ahead for officials in charge of combating massmigration.

Zuniga also said that Mexico "has been our key partner in efforts to manage migration."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"We have really focused on countries that are at center of movement of people," he explained Thursday, adding that the U.S. is developing "working groups" in El Salvador and Honduras.

Harris is set to hold a virtual meeting with Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei Monday.

Follow this link:
Biden to assemble anti-corruption task force to take on illegal immigration - Fox News

Laredo is getting mixed reactions to the updated terminology for immigrants who had crossed the border illegally.

In a memo by Troy A. Miller, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Commissioner, it establishes updated terminology for U.S. Customs and Border Protection communications and materials.

Changes mentioned in the memo are alien for noncitizen or migrant, alienage for noncitizenship, unaccompanied alien children to noncitizen unaccompanied children illegal alien to undocumented noncitizen, undocumented individual or migrant, among others.

In response to the vision set by the Administration, CBP will ensure agency communications use the preferred terminology and inclusive language as outlined below. This guidance applies to communications such as agency outreach efforts, internal documents and overall communications with stakeholders, partners and the general public, the memo reads.

For immigration attorney and former councilmember Nelly Vielma, this change was long overdue.

Its about time that the human dignity of people, refugees, immigrants and other displaced human beings are given an appropriate name. For many years, our countrys laws have labeled people in the immigration system as aliens or illegals, Vielma said. We may see it as a term to refer to people as foreigners, but ask yourselves, how would you and your family feel with that label if you were in their shoes? Although it may seem as a minor change, I hope the migrant community will be treated with dignity and respect, which is the expectation as our system slowly changes the labels to remove the negative connotations.

Agent Hector Garza, president of the National Border Patrol Council-Local 2455, said that under the Biden administration, agents received new guidance and updated terminology. But he pointed out that this memo still allows agents to continue using the same terminology under the Immigraction and Nationality Act as mentioned in the second paragraph of the memo.

As needed and appropriate, CBP may use applicable terms defined in the Immigration Nationality Act in legal or operational documents, including when completing required forms, particularly where legally required or necessary to ensure the procedural rights of those whom CBP encounters, states the memo.

Garza added, What is interesting is that it appears the Biden administration is trying to at peace immigrant rights groups.

Garza pointed out that agents are trained under the law to use the term alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act. That terminology is ingrained in agents because those are the terms members of congress approved, Garza said.

Nothing is going to change. Illegal aliens will still be illegal aliens, he said.

For Congressman Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, he briefly mentioned during a news conference on another topic that he can understand some people are trying to be politically correct.

But if you look at what the statute says, they do use the word alien. Thats what the statute does. Unless the statute changes, some of us will continue to use the word alien on that. Thats just what the statute says right now, and I dont think the statute is going to be changed, Cuellar said.

Words matter but the question is, which words, in what circumstances are those words going to be used, the congressman mentioned.

The word alien is used in the statute. Its been used for many years. But theres a new thinking that they want to use something. I think right now that as long as the statute is there, I probably will be using the word alien. Thats the word thats in the statute until we change that.

Cuellar went on to say that while people focus on words, the focus should be shifted to stopping the flow of people coming in and handling the flow that is already in the country.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also released a statement regarding the updated terminology.

Consistent with the Biden Administrations goals to foster inclusion and build a more fair and humane immigration system, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is adopting terminology to help rebuild public trust and reshape the agency image. The change reflects ICEs commitment to treat everyone with whom we interact with respect and dignity while still enforcing our nations laws, ICE said in a statement.

An official also stated that ICE will make efforts to avoid using terminology that might be perceived by others as offensive or otherwise disparaging. The official also mentioned that ICE leadership will no longer use terms such as alien or illegal in internal or external public facing documents and communications.

Continue reading here:
Scratch of illegal alien term gets mixed reaction in Laredo - Laredo Morning Times

KABUL, Afghanistan The U.S. military has begun its complete withdrawal from Afghanistan, the top American commander there said Sunday, marking what amounts to the beginning of the end of the United States nearly 20-year-old war in the country.

I now have a set of orders, said Gen. Austin S. Miller, the head of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, to a news conference of Afghan journalists at the U.S. militarys headquarters in Kabul, the capital. We will conduct an orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan, and that means transitioning bases and equipment to the Afghan security forces.

General Millers remarks come almost two weeks after President Biden announced that all U.S. forces would be out of the country by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks that propelled the United States into its long war in Afghanistan.

Mr. Bidens announcement was greeted with uncertainty in Afghanistan, as it prepares for a future without a U.S. and NATO military presence despite a Taliban insurgency that seems dead set on a military victory despite talks of peace.

The insurgent groups harsh version of Islamic law, which barred women from many jobs during its rule in the late 1990s and banned music and dance, among other arts, will probably return if the Taliban reassumes power either through force or if they are incorporated into the government.

Holding the line for now are the Afghan security forces, which have endured a particularly difficult winter. Taliban offensives in the south and repeated attacks in the north despite the cold weather have meant mounting casualties ahead of what could be a violent summer as U.S. and NATO forces withdraw. Though the Afghan military and police forces together are said to have around 300,000 personnel, the real number is suspected to be much lower.

I often get asked how are the security forces? Can the security forces do the work in our absence? General Miller said. And my message has always been the same: They must be ready.

General Miller added that certain equipment must be withdrawn from Afghanistan, but wherever possible the United States and international forces will leave behind matriel for the Afghan forces.

There are roughly 3,500 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and around 7,000 NATO and allied forces. Those NATO forces will probably withdraw alongside the United States, as many countries in the coalition are dependent on American support.

Atop the international military forces in Afghanistan, there are also roughly 18,000 contractors in the country, almost all of whom will also depart. General Miller said that some of the contracts will have to be adjusted so that the Afghan security forces, which are heavily dependent on contractor assistance especially the Afghan Air Force will continue to be supported. The thousands of private contractors in Afghanistan are tasked with a range of jobs, including security, logistics and aircraft maintenance.

Under last years peace agreement with the Taliban, U.S. and international forces were supposed to withdraw from the country by May 1. Under the agreement the Taliban have refrained for the most part from attacking U.S. troops. But what remains unclear is if the insurgent group will attack the withdrawing forces following Mr. Bidens decision to set the final deadline later, in September.

We have the military means and capability to fully protect our force during retrograde, as well as support the Afghan security forces, General Miller said.

American troops are still spread out in a constellation of around a dozen bases, most of which contain small groups of Special Operations forces advising the Afghan military. To cover the withdrawal, the American military has committed a significant amount of air support, including positioning an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, in case the Taliban decide to attack.

See more here:
US Military Begins Final Withdrawal from Afghanistan - The New York Times