Acting Pentagon Chief Thinks Troop Reductions ‘Fraught With Risk’

[Boats]

Acting Pentagon Chief Thinks Troop Reductions ‘Fraught With Risk’
By: Robert Burns - Huff Post Political News - 11-18-20
Re: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/actin...b664958c7d0941

Some members of Congress, including Republicans, have argued that the U.S. troop reduction is unwise or premature.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The coming period of U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq is “fraught with risk,” but the military will not hesitate to strike back if extremists attempt to undermine the transition to a smaller U.S. force in those countries, the newly installed acting secretary of defense said Wednesday.

Speaking at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Christopher C. Miller, who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq as an Army Special Forces officer, said President Donald Trump’s order to cut the U.S. military presence to 2,500 troops in those countries by Jan. 15 was a step toward ending the wars responsibly.

Some members of Congress, including Republicans, have argued that the move is unwise or premature.

“Headlines about ‘bringing the boys home’ sound good, but that’s not what’s happening,” said Sen. Ben Sasse, a Nebraska Republican and member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “After this retreat, there will still be American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most important question is whether those remaining troops will be able to prevent al-Qaida, the Islamic State, Iranian proxies, and others from plotting attacks that can spill American blood, or if they will be exposed as jihadis gain ground.”

Chuck Hagel, a Republican who served as defense secretary in the Obama administration, said in an interview earlier this week that Trump should have left troop reduction decisions to President-elect Joe Biden since the new administration will have to deal with the consequences of American troop withdrawals.

“It sends a clear signal to the Taliban” and strengthens their hand in negotiations with the Kabul government, said Hagel, who stressed that he favors finding a way to end U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan without sabotaging the government’s chances of achieving a viable peace deal. “This is not going to end well for the Afghan government.”

Miller had announced Trump’s troop-cut decision Tuesday at the Pentagon, and he elaborated on the plan at Bragg. He said the reductions would be done in a way that “protects our fighting men and women and our hard-earned gains.”

“At the same time, should any malign actors underestimate our resolve or attempt to undermine our efforts, we will not hesitate to restore deterrence and defeat any and all threats,” he added, speaking at Bragg’s outdoor Special Operations Memorial Plaza.

“As we implement the president’s orders, we recognize that transitions and campaigns are fraught with risk and unexpected challenges and opportunities,” Miller said, adding that this is why he was signing an order directing the civilian head of special operations to report directly to the secretary of defense. That person, whose title is assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, currently reports to the defense secretary through the undersecretary of defense for policy.

This change in the administrative chain of command for special operations was required by the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. There currently is no Senate-confirmed assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict; Ezra Cohen holds the job in an “acting” capacity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personal note: At least they are thinking this decision over. I don't think its a good idea to pull them all out. Regardless of Trumps promise! All the work and lives that were put in harms ways would be for naught!. We aren't done over there and if we leave we loose everything we gained.

Boats

[Boats]

Key lawmaker hunts paper trail of Pentagon, State Department resistance to Afghanistan troop cuts
By: Joe Gold - Defense News - 11-18-20
Re: https://www.defensenews.com/congress...an-troop-cuts/

WASHINGTON ― Amid reports ousted defense secretary Mark Esper raised concerns about U.S. troop cuts in Afghanistan in a classified memo to the White House, the Democratic-led oversight panel has asked the Trump administration to turn over all internal documents relevant to the pullout decision.

Democrats are apparently seeking the paper trail behind military and civilian officials who advised President Donald Trump against an accelerated withdrawal and said the Taliban had not met pledges to reduce violence. Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., was among lawmakers who have expressed fears the pullout might leave Afghanistan a haven for terrorists who want to attack the U.S. or allies.

In a letter Tuesday, Lynch, who chairs the House Oversight Committee’s subpanel on national security, asked acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to share documents concerning Taliban compliance with its peace deal with the U.S., and the administration’s internal communications on the decision, including classified documents like the Esper memo.

“The President’s decision to order the withdrawal of additional U.S. forces from Afghanistan was apparently made over the objections of former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who reportedly sent a classified memorandum to the White House cautioning against further troop reductions, citing ‘ongoing violence, possible dangers to the remaining troops in the event of a rapid pullout, potential damage to alliances and apprehension about undercutting [intra-Afghan] negotiations,’” Lynch’s letter reads, quoting a report in The Washington Post.

Trump’s order to cut the U.S. military presence to 2,500 troops from Iraq and Afghanistan by Jan. 15, seems to run counter to longstanding advice from U.S. Central Command leader Marine Gen. Kenneth “Frank” McKenzie and others. CNN reported that the commander of NATO’s mission in Afghanistan, Gen. Austin Miller, stated that the necessary conditions had not been met, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley had agreed.

Democrats trawling for documents could illuminate a rare dustup between Milley and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien across several separate public appearances. When O’Brien said last month that U.S. troop levels would be down to 2,500, Milley ― who had pledged that a withdrawal would be “conditions-based" ― dismissed that as “speculation,” which in turn prompted O’Brien to fire back: “It’s not speculation. That’s the order of the commander in chief.”

After the administration announced plans to reduce troops to 4,000 and 5,000 troops by the end of November, the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad told Congress Sept. 22 that the U.S. would have to evaluate further cuts based on the peace deal with the Taliban and "whether the conditions are such that further reduction will not undermine our ability to carry out the mission that the United States is committed to in Afghanistan.”

A month ago, Khalilzad warned that the continuing violence in Afghanistan was so bad that it might derail the ongoing peace talks between the Taliban and Afghan government.

Amid the mixed reactions from Congress to the troop cuts, Lynch is not the only lawmaker who is probing the Pentagon and State Department.

On Wednesday, Reps. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., and Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., who co-chair the Congressional Iraq Caucus, wrote Miller and Pompeo to ask how the reductions would affect the threat of terror attacks linked to Iraq and Afghanistan ― among other questions. They expressed concern about Islamic State activity in Afghanistan and Iranian influence in Iraq.

“Intelligence shows that both issues are destabilizing factors in a critical region, and minimizing our military and diplomatic footprint allows malign forces to fill the vacuum we create,” they said, adding that there, “must be a well-structured transition of operational control to Iraqi and Afghani security forces.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question's: How much of these movements were specifically Trump's call? Was he briefed and does he totally understand the ramifications? Sure we would like to get out of those areas but - based on the field data and the terrorist movements it seems this withdraw will have sever consequence's. The field commander's know this and have reported the build up and movements in lieu of Trumps promise to the men to be home for Christmas.
-
During Nam we missed many holidays and many personal during those days. We understood that - the Commander's in the Field and the guys in Afghan and Iraqi know what will happen if we leave. Sure we can leave but we will have to come back again with more personnel and weapons. Political agents are working hard as well to negotiate so sort of truce that would allow us to reduce our forces - but to pull all out - the remaining ground forces would be overwhelmed by the bad guys. If we don't stay the course on these issues than don't go in at all. To Retreat before Defeat - is not Good!
-
Boats
-