Mediaboss Marketing

PresidentTrump was never believable as a dove.

He insisted repeatedly on the campaign trail that hehad opposed the war in Iraq; the public record made clear that, to the contrary, his views of the war basically aligned with public opinion on the whole. The one exception was in March 2004, when the subject came up right after a big drop in the stock market. Otherwise, Trumps position was generally similar to the percentage of people who said the war was worth fighting in Washington Post-ABC polling.

Whats more, his rhetoric is not the sort of thing youd hear from most opponents of military intervention. He talked on the campaign trail of crushing the Islamic State by matching the extremist groups brutal tactics. Since his inauguration, hehas threatened war with North Korea and, this month, he refused to rule out a military option against Venezuela.

Nonetheless, he repeatedly insisted that, in fact, he had fervently opposed the Iraq War from the outset. The rationale for this was simple: Hillary Clinton supported it, and he used his stated (and untrue) opposition as a way to dig at her judgment.

He also used the war in Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan as foils for his broader argument about the poor decision-making of Washington politicians. Our Aaron Blake collected a slew of past comments Trump made about Afghanistan, most of which, like the one below, were focused on the money and lives he said that the United States wasted in the country.

Yet again, though, Trump is learning that his campaign-trail rhetoric was far easier than the decisions he needs to make as president.

On Monday night, Trump will address the nation and outline his vision for a path forward in Afghanistan. Among the possible proposals, we reported, are an increase of 3,800 American troops in the country, added to the 8,400 there. Its the sort of proposal that would not be unexpected from an U.S. president post-Sept. 11, 2001,or from a guy who supported the Iraq War at the outset. But its out of keeping with the priorities Trump presented over the course of the 2016 election.

Most Americans, in fact, oppose the idea of increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. In June, Fox News polled Americans and found that the proposal was opposed by a 2-to-1 margin. The good news for Trump, though? There are a few demographics that support a troop increase and those demographics overlap strongly with his base.

Republicans and those who voted for Trumpin 2016 are the only groups in which more people say they support a troop increase than oppose it. White evangelicals are evenly split.

Sure, a troop surge in Afghanistan contradicts the noninterventionist worldviewTrump presented upon his entry into politics (even though that presentation was itself insincere). But at the very least, Trump can reassure himself, the people who brought him to the dance would be the most supportive of a push to expand the U.S. presence in Afghanistan.

As weve noted before, Trumps policy focus has consistently been to make decisions based on what his supporters hope hell do. If on Monday he announces that hes sending more troops to Afghanistan, that announcement would be very much in keeping with his behavior.

Even if its at odds with the person he insisted he was in his tweets and in his campaign rhetoric.

View post:
Most Americans oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan except in Trump's base - Washington Post

Stephen K. Bannon is back at Breitbart and, as promised, hes not pulling any punches.

Trump reverses course, will send more troops to Afghanistan, read the headline on Breitbarts homepage following President Trumps prime time address on U.S. military strategy in Afghanistan. Defends flip-flop in somber speech.

Trumps Monday night speech in which he furthercommitted troops to the nations longest war, but offered few specifics represented another clash between Trump andBannon, who returned to Breitbart on Friday, the same day he wasousted as Trumps chief strategist.

The speech was a disappointment to many who had supported his calls during the campaign to end expensive foreign intervention and nation-building, wrote Breitbarts Pentagon correspondent Kristina Wong in the sites lead article. He acknowledged the frustration that Americans felt after 16 years of war without an end in sight.

Bannon, who left Breitbart just a little over a year ago to join Trumps presidential campaign, is back as its executive chairman and led an editorial meeting Friday evening. Earlier in the day, Breitbart senior editor-at-large Joel B. Pollak tweeted #WARwhen news emerged that Bannon would leave the White House.

But Bannon says he wont be going to war against the president, but on his behalf,he told Bloomberg News.

If theres any confusion out there, let me clear it up: Im leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America, Bannon said.

Breitbart started out as a small site bent on exposing the liberal bias in mainstream media. Now, its former executive, Stephen Bannon, is in the White House, and the site has begun targeting political adversaries of the Trump administration. (Erin Patrick O'Connor/The Washington Post)

Despite his assurances, Bannons site was rough on the president Monday night.

A top architect of Trumps nationalist agenda, Bannon has long opposed sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan, which put him at odds with Trumps national security adviser H.R. McMaster. Instead, he recruited Erik D. Prince, a founder of the private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, to develop proposals to have private contractors continue fighting in Afghanistan instead of U.S. troops,according to the New York Times.Defense SecretaryJim Mattisdeclined to include Bannons strategy in the review of Afghanistan policy he led with McMaster, according to the Times.

In a Breitbartarticle that went up before Trump began his much-anticipated address, Princetold conservative news sitethat heanticipated Trump would roll over and accept the same failed DOD paradigm of the last 16 years.

As interested in diversity as the Pentagon claims to be, they arent interested in diversity of opinions on how to end their longest war, Prince said.

In another article from Breibarts preview coverage, Pollak wrotethat the president risks fumbling into the kind of intractable conflict he specifically promised his voters he would avoid.

But on its Twitter account, Breitbarts reviews of the presidents speech seemeddecidedly less critical.

The American people are weary of war without victory, read one tweet, which linked to Wongs article. Another quoted New York Times correspondent Maggie Haberman, who said Trump gave his best speech as POTUS.

Trump who has for years called for a withdrawal from the war said during his speech that although his original instinct was to pull out, decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

He provided few specifics about how much the U.S. military commitment would increase.

More from Morning Mix

Chelsea Clinton defends Barron Trump after conservative website bashes his clothes

Rep. Gianforte must get fingerprinted and photographed for assaulting reporter, judge says

Jerry Falwell Jr. keeps defending Trump as Liberty University grads return diplomas

Jerry Lewis telethons raised billions for muscular dystrophy. Many cheered when he went off the air.

Read the original here:
Bannon's Breitbart spins Trump's Afghanistan speech as 'flip-flop' - Washington Post

One current estimate pegs the conflict's total cost at $841 billion. That comes from Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cordesman, who served as a consultant to the Departments of State and Defense during the Afghan and Iraq wars, says that figure includes Trump's budget request for next year.

Related from CNN: Afghanistan: 16 years, thousands dead and no clear end in sight

Other estimates place the 16-year cost in the trillions of dollars because they measure a broader range of factors.

For instance, Neta Crawford, a co-director of the Cost of Wars Project at Brown University, has estimated that total war spending in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001 is approaching $5 trillion. Of that, roughly $2 trillion is attributable to Afghanistan. That includes some future cost obligations.

But even that higher figure leaves out some key expenses, such as the future costs of interest Americans will owe for the money borrowed to finance the war in Afghanistan. That alone could add trillions of dollars to the total tab.

While the U.S. has a history of wartime taxation to finance military conflicts -- albeit uneven -- that tradition was broken with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to tax historian Joe Thorndike. Not only did Congress not pass a tax to finance the efforts, it opted instead to pass the Bush tax cuts.

Related: The U.S. already spends more on defense than any other country

The $2 trillion also doesn't include future spending on the Department of Veterans Affairs related to Afghanistan or the money paid by states and localities for services provided to returning vets.

Estimates vary widely because there is no clearly delineated, uniform way that money spent on wars is allocated or counted by the White House or Congress.

And, of course, no financial estimate can offer a measure of the true cost of war -- the loss of human life on all sides as well as the physical and psychological disabilities suffered by those who survive -- whether military or civilian.

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 21, 2017: 5:50 PM ET

See the original post:
The financial cost of 16 years in Afghanistan - CNNMoney

President Trump isset to address U.S. troops and the nation about the war in Afghanistan Monday night, the White House announced on Sunday, as the president considers whether to take a new approach to the conflict that has stretched on for 16 years.

Trump will "provide an update on the path forward for Americas engagement in Afghanistan and South Asia" at 9 p.m. ET, the White House said. The president is scheduled to speak from Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia.

The president hinted Saturday that he and top U.S. generals have agreed on a new strategy for America's longest war, after huddling Friday at the presidential Camp David retreat.

"Important day spent at Camp David with our very talented Generals and military leaders," Trump tweeted. "Many decisions made, including on Afghanistan."

Since taking office, Trump has considered several options for Afghanistan, from sending in additional troops to walking away from the war, an unlikely move considering U.S. concerns about thwarting Islamic terrorism.

Solutions for Afghanistan, which include ending the longest war in American history, eluded the Obama administration and have not come easily to Trump.

The challenge is largely how to step up the fight against terrorism in a way that advances peace prospects -- in large part because the Taliban have gained ground and show no interest in peace negotiations.

Trump met at the presidential retreat, in nearby western Maryland, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, top intelligence agency officials and other top military and diplomatic aides.

Mattis said earlier this week the administration was "very close" to finalizing a new approach, after the defense secretary presented the president with "several" options.

"I'm very comfortable that the strategic process wassufficiently rigorous," Mattis added, saying Trump asked questions about each option.

Months ago the Pentagon settled on a plan to send about 3,800 additional troops to strengthen the Afghan army, which is stuck in what some call a deteriorating situation with the Taliban insurgency. Within in the White House, questions persist about the wisdom of investing further resources in the war. Even if the administration decides to add more troops, it's unclear whether they could get there quickly enough to make a difference in the current Afghan fighting season, which winds down in autumn.

The administration has said its Afghanistan strategy will be informed by a review of its approach to the broader region, including Pakistan and India. The Taliban have long used Pakistan as a sanctuary, complicating efforts to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan and stabilize the country. The region includes other actors who pose political problems for Washington, including Iran, which has influence in western Afghanistan.

Government forces also are battling an Islamic State affiliate that has carved out a foothold mostly in the east. Trump has vowed to crush ISIS, so its expansion in Afghanistan poses an additional challenge with no immediate solution. Just this week, a U.S. soldier was killed and nearly a dozen were wounded in combat with ISIS fighters.

The U.S. has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Their primary roles are to train and advise Afghan forces and to hunt down and kill members of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Fox News' Kristin Brown, Joseph Weber and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

See more here:
Trump to address nation on Afghanistan | Fox News

President Trump hinted Saturday that he and top U.S. generals have agreed on a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, after huddling Friday at the presidential Camp David retreat.

"Important day spent at Camp David with our very talented Generals and military leaders," Trump tweeted. "Many decisions made, including on Afghanistan."

Since taking office, Trump has considered several options for Afghanistan, from sending in additional troops to walking away from the war, an unlikely move considering U.S. concerns about thwarting Islamic terrorism.

Solutions for Afghanistan, which include ending the longest war in American history, eluded the Obama administration and haven't come easily to Trump.

The challenge is largely how to step up the fight against terrorism in a way that advances peace prospects -- in large part because the Taliban has been gaining ground and shows no interest in peace negotiations.

Trump met at the presidential retreat, in nearby western Maryland, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, top intelligence agency officials and other top military and diplomatic aides.

Mattis said earlier this week the administration was "very close" to finalizing a new approach and that the talks in the Catoctin Mountains will help the president and his team move toward a decision.

"We are coming very close, he said. And I anticipate (a decision) in the very near future.

Gen. Joseph Votel, the Central Command chief who is responsible for U.S. military operations in the greater Middle East, was not part of the meetings.

Votel said Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Joint Chiefs chairman, represent him in the White House-led Afghanistan strategy review.

He also said he has not talked directly to Trump as part of the months-long review.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders issued a brief statement earlier this week saying Trump had been briefed extensively on a new strategy to protect America's interests in the region. But she did not specifically mention Afghanistan.

The U.S. has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Their primary roles are to train and advise Afghan forces and to hunt down and kill members of Al Qaeda and other extremist groups.

Months ago, the Pentagon settled on a plan to send about 3,800 additional troops to strengthen the Afghan army, which is stuck in what some call a deteriorating situation with the Taliban insurgency.

Within the White House, questions persist about the wisdom of investing further resources in the war. Even if the administration decides to add more troops, it's unclear whether they could get there quickly enough to make a difference in the current Afghan fighting season, which winds down in autumn.

The administration has said its Afghanistan strategy will be informed by a review of its approach to the broader region, including Pakistan and India. The Taliban have long used Pakistan as a sanctuary, complicating efforts to defeat the insurgency in Afghanistan and stabilize the country.

The region includes other actors who pose political problems for Washington, including Iran, which has influence in western Afghanistan.

The outlook is clouded by the Afghan government's struggle to halt Taliban advances on its own. The U.S. special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction has said the Taliban hold sway in almost half the country.

Government forces also are battling an Islamic State affiliate that has carved out a foothold, mostly in the east. Trump has vowed to crush IS, so its expansion in Afghanistan poses an additional challenge with no obvious solution. Just this week, a U.S. soldier was killed and nearly a dozen wounded in combat with IS fighters.

Trump has expressed frustration at the prolonged fighting in Afghanistan. Earlier this summer he raised the idea of firing the top U.S. commander there, Gen. John Nicholson.

Asked this week if Trump has confidence in Nicholson, Mattis demurred. "Ask the president," he answered.

Trump is "looking at all aspects" of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan "as he must in his responsibilities as the commander in chief," Mattis said.

Nicholson also was not participating in Friday's talks at Camp David.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the original post:
Trump hints at Afghanistan agreement with US generals | Fox News