The U.S. "Cannot Win Militarily" In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Inte

The U.S. "Cannot Win Militarily" In Afghanistan, Says Top Commander In Shocking Interview

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...&itok=s78ioazL

"So if you realize you can't win militarily at some point... people start asking why..."

Sat, 11/03/2018 - 21:30
458 SHARES

Historians of the now seventeen-year old U.S. war in Afghanistan will take note of this past week when the newly-appointed American general in charge of US and NATO operations in the country made a bombshell, historic admission. He conceded that the United States cannot win in Afghanistan.
Speaking to NBC News last week, Gen. Austin Scott Miller made his first public statements after taking charge of American operations, and shocked with his frank assessment that that the Afghan war cannot be won militarily and peace will only be achieved through direct engagement and negotiations with the Taliban — the very terror group which US forces sought to defeat when it first invaded in 2001.
"This is not going to be won militarily," Gen. Miller said. "This is going to a political solution."
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...n%20Miller.JPG Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the U.S. commander of resolute support, via EPA/NBC

Miller explained to NBC:

My assessment is the Taliban also realizes they cannot win militarily. So if you realize you can't win militarily at some point, fighting is just, people start asking why. So you do not necessarily wait us out, but I think now is the time to start working through the political piece of this conflict.

He gave the interview from the Resolute Support headquarters building in Kabul. "We are more in an offensive mindset and don't wait for the Taliban to come and hit [us]," he said. "So that was an adjustment that we made early on. We needed to because of the amount of casualties that were being absorbed."
Starting last summer it was revealed that US State Department officials began meeting with Taliban leaders in Qatar to discuss local and regional ceasefires and an end to the war. It was reported at the time that the request of the Taliban, the US-backed Afghan government was not invited; however, there doesn't appear to have been any significant fruit out of the talks as the Taliban now controls more territory than ever before in recent years.
Such controversial and shaky negotiations come as in total the United States has spent well over $840 billion fighting the Taliban insurgency while also paying for relief and reconstruction in a seventeen-year long war that has become more expensive, in current dollars, than the Marshall Plan, which was the reconstruction effort to rebuild Europe after World War II.
Even the New York Times recently chronicled the flat out deception of official Pentagon statements vs. the reality in terms of the massive spending that has gone into the now-approaching two decade long "endless war" which began in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...eception_0.jpg Via NYT reportAs of September of this year the situation was as bleak as it's ever been after over a decade-and-a-half of America's longest running war, per the NYT's numbers:

But since 2017, the Taliban have held more Afghan territory than at any time since the American invasion. In just one week last month, the insurgents killed 200 Afghan police officers and soldiers, overrunning two major Afghan bases and the city of Ghazni.
The American military says the Afghan government effectively “controls or influences” 56 percent of the country. But that assessment relies on statistical sleight of hand. In many districts, the Afghan government controls only the district headquarters and military barracks, while the Taliban control the rest.

For this reason Gen. Miller spoke to NBC of an optimal "political outcome" instead of "winning" — the latter being a term rarely if ever used by Pentagon and officials and congressional leaders over the past years.
Miller told NBC: "I naturally feel compelled to try to set the conditions for a political outcome. So, pressure from that standpoint, yes. I don't want everyone to think this is forever."
And ending on a bleak note in terms of the "save face" and "cut and run" nature of the U.S. future engagement in Afghanistan, Gen. Miller concluded, "This is my last assignment as a soldier in Afghanistan. I don't think they'll send me back here in another grade. When I leave this time I'd like to see peace and some level of unity as we go forward."
Interestingly, the top US and NATO commander can now only speak in remotely hopeful terms of "some level of unity" — perhaps just enough to make a swift exit at least.



https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...king-interview

Get US out of there.

Keep THEM out of here.

Send all their damn refugees home!

Let them kill each other off, they have been doing it for thousands of years.

It will never end until they are all wiped out and that is a fact.

No money, no aid, no oatmeal.

No visa.

Keep them off our soil and start deporting the ones already here.

They bring this hate, rape, overbreeding and violence to our shores and that is a fact!

I wouldn't negotiate with these retarded Generals; I would wait them out and force a humiliating withdrawal. I would also not advise letting any of your kids follow goof ball Generals that are losers waiting to happen as Americas best get sent home in boxes

The US war on terror has cost 5 trillion dollars and terror is up 6500%.

The US war on terror has cost 5 trillion dollars and terror is up 6500% and no one bats an eye. Try to protect our own border for a fraction of that cost and people in DC get goofy

Operation 'Enduring Defeat'? DoD Admits US May Need To "Stay In Iraq For Decades"

This needs to stop. The young ex-marine who killed innocent people in California may have suffered mentality from PTSD. These wars and the human costs must end. Make people in the area take care of these situations. We give too much money and get little in return. We have sacrificed too much blood and treasure.

President Trump needs to replace Mattis and others pushing for a continuing presence where we are getting nowhere and we walk on eggshells with a PC culture.

Yes, Trump's instincts were right from the beginning. Get US out of Afghanistan. Sure, do a peace deal.

The End Game In Afghanistan Is Beginning

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...?itok=-JjRFxgE

"After 17 years of strategic mismanagement, the Trump administration is left only with bad options. Getting out of Afghanistan is inevitable. Given the current trends, we couldn’t stay even if we wished to do so..."

Tue, 11/13/2018 - 23:05
34 SHARES
Authored by Lawrence Sellin, op-ed via The Daily Caller,

China and Pakistan have plainly stated their plans for Afghanistan and South Asia.
According to a press release from the November 12 conference held at Islamabad’s Pakistan-China Institute, “Pakistan-Afghanistan-China Trilateral Dialogue supports the CPEC [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor] as key to peace and regional cooperation.”
Pakistani news outlets emphasized the point, one stating, “Pakistan and China on Monday urged Afghanistan to join the Belt & Road Initiative as well as the CPEC.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...2131021414.jpg

Is it a coincidence that such plain speaking occurs in parallel with an uptick in the frequency and intensity of Taliban attacks inside Afghanistan?
Within a span of a few days, Jaghori - long considered a safe district - was being overrunby 1,000 Taliban, while other Taliban killed at least twelve Afghan soldiers and four tribal elders during an attack on a military base in Afghanistan’s northern Baghlan province. And bombs continue to explode in Kabul.

In an effort to lure the Taliban to the bargaining table, the Trump administration may ask the Afghan government to postpone presidential elections - a move the Taliban will undoubtedly construe as a sign of American weakness because they have always claimed the Kabul regime as illegitimate.
In that respect, the Taliban are correct. Other than a “presence” in Afghanistan, the United States has no strategic cards to play.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan, at least from the standpoint of the manner in which we have conducted the war.
After an initial small-footprint victory in late 2001, driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the U.S. chose to mount an exhaustive and expensive counterinsurgency campaign with its nation-building component.
At the same time, Pakistan, sustaining the Taliban, waged a proxy war in Afghanistan, much like Pakistan’s and, indirectly, China’s reported support and use of the Islamic extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba and its affiliates against India.
Pakistan has always controlled the operation tempo of the war as well as the supply of our troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
U.S. inability or unwillingness to attack Taliban safe havens in Pakistan or forcing Islamabad to withdraw its support, essentially rendered a counterinsurgency victory unachievable. It is an obvious deduction the Pentagon should have made long ago, except for its blind love affair with Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency.
After 17 years of strategic mismanagement, the Trump administration is left only with bad options. Getting out of Afghanistan is inevitable. Given the current trends, we couldn’t stay even if we wished to do so.
We should let Pakistan and China “win” and then help them ruin their victory.
Clearly, CPEC is the foundation upon which China and Pakistan intend to exploit their triumph, which is highly vulnerable to the very instability they were inciting in Afghanistan.
Forty years ago, Pakistani President Zia ul Haq said that to control Afghanistan, the country should be kept “boiling at the right temperature.”
Like a frog, CPEC will be slowly boiled in South Asia’s pot of instability. CPEC is the flagship of the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s blueprint for global domination. As the maxim, widely attributed to Napoleon, says “Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”
That is, by harnessing the potential power of ideological fissures, ethnic fault lines and differing national interests, in essence, the ability to manage instability, the U.S. can transform an untenable “presence” into longer-term regional leverage.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...stan-beginning

Get us out.

No money, no aid, no oatmeal, no troops.

No refugees, no asylum...send their people back!

They will be raping, killing and breeding in rubble another 1,000 years!

They want peace...they must do it themselves. They cannot get along with each other let alone the rest of the world.

We are not the world's police or ATM machine.

Secure our border, get bio-metric systems in place and protect our country.

My opinion obviously won't be popular on here, but either you fight them on their own turf or we standby twiddling our thumbs while waiting for them to get strong enough to carry out another terrorist act here on American soil. Do we really want another 9/11?

I don't have all the answer but ignoring terrorist is not really an option (IMO). We either deal with them there or we will eventually be dealing with them here again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MW

My opinion obviously won't be popular on here, but either you fight them on their own turf or we standby twiddling our thumbs while waiting for them to get strong enough to carry out another terrorist act here on American soil. Do we really want another 9/11?

I don't have all the answer but ignoring terrorist is not really an option (IMO). We either deal with them there or we will eventually be dealing with them here again.

---

Fight them on their turf? LOL!

Put me in charge...carpet bomb the place and get it OVER with!

You cannot trust their military officers, you cannot trust their civilians!

#ITISNOTWORKING!

I do not want to fight them on their turf for another 100 years!!!

I do not want to spend another 8 trillion dollars either!

Get it done in 48 hours, then get out!

US Has Spent $5,900,000,000,000 On War Since 2001

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...?itok=XseHcM3D

"It is only when one considers the cost of medical and disability care for soldiers, and future such costs, along with things like the interest on the extra money borrowed for the wars, that the true cost becomes clear."

Thu, 11/15/2018 - 15:05
813 SHARES
Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

A new report from Brown University is aiming to provide a close estimate of the cost of the overall cost to the US government of its myriad post-9/11 wars and assorted global wars on terror. The estimate is that $5.933 trillion has been spent through fiscal year 2019.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...15_8-43-04.png

This is, of course, vastly higher than official figures, owing to the Pentagon trying to oversimplify the costs into simply overseas contingency operations. It is only when one considers the cost of medical and disability care for soldiers, and future such costs, along with things like the interest on the extra money borrowed for the wars, that the true cost becomes clear.
https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...15_8-40-05.png

That sort of vast expenditure is only the costs and obligations of the wars so far, and with little sign of them ending, they are only going to grow. In particular, a generation of wars is going to further add to the medical costs for veterans’ being consistently deployed abroad.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...15_8-41-08.png

Starting in late 2001, the US has engaged in wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere around the world. Many of those wars have become more or less permanent operations, with no consideration of ending them under any circumstances.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defa...15_8-41-42.png

Those wishing to read the report can find it here.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-...00000-war-2001

More from the 'ThEy HaTe Us FoR oUr FrEeDoM' file... - Wolf

The United States has spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 people since the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs published its annual "Costs of War" report Wednesday, taking into consideration the Pentagon's spending and its Overseas Contingency Operations account, as well as "war-related spending by the Department of State, past and obligated spending for war veterans’ care, interest on the debt incurred to pay for the wars, and the prevention of and response to terrorism by the Department of Homeland Security."
The final count revealed, "The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post 9/11 war veterans."
"In sum, high costs in war and war-related spending pose a national security concern because they are unsustainable," the report concluded. "The public would be better served by increased transparency and by the development of a comprehensive strategy to end the wars and deal with other urgent national security priorities."

U.S. Has Spent Six Trillion Dollars on Wars That Killed Half a Million People Since 9/11, Report Says

By Tom O'Connor On 11/14/18 at 2:13 PM

Video at the page link

How Strong Is The U.S. Military?

World International Affairs
The United States has spent nearly $6 trillion on wars that directly contributed to the deaths of around 500,000 peoplesince the 9/11 attacks of 2001.
Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs published its annual "Costs of War" report Wednesday, taking into consideration the Pentagon's spending andits Overseas Contingency Operations account, as well as "war-related spending by the Department of State, past and obligated spending for war veterans’ care, interest on the debt incurred to pay for the wars, and the prevention of and response to terrorism by the Department of Homeland Security."
The final count revealed, "The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post 9/11 war veterans."
"In sum, high costs in war and war-related spending pose a national security concern because they are unsustainable," the report concluded. "The public would be better served by increased transparency and by the development of a comprehensive strategy to end the wars and deal with other urgent national security priorities."
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.new...ge-4863570.jpg U.S. Marines with Weapons Company, 3rd Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment, attached to Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force, Crisis Response-Central Command fire 120-millimeter mortars in support of coalition efforts to defeat the Islamic State militant group at an undisclosed location in Syria, on September 10. Corporal Gabino Perez/U.S. Marine Corps/Defense Department
The U.S. embarked on a global war on terror following the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 and were orchestrated by Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda. Weeks later, the U.S. led an invasion of Afghanistan, which at the time was controlled by Al-Qaeda ally the Taliban. In March 2003, Washington overthrew Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, accusing him of developing weapons of mass destruction and harboring U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.
Despite initial quick victories there, the U.S. military has been plagued by ongoing insurgencies these two countries and expanded counterterrorism operations across the region, including Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. In 2014, the U.S. gathered an international coalition to face the Islamic State militant group (ISIS), which arose out of a post-invasion Sunni Muslim insurgency in Iraq and spread to neighboring Syria and beyond.
Wednesday's report found that the "US military is conducting counterterror activities in 76 countries, or about 39 percent of the world's nations, vastly expanding [its mission] across the globe." In addition, these operations "have been accompanied by violations of human rights and civil liberties, in the US and abroad."
Overall, researchers estimated that "between 480,000 and 507,000 people have been killed in the United States’ post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." This toll "does not include the more than 500,000 deaths from the war in Syria, raging since 2011" when a West-backed rebel and jihadi uprising challenged the government, an ally of Russia and Iran. That same year, the U.S.-led NATO Western military alliance intervened in Libya and helped insurgents overthrow longtime leader Muammar el-Qaddafi, leaving the nation in an ongoing state of civil war.
https://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.new...sweek720_0.jpg A chart details the financial and human cost of the "War on Terror" since the deadly events of September 11, 2001. The toll of deaths may be much higher and is also compounded by hundreds of thousands killed by the side effects of such conflicts. Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs/Brown University/Statista/Newsweek
The combined human cost for the U.S. throughout its actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan was 6,951 troops, 21 civilians and 7,820 contractors.
"While we often know how many US soldiers die, most other numbers are to a degree uncertain. Indeed, we may never know the total direct death toll in these wars. For example, tens of thousands of civilians may have died in retaking Mosul and other cities from ISIS but their bodies have likely not been recovered," the report noted.
"In addition, this tally does not include 'indirect deaths.' Indirect harm occurs when wars' destruction leads to long term, 'indirect,' consequences for people’s health in war zones, for example because of loss of access to food, water, health facilities, electricity or other infrastructure," it added.
In February, President Donald Trump estimated that "we have spent $7 trillion in the Middle East," saying "what a mistake" it was. Weeks later, he reportedly told his military advisers to prepare a plan to withdraw from Syria as the war against ISIS entered its final phases, though senior Washington officials have since expanded the U.S. mission— considered illegal by the Syrian government and its allies—to include countering Iran and its allies.
This article has been updated to include a Statista chart detailing the findings of the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs' study.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-spent-si...LWrNdgQy8AxkuI

The US Military is going to have a lot of explaining to do one of these days.

GET OUR KIDS THE FK OUT OF THERE

Navy SEAL accused of ISIS execution allegedly sent pic: ‘I got him with my hunting knife’

Ka Bar knife (twintiger007/Flickr)
November 16, 2018 Laura Widener

Share13K
Tweet
+1
13K Shares

New evidence has been exposed in the case of the U.S. Navy SEAL accused of stabbing an ISIS prisoner to death.
Navy SEAL Chief Edward “Eddie” Gallagher, 39, appeared before Navy Judge Advocate Capt. Arthur Record during an Article 32 hearing on Wednesday where evidence was presented to determine whether or not to proceed with a full trial, Task & Purpose first reported Thursday.
Gallagher, a 19-year Navy veteran, allegedly executed a wounded ISIS detainee with his knife in May 2017.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...-wV_normal.jpg Jared Keller ✔ @jaredbkeller

Navy SEALs were administering medical aid to a wounded 15-year-old ISIS fighter when one SEAL allegedly stabbed the prisoner to death and then posed for photos next to the body.

The rules of engagement matter. Full stop. https://taskandpurpose.com/seal-chief-gallagher-isis-execution/ …
164
12:46 PM - Nov 15, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/10631...g&name=600x314

'I Got Him With My Hunting Knife': SEAL Allegedly Texted Photo Holding ISIS Fighter's Head

Gallagher, a 19-year veteran of the Navy, has been charged with four counts of violating military law, the most serious of which is premeditated murder
taskandpurpose.com

131 people are talking about this


Before the evidence was released, Gallagher maintained that the fighter succumbed to combat wounds obtained earlier. His attorney, Phillip Stackhouse, even said, “What we’ve learned in our independent investigation into these allegations is that a crime simply didn’t happen.”
However, the evidence released this week included several videos, some of which were obtained from helmet cameras worn by the ISIS fighter and Navy SEALs. Video was also released of Gallagher’s re-enlistment ceremony, which reportedly corroborated witness testimony.
Text messages were also obtained from several of the SEALs’ phones, one of which revealed a message from Gallagher boasting, “I got him with my hunting knife,” accompanied by a photo of himself with the dead ISIS fighter.

View image on Twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsGxNzrX...jpg&name=small

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images...kFa_normal.jpg Newsweek ✔ @Newsweek

A Navy SEAL texted a photo holding an ISIS fighter's head and bragged about killing him with a knife http://bit.ly/2DKn8yS
11
2:00 AM - Nov 16, 2018

Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Special Agent Joe Warpinski was called as a witness and delivered the testimony from nine SEALs from Gallagher’s unit, testimony he had gathered since April during his investigation.
Several members of SEAL Team 7 Alpha Platoon were providing medical treatment to a 15-year-old ISIS fighter who suffered a leg injury from shrapnel derived from a nearby Iraqi airstrike. Iraqi forces had captured the fighter, then turned him over to the SEAL team.
Gallagher wasn’t present as the other SEALs treated the fighter. However, once the fighter was stabilized, Gallagher allegedly “walked up without saying anything at all” and began to stab the fighter.
Three SEAL members witnessed the killing. One said the act left him in “complete disbelief.” Another “couldn’t believe what had happened,” saying the fighter “was just a brainwashed kid.”
Shortly after, Gallagher posed for photos with fighter’s body, cradling the fighter’s head in one hand and holding his knife in the other hand. He even completed his re-enlistment ceremony in a similar pose.
Gallagher has been charged with 14 charges, including “murder, aggravated assault, obstructing justice and drug charges tied to alleged pain reliever and anabolic steroid abuse,” according to the Navy Times.
His aggravated assault charges stem from incidents involving a male and female civilian during the same deployment. From a sniper post in a tower near the Tigris river, Gallagher allegedly shot and wounded an elderly Iraqi citizen in June 2017, then shot and wounded a young girl in July 2017.
Other SEALs in his unit told investigators that Gallagher’s rifle was “off” but reportedly “felt that he was targeting civilians.”
Gallager was arrested on Sept. 11 at the Camp Pendleton Intrepid Spirit Center where he was receiving treatment for head injuries incurred from his overseas combat duty.
Authorities then detained him in the Naval Consolidated Brig Miramar in San Diego, where he has remained thus far.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/201...FNcxBFj4ZMeU-A

https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...0a&oe=5C67D45B

Soldier of Fortune Magazine

END GAME IN AFGHANISTAN: “There is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford. ....”End Game...Other than a “presence” in Afghanistan, the United States has no strategic cards to play.. There is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Lawrence Sellin | Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve

https://www.sofmag.com/wp-content/up...9-640x330.jpeg
Spc. John Blake Asher, an artilleryman with 4th Infantry Division's 2nd Battalion, 12th Field Artillery Regiment, pulls the lanyard to fire an M777 Howitzer during a terrain denial mission to deter enemy rockets at Camp Dahlke, Afghanistan, Sept. 21, 2018. (Photo Credit: U.S. Army photo by Sean Kimmons)

End game in Afghanistan: There is no military solution

November 18, 2018 Comments Off on End game in Afghanistan: There is no military solution 231 Views

https://www.sofmag.com/wp-content/up...14-472x315.jpg Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, meets with Army Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., commander, Resolute Support Mission and U.S. Forces Afghanistan, before visiting Train Advise Assist Command – North in Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan March 20, 2018. The senior leaders discussed the current security environment in Afghanistan, the progress of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, and the re-posturing of U.S. forces as part of the new South Asia strategy. (DoD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro) Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford said that reconciliation is the only way forward in Afghanistan and that political, economic, religious and military pressure must be maintained on the group, with DOD reporting.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan and that the struggle in that country will require all aspects of government.
https://www.sofmag.com/wp-content/up...4-472x315.jpeg Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is interviewed by BBC World News Presenter Yalda Hakim during the Halifax International Security Forum Nov. 17, 2018. Dunford provided insights on the shift towards great power competition in the most recent US National Defense Strategy and the steps the US military is taking to maintain its technological competitive advantage. He also fielded questions from the plenary, covering a variety of topics, including the US South-Asia Strategy, the importance of regional partnerships for countering global terrorism, and the US role in NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe. (DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro/Released) “Success in Afghanistan is an Afghan-owned, Afghan-led reconciliation process,” Dunford said. “That requires us to have political pressure, social pressure and military pressure. In the military dimension, our task is to make sure the Taliban realize that they cannot win on the battlefield.”
All this pressure will combine to convince Taliban leaders that their future lies with reconciliation, the general said.
“But the key to success is to combine all of that pressure to incentivize the Taliban for, again, that Afghan-owned, Afghan-led reconciliation process,” he said.
Undergirding everything in Afghanistan is the South Asia Strategy. A key provision in that is its conditions-based approach. The Afghan government and Afghan people know that the world is with them in trying to move through this constant state of war. “And I would also say that the decision by NATO and partner nations to support the Afghan national defense security forces through 2024 absolutely affects the Taliban’s calculus,” Dunford said.
https://www.sofmag.com/wp-content/up...11-473x315.jpg Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, right, and Army Command Sgt. Maj. John W. Troxell, senior enlisted advisor to the chairman, have a conversation aboard a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter after a visit to Train Advise Assist Command East at Forward Operating Base Gamberi, Afghanistan, March 21, 2018. DoD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro
End game in Afghanistan
Lawrence Sellin | Retired Colonel, U.S. Army Reserve
China and Pakistan have plainly stated their plans for Afghanistan and South Asia.
According to a press release from the November 12 conference held at Islamabad’s Pakistan-China Institute, “Pakistan-Afghanistan-China Trilateral Dialogue supports the CPEC [China-Pakistan Economic Corridor] as key to peace and regional cooperation.”
Pakistani news outlets emphasized the point, one stating, “Pakistan and China on Monday urged Afghanistan to join the Belt & Road Initiative as well as the CPEC.”
Is it a coincidence that such plain speaking occurs in parallel with an uptick in the frequency and intensity of Taliban attacks inside Afghanistan?
Within a span of a few days, Jaghori — long considered a safe district — was being overrunby 1,000 Taliban, while other Taliban killed at least twelve Afghan soldiers and four tribal elders during an attack on a military base in Afghanistan’s northern Baghlan province. And bombs continue to explode in Kabul.
In an effort to lure the Taliban to the bargaining table, the Trump administration may askthe Afghan government to postpone presidential elections — a move the Taliban will undoubtedly construe as a sign of American weakness because they have always claimed the Kabul regime as illegitimate.
In that respect, the Taliban are correct. Other than a “presence” in Afghanistan, the United States has no strategic cards to play.
There is no military solution in Afghanistan, at least from the standpoint of the manner in which we have conducted the war.
After an initial small-footprint victory in late 2001, driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, the U.S. chose to mount an exhaustive and expensive counterinsurgency campaign with its nation-building component.
At the same time, Pakistan, sustaining the Taliban, waged a proxy war in Afghanistan, much like Pakistan’s and, indirectly, China’s reported support and use of the Islamic extremist group Lashkar-e-Taiba and its affiliates against India.
Pakistan has always controlled the operation tempo of the war as well as the supply of our troops in landlocked Afghanistan.
U.S. inability or unwillingness to attack Taliban safe havens in Pakistan or forcing Islamabad to withdraw its support, essentially rendered a counterinsurgency victory unachievable. It is an obvious deduction the Pentagon should have made long ago, except for its blind love affair with Field Manual 3-24, Counterinsurgency.
After 17 years of strategic mismanagement, the Trump administration is left only with bad options. Getting out of Afghanistan is inevitable. Given the current trends, we couldn’t stay even if we wished to do so.
We should let Pakistan and China “win” and then help them ruin their victory.
Clearly, CPEC is the foundation upon which China and Pakistan intend to exploit their triumph, which is highly vulnerable to the very instability they were inciting in Afghanistan.
Forty years ago, Pakistani President Zia ul Haq said that to control Afghanistan, the country should be kept “boiling at the right temperature.”
Like a frog, CPEC will be slowly boiled in South Asia’s pot of instability. CPEC is the flagship of the Belt and Road Initiative, China’s blueprint for global domination. As the maxim, widely attributed to Napoleon, says “Never interfere with the enemy when he is in the process of destroying himself.”
That is, by harnessing the potential power of ideological fissures, ethnic fault lines and differing national interests, in essence, the ability to manage instability, the U.S. can transform an untenable “presence” into longer-term regional leverage.
Lawrence Sellin, Ph.D. is a retired U.S. Army Reserve colonel, an IT command and control subject matter expert, trained in Arabic and Kurdish, and a veteran of Afghanistan, northern Iraq and a humanitarian mission to West Africa.




https://www.sofmag.com/end-game-in-a...GG7Lmej409bdxI

In my opinion, most military generals do not have the life experience to make political decisions.

In Afghanistan, one question needs to be posed to the military, can you kill all the Taliban and wipe them off the face of the earth? If yes, then the President needs to decide if he wants to do that or not. If no, then you lost the war you campaigned to fight and have cost American lives and a tremendous amount of money for little or nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Judy

In my opinion, most military generals do not have the life experience to make political decisions.

In Afghanistan, one question needs to be posed to the military, can you kill all the Taliban and wipe them off the face of the earth? If yes, then the President needs to decide if he wants to do that or not. If no, then you lost the war you campaigned to fight and have cost American lives and a tremendous amount of money for little or nothing.

---

YEP, EITHER CARPET BOMB AND GET IT OVER WITH OR GET OUT!

NO MORE PC WARS COSTING US LIVES AND TRILLIONS OF OUR MONEY.

KEEP THEM OFF OUR SOIL AND LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beezer

YEP, EITHER CARPET BOMB AND GET IT OVER WITH OR GET OUT!

NO MORE PC WARS COSTING US LIVES AND TRILLIONS OF OUR MONEY.

KEEP THEM OFF OUR SOIL AND LET THEM KILL EACH OTHER!

---

Exactly. 17 years of "fighting the Taliban" and we're losing? Really? No, the whole thing has gone corrupt. This is no longer an honest war for an honest purpose and hasn't been for a long time. Get out and let the cards fall where they may. If the Afghan people want to be controlled by the Taliban, their choice.

https://scontent-mia3-2.xx.fbcdn.net...68&oe=5C67771F

A Wolf in a Sheeple's World

#FoodForThought - Wolf
- When U.S. forces and their Afghan allies rode into Kabul in November 2001 they were greeted as liberators. But after 17 years of war, the Taliban have retaken half the country, security is worse than it’s ever been, and many Afghans place the blame squarely on the Americans.
The United States has lost more than 2,400 soldiers in its longest war, and has spent more than $900 billion on everything from military operations to the construction of roads, bridges and power plants. Three U.S. presidents have pledged to bring peace to Afghanistan, either by adding or withdrawing troops, by engaging the Taliban or shunning them. Last year, the U.S. dropped the “mother of all bombs” on a cave complex.
None of it has worked. After years of frustration, Afghanistan is rife with conspiracy theories, including the idea that Americans didn’t stumble into a forever war, but planned one all along.
Mohammed Ismail Qasimyar, a member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, wonders how U.S. and NATO forces — which at their peak numbered 150,000 and fought alongside hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops, were unable to vanquish tens of thousands of Taliban.
“Either they did not want to or they could not do it,” he said. He now suspects the U.S. and its ally Pakistan deliberately sowed chaos in Afghanistan to justify the lingering presence of foreign forces — now numbering around 15,000 — in order to use the country as a listening post to monitor Iran, Russia and China.
“They have made a hell, not a paradise for us,” he said.
https://apnews.com/953d155608464b9c8f21c439d6cae82c


After 17 years, many Afghans blame US for unending war

By KATHY GANNON November 13, 2018

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...50e0f/800.jpeg
1 of 10
In this Oct. 31, 2018 photo, a group of Afghan National Army soldiers watch others participate in a live fire exercise at the Afghan Military Academy, in Kabul, Afghanistan. When U.S. forces and their Afghan allies rode into Kabul in November 2001 they were greeted as liberators. But after 17 years of war, the Taliban have retaken half the country, security is worse than it’s ever been, and many Afghans place the blame squarely on the Americans. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — When U.S. forces and their Afghan allies rode into Kabul in November 2001 they were greeted as liberators. But after 17 years of war, the Taliban have retaken half the country, security is worse than it’s ever been, and many Afghans place the blame squarely on the Americans.
The United States has lost more than 2,400 soldiers in its longest war, and has spent more than $900 billion on everything from military operations to the construction of roads, bridges and power plants. Three U.S. presidents have pledged to bring peace to Afghanistan, either by adding or withdrawing troops, by engaging the Taliban or shunning them. Last year, the U.S. dropped the “mother of all bombs” on a cave complex.
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...b6e6b/800.jpegA father of two and former policeman, Jawad Mohammadi, lost both his legs in 2015, when he stepped on a land-mine. (AP Photo/Massoud Hossaini)
None of it has worked. After years of frustration, Afghanistan is rife with conspiracy theories, including the idea that Americans didn’t stumble into a forever war, but planned one all along.
Mohammed Ismail Qasimyar, a member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council, wonders how U.S. and NATO forces — which at their peak numbered 150,000 and fought alongside hundreds of thousands of Afghan troops, were unable to vanquish tens of thousands of Taliban.
“Either they did not want to or they could not do it,” he said. He now suspects the U.S. and its ally Pakistan deliberately sowed chaos in Afghanistan to justify the lingering presence of foreign forces — now numbering around 15,000 — in order to use the country as a listening post to monitor Iran, Russia and China.
“They have made a hell, not a paradise for us,” he said.
Afghanistan is rife with such conspiracy theories. After last month’s assassination of Kandahar’s powerful police chief, Gen. Abdul Raziq, social media exploded with pictures and posts suggesting he was the victim of a U.S. conspiracy. Recent insider attacks, in which Afghan forces have killed their erstwhile U.S. and NATO allies, have attracted online praise.
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...52ed7/800.jpegAfghan army stages a mock arrest during a training exercise at the Military Academy in Kabul. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
“In 2001 the Afghan people supported the arrival of the United States and the international community wholeheartedly,” said Hamid Karzai, who was installed as Afghanistan’s first president and twice won re-election, serving until 2014.
“For a number of years things worked perfectly well,” he said in a recent interview. “Then we saw the United States either changed course or simply neglected the views of the Afghan people and the conditions of the Afghans.”
He blames the lingering war on the U.S. failure to eliminate militant sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan, the bombing of Afghan villages and homes, and the detention of Afghans in raids.
Others blame the notoriously corrupt government, which Karzai headed for more than a decade, and which is widely seen as yet another bitter fruit of the American invasion.
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...e5cb3/800.jpegAfghanistan's former President Hamid Karzai believes America in its 17-year war either changed course or simply neglected the opinions and the conditions that Afghan people face. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
“All the money that has come to this country has gone to the people in power. The poor people didn’t get anything,” said Hajji Akram, a day laborer in Kabul’s Old City who struggles to feed his family on around $4 a day. “The foreigners are not making things better. They should go.”
It’s not just Afghans. The United States’ own inspector general for Afghanistan’s reconstruction offered a blistering critique in a speech in Ohio earlier this month.
John Sopko pointed out that the U.S. has spent $132 billion on Afghanistan’s reconstruction — more than was spent on Western Europe after World War II. Another $750 billion has been spent on U.S. military operations, and Washington has pledged $4 billion a year for Afghanistan’s security forces.
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...091f6/800.jpegShopkeeper Hamidullah Nasrat displays his imported fabrics to a customer at the main bazaar on the banks of the Kabul River in the Afghan capital. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
The result?
“Even after 17 years of U.S. and coalition effort and financial largesse, Afghanistan remains one of the poorest, least educated, and most corrupt countries in the world,” Sopko said. “It is also one of the most violent.”
Hamidullah Nasrat sells imported fabrics in the capital’s main bazaar on the banks of the Kabul River, a fetid trickle running through a garbage-filled trench. He remembers welcoming the overthrow of the Taliban, who had shut down his photography studio because it was deemed un-Islamic.
“After the Taliban we were expecting something good, but instead, day by day, it is getting worse,” he said. “How is it that a superpower like the United States cannot stop the Taliban? It is a question every Afghan is asking.”
The U.S. and NATO formally concluded their combat mission in 2014. Since then, the Taliban have carried out near-daily attacks on rural checkpoints and staged coordinated assaults on major cities. Authorities stopped publishing casualty figures earlier this year, deeming them classified. An Islamic State affiliate has meanwhile carried out massive bombings against the country’s Shiite minority.
https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-p...4597e/800.jpegAfghan soldiers inspect their target accuracy at a firing range belonging to the Military Academy in Kabul. (AP Photo/Rahmat Gul)
Afghans who have recently served on the front lines complain of faulty equipment, inadequate supplies and reinforcements that show up late and ill-equipped, if at all.
Tameem Darvesh served in the Afghan army for nearly five years in the southern Helmand province. This year he went on holiday and never returned, trading his $180 monthly salary for work as a day laborer making much less. He said morale is at an all-time low, with many soldiers expressing sympathy for the Taliban.
Jawad Mohammadi served for more than seven years in the security forces until 2015, when he stepped on a land-mine he was tasked to clear and lost both his legs. He was just 25 years old.
He recalls how the foreign instructors told him to always check his mine detector by waving it over a piece of metal before heading out into the field. But whenever a device failed to respond, his Afghan commander would tell him to use it anyway.
“I was told that’s all we have. That’s what we were given, you just have to use it,” he said.
The next time he went out with a faulty device, his foot found a bomb the detector had missed.
“I felt myself being thrown through the air. I looked and I saw my legs were near me and there was so much blood. I yelled: ‘Please help me.’”
___
Associated Press writer Amir Shah in Kabul, Afghanistan, contributed to this report.

https://apnews.com/953d155608464b9c8...p6hkRLjiSDM4dI

One in five Army generals could not deploy for medical reasons in 2016, data show

Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY Published 6:56 a.m. ET Nov. 19, 2018 | Updated 4:03 p.m. ET Nov. 19, 2018

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2...unds&auto=webp

(Photo: Charles Dharapak, AP)

WASHINGTON – One in five Army generals could not deploy in 2016 for medical reasons, according to data obtained by USA TODAY, a troubling finding regarding the military's readiness to fight that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has vowed to fix.
Overdue medical and dental exams were the primary reasons for what the Army refers to as medical readiness in 2016. The medical readiness rate for generals has improved to nearly 85 percent, according to Brig. Gen. Omar Jones, the Army's top spokesman. Almost all generals, 97.4 percent, can now deploy after taking care of minor issues such as having updated blood tests and dental exams.
"The Army's top priority is readiness and soldiers are expected to be world-wide deployable to ensure our Army is ready to fight today and in the future," Jones said. "The data from 2016 does not reflect recent improvements in medical readiness for the Army as a whole and for the general officer corps specifically."
The data were contained in a June 2017 report on the state of the Army's general officer corps that was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The study was commissioned after a series of high-profile scandals involving generals and admirals came to light. In 2014, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel created an office to investigate ethical problems among senior leaders. An investigation by USA TODAY last year found that military investigators had documented at least 500 cases of serious misconduct among its generals, admirals and senior civilians, almost half of those instances involving personal or ethical lapses.
One of the most recent cases involved Air Force Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets, who was fired for making sexually suggestive comments to women and failing to report suicide attempts among airmen in his command.
Most of the Army's 2017 report released to USA TODAY was redacted. However, sections that included data on deployability for generals and programs to improve their mental and physical health were included. It noted "Points of Stress" for generals that include combat, deployment, family separation, loss and uncertainty. Another category termed, "Complicators," listed aging, caring for parents, disease risk and teenagers.
Data for 2016 showed that 83.5 percent of Army soldiers were deemed medically ready to deploy, the lowest rate among the services. The Marine Corps led with 90.2 percent followed by the Navy at 90.1 percent and the Air Force at 88.8 percent. The rate for active-duty, ready-to-deploy generals, not including the Reserve or National Guard, was 79.6 percent. For active-duty soldiers overall, the figure was 84 percent, and the Army's goal is 85 percent.
The top factors for failing to meet the standard was being overdue for an annual physical or dental exam, a relatively easy fix. The report included a recommendation to "Enforce Wellness" that enables generals to receive the evaluations and treatment they needed and "ensure that they do so."
To that end, the Army has sent 62 generals to its executive health program at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, Jones said. Over a three-day period, generals receive health-care services and assessments. By the end of 2019, 234 more generals will have been through the program.
Jones noted that gains had been made and are reflected in the medical readiness for generals, which is now 84.7 percent.
Mattis took office in January 2017, and this year served notice that he was making readiness to fight a top priority for the Pentagon.
If troops can't deploy, Mattis said, others must take their place. The burden of combat and time away from family falls unevenly, he said. Exceptions are made for those wounded in combat or injured in accidents.
"But this is a deployable military," Mattis told reporters in February. "It's a lethal military that aligns with our allies and partners. If you can't go overseas in your combat load – carry a combat load, then obviously someone else has got to go. I want this spread fairly and equitably across the force."
The report also recommends that generals look after their own "wellness." It encourages them to take at least one 10-day vacation away from their posts and to get enough sleep.
There's advice from Gen. John Nicholson, at the time the top commander of troops in Afghanistan. Nicholson uses the "2/3/7" rule. He asks each of his leaders to spend two hours a day alone, eat three meals and sleep for at least seven hours a night.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...16/2029702002/