Vietnam and Afghanistan: A tale of two US military withdrawals

1 / 5
Combo image showing a picture of the 1975 fall of Saigon by Dutch photographer Hugh Van Es (left) and a chaotic scene at Kabul airport on August 19, 2021. (Wikimedia Commons and AFP)
Short Url
Updated 06 September 2021
Follow

Vietnam and Afghanistan: A tale of two US military withdrawals

  • US enmity with Vietnam’s communist rulers gave way to frienship and strategic partnership
  • Whether Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers and the US can bury their enmity remains to be seen

WASHINGTON D.C.: Images of the chaotic last days of the US mission in Afghanistan have been compared widely to the scenes of the final evacuation from Saigon in 1975 as the victorious North Vietnamese Army rolled into the capital of South Vietnam.

Iconic photos of desperate Vietnamese trying to scale the walls of the US embassy bear a striking resemblance to those of civilians clambering up the gates of Kabul airport last month in hopes of catching one of the last flights out of the country.

In hindsight, the parallels between the American experience in Vietnam and Afghanistan are too many to ignore. Just like the US began a rapid military drawdown in Vietnam after signing the Paris Peace Accords with North Vietnam in 1973, the February 2020 Doha deal between the US and the Taliban set the scene for America’s rush for the exits in Afghanistan.

By 1975, the only US soldiers remaining in South Vietnam were the Marines who guarded the embassy in Saigon and a small contingent at a nearby air base. By the end of April that year, the city, later renamed Ho Chi Minh City, had fallen to the North VIetnamese Army (NVA).




Jubilant communist troops atop tanks make their way to the center of Saigon as the city fell under their control on April 30, 1975. (Vietnam News Agency photo via AFP) 

The US had hoped that the peace accords would allow for the “Vietnamization” of the conflict, transferring combat operations and security away from the US military to the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN).

But just like the Afghan National Army — in which Washington had invested billions in training and equipment — proved incapable of securing the country on their own, the ARVN crumbled in the absence of the full complement of US ground combat units and field advisers.

For a long time after the humiliating end to the Vietnam War, the US seemed to suffer from a crisis of confidence, questioning its strength, the appeal of its values and its role in the world.

“This will be the final message from Saigon station,” wrote Thomas Polgar, the last serving CIA station chief in Saigon, before his evacuation. “It has been a long and hard fight and we have lost. This experience, unique in the history of the US, does not signal, necessarily, the demise of the US as a world power.”

He added: “Those who fail to learn from history are forced to repeat it. Let us hope that we will not have another Vietnam experience and that we have learned our lesson. Saigon signing off.”




Afghans crowd at the tarmac of the Kabul airport on August 16, 2021, to flee the country as the Taliban took control of Afghanistan. (AFP file)

American military historians would be right to assess that the lessons of Vietnam were lost when the US pursued another open-ended war whose initial limited objectives were overtaken by a zeal for nation-building.

As with Saigon in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the government in Kabul supported by the US military lacked the competence and broad legitimacy to combat an insurgency on its own.

In a now declassified 1969 memo to former president Richard Nixon, his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, expressed deep concern that the war was unlikely to be won militarily.

“I am not optimistic about the ability of the South Vietnamese armed forces to assume a larger part of the burden than current plans allow,” he wrote, adding: “Hanoi’s adoption of a strategy designed to wait us out fits both with its doctrine of how to fight a revolutionary war and with its expectations about increasingly significant problems for the US.”

In both the Vietnam and Afghanistan missions, time and lack of strategic patience were America’s main weaknesses in the face of a stubborn insurgency. Of the four different administrations that have guided US foreign policy since the Afghan war began, none took a step back to assess the likelihood of success as rationally and impartially as Kissinger did in the 1969 memo.

Although the Afghanistan mission did not produce the kind of civil disturbance and political turmoil synonymous with the Vietnam War, there was a broad consensus among US politicians for some time now that an indefinite military involvement in the culturally distant Central Asian country was not desirable.

Now that the Afghanistan chapter is closed, some point to the fact that the post-1975 period has seen a slow but remarkable rapprochement between the US and Vietnam.

Within the space of 20 years, the former belligerent nations were able to forge a relationship that today has evolved into a veritable strategic partnership, symbolized by the US-Vietnam Comprehensive Partnership of 2013.

A quarter of a century after the establishment of bilateral relations in 1995, the US and Vietnam are thus partners with a friendship grounded in mutual respect and suspicion of China’s geopolitical motives.

The partnership now spans political, economic, security and people-to-people ties. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese citizens study in the US and contribute almost $1 billion to the US economy.

“We must remember that the immediate consequences of the Vietnam War were horrible. Many in South Vietnam were sent to camps and murdered, resulting in a huge human-rights tragedy,” James Carafano, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Arab News. “Today, Vietnam is a different place. Vietnamese are terrified of China and they need the US to defend them.”

A strong, prosperous and independent Vietnam is very much in Washington’s interest as Hanoi and Beijing remain locked in a standoff over competing territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Bilateral trade between the two nations has grown from $451 million in 1995 to more than $90 billion in 2020. US goods exports to Vietnam were worth more than $10 billion in 2020, while imports were worth a whopping $79.6 billion. US investment in Vietnam touched $2.6 billion in 2019.




Vietnam's exports to the US swelled over the past decade. (Reuters file photo)

Now that the war in Afghanistan is over and discussions between the Taliban and regional countries toward diplomatic normalization are ongoing, the evolution of US-Vietnamese relations from enmity to a flourishing partnership can prove instructive.

Could economic leverage, common security interests and deft diplomacy achieve in Afghanistan what the expenditure of billions of dollars in building a defense force in the mold of Western militaries failed to do?

The Taliban have been keen to signal that they are ready to engage diplomatically with regional powers, including China, the Arab Gulf states, Turkey and even India.

For the US, the immediate security objective is to make sure that neither Al-Qaeda nor Daesh establishes a base of operations to plot transnational terror attacks from. To this end, the US will have to make use of all the tools at its disposal: Soft power, diplomacy and economic incentives.

The worst-case scenario at the time of the 1975 US defeat was a communist victory in South Vietnam having a “domino effect,” leading to the collapse of Southeast Asian governments allied with the US. But such an eventuality did not come to fruition.

The dramatic turnaround in US-Vietnam relations means there is room for hope in the case of Afghanistan, too, but with a number of caveats.

“There were two reasons why the US remained in Afghanistan: One, to prevent another space for transnational terror again, and two, to prevent the destabilization of South Asia. Both were legitimate US interests,” said Carafano.

“Now we have no presence, no visibility on the terrorist situation and no deterrent against actors in the region. We have lost the trust of allies.”

As for the future, Carafano said: “The Taliban are not going through an evolution like Germany post-Second World War. It’s a ridiculous notion that the Taliban will normalize as a government. Daesh are useful idiots who do not have the capacity to threaten anybody. They are a bigger threat to the Taliban than to us.

“Will the Taliban break with the Haqqani network and Al-Qaeda? They won’t. The Taliban may not plan the next 9/11, but Al-Qaeda and Haqqani will.”




In this photo taken on May 31, 2017, Afghan security forces stand at the site of a deadly explosion blamed on the Haqqani network. (AP file)

Clearly, the time-worn tribal partnership between the Haqqani network, which is an integral part of the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, will be a major complicating factor in the Taliban’s ability or willingness to prevent the international terror group from rebounding.

For the moment, the Taliban seem to be making all the right noises. The political leadership has emphasized that they are pursuing a nationalist vision, not a transnational one.

What remains to be seen is whether the group can prioritize the needs of running the affairs of state, which will require significant outside financial support and technical expertise, over a wild-eyed “revolutionary” vision that includes terror sanctuaries.

“In Vietnam, military victory over the US did not translate to a strategic defeat of the US and the anti-communist bloc globally,” Carafano told Arab News.

“Both Republican and Democratic administrations have taken successive steps toward strengthening Washington’s commitment to a security partnership with Vietnam. Previously unthinkable, US Navy aircraft carriers are now allowed to dock in Vietnamese ports.




US Vice President Kamala Harris meets with Vietnam's Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh din Hanoi on August 25, 2021. (REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/Pool)

“Whether the US and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan can develop some level of security arrangement based on a common threat perception is an open-ended question.

“But already, China and Russia have signaled that they are ready for a bigger role in Afghanistan in the wake of the US withdrawal. Though they are likely to engage cautiously. Both powers’ interest in Afghanistan lies in winning without fighting. But they’ll take their time in Afghanistan.”

In the final analysis, time was the overarching factor in America’s military defeat by the insurgency in both Vietnam and Afghanistan. But it also was the passage of time following the Vietnam War that enabled the adversaries to grow into friends based on common interests and threats.

It remains to be seen what American policymakers have learnt from the two humiliating withdrawals in order to avoid a third. With Vietnam, the US was able to salvage a measure of diplomatic victory from its military defeat. In Afghanistan, much will depend on the Taliban leadership’s ability and willingness to make a complete break with the past.

_______________

Twitter: @OS26


Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to skip NATO summit, source says

Updated 4 sec ago
Follow

Japan Prime Minister Ishiba to skip NATO summit, source says

TOKYO: Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is planning to cancel his attendance at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in the Hague, a source with direct knowledge said on Monday.
Broadcaster Fuji Television said Ishiba was canceling the trip because a planned meeting between NATO and a group of four Indo-Pacific nations (IP-4) would likely not take place, and because a meeting with US President Donald Trump was also unlikely.
South Korea and Australia, which along with the US and Japan make up the IP-4, have also said their leaders would not attend the NATO summit meeting.
Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya will represent Japan, the source said, declining to be identified because the plan is not public.

Emaciated after 5 years in prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski vows to fight on

Updated 13 min 50 sec ago
Follow

Emaciated after 5 years in prison, Belarusian dissident Tsikhanouski vows to fight on

  • Siarhei Tsikhanouski was sentenced to 19 years and six months on charges widely seen as politically motivated

VILNIUS: Siarhei Tsikhanouski is almost unrecognizable. Belarus’ key opposition figure, imprisoned in 2020 and unexpectedly released on Saturday, once weighed 135 kilograms (298 pounds) at 1.92 meters (nearly 6’4”) tall, but now is at just 79 kilos (174 pounds).
On Saturday, Tsikhnaouski was freed alongside 13 other prisoners and brought to Vilnius, the capital of neighboring Lithuania, where he was reunited with his wife, exiled Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, and their children. Speaking to The Associated Press the day after, Tsikhanouski tries to smile and joke, but struggles to hold back heavy sighs recalling what he endured behind bars.
“This is definitely torture,” Tsikhanouski told The Associated Press in the first sit-down interview since his release. Prison officials “kept telling me: ‘You will be here not just for the 20 years we’ve already given you.’ We will convict you again,’” he said. “They told me that ‘You would never get out.’ And they kept repeating: ‘You will die here.’”
One of Belarus’s most prominent opposition figures, Tsikhanouski said he “almost forgot how to speak” during his years in solitary confinement. He was held in complete isolation, denied medical care, and given barely enough food.
“If you had seen me when they threw only two spoons of porridge onto my plate, two small spoons …” he said, adding that he couldn’t buy anything anything in the prison kiosk. “They would sometimes give me a little tube of toothpaste, a little piece of soap as charity. Sometimes they would, sometimes they wouldn’t.”
A prominent voice of dissent
Now 46, Tsikhanouski, a popular blogger and activist, was freed just hours after Belarusian authorities announced that authoritarian President Alexander Lukashenko met with US President Donald Trump’s envoy for Ukraine in the Belarusian capital, Minsk. Keith Kellogg became the highest-ranking US official in years to visit Belarus, Moscow’s close and dependent ally.
Tsikhanouski, known for his anti-Lukashenko slogan “stop the cockroach,” was arrested after announcing plans to challenge the strongman in the 2020 election and shortly before the campaign began. He was sentenced to 19 years and six months on charges widely seen as politically motivated. His wife ran in his stead, rallying crowds across the country. Official results handed Lukashenko his sixth term in office but were denounced by the opposition and the West as a sham.
Lukashenko has since tightened his grip, securing a seventh term in disputed January 2025 elections. Since mid-2024, his government has pardoned nearly 300 prisoners — including US citizens — in what analysts see as an attempt to mend ties with the West.
Tsikhanouski credited US President Donald Trump with aiding his release.
“I thank Donald Trump endlessly,” Tsikhanouski said. “They (the Belarusian authorities) want Trump to at least, a little bit, somewhere, to meet them halfway. They are ready to release them all. All of them!”
Many are still behind bars
Tens of thousands of people poured into the streets in the aftermath of the August 2020 vote. Thousands were detained, many beaten by police. Prominent opposition figures either fled the country or were imprisoned.
At least 1,177 political prisoners remain in custody, according to Viasna, the oldest and most prominent human rights group in Belarus. Among them is Viasna’s founder, human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Ales Bialiatski.
Also behind bars are Viktor Babaryka, a former banker who was widely seen in 2020 as Lukashenko’s main electoral rival, and Maria Kolesnikova, a close ally of Tsikhanouskaya and charismatic leader of that year’s mass protests.
A surprise release and an emotional reunion
Tsikhanouski called his release “a dream that’s still hard to believe.” On Saturday, he said, guards removed him from a KGB pretrial detention center, put a black bag over his head, and handcuffed him before transporting him in a minibus. He and other prisoners had no idea where they were going.
“To be honest, I still can’t believe it. I was afraid I’d wake up and everything would still be the same. I don’t believe it, I still don’t believe it,” he said, pausing frequently and wiping away tears.
Tsikhanouski’s children — his daughter, aged 9, and 15-year-old son — didn’t recognize him when they were reunited.
“We came in and my wife said to my daughter, ‘Your dad has arrived,’” he said, crying. “At first she couldn’t understand, and then she rushed in — she was crying, I was crying ... for a very long time. My son too! These are emotions that cannot be described.”
Tsikhanouski, who says his health has deteriorated behind bars, plans to undergo a medical examination in Lithuania. He says cold and hunger were “the main causes of illness” that affected nearly all political prisoners in Belarus, who were subjected to “especially harsh conditions.”
“There were skin diseases, and everyone had kidney problems from the cold — and no one really understood what was happening,” Tsikhanouski said. “Blood came out of my mouth, from my nose. Sometimes I had convulsions — but it was all because of the cold, that terrible cold when you sit in those punishment cells.”
“There is no medical care in prison — none at all, just so you know …” he said.
Tsikhanouski said conditions slightly improved after the February 2024 death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in a prison colony.
“When Alexei Navalny died, I thought, that’ll probably be me soon … And then something changed. It was clear that someone at the top said, ‘Make sure he doesn’t die here. We don’t need that problem.’ It got just a bit softer ... At some point, word came down: Tsikhanouski must be kept alive, not killed.”
Pointing the finger at Putin
Tsikhanouski blames Russian President Vladimir Putin for propping up Lukashenko, both during the 2020 protests and to this day.
Russia supports Belarus’s economy with loans and subsidized oil and gas. In return, Belarus has allowed Moscow to use its territory to launch troops and weapons into Ukraine, and hosts Russian forces and nuclear weapons.
Tsikhanouski expressed strong support for Ukraine, calling the Kremlin a common evil for both countries.
“If it weren’t for Putin, we would already be living in a different country. Putin recognized Lukashenko’s victory in the election, he called black white. That is, he refused to see the falsifications,” Tsikhanouski said. “They help each other. Because of Putin, this illegal government is still in Belarus.”
Some analysts have speculated that by releasing the charismatic and energetic Tsikhanouski, Belarusian authorities may be trying to sow division within the opposition. But Tsikhanouski insists he has no intention of challenging his wife’s role as the internationally recognized head of the Belarusian opposition, and he calls for unity.
“Under no circumstances do I plan to criticize any Belarusians, condemn or complain about anyone,” he said.
Tsikhanouski says he will not stop fighting and wants to return to active work as both a political figure and a blogger. But he is skeptical that Lukashenko, now 70, will step down voluntarily, despite his age.
“I don’t know anymore — will he go or won’t he?” Tsikhanouski said. “Many people say nothing will change until he dies. But I’m still counting on democratic forces winning.”


NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions

Updated 51 min 56 sec ago
Follow

NATO leaders gather Tuesday for what could be a historic summit, or one marred by divisions

  • US President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are gathering this week for what might be a historic summit
  • NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic for an agreement to dedicate 5 percent of GDP to defense spending

THE HAGUE: US President Donald Trump and his NATO counterparts are due to gather Tuesday for a summit that could unite the world’s biggest security organization around a new defense spending pledge or widen divisions among the 32 allies.
Just a week ago, things had seemed rosy. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte was optimistic the European members and Canada would commit to invest at least as much of their economic growth on defense as the United States does for the first time.
Then Spain rejected the new NATO target for each country to spend 5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense needs, calling it “unreasonable.” Trump also insists on that figure. The alliance operates on a consensus that requires the backing of all 32 members.
The following day, Trump said the US should not have to respect the goal.
“I don’t think we should, but I think they should,” he said. Trump lashed out at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government, saying: “NATO is going to have to deal with Spain. Spain’s been a very low payer.” He also criticized Canada as “a low payer.”
Spain was the lowest spender in the alliance last year, directing less than 2 percent of its GDP on defense expenditure, while Canada was spending 1.45 percent, according to NATO figures.
Then Trump ordered the bombing of nuclear installations in Iran. In 2003, the US-led war on Iraq deeply divided NATO, as France and Germany led opposition to the attack, while Britain and Spain joined the coalition.
European allies and Canada also want Ukraine to be at the top of the summit agenda, but they are wary that Trump might not want President Volodymyr Zelensky to steal the limelight.
A short summit, decades of mutual security
The two-day summit in The Hague involves an informal dinner Tuesday and one working session Wednesday morning. A very short summit statement has been drafted to ensure the meeting is not derailed by fights over details and wording.
Indeed, much about this NATO summit is brief, even though ripples could be felt for years.
Founded in 1949, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed by 12 nations to counter the threat to security in Europe posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, notably via a strong US presence on the continent.
Dealing with Moscow is in its DNA. Keeping the peace outside the Euro-Atlantic area is not.
NATO’s ranks have grown to 32 countries since the Washington Treaty was signed 75 years ago. Sweden joined last year, worried by an increasingly aggressive Russia.
NATO’s collective security guarantee — Article 5 of the treaty — underpins its credibility.
It’s a political commitment by all countries to come to the aid of any member whose sovereignty or territory might be under attack. Trump has suggested he is committed to that pledge, but he has also sowed doubt about his intentions. He has said the US intends to remain a member of the alliance.
A civilian runs NATO, but the US and its military hold power
The United States is NATO’s most powerful member. It spends much more on defense than any other ally and far outweighs its partners in terms of military muscle. Washington has traditionally driven the agenda but has stepped back under Trump.
The US nuclear arsenal provides strategic deterrence against would-be adversaries.
NATO’s day-to-day work is led by Rutte, a former Dutch prime minister.
As its top civilian official, he chairs almost weekly meetings of ambassadors in the North Atlantic Council at its Brussels headquarters. He chairs other “NACs” at ministerial and leader levels. Rutte runs NATO headquarters, trying to foster consensus and to speak on behalf of all members.
NATO’s military headquarters is based nearby in Mons, Belgium. It is always run by a top US officer.
Ukraine’s role at the summit is unclear
With Trump demanding greater defense spending, it’s unclear what role Ukraine will play at the summit. Zelensky has been invited, but it’s unclear whether he will have a seat at NATO’s table, although he may take part in Tuesday’s dinner. Russia’s war in Ukraine usually dominates such meetings.
More broadly, NATO itself is not arming Ukraine. As an organization, it possesses no weapons of any kind. Collectively, it provides only non-lethal support — fuel, combat rations, medical supplies, body armor, and equipment to counter drones or mines.
But individually, members do send arms. European allies provided 60 percent of the military support that Ukraine received in 2024. NATO coordinates those weapons deliveries via a hub on the Polish border and helps organize training for Ukrainian troops.
NATO’s troop plans
A key part of the commitment for allies to defend one another is to deter Russia, or any other adversary, from attacking in the first place. Finland and Sweden joined NATO recently because of this concern.
Under NATO’s new military plans, 300,000 military personnel would be deployed within 30 days to counter any attack, whether it be on land, at sea, by air or in cyberspace. But experts doubt whether the allies could muster the troop numbers.
It’s not just about troop and equipment numbers. An adversary would be less likely to challenge NATO if it thought the allies would use the forces it controls. Trump’s threats against US allies — including imposing tariffs on them — has weakened that deterrence.
The US is carrying the biggest military burden
Due to high US defense spending over many years, the American armed forces have more personnel and superior weapons but also significant transportation and logistics assets.
Other allies are starting to spend more, though. After years of cuts, NATO members committed to ramp up their national defense budgets in 2014 when Russia illegally annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the NATO allies agreed to make 2 percent of GDP the minimum spending level. Last year, 22 countries were expected to hit that target, up from only three a decade ago.
In The Hague, the allies were expected to up the ante to 3.5 percent, plus a further 1.5 percent for things like improving roads, bridges, ports and airfields or preparing societies to deal with future conflicts. Whether they will now remains an open question.


ICE detains Marine Corps veteran’s wife who was still breastfeeding their child

Updated 23 June 2025
Follow

ICE detains Marine Corps veteran’s wife who was still breastfeeding their child

  • The husband says Paola Clouatre accompanied her mother illegally into the country from Mexico more than a decade ago
  • Trump administration pushes for immigration officers to arrest 3,000 people a day

BATON ROUGE: Marine Corps veteran Adrian Clouatre doesn’t know how to tell his children where their mother went after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detained her last month.
When his nearly 2-year-old son Noah asks for his mother before bed, Clouatre just tells him, “Mama will be back soon.” When his 3-month-old, breastfeeding daughter Lyn is hungry, he gives her a bottle of baby formula instead. He’s worried how his newborn will bond with her mother absent skin-to-skin contact.
His wife, Paola, is one of tens of thousands of people in custody and facing deportation as the Trump administration pushes for immigration officers to arrest 3,000 people a day.
Even as Marine Corps recruiters promote enlistment as protection for families lacking legal status, directives for strict immigrant enforcement have cast away practices of deference previously afforded to military families, immigration law experts say. The federal agency tasked with helping military family members gain legal status now refers them for deportation, government memos show.
To visit his wife, Adrian Clouatre has to make an eight-hour round trip from their home in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to a rural ICE detention center in Monroe. Clouatre, who qualifies as a service-disabled veteran, goes every chance he can get.
Paola Clouatre, a 25-year-old Mexican national whose mother brought her into the country illegally more than a decade ago, met Adrian Clouatre, 26, at a southern California nightclub during the final months of his five years of military service in 2022. Within a year, they had tattooed each other’s names on their arms.
After they married in 2024, Paola Clouatre sought a green card to legally live and work in the US Adrian Clouatre said he is “not a very political person” but believes his wife deserved to live legally in the US
“I’m all for ‘get the criminals out of the country,’ right?” he said. “But the people that are here working hard, especially the ones married to Americans — I mean, that’s always been a way to secure a green card.”
Detained at a green card meeting
The process to apply for Paola Clouatre’s green card went smoothly at first, but eventually she learned ICE had issued an order for her deportation in 2018 after her mother failed to appear at an immigration hearing.
Clouatre and her mother had been estranged for years — Clouatre cycled out of homeless shelters as a teenager — and up until a couple of months ago, Clouatre had “no idea” about her mother’s missed hearing or the deportation order, her husband said.
Adrian Clouatre recalled that a US Citizenship and Immigration Services staffer asked about the deportation order during a May 27 appointment as part of her green card application. After Paola Clouatre explained that she was trying to reopen her case, the staffer asked her and her husband to wait in the lobby for paperwork regarding a follow-up appointment, which her husband said he believed was a “ploy.”
Soon, officers arrived and handcuffed Paola Clouatre, who handed her wedding ring to her husband for safekeeping.
Adrian Clouatre, eyes welling with tears, said he and his wife had tried to “do the right thing” and that he felt ICE officers should have more discretion over arrests, though he understood they were trying to do their jobs.
“It’s just a hell of a way to treat a veteran,” said Carey Holliday, a former immigration judge who is now representing the couple. “You take their wives and send them back to Mexico?”
The Clouatres filed a motion for a California-based immigration judge to reopen the case on Paola’s deportation order and are waiting to hear back, Holliday said.
Less discretion for military families
Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in an emailed statement that Paola Clouatre “is in the country illegally” and that the administration is “not going to ignore the rule of law.”
“Ignoring an Immigration Judge’s order to leave the US is a bad idea,” US Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a June 9 post on X which appeared to refer to Clouatre’s case. The agency added that the government “has a long memory and no tolerance for defiance when it comes to making America safe again.”
Prior to the Trump administration’s push to drive up deportations, USCIS provided much more discretion for veterans seeking legal status for a family member, said Holliday and Margaret Stock, a military immigration law expert.
In a Feb. 28 memo, the agency said it “will no longer exempt” from deportation people in groups that had received more grace in the past. This includes the families of military personnel or veterans, Stock said. As of June 12, the agency said it has referred upward of 26,000 cases to ICE for deportation.
USCIS still offers a program allowing family members of military personnel who illegally entered the US to remain in the country as they apply for a green card. But there no longer appears to be room for leeway, such as giving a veteran’s spouse like Paola Clouatre the opportunity to halt her active deportation order without facing arrest, Stock said.
But numerous Marine Corps recruiters have continued to post ads on social media, geared toward Latinos, promoting enlistment as a way to gain “protection from deportation” for family members.
“I think it’s bad for them to be advertising that people are going to get immigration benefits when it appears that the administration is no longer offering these immigration benefits,” Stock said. “It sends the wrong message to the recruits.”
Marine Corps spokesperson Master Sgt. Tyler Hlavac told The Associated Press that recruiters have now been informed they are “not the proper authority” to “imply that the Marine Corps can secure immigration relief for applicants or their families.”


Paris’ iconic cauldron from the Olympic Games returns to light up summer nights

Updated 23 June 2025
Follow

Paris’ iconic cauldron from the Olympic Games returns to light up summer nights

  • The helium-powered balloon rose again into the air on Saturday, lifting off over the Tuileries Garden just as the sun was about to set
  • After Saturday’s flight, the balloon will lift off into the sky each summer evening from June 21 to Sept. 14, for the next three years

The helium-powered balloon rose again into the air on Saturday, lifting off over the Tuileries Garden just as the sun was about to set

After Saturday’s flight, the balloon will lift off into the sky each summer evening from June 21 to Sept. 14, for the next three years

PARIS: A year after it captivated crowds during the Paris Olympics, a centerpiece of the summer Games made a comeback Saturday to light up the French capital’s skyline.
The iconic helium-powered balloon that attracted myriads of tourists during the summer Games has shed its Olympic branding and is now just called the “Paris Cauldron.” It rose again into the air later Saturday, lifting off over the Tuileries Garden just as the sun was about to set.
Despite the suffocating hot weather in Paris, around 30,000 people were expected to attend the launch, which coincided with France’s annual street music festival — the Fete de la Musique, the Paris police prefecture said.
And it won’t be a one-time event. After Saturday’s flight, the balloon will lift off into the sky each summer evening from June 21 to Sept. 14, for the next three years.
The cauldron’s ascent may become a new rhythm of the Parisian summer, with special flights planned for Bastille Day on July 14 and the anniversary of the 2024 opening ceremony on July 26.
Gone is the official “Olympic” branding — forbidden under International Olympic Committee reuse rules — but the spectacle remains.
The 30-meter (98-foot) -tall floating ring, dreamed up by French designer Mathieu Lehanneur and powered by French energy company EDF, simulates flame without fire: LED lights, mist jets and high-pressure fans create a luminous halo that hovers above the city at dusk, visible from rooftops across the capital.
Though it stole the show in 2024, the cauldron was only meant to be temporary, not engineered for multi-year outdoor exposure.
To transform it into a summer staple, engineers reinforced it. The aluminum ring and tether points were rebuilt with tougher components to handle rain, sun and temperature changes over several seasons. Though it’s a hot-air-balloon-style, the lift comes solely from helium — no flame, no burner, just gas and engineering.
The structure first dazzled during the Olympics. Over just 40 days, it drew more than 200,000 visitors, according to officials.
Now anchored in the center of the drained Tuileries pond, the cauldron’s return is part of French President Emmanuel Macron’s effort to preserve the Games’ spirit in the city, as Paris looks ahead to the 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.