Tag Archives: Afghan Military Support

Trump National Security Council reportedly want’s to send up to 50,000 troops BACK to Afghanistan…

The General ‘s(Led by National Security Advisor McMaster)  running the Defense side for Donald Trump have seen the work they did in uniform slip back to the Taliban because the Afghan’s simply cannot hold ground….

Others have followed the Russian and  Obama actions of packing up and leaving the place….Fighting in Afghanistan is an unforgiving endeavor ….

The word is Trump isn’t happy with the idea….

Image result for the war in Afghanistan

U.S. intelligence and national security officials familiar with the assessment tell me that it was drafted in April, and that it provided estimates of necessary troop strengths for various strategic options. But it found that if an ambitious war plan approved by the National Security Council’s principals committee got a green light from the president — a big if — more than 50,000 U.S. troops would be needed.

That proposed strategy would place the U.S. on a new war footing and in a deeper partnership with the Afghan government in its current campaign against the Taliban. It would also remove arbitrary timelines for withdrawal set by President Barack Obama.

One reason the new war strategy would require more troops is that it envisions using U.S. forces in a support role that until now has relied on outside contractors. Using contractors for functions like vehicle maintenance and other logistical aid have meant that U.S. forces deployed to Syria and Iraq have largely focused on war fighting and training locals. This has kept the total number of U.S. troops artificially low, while increasing the overall cost of the U.S. presence….

Trump has signaled he is in no mood to escalate America’s longest war. Indeed, he has complained to close aides in the last month about how great powers throughout history — from Alexander’s Macedonians to the British Empire — have failed to pacify the country.


The NATO angle……

NATO’s military leaders are laying the groundwork to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to train local forces locked in fierce battles with militants. The move comes as alliance leaders shape and debate a multi-year plan to protect combat gains in those countries and eliminate safe havens where extremist groups might plan attacks against the West.

“I think what we’ll see is that NATO will continue with a fairly modest contribution in the near term and that political leadership in the coming months will discuss the potential for NATOassuming a greater responsibility in Iraq,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford told reporters Wednesday after a day of meetings at the alliance’s headquarters.

Dunford said specific troop levels were not discussed during the meetings, which took place one week before NATO heads of state meet here.

“What I just want to do is try to find a way for each country to optimize the contribution they could make,” he said.

NATO leaders hope to know how many additional U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan by month’s end, allowing the alliance to deploy troops to meet the uptick in fighting that comes with warmer weather. U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to make a decision after next week’s overseas trip to NATO and the Middle East, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster said last week.

At the same time, NATO generals appears to have a consensus that the alliance should take on more responsibility in Iraq…..


With Afghan President in the US…The White House thinks about just how many troops to leave after 2014

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is in Washington for talks with President Obama on how large a troop contingent will be left in that country after 2014…..

Previously the US has agreed to leave combat troops and trainers in Afghanistan to help the countries police and military come up to speed dealing with Taliban Militants….

So the piece leaked to the Washington Post below is probably a trial balloon for Karzai to read and for the American public to chew on….

Groups within the Obama administration are pushing to keep no more than a few thousand troops in Afghanistan after 2014, U.S. officials said, raising the prospect that the United States will be unable to keep its promise to fully train and equip Afghan security forces.

As the debate over the size and scope of the post-2014 coalition mission nears its end, some in the administration are pressing for a force that could be as small as 2,500, arguing that a light touch would be the most constructive way to cap the costly, unpopular war.

Those troop levels are significantly lower than what some senior military officials have advocated, arguing that a sudden disengagement could lead to the collapse of a frail state and the onset of a new civil war. The low number also is a far cry from figures in the 10,000-to-30,000 range discussed among NATO allies and some U.S. officials as recently as a year ago.

The scope and size of a post-2014 force are at the top of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s agenda during his visit to Washington this week, which includes a meeting with President Obama on Friday.

White House officials said Tuesday that they have not ruled out leaving no troops at all when the U.N. security mandate sanctioning the international coalition expires, saying they might find non-military means to meet U.S. objectives in Afghanistan.

The United States has committed to continue supporting Afghanistan’s security forces and intends to maintain counterterrorism capabilities that would prevent al-Qaeda from regaining a foothold in the country where the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were planned.

“There are, of course, many different ways of accomplishing those objectives, some of which might involve U.S. troops, some of which might not,” Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, told reporters in a conference call Tuesday afternoon.

Some senior military officials and analysts have pressed for a more robust force, arguing that a hasty disengagement would be reckless and could cause Afghanistan’s security forces to crumble. The United States has invested $50 billion in training and equipping the Afghan army and police.

Others say that a small, well-managed contingent could accomplish the Obama administration’s key objectives while markedly lowering the United States’ profile in a region where anti-American sentiment runs high…..


Photo of US Troops training Afgahna soliders …..conservativedailynews.com

Senate Armed Service’s Chair Warn’s on the Pentagon Afghan withdrawn $$$ promises…

Yesterday there was mention of Hamid Karzai’s worry on how much the US was gonna write an annual check for HIS government’s military after the majority of US/NATO combat troops left the country next year into 2014….

Unlike in Iraq….

Afghanistan WANT’S troops to hang out for a while….

With Karzai asking for $5 Billion a year…..

But willing to take $2 Billion if he can get it in writing……

US Senator Carl Levin, The Democratic  Senate’s Armed Service Chair has weighed in……

And frankly the US Congress will write the check…..

Given the U.S. budget problems and doubts about how the money will be spent in Afghanistan, that’s a hard sell for members of Congress, Levin indicated.

The chairman did not rule out supporting funding for post-war Afghan security, and said he is personally in favor of a “robust commitment” to the Afghan forces.

But Levin said he would only back the huge investment in security “if it will make a difference.”

Gen. John Allen, the commander of U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan, testified to Congress last month that Afghan forces will need between $4 billion and $5 billion annually to maintain operations against the Taliban and insurgent forces.

Allen has not put a timeframe on that commitment, but a House staffer estimated the United States will have to bankroll the Afghan National Security Forces entirely or partially for three to 10 years after 2014, when U.S. troops leave.

Levin said that Allen’s estimate would be peanuts compared to the roughly $30 billion to $40 billion the Pentagon spends to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Still, he and others scolded Karzai for expecting the administration to sign off on a dedicated funding stream as part of a post-war deal.

Levin said Karzai “is asking for something no president, or presidential nominee for that matter, can guarantee,” Levin said. “This is not a dictatorship.”