OF THE
TIMES

"I don't know. I'm going to leave that to the military," Biden told NBC News's Craig Melvin in an interview broadcast Friday.
"I'm not saying I won't. I think you're going to see more and more of them getting it. And I think it's going to be a tough call as to whether or not they should be required to have to get it in the military, because you're in such close proximity with other military personnel."

Saturday marked Trump's planned withdrawal date from Afghanistan, which the former US leader announced last year. With Biden pledging to withdraw American troops by September 11, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid declared that all bets are off between now and then.The war on Afghanistan never was intended to make either the US nor Afghanistan a safer place, it was, in part, to serve as yet another base for deep state chaos creation in the Middle East and beyond: US begins 'withdrawal' from Afghanistan... by sending MORE troops & gear for 'temporary force protection'
"As withdrawal of foreign forces from #Afghanistan by agreed upon May 1st deadline has passed, this violation in principle has opened the way for [Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan] Mujahidin to take every counteraction it deems appropriate against the occupying forces," he tweeted.
The Mujahidin of IEA will now await what decision the leadership of Islamic Emirate takes in light of the sovereignty, values and higher interests of the country, and will then take action accordingly, Allah willing," he added in a follow-up tweet.
Coming directly from the Taliban's spokesman, Mujahid's warning is about as clear as threats get in Afghanistan. Other warnings have been more dubious, as was the case last year after Trump struck a deal with the militant group and announced his withdrawal plans. Immediately afterwards, the New York Times claimed that Russia was offering cash bounties for Taliban-linked militants to attack US forces. The anonymously sourced story drew condemnation from Trump's opponents in Washington and the national media, but turned out to be completely bogus. Nevertheless, it spurred a bipartisan group of representatives to pass an amendment forbidding a withdrawal from Afghanistan before Trump's term was up.
And so the propaganda served as a pretext for the US to claim it was necessary to stay in the country, but it wasn't the only lie used to justify extending the 20 year war on the country: 'Woke imperialism strikes again': CNN faces backlash after it defends keeping US troops in Afghanistan by citing 'women's rights'
Similar stories warning of an imminent terrorist "resurgence" surfaced in the runup to the May 1 deadline, amplifying the concerns of US intelligence and military officials who aren't on board with either Trump or Biden's pullout plans.
The Taliban have not agreed to Biden's withdrawal date, failing to show up at a peace conference in Turkey last month. Nevertheless, Mujahid told Reuters last month that Taliban officials are still in contact with the US, and were still discussing whether or not to hold off on attacks until September.
If all goes to plan and US forces leave Afghanistan in September, they will depart a month before the conflict turns 20 years old. They will also leave the Taliban in a stronger position and in control of more territory than at any point since the beginning of the war.
"Consistent with the President's Proclamation terminating the redirection of funds for border wall, no more money will be diverted from other purposes to building a border wall. Today, the Department of Defense will begin cancelling all wall projects using the diverted funds, and will take steps to return remaining unobligated military construction funds to their appropriated purpose as permitted by law."A Defense Department spokesperson said the funds would be returned to accounts designated for "schools for military children, overseas military construction projects in partner nations, and the National Guard and Reserve equipment account," but added that the department was reviewing projects to determine priorities.

"U.S. military isn't meant to stand apart, but to buttress U.S. diplomacy and advance a foreign policy that employs all of our instruments of national power."He chose to spell out his ideas at Pearl Harbor, at the center of U.S. military power in the Indo-Pacific region, reflecting U.S. concerns that China's rapid modernization and growing assertiveness make it a powerful adversary. Notably, Austin in his speech did not explicitly mention China or North Korea.
Comment: One might wonder if the snoozer-in-chief read even one of those Executive Orders.