Mediaboss Marketing

A decision to send additional American troops to Afghanistan, a possibility now being considered by the Trump White House, would provide a welcome boost to Special Operations activities there, a senior military official said Thursday.

Army Gen. Raymond A. Tony ThomasIII, the head of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM), said that while no additional Special Operations troops are currently required, the introduction of more conventional troops, whose mission is focused on advising and supporting Afghan forces, would indirectly help special operators, who are tasked chiefly with tracking down al-Qaeda and other extremist fighters in a separate counterterrorism mission.

Giving testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Thomas suggested that an expanded training mission could lessen the need for U.S. Special Operations troops to conduct dangerous missions alongside local forces.

More conventional forces that would thicken the ability to advise and assist Afghan forces that would absolutely be to our benefit, he said.

[U.S. watchdog finds major internal flaws hampering Afghanistan war effort]

The generals remarks come as the White House considers steps to overhaul the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, where security has deteriorated more than 15 years after American troops were first sent to battle the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other militants.

Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has said that thousands of additional foreign troops are needed to help the Afghan government fend off a re-energized Taliban insurgency. Struggling to hold on to terrain in a conflict that U.S. officials have described as a stalemate, Afghanistans own forces are taking high casualties and grappling with persistent problems of corruption, desertion and skills gaps.

About three-quarters of the U.S. force of 8,400 stationed in Afghanistan is tasked with training and supporting local forces, while the remainder, largely Special Operations troops, take part in the counterterrorism mission.

In a sign of the challenges ahead, a Taliban attack killed more than 140 people at an Afghan army base last month shortly before Defense Secretary Jim Mattis paid a visit to evaluate conditions in the country.

Late last week, signaling the final stages of a policy review overseen by national security adviser H.R. McMaster, President Trumps top advisers met to discuss the way ahead. The president, who has not spoken extensively about the conflict in Afghanistan, is expected to weigh in ahead of a NATO meeting he will attend May25.

While President Obamas approach to Afghanistan, following his 2009-2011 troop surge, was focused in large part on limiting the U.S. military footprint there, the Trump administration appears willing to commit greater military resources.

In keeping with its emphasis on doling out military burdens among allied nations, it is also seeking an increase in the number of NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Officials are looking not only at a potential troop increase, but also, in keeping with a general push to provide military officials greater flexibility, possible changes to rules that guide U.S. operations there. If approved, those steps could allow U.S. troops to conduct operations with Afghan forces in a wider array of situations and possibly increase the use of American air power.

Theresa Whelan, a senior Pentagon official who testified alongside Thomas, said the Trump administration was actively looking at adjustments to its approach to Afghanistan.

I expect that these proposals will go to the president within the next week, and the intent is to do just that, to move beyond the stalemate, she said.

[U.S. commander in Afghanistan opens door to a few thousand more troops deploying there]

It is not clear whether the Trump administrations review will produce significant changes to the political strategy for Afghanistan. While the United States has strongly backed the countrys unity government, it became less active in recent years in seeking to broker a peace agreement with the Taliban than it had been earlier in the Obama administration.

Thomas suggested that the United States needed to articulate a clearer goal for its involvement in Afghanistan. I think the critical factor is the commitment the commitment to some enduring state that has not been described effectively in the past, he said.

The general spoke on an array of issues related to Special Operations activities, which account for 2percent of military spending and personnel but has been spared the budget and personnel cuts experienced by other areas of the military.

In written testimony, the general addressed what he said was SOCOMs growing focus on the threat posed by North Korea, which has made advances in its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

That has included maintaining a Special Operations presence on the Korean Peninsula and seeking means to ensure that SOCOM, recently put in charge of coordinating the U.S. response to threats from weapons of mass destruction, is ready to use its special operators effectively.

Original post:
Special Operations commander: More troops would aid Afghanistan fight - Washington Post

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Despitethe recent deployment of more U.S. troops to Afghanistan and other heightened efforts to eradicate terrorist groups, especially ISIS, Afghanistans former president, Hamid Karzai, believes the U.S. is in league with ISIS.

"The Daesh is a U.S. product," he told Fox News in an exclusive interview Wednesday in Kabul, using the Arabic word for the extremist Muslim group. "The Daesh -- which is clearly foreign -- emerged in 2015 during the U.S. presence."

Karzai, who was president from December 2004 to September 2014, said he routinely receives reports about unmarked helicopters dropping supplies to the terror faction on the Pakistan and Afghanistan border -- something that the "U.S. must explain."

He also expressed great distress at the dropping of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) last month, convinced it was a joint U.S.-ISIS operation.

"The Daesh had already emptied most of their (families and fighters) so this was coordinated. This group is just a U.S. tool. This cannot be any other tool," he went on. "First, the Daesh comes to drive people away and then the U.S. comes and drops that big bomb ... come on."

In Karzai's view, the U.S. simply wants to use Afghanistan terrain to "test" its toys.

"They [America] think this is no man's land for testing and abuse, but they are wrong about that," he said. "We have a deeply patriotic population here that will not allow this."

He also quibbled with MOABs nickname, Mother of All Bombs, saying it should be DOAB.

"The mother is a kind figure. She does not fit with a bomb," Karzai lamented. "This should be the 'Deadliest of All Bombs.' The casualty is Afghan sovereignty, our soil and, most hurtfully, our dignity. How can they say they are our allies and then bomb us?"

He said several metric tons of chemicals were injected into the ground on MOABs detonation, but when asked if it had been tested said they did not yet have the means to do so.

Karzai said that after that bomb was detonated he decided to destroy the "very nice" letter he had carefully crafted for President Trump, proposing such solutions as the need for less military engagement and alternatives "to rivalry" in the war-stricken country.

"I was about to sign it and then the MOAB came, so I abandoned it," Karzai said. "It was so disrespectful, why would I send him a letter?"

In the early years of his administration Karzai, considered to be the firstdemocratically elected leader of the country, had close ties with President George W. Bush, but relations steadily soured and have hit a further low point since he left office almost three years ago.

In the waning years of his presidency, the Karzai team was widely accused of crony capitalism and immense corruption, accusations he staunchly denies as another U.S. fiction.

"When this [accusations] emerged was when I began to speak out in opposition to the U.S. of spraying all our fields with chemicals," he said. "They used [the accusation of] 'corruption' then as another tool."

Karzai regards as his biggest presidential failure allowing a free market "laissez-faire" economic system, whereby transactions between public and private entities can proceed without government intervention.

"I should have gone with a Scandinavian or Chinese model of economy," he noted. "But other than that, I am happy. I did what I did."

Hollie McKay has been a FoxNews.com staff reporter since 2007. She has reported extensively from the Middle East on the rise and fall of terrorist groups such as ISIS in Iraq. Follow her on twitter at @holliesmckay

Visit link:
US aids ISIS, says Afghanistan's former president | Fox News - Fox News

The Trump administration is poised to double down on U.S. commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, all but ensuring continued American military involvement in both countries for years to come.

The White House is weighing a proposal to send between 3,000 to 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan to deal with the deteriorating security situation there, with both the Taliban and Islamic State increasingly active in parts of the country. With NATO leaders expected to match Washingtons proposed force increases, as many as 10,000 new allied troops may be heading to Afghanistan just as the longest conflict in American history enters its 16th year. Separately, The Associated Press reported that talks have begun with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to allow for a permanent U.S. military presence in the country even after the Islamic State fighters are ousted from Mosul and other strongholds in the country. Officials from Washington and Baghdad confirmed the talks to allow American troops to remain in several bases in Baghdad, as well as positions along the Syrian border and near the ISIS-held city of Mosul, the AP reported Thursday.

There is a general understanding on both sides that it would be in the long-term interests of each to have that continued presence, a U.S. official told the AP, on the condition of anonymity. Mr. Trump and others have criticized the Obama administration for agreeing to what they say was a too-hasty U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, with Islamic State eventually filling the security vacuum three years later.

On Afghanistan, Theresa Whelan, who oversees the Pentagons special operations forces, said Thursday that the departments proposals on troop levels could reach the presidents desk as early as next week.

We are actually actively looking at adjustments to the approach in Afghanistan right now, Ms. Whelan told the Senate Armed Services Committee, adding that the Pentagons intent is to move beyond the stalemate and also to recognize that Afghanistan is a very important partner for the United States in a very tricky region.

Roughly 9,000 American service members are deployed in Afghanistan, training and advising Afghan National Security Forces under Operation Resolute Support. A smaller number of U.S. special operations units are also battling the Taliban and a resurgent Islamic State.

Thousands of U.S. troops began returning to Iraq in 2015, in an effort to support Iraqi and Kurdish forces battling to roll back ISIS control in the countrys north, centered on Mosul. Iraqi forces backed by U.S. artillery and air power have retaken the eastern half of the city, and are battling to reclaim the western half in brutal urban combat.

Col. John Dorian, the top U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said Wednesday the Pentagon was committed to maintaining a presence in Iraq once ISIS is flushed from the country.

Our support to the government of Iraq is going to remain the same type of relationship that we continued with them throughout the [ISIS] campaign, he told reporters during a briefing from Baghdad.

While an increased U.S. military commitment in Iraq could build on recent battlefield victories against ISIS, the proposed U.S. troop surge in Afghanistan is needed to break the stalemate in the war there. Since the U.S. combat mission ended in 2014, Afghan forces have managed to secure control just over 60 percent of the country.

On Thursday, U.S. Special Operations Command chief Gen. Raymond Thomas refused to characterize the Afghan War as a stalemate, but did question the level of commitment to the war effort by the Obama administration.

More conventional forces that would thicken the ability to advise and assist Afghan forces, that would absolutely be to our benefit, Gen. Thomas said.

View post:
U.S. may send up to 5000 more troops to Afghanistan - Washington Times

Although thousands upon thousands of well-meaning Americans on Facebook and Twitter are asking people to pray for the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, the grunts arent suffering any casualties in Afghanistan. Theyre home at Camp Pendleton, preparing to deploy to sea.

The latest hoax seems to have broken out on Facebook in late February before dying down in mid-March. It has come roaring back in recent days, however, triggering a flood of social-media support for the Darkhorse battalion that once suffered heavy losses in Afghanistan but isnt actually in combat now.

We are asking everyone to say a prayer for Darkhorse 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines and their families. They are fighting it out in Afghanistan and have lost nine Marines in four days. Please repost this, reads the typical message being circulated on social media.

As the rumors circulated in March and April, the battalion was training for a future deployment with the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit. Between March 24 and April 4, for example, 3/5 Marines underwent a Marine Corps Combat Readiness Evaluation at Camp Pendleton.

This week, elements of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit have been participating in a Composite Unit Training Exercise COMPTUEX off the coast of Southern California aboard the Navys amphibious assault ship America.

The urban legend about 3/5 Marines currently suffering major combat losses in Afghanistan has roots in truth.

Deployed to Afghanistans restive Helmand Province in 2010-11, 3/5 Marines and the 1st Combat Engineers suffered 25 deaths and nearly 200 wounded. Some of the most brutal fighting was concentrated near the district of Sangin, triggering widespread support on the social media from well-wishers at the time.

After the Darkhorse Marines rotated home, calls for prayers for their safety continued to flare up in late 2012, both the summer and late winter of 2013, the summers of 2014 and 2015, late December of 2015 and then again two months ago, according to a San Diego Union-Tribune analysis of Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Twitter and Facebook followers often have demanded to know why the mainstream media or MSM refused to cover the old story, failing to realize that the Union-Tribune and other news outlets reported extensively about the Darkhorse battalions real deployment of 2010-11 in Afghanistan.

Internet rumor-slayer Snopes.com updated a special page on the Darkhorse dilemma on May 1, pointing to articles about the earlier deployment in the Union-Tribune and its sister paper the Los Angeles Times. Snopes rated the latest eruption of 3/5 prayer requests outdated.

cprine@sduniontribune.com

See the article here:
Don't believe the social media rumors: Camp Pendleton's 'Darkhorse Marines' aren't dying in Afghanistan - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Between the solution-less horror of North Korean nukes and the self-inflicted damage of Twitter diplomacy lies a decision that, while important in itself, will indicate a great deal about the foreign policy philosophy and geopolitical strategy of the Trump administration. What will the president do about the war in Afghanistan?

The good news? The choices are being clarified in a context that is the clearest strength of the Trump presidency: his first-rate national-security staff. Any meeting that includes Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and national security adviser H.R. McMaster is a convening of the counterinsurgency A-team. Both are part of the surge generation of military officers who helped retrieve the Iraq War from disaster. Both know what near-defeat looks and smells like, and what might be involved in achieving slow, partial, conflicted progress. Both know the consequences of abandoning the battlefield before success is assured and the high cost of cleaning up after that mistake.

President Trump is in the process of being presented with a range of choices concerning Afghanistan. This type of review generally yields a Goldilocks-inspired briefing book, including a high-commitment option, a low-commitment option and a middle-range approach (which is often the one that the staff really likes). According to recent press accounts, McMasters preferred option might include a mini-surge in troops; greater resources for military and police training; efforts to improve Afghan governance; an increased pace of operations against the Taliban; and no artificial timetable for American withdrawal. The goal would be to strengthen President Ashraf Ghanis government just enough, and weaken the Taliban just enough, that some kind of peace settlement could be negotiated.

This is conceived as a sustained effort, unlike President Barack Obamas reluctant, time-limited Afghan surge. The cost of the McMaster approach has been estimated at $23 billion a year which is a serious commitment, given that Afghanistans entire gross domestic product was less than $20 billion in 2015.

None of this has been decided. And who knows how and what Trump will decide. But he will face (at least) two major problems if he agrees to anything in the reported range.

First, Trump and his team will need to convince Congress and the country that Ghanis government which has high ambitions and few capabilities is a credible partner. Both Mattis and McMaster have recently been to Kabul. What evidence did they find that the Afghan government could absorb added help?

Second, the president will have difficulty communicating a decision of this type because it sounds suspiciously like nation-building. And it would be nation-building in all but name.

Trump is facing the inescapable logic of internationalism. It is true that the United States cant be everywhere in the world. But the United States can be struck by threats emerging anywhere in the world (with Afghanistan as Exhibit A). Preventing those threats requires the ability to strike from a distance (with drones, missiles and special operations) and the existence of capable partners and proxies who control and police their own territory.

How are partners and proxies strengthened? By providing military hardware and the skills to use it. By training police who are governed by the rule of law. By encouraging effective, non-corrupt governance. By encouraging health and economic opportunity as alternatives to resentment and radicalism.

This is the reality that Trump is discovering in his first contact with the problems of the world. The United States needs to employ nonmilitary tools of influence things such as training and foreign assistance precisely because they can reduce the need for large-scale military interventions. Putting America first actually requires putting our partners in a generous and respected second.

The United States eventually needs a capable, nonradical government in Afghanistan that controls as much of its own territory as possible. This will not be achieved by bombing the hell out of the Taliban alone. It will also not be achieved without bombing the hell out of the Taliban, because it has no current incentive to come to the peace table.

Only one of these facts the bombing-the-hell-out-of-the-enemy part fits Trumps instincts. But somehow he will need to understand and explain to the American public the strengthening-our-partners element. Trump should take comfort in the fact that George W. Bush made a similar transition. He ran against Clintonian nation-building in his 2000 campaign. Yet in his second inaugural address, in 2005, Bush located American success in the success and freedom of others.

As a speechwriter I was along for the ride on this learning curve, which bent dramatically on Sept. 11, 2001. Because Afghanistan, of all places, had been forgotten.

Read more from Michael Gersons archive, follow him on Twitter or subscribe to his updates on Facebook .

Original post:
What will Trump do about Afghanistan? There's a good model to follow. - Washington Post