Kabul Withdrawal 'Zero Units' and Moral Injury

These individuals claim to be objective reporters, but their content often promotes specific political figures and agendas.

These videos frequently highlight political figures such as AOC and Gavin Newsom. The content itself is sometimes generated by artificial intelligence, specifically designed to create clickbait and generate revenue.

The New York Times reported that Green failed to disclose these payments from at least seven politicians or external groups supporting them.

Green defended his actions by stating he only accepts money from candidates he would have supported regardless. The New York City Mayor's office has reportedly utilized influencers to bypass traditional media channels, raising further questions about transparency and ethical standards in political communication.

"What the Times says he doesn't always reveal is that he's been paid for his support from at least seven politicians or outside groups supporting them."

Business owners are being warned that failure to pay payroll taxes can result in personal liability under the trust fund recovery penalty. This means that unpaid business debt can transition into a personal obligation, placing the owner's individual finances at risk.

The IRS has the authority to target personal bank accounts, assets, and future income to recover these unpaid taxes. Business owners are strongly advised not to ignore IRS notices, as doing so can escalate the situation and lead to severe financial and legal repercussions.

"If those aren't paid, the IRS can hit business owners with what's called the trust fund recovery penalty, which is 100% of those unpaid payroll taxes." — Cameron Kinsey

Various business entities are facing imminent tax deadlines, necessitating immediate compliance reviews to avoid penalties. Specifically, the October 15th extension deadline applies to Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) and C-corporations, requiring them to submit their necessary filings or extensions by this date.

In addition, a more immediate deadline for S-corporations is September 15th, underscoring the urgency for these businesses to complete their tax obligations. These deadlines are crucial for maintaining good standing with the IRS and avoiding potential fines.

Business owners are strongly recommended to seek professional consultation to ensure their business structure is properly aligned with tax regulations and that all filings are compliant. This proactive approach can help prevent future complications and ensure adherence to federal tax laws.

The United States achieved a significant geopolitical victory by defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, a struggle that involved tremendous sacrifices. However, this triumph did not extend to eradicating the underlying ideology of communism.

Dr. Bradley Thayer argues that communist ideology remains vibrant and influential within the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing, and also within segments of the Democratic Party in the United States and other domestic groups. Unlike fascism or militarism, which the US effectively eradicated after their respective conflicts, communism's ideological roots persist.

"We defeated the Soviet Union in a tremendous struggle, Steve, in which you participated and the great sacrifices were made in the cold war. But we did not defeat the ideology of communism. That ideology is alive and well in the Chinese Communist Party in Beijing. It's also alive and well in the Democratic Party in the United States as well as other groups operating in the United States." — Dr. Bradley Thayer

This infiltration has notably targeted the 'ideas industry,' encompassing K-12 education, colleges, universities, media, museums, and think tanks.

Moreover, the culture industry, particularly Hollywood, has also come under this influence. This advancement has occurred largely without effective resistance, allowing these ideologies to take root and spread within crucial sectors of society.

"While we saw them take over the ideas industry, K through 2 education, colleges, universities, media, our museums, our think tanks. We didn't object when they took over the culture industry, Hollywood. They've been advancing without effective resistance." — Dr. Bradley Thayer

These projected actions include packing the Supreme Court, which would eliminate judicial checks and balances, thereby consolidating political power.

Further proposed changes include adding new states, such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, which could alter the balance of power in Congress. Additionally, there are discussions about abolishing the filibuster or even the Senate itself, measures that would fundamentally reshape the legislative process and distribution of power in the United States.

"They're going to when they take power and when they're back in office, Steve, as you well know exactly what they're going to do. Pack the Supreme Court. So there is no check there. Add states, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, District of Colombia. Abolish the filibuster or the Senate itself." — Dr. Bradley Thayer

They utilize terms like 'democracy' as a strategic tool to manipulate public perception and lull voters into a false sense of security.

This manipulation aims to distance Americans from the true realities of their current situation, making them less likely to critically examine political actions. By carefully choosing and framing language, these groups can influence public opinion and steer narratives in their favor.

This method is intended to divert attention from underlying issues, allowing for political agendas to advance without significant public resistance. The subtle redefinition and strategic deployment of common terms serve to shape understanding and control public discourse.

"The the Bolsheviks are really good at political warfare and the importance of they recognize the importance of language in political warfare. So talking about democracy and drawing on that thread is one way that they use to fool Americans and draw them away from the situation that we face." — Dr. Bradley Thayer

This marks the fourth documentary collaboration between Pack and the WSJ, highlighting a sustained partnership in investigative filmmaking.

Paul Gigot, the WSJ editorial page editor, was directly involved in the project, providing support and guidance. Pack noted that the WSJ offers significant creative freedom, never requesting political changes or alterations to the content, focusing instead on aesthetic choices.

"They have never asked me to take anything out or make any big changes or any kind of political change. They have some aesthetic choices maybe. Um so they've been a great collaborator." — Michael Pack

Michael Pack's documentary explores the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan not merely as a historical event but as a pressing issue with ongoing implications for national policy and security. He asserts that the disastrous nature of the withdrawal significantly undermined the Biden administration, from which it has not fully recovered.

Paul Gigot, the WSJ editorial page editor, similarly believed the Afghanistan disaster doomed the Biden administration's reputation. The withdrawal is frequently cited as a critical moment that sent a clear signal of American weakness across the globe, impacting international perceptions and geopolitical stability.

Pack emphasizes that the film aims to draw connections between the events of the withdrawal and current policy debates, highlighting its enduring relevance. The documentary seeks to ensure that the lessons learned from this period are not forgotten and contribute to a deeper understanding of American foreign policy challenges.

"I think the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, you know, the doomed the Biden administration. I mean, that was a disaster. They never recovered. And it, as Paul said, it sent a signal around the world that America was weak." — Michael Pack

During the initial phase of the Afghanistan withdrawal, the State Department issued a policy stipulating that only individuals with U.S. passports or special immigrant visas could enter the airport, explicitly excluding their families. Marines on the ground were forced to turn away wives and children, directing them to exit gates where the Taliban provided security.

This directive forced Marines into an impossible situation, knowing that families they turned away faced grave danger from the Taliban. The emotional toll on the service members was immense, as they had to enforce a policy that contradicted their moral instincts and core values.

Tragically, the policy was reversed the very next day, allowing families to enter, but by then, countless lives had already been turned away. This flip-flop left Marines haunted by the knowledge of the individuals they had sent to an uncertain fate, deepening their sense of moral injury.

"the state department says in the beginning you can only let in people who have US passports or special immigrant visas and not their families. So the family comes in, you have to tell the wives and children, you're going to take them to the exit gate. And who's on the other side of the exit gate? The Taliban were providing security for us outside of the gates." — Michael Pack

The military culture typically celebrates combat heroes but struggles to acknowledge actions that result in moral injury. This reluctance stems from a desire to maintain an image of unwavering heroism and to avoid highlighting events that contradict the Marine Corps' core values or any American service. The incidents involving Marines turning away women and children at the Kabul airport, knowing the Taliban awaited them, fall into this unacknowledged category.

Michael Pack argues that the military does not want to publicize instances where service members were forced into morally compromising situations, such as leading women and children to their potential deaths by the Taliban. Such acknowledgments would challenge the idealized narrative of military service and remind the American public of events that, as Pack states, "should not happen in the Marine Corps or any American service."

This systemic avoidance leaves affected individuals grappling with a profound spiritual crisis that remains largely unaddressed within military support structures. The lack of formal recognition and psychological support for moral injury can lead to long-term trauma, as service members are left to reconcile their actions with their personal values without institutional guidance or healing.

Consequently, the moral injury experienced by these Marines is often internalized, contributing to significant mental health challenges that are not adequately met by traditional military psychological services. The failure to confront these difficult truths perpetuates a cycle of suffering for those who endured the impossible choices during the withdrawal.

"the military does not want to celebrate people who've taken women and children out to exit gates to be killed by the Taliban. Nor do they want to remind the American people that such things happen because as you say, they should not happen in the Marine Corps or any American service." — Michael Pack

This involved the removal of all contractors, vital air support, and critical logistical assistance necessary for moving supplies.

These functions, which were essential for the Afghan military's operations, were entirely eliminated. This comprehensive withdrawal made the eventual defeat of Afghan forces highly predictable, as they were left without the necessary resources and backing to sustain their defense.

"Let me be clear what we did. We withdrew to zero in terms of support for the Afghans. We stopped support for their air force and country. We stopped supporting them logistically in terms of helping them move supplies. All of those functions went away."

In February, the Taliban controlled 78 districts, a number that surged to 200 by July, indicating a swift and extensive territorial gain.

This expansion often occurred with minimal active combat. Instead, many provincial capitals fell as a result of strategic deals and understandings reached between the Taliban and local leaders, rather than through direct military confrontation.

"It was this big red blob that was just gobbling up terrain. There wasn't much fighting going on. The provincial capitals were falling as a result mostly as a result of deals and understanding arrived at between the two sides."

The State Department initially desired to keep the embassy open, complicating efforts to initiate a timely Non-combatant Evacuation Operation (NEO).

At a White House meeting in the first week of August, a senior administration official explicitly stated, "There's not going to be a NEO. We're not going to do it. To do a NEO would be to admit failure." This mindset significantly delayed crucial evacuation measures.

Consequently, the decision to initiate a comprehensive evacuation was postponed until August 14, exacerbating the chaos and risks associated with the eventual withdrawal. This delay proved critical, leading to more difficult and dangerous conditions for both evacuees and military personnel.

The reluctance to acknowledge potential failure by initiating an evacuation plan earlier contributed to the catastrophic events that unfolded, impacting thousands of lives and undermining the safety of the withdrawal process.

"There was a White House meeting. the first week of August to talk about the way ahead and a senior administration official said in that meeting, there's not going to be a NEO. We're not going to do it. To do a NEO would be to admit failure."

During the chaotic withdrawal from Kabul, a C-17 mission was nearly aborted due to severe threats from a surrounding mob. The situation became perilous when civilians desperately clung to the landing gear and wings of the aircraft.

The commanding officer made a critical decision to order the C-17 to take off immediately, prioritizing the broader mission over immediate risks. Marines on the ground observed individuals falling from the aircraft mid-flight, a horrific consequence of the desperate attempts to escape.

This incident underscored the catastrophic mission failure that would have occurred had the aircraft been destroyed on the tarmac or runway, highlighting the extreme dangers and desperate measures taken during the evacuation.

"Eventually, I ordered the C17 to take off immediately. If that aircraft is destroyed on this side, either on the tarmac or on the runway, we've got a much bigger problem. Now we're talking catastrophic mission failure."

Eyewitnesses confirmed the use of extreme violence by these units, including executions and vehicular strikes against civilians. One Marine recalled that these units accomplished in one hour what U.S. forces had been unable to do in a day and a half or two days.

Their deployment highlights the desperate measures taken to control the chaotic situation at the airport. The involvement of these forces, and their documented brutality, raises significant ethical questions about the methods employed during the evacuation.

"These zero units were Afghan special forces created, trained, and funded by the CIA... They did in 1 hour we couldn't do and at this point a day and a half, two days already... Violence. Uh, they straight up executed people. Um, ran them over."

At the gates of Hamid Karzai International Airport, Marines faced immense challenges due to frequently shifting criteria from the State Department regarding who could enter. This created a chaotic environment where documentation became effectively meaningless, and Marines were forced to make life-or-death decisions.

Marines were tasked with processing individuals who possessed valid documents while simultaneously escorting those without proper paperwork back to the exits, where the Taliban awaited. This impossible position left service members feeling as though they were "playing God" by determining who would be rescued and who would face the Taliban.

One Marine recounted the profound moral burden of choosing who would gain entry versus who would be turned away. The arbitrary nature of the directives, combined with the extreme pressure, inflicted severe psychological trauma on the personnel on the ground.

The lack of consistent and clear instructions from higher command exacerbated the confusion and despair, making an already desperate situation even more untenable for both the evacuees and the Marines trying to help them.

"I was charged with processing the people that had valid documents um and then taking those who didn't have those documents back to the exits. That was essentially playing God with these people, you know, choosing whether or not they were going to get rescued or or be taken to the exits where the Taliban were." — Marine

The chaotic conditions at the airport gates quickly devolved into a situation where only the strongest and most determined could gain entry. Marines observed a distinct pattern: primarily military-aged males were successfully making their way through the crowded access points.

Families, including women and children, were frequently turned away, often to allow these men to pass. This grim reality highlighted the desperation and the breakdown of orderly processing, as sheer force and assertiveness became the primary determinants of who could escape.

One Marine noted, "So we noticed uh it was only military age males going through there." This observation underscores the harsh reality of the evacuation, where vulnerability became a significant barrier to safety.

Military intelligence had incorrectly identified an aid worker as an ISIS-K affiliate, leading to a fatal error in judgment.

The strike killed ten people, including seven children, confirming a devastating mistake by U.S. forces. A military official openly admitted, "The tragedy of 29 August was a mistake. We were wrong. We struck it. It was a mistake. We killed innocent people."

This incident became a profound and tragic footnote to the U.S. withdrawal, highlighting the extreme difficulties and fatal consequences of intelligence failures during the chaotic period.