THE DOD

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 17, 2021 AT 10:10 AM

Paul Plante says:

To untangle this tangled web we are being presented with here with this talk, crazy talk to me, of our going to war with China, although at the same time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we provoke an “episode” with China that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria will then seize upon as their Tonkin Gulf Crisis, which will require Joe and Elaine to retaliate against China with superior force, all over who owns what in the South China Sea, it is necessary to go back in time to May 18, 1844, and the Treaty Of Wangxia (Treaty Of Wang-Hsia), the first agreement between the United States of America and the Qing Empire, which started out as follows:

Desiring to establish firm, lasting, and sincere friendship between the two nations, have resolved to fix, in a manner clear and positive, by means of a Treaty or general convention of peace, amity, and commerce, the rules which shall in future be mutually observed in the intercourse of their respective countries; for which most desirable object the President of the United States has conferred full powers on their commissioner, Caleb Cushing, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States to China, and the August Sovereign of the Ta-Tsing Empire, on his Minister and Commissioner Extraordinary, Kiyeng, of the Imperial House, a Vice-Guardian of the Heir Apparent, Governor-General of the Two Kwangs, and Superintendent-General of the Trade and Foreign Intercourse of the Five Ports:

And the said Commissioners, after having exchanged their said full powers and duly considered the premises, have agreed to the following Articles:

end quotes

Now, the question arises – who exactly were the Qing that we were making this treaty with one hundred seventy-seven (177) years ago in 1844, and where do they and that treaty fit into the picture today?

And more importantly, what territory did the Qing control in 1844 at the time the U.S. made this treaty with them?

Was Formosa (Taiwan) a part of the Qing Empire?

And that answer, according to the maps of Qing territory at the time of the treaty, is in the affirmative.

So at the time we signed this treaty, which would be law of the land here in the U.S., Taiwan was part of the Qing Empire.

As to who the Qing were, they were not Chinese, which is to say, they were not Han people, so the treaty of 1844 was not a treaty with the Chinese people, it was a treaty with their conquerors and oppressors.

So that we can see who it was we were dealing with back in 1844, let’s go to an article on the Alpha History site entitled “THE MANCHU AND THE QING DYNASTY” where we are informed thusly about the Qing, or Manchus, who were the Qing, to wit:

The Qing dynasty was the last of China’s royal dynasties, ruling from 1644 until the abdication of their last emperor, the infant Puyi, in February 1912.

Its founders were not ethnic Han Chinese but Manchu invaders from the north.

end quotes

In understanding the end of the Qing, which is where this belligerence between China and the U.S. begins, it is important to understand that indeed, the Manchus were not only invaders, but conquerors, who subjugated the Han people and humiliated them by making them wear the queue hairstyle as a sign of subservience, as we see from this history of China, to wit:

The Chinese empire was conquered by about 120,000 Manchus.

They had the strengths of discipline, unity, military readiness and brilliant strategy, but the decline of the Ming dynasty was just as important to their success.

The Ming’s glory had diminished to near collapse in the space of a few decades, and at the beginning of the seventeenth century the dynasty faced threats from barbarians on all sides, political in-fighting, rebellion throughout the country, and low levels of morale and loyalty in the military.

In 1644, the Manchus took advantage of the rebellion and chaos in the Chinese empire and moved south.

Forming an alliance with a Ming loyalist general, they entered Beijing in June and almost immediately took power for themselves.

A combination of military campaigns and diplomacy enabled them to wipe out the remains of Ming resistance, and they soon won the all-important support of the Yangzi valley gentry.

By 1673 they had completed their conquest of China, though they continued to expand well into the next century, bringing Xinjiang and Taiwan into the motherland.

end quotes

So by the time we were making the 1844 treaty with the Manchus, or Qing, that empire was in a state of decline and by the late 1800s, the Qing had been challenged and undermined by a number of factors including the high population, food shortages, excessive taxation, government corruption, domestic rebellions and the incursion of foreign imperialists., which takes us back to Chinese history, to wit:

The Qing period was one of rapid and profound change in China.

Qing emperors were confronted by numerous challenges, including the arrival of foreigners and Christian missionaries, internal unrest and rebellions and the weakening of their centralised power.

By the 19th century, China was being threatened and bullied by Western imperial powers, particularly Britain, which defeated the Qing in two Opium Wars.

Unable to defend the nation from foreign imperialists, the Qing was condemned for being too weak, too corrupt and too unwilling to embrace change and modernisation.

The origins of the Chinese Revolution can be found in this declining respect for the Qing regime.

end quotes

And it is in that decline and the subsequent revolution by the Chinese people, i.e., the Han, who are not Manchus, that the roots of the present controversy involving Joe Biden, who was featured in a France 24 article with a headline of “Biden says US must invest because China ‘eating our lunch'” on 06/05/2021 wherein we were told, “President Joe Biden warned Thursday that Congress needs to adopt his multi-trillion dollar spending plans to renew the US economy because China is ‘eating our lunch,'” and Elaine Luria on the one side, the righteous side, of course, and China, on the other side, are to be found.

So, is it because the big bully China is eating our lunch that Joe Biden and Elaine Luria are going to take us to war against China, to make them stop eating our lunch, or is it to punish them for having eaten our lunch, or is it a combination of both?

Stay tuned!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-384637
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 18, 2021 AT 10:17 PM

Paul Plante says:

And talk about sheer bellicosity and belligerence on the part of War Hawk Joe Biden, coming back to the present moment from history, after dispatching the USS Benfold (DDG-65), an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer in the United States Navy which is a multi-mission platform capable of AAW (Anti-Aircraft Warfare) with the powerful AEGIS combat systems suite and anti-aircraft missiles, ASW (Anti-submarine warfare), with towed sonar array, anti-submarine rockets, ASUW (Anti-surface warfare) with a Harpoon missile launcher, and strategic land strike using Tomahawk missiles with the Benfold being one of the first ships fitted with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System so that during the 2010 Stellar Daggers exercise, it was the first ship to simultaneously engage a ballistic missile and a cruise missile to provoke the Chinese in the South China Sea into giving Joe his “Tonkin Gulf Incident” as an excuse to blow China off the world map and at the same time, teach the rest of the world that you don’t eat America’s lunch if you care about having a future, we read in the CNN article “US Air Force to send dozens of F-22 fighter jets to the Pacific amid tensions with China” by Brad Lendon on 16 July 2021, as follows:

The United States Air Force is sending more than two dozen F-22 stealth fighters to an exercise in the western Pacific this month, an unusually large deployment of the powerful jets that analysts say sends a strong message to a possible adversary in China.

end quotes

So talk about Joe Biden making America great again (MAGA), it looks like game is on and Joe Biden intends to be the winner, which is only right, given that Joe is a good guy, which takes us back to the Newsweek article entitled “U.S. Navy Dismisses Claim China Drove Away Warship From Disputed Paracel Islands” by Anders Anglesey on 12 July 2021, where we had as follows concerning Joe’s recent naval provocation of China before he sent the Air Force over there to scare them some more, to wit:

U.S. Navy officials dismissed claims China drove away one of its warships that passed through the disputed Paracel Islands on Monday, saying Beijing’s statement is “false.”

The USS Benfold carried out a maneuver near the small archipelago earlier today, located east of Vietnam and south of China, which the U.S. Navy said was “consistent with international law.”

end quotes

That is what we had, and this is where that story goes, to wit:

Chinese authorities fired back at the move and claimed they were able to drive away the warship from the disputed islands.

According to Reuters, China’s military said on Monday it “drove away” the USS Benfold, which Beijing claimed had illegally entered its waters.

But, the U.S. Navy hit back with a fiery statement of its own and branded Beijing’s version of events as being “false.”

A statement issued by the U.S. 7th Fleet public affairs on Monday read: “The PRC’s (People’s Republic of China’s) statement about this mission is false.”

“USS Benfold conducted this FONOP (freedom of navigation operation) in accordance with international law and then continued on to conduct normal operations in international waters.”

“The operation reflects our commitment to uphold freedom of navigation and lawful uses of the sea as a principle.”

“The United States will continue to fly, sail, and operate wherever international waters allows, as USS Benfold did here.”

“Nothing PRC says otherwise will deter us.”

end quotes

Talk about tough talk and Joe Biden making America great again, how about that, people, for a vivid example?

Joe Biden isn’t afraid of those COMMIES one bit, and he isn’t afraid to let the world know it – you don’t **** with Joe Biden, or like “Corn Pop” all those years ago, you’ll be damn sorry if you even think about it, which brings us back to the Newsweek article, as follows:

Its statement continued: “The PLA(N)’s [People’s Liberation Army Navy] statement is the latest in a long string of PRC actions to misrepresent lawful U.S. maritime operations and assert its excessive and illegitimate maritime claims at the expense of its Southeast Asian neighbors in the South China Sea.”

“The PRC’s behavior stands in contrast to the United States’ adherence to international law and our vision for a free and open Indo-Pacific region.”

“All nations, large and small, should be secure in their sovereignty, free from coercion, and able to pursue economic growth consistent with accepted international rules and norms.”

While the Paracel Islands are under the de facto administration of China, they do face sovereignty claims from both Taiwan and Vietnam.

The Paracel Islands are located in the hotly-contended South China Sea, much of which China has made ambitious moves to claim.

But, in 2016 the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague ruled that China had no historic title over the South China Sea, a ruling that Beijing has said it would not view as legitimate.

Controversial Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who has been courting Beijing officials, said last month the court ruling against China was “just a piece of paper.”

Beijing has laid claim to hundreds of islands in the resource-rich South China Sea that officials say fall within its so-called nine-dash line, taken from pre-war Chinese maps of the region and said to show Beijing’s sea claims.

The South China Sea reportedly holds an estimated 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in proved and probable reserves, with more to be potentially discovered, according to the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative.

This dispute has led the U.S. Navy to send several warships to the area in a bid to support allies in the region and curb Chinese ambitions.

In May, the USS Curtis Wilbur also conducted a freedom of navigation operation near the Paracel Islands, in a move Beijing called “illegal entry” of its waters.

end quotes

And that talk of “international law,” as if it were actually something more than empty words, like so much is today that is related to politics, takes us to Section 3: General Rights and Duties of Belligerents of The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 33, Supplement: Research in International Law (1939), published by Cambridge University Press, where we have as follows on that subject:

“This is true because international law has not yet reached the point of development where every breach of the law is considered to be a matter of common concern.”

“Up to this time, breaches of international law have been treated as we treat wrongs under civil procedure [as contrasted with criminal procedure], as if they concerned nobody except the particular nation upon which the injury was inflicted and the nation inflicting it.”

“There has been no general recognition of the right of other nations to object.”

– Elihu Root, “The Outlook For International Law,” Proceedings of the American Society of International Law, 1915, p.8.

For those unfamiliar with that name, according to an article in Progressivism and US Foreign Policy between the World Wars, pp 23-47, entitled “Elihu Root, International Law, and the World Court” by Greg Russell, first online 6 October 2017, we have this background:

Studies of the progressive movement in American history, particularly during the interwar years, have given far too little attention to the various strands of progressive international thought.

This chapter analyzes Elihu Root’s campaign for the creation of a World Court, and defense of international law, as an important effort in the reform-minded movement to restrain international conflict and minimize the prospects for war through law.

Root joined other progressives in emphasizing the moral and rational components of human nature and stressed an important connection between societal values and the projection of power.

But he rejected balance-of-power thinking and looked to legal processes and institutions that would harmonize competing interests in the management of interstate rivalries.

end quotes

I think from the fact that Joe Biden is trying to provoke a military confrontation with China that it is apparent that Joe Biden does not agree with Elihu Root – settle it with guns, not lawyers!

But this story of Joe Biden’s incipient war with China is just getting started so don’t go away and we’ll be right back!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/r ... ent-385500
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

POLITICO

"‘A very dangerous precedent’: Democrats take aim at Biden’s Somalia airstrikes"


By Andrew Desiderio and Lara Seligman  

28 JULY 2021

Top Democratic lawmakers took aim this week at the Biden administration’s recent airstrikes in Somalia, disputing the legal rationale for the operations and arguing that it undercuts the president’s stated desire to replace outdated war authorizations.

“I think President [Joe] Biden should submit a new authorization for the use of military force and should recognize that the 2001 AUMF should be terminated,” Sen. Ben Cardin said.

The Pentagon justified the strikes, which targeted al Qaeda affiliates in the war-torn country, by invoking the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the terrorist groups that attacked the U.S. on 9/11.

Democrats, who have long maintained that the 2001 authorization is irrelevant 20 years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, said the Biden administration did not have the authority to strike in Somalia.

“What the Biden team is doing is consistent with what we’ve seen now in three prior administrations, but it’s, to me, inconsistent with the intent of Congress,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.


“I think President [Joe] Biden should submit a new authorization for the use of military force and should recognize that the 2001 AUMF should be terminated,” Cardin added.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), who has been working with the White House on a replacement for the 2001 AUMF that better aligns with the current terror threats, called on the Biden administration to brief Congress “expeditiously” on its “counterterrorism goals and the current threats.”

“I have received no information suggesting that these strikes are necessary to protect any U.S. personnel and would need to understand, if this is so, why they are occurring,” Kaine added.

Biden has backed efforts to repeal some war authorizations, such as the 2002 AUMF for Iraq, and replace others, like the 2001 measure.

Yet like his predecessors he has cited a range of legal justifications, including outdated war authorizations, following military action.

That includes twice invoking his Article II constitutional “self-defense” authority when he ordered airstrikes against Iran-backed militant groups in Iraq and Syria that attacked American troops.

“If you’re taking strikes in Somalia, come to Congress and get an authorization for it."

"If you want to be involved in hostilities in Somalia for the next five years, come and explain why that’s necessary and come and get an explicit authorization,” added Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), another top Foreign Relations Committee member.

“This idea that that’s too much trouble, that that’s too much to ask, is a very dangerous precedent for Congress to set.”


The criticism comes days after the Pentagon struck al-Shabab in Somalia on Friday, marking the second such operation in less than a week and the Biden administration’s second in the country since taking office.

In both cases, Gen. Stephen Townsend, head of U.S. Africa Command — not Biden — authorized the strike.

The mission was conducted to support an American-trained Somali force known as the Danab after they came under fire from al-Shabab militants in the Galmudug area of Somalia, defense officials said.

Murphy said the strike approval process raised questions about the chain of command.

“Any time you’re taking strikes in countries that have no clear authorization for hostilities passed by Congress, the chief executive needs to be involved.”

The U.S. resumed operations in the country after a six-month hiatus despite new limits the Biden administration placed on drone strikes outside active combat zones.

While the Trump administration gave regional commanders broad authority to green-light such operations, proposals for airstrikes are now generally routed through the White House.

Prior to last week’s actions, the U.S. had not conducted a strike in Somalia since Jan. 19, the day before Biden took office.


Biden’s invocation of the 2001 AUMF comes as his administration is conferring with lawmakers about a replacement for that authorization — one that includes specific geographic designations, mandates a cut-off date, and names specific terrorist groups covered under the AUMF.

“It illustrates that we need to come up with some sort of mechanism where we can approve geographies,” Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), who has long advocated for war powers reforms, said of the Somalia strikes.

“We don’t want to hamstring the president’s Article II powers — which we don’t have the power to do anyway.”

Cardin said citing the 2001 AUMF “makes it more difficult” to get a new authorization through Congress, adding: “It undercuts our ability to see an urgency for action.”

The Foreign Relations Committee has asked the Biden administration for more information about the airstrikes.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who chairs the panel, said his main focus was on repealing the AUMFs that no longer have functional value.

But the committee is scheduled to hold a hearing next week with top State Department officials on AUMFs more broadly, allowing senators to question administration officials directly about the invocation of the 2001 AUMF as well as Biden’s Article II powers.

After that hearing, the committee will vote on a bipartisan measure to repeal the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs, both of which authorized military force in Iraq for different conflicts.

But the 2001 AUMF is still on lawmakers’ minds as a future target.

“It’s just more evidence of how badly the 2001 AUMF is in need of reform,” Murphy added.

“I think the administration is struggling a little bit to find the legal authorization for these strikes.”

Pentagon spokesperson Cindi King declined to give additional details about the dual attacks, including why the Biden administration had conducted two in a row after a six-month hiatus, citing operational security.


But a defense official said the end of Somalia’s rainy season has allowed operations to resume on both sides and anticipated a resumption of active fighting.

The defense official defended the airstrike, drawing a distinction between “deliberate” strikes against a particular threat developed in advance by military planners, and close-air-support or self-defense operations based on an imminent threat."

"In the latter cases, commanders must be able to authorize a strike quickly in life-threatening situations."

"All strikes go through rigorous approval processes including assessments of civilian casualties and collateral damage, the official said.

Republicans defended and applauded the administration’s airstrikes, as they have often done since Biden became president.

On the issue of war powers, GOP lawmakers have generally backed expanded presidential authority to conduct military operations.

“I don’t think the president needs a law passed by Congress in order to target terrorists who are posing a threat to the United States, no matter where they are in the world,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“Especially if it’s a one-off, targeted engagement, not a full-scale military situation.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

THE DAILY CALLER

"Biden’s Defense Budget Adds Bureaucrats And Cuts Troops"


Varun Hukeri

29 JULY 2021

President Joe Biden’s proposed defense budget for fiscal year 2022 calls for an increase in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) civilian workforce while reducing the number of active-duty personnel.

In spite of global threats such as China and Russia, the president’s proposed budget would shrink every military branch except the nascent Space Force.


The budget proposes reducing the number of active-duty personnel by nearly 7,000 service members but increasing the Pentagon’s civilian population by around 9,000 employees.

A Congressional Research Service report published in June noted the DoD employed more than one million civilians, contractors and uniformed personnel in administrative positions compared to 1.3 million service members on active duty.

Some argue that increasing the civilian workforce compared to active military personnel would provide cost savings and strengthen the military’s overall capabilities.

A Government Accountability Office report concluded that civilians cost the government around $15,000 less per year than an active service member of a similar rank.

In an overview of the president’s proposed budget published, the DOD argued the “use of civilians allows the Department to focus its soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians on the tasks and functions that truly military essential.”

But an internal report published by the Defense Business Board in 2015 exposed around $125 billion in administrative waste, according to The Washington Post.

The report identified “a clear path” to make up the cost by streamlining the DOD’s civilian workforce, though the proposals were never adopted.


One proposal was to reallocate the $125 billion in cost savings over five years toward troops and weapons.

The savings could have covered the operating expenses for 50 Army brigades or covered a large portion of the cost to rebuild the nation’s nuclear arsenal, according to The Post.

The DOD had two active-duty service members for every one civilian employee in 2011, but that number decreased over the following decade, according to budget data for the fiscal year 2021.

The president’s proposed budget for the fiscal year 2022 would leave the military with 1.7 active-duty service members for each civilian employee.

The DoD in comparison maintained around 2.2 active-duty service members for every one civilian employee at the height of the Iraq War, and a considerable 4.6 active-duty service members for every one civilian employee at the end of World War II.

The U.S. is not involved in combat operations as extensive as World War II, or even the Iraq War, but military leadership has maintained the nation is currently engaged in great power competition with Russia in Europe and China in the Indo-Pacific.

An American Enterprise Institute report published in February further argued that increasing the number of service members while reducing the civilian workforce would streamline military operations and allow time for training, maintenance and deployment.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... hp&pc=U531
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

THE INDEPENDENT

"US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says there was no indication from intelligence that the Afghan army would collapse in 11 days - ‘Right now, we have to focus on this mission because we have soldiers at risk’, top US military official says at news briefing"


Eric Garcia

19 AUGUST 2021

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley responded to news reports that there were warnings of a rapid collapse of the Afghan army by asserting there was no intelligence to suggest Afghanistan’s army would deteriorate in just 11 days.

Mr Milley spoke at a Pentagon news conference with Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, saying he wanted to respond to news reports about the supposed intelligence, adding that he had previously said at the same podium and in sworn testimony to Congress that the intelligence indicated multiple scenarios.


“One of those was an outright Taliban takeover following a rapid collapse of the Afghan security forces and the government,” he said, adding that other scenarios were a civil war or a negotiated settlement.

But he noted that the timeframe of a rapid collapse was widely estimated to be anywhere from weeks to months or years following the US exit from Afghanistan.

“There was nothing that I or anyone else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days,” he said.

Mr Milley said US Central Command submitted a variety of plans that were briefed and approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of Defence and President Biden.

The chairman, who is a member of the US army, said there will be plenty of time to conduct after-action reviews and survey what happened.

“But right now is not that time,” he said.

“Right now, we have to focus on this mission because we have soldiers at risk, and we also have American citizens and Afghans who supported us for 20 years also at risk.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 04905.html
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

INSIDER

"Top US general says he never saw any intelligence that Afghanistan would collapse as fast as it did"


Ryan Pickrell

Aug 18, 2021, 5:27 PM

* Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said no one saw Afghanistan collapsing as fast as it did.

* "There was nothing that I or anybody else saw that indicated a collapse" in 11 days, he said.

* His comments came after a report said intelligence warned of a collapse as the White House offered optimistic assessments.


The top US general said repeatedly on Wednesday that he had not seen any intelligence assessments suggesting that Afghanistan would collapse as quickly as it did.

"There was nothing that I or anybody else saw that indicated a collapse of this army and this government in 11 days," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said at a Pentagon press briefing, his first since the Taliban seized control of Kabul.


He told reporters that "there are not reports that I am aware of that predicted a security force of 300,000 would evaporate in 11 days, from 6 August to 16 August, with the capture of 34 provinces and the capital city of Kabul," explaining that no one saw an army of that size falling apart that fast.

"The intelligence clearly indicated multiple scenarios were possible: one of those was an outright Taliban takeover following a rapid collapse of the Afghan Security Forces and the government," Milley explained.

"Another was a civil war, and a third was a negotiated settlement."

"Timeframe of a rapid collapse," he said, "that was widely estimated and ranged from weeks, months, and even years following our departure."

The general's comments follow a report in The New York Times on Tuesday stating that classified US intelligence assessments warned that a rapid collapse was a very real possibility, even as the White House said that such a development was "unlikely."

In early July, President Joe Biden argued for a withdrawal negotiated under the previous administration, stating in a press briefing that "the likelihood there's going to be the Taliban overrunning everything and owning the whole country is highly unlikely."


Last week, as the Taliban carried out a sweeping nationwide offensive, city after city fell to the insurgent forces as the Afghan National Security and Defense Forces the US has been years and billions of dollars training capitulated.

A senior intelligence official told Voice of America Wednesday afternoon that US intelligence "consistently identified the risk of a rapid collapse of the Afghan government," explaining that "we also grew more pessimistic about the government's survival as the fighting season progressed."

The official acknowledged, though, that "the Afghan government unraveled even more quickly than we anticipated."


The US military currently has a little over 4,000 troops at Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, where an effort to evacuate US citizens and Afghan partners and their families is currently underway.

https://www.businessinsider.com/general ... ast-2021-8
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

REUTERS

"Planes, guns, night-vision goggles: The Taliban's new U.S.-made war chest"


By Idrees Ali, Patricia Zengerle, Jonathan Landay

AUGUST 19, 2021

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - About a month ago, Afghanistan’s ministry of defense posted on social media photographs of seven brand new helicopters arriving in Kabul delivered by the United States.

“They’ll continue to see a steady drumbeat of that kind of support, going forward,” U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told reporters a few days later at the Pentagon.

In a matter of weeks, however, the Taliban had seized most of the country, as well as any weapons and equipment left behind by fleeing Afghan forces.


Video showed the advancing insurgents inspecting long lines of vehicles and opening crates of new firearms, communications gear and even military drones.

“Everything that hasn’t been destroyed is the Taliban’s now,” one U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, told Reuters.

Current and former U.S. officials say there is concern those weapons could be used to kill civilians, be seized by other militant groups such as Islamic State to attack U.S.-interests in the region, or even potentially be handed over to adversaries including China and Russia.

President Joe Biden’s administration is so concerned about the weapons that it is considering a number of options to pursue.

The officials said launching airstrikes against the larger equipment, such as helicopters, has not been ruled out, but there is concern that would antagonize the Taliban at a time the United States' main goal is evacuating people here.

Another official said that while there are no definitive numbers yet, the current intelligence assessment was that the Taliban are believed to control more than 2,000 armored vehicles, including U.S. Humvees, and up to 40 aircraft potentially including UH-60 Black Hawks, scout attack helicopters, and ScanEagle military drones.

“We have already seen Taliban fighters armed with U.S.-made weapons they seized from the Afghan forces."

"This poses a significant threat to the United States and our allies,” Representative Michael McCaul, the top Republican on the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, told Reuters in an email.

‘MORE LIKE TROPHIES’

The speed with which the Taliban swept across Afghanistan is reminiscent of Islamic State militants taking weapons from U.S.-supplied Iraqi forces who offered little resistance in 2014.

Between 2002 and 2017, the United States gave the Afghan military an estimated $28 billion in weaponry, including guns, rockets, night-vision goggles and even small drones for intelligence gathering.

But aircraft like the Blackhawk helicopters have been the most visible sign of U.S. military assistance, and were supposed to be the Afghan military’ biggest advantage over the Taliban.


Between 2003 and 2016 the United States provided Afghan forces with 208 aircraft, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

In the last week, many of those aircraft were most useful for Afghan pilots to escape the Taliban.

One of the U.S. officials said that between 40 and 50 aircraft had been flown to Uzbekistan by Afghan pilots seeking refuge.

Even before taking power in Kabul over the weekend, the Taliban had started a campaign of assassinating pilots here.

Some planes were in the United States for maintenance and will stay.

Those en route to Afghan forces will instead be used by the U.S. military to help in the evacuation from Kabul.

Current and former officials say that while they are concerned about the Taliban having access to the helicopters, the aircraft require frequent maintenance and many are complicated to fly without extensive training.

“Ironically, the fact that our equipment breaks down so often is a life-saver here,” a third official said.

Retired U.S. Army General Joseph Votel, who oversaw U.S. military operations in Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command from 2016 to 2019, said most of the high-end hardware captured by the Taliban, including the aircraft, was not equipped with sensitive U.S. technology.

“In some cases, some of these will be more like trophies,” Votel said.

FIGHTING AT NIGHT

There is a more immediate concern about some of the easier-to-use weapons and equipment, such as night-vision goggles.

Since 2003 the United States has provided Afghan forces with at least 600,000 infantry weapons including M16 assault rifles, 162,000 pieces of communication equipment, and 16,000 night-vision goggle devices.


“The ability to operate at night is a real game-changer,” one congressional aide told Reuters.

Votel and others said smalls arms seized by the insurgents such as machine guns, mortars, as well as artillery pieces including howitzers, could give the Taliban an advantage against any resistance that could surface in historic anti-Taliban strongholds such as the Panjshir Valley northeast of Kabul.

U.S. officials said the expectation was that most of the weapons would be used by the Taliban themselves, but it was far too early to tell what they planned to do - including possibly sharing the equipment with rival states such as China.

Andrew Small, a Chinese foreign policy expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said the Taliban was likely to grant Beijing access to any U.S. weapons they may now have control over.

One of the U.S. officials said it was not likely China would gain much, because Beijing likely already has access to the weapons and equipment.

The situation, experts say, shows the United States needs a better way to monitor equipment it gives to allies.

It could have done much more to ensure those supplies to Afghan forces were closely monitored and inventoried, said Justine Fleischner of UK-based Conflict Armament Research.

“But the time has passed for these efforts to have any impact in Afghanistan,” Fleischner said.

Reporting by Idrees Ali, Patricia Zengerle and Jonathan Landay; Additional reporting by Michael Martina; Editing by Mary Milliken and Daniel Wallis

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-afgh ... SKBN2FK1L5
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

BUSINESS INSIDER

"Biden says US troops will stay in Afghanistan until every American who wants to leave the country has gotten out"


cteh@businessinsider.com (Cheryl Teh)

19 AUGUST 2021

Biden told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos that the US is committing to getting every American out of Afghanistan.

He has set an August 31 deadline to get US troops out of Afghanistan.


Biden said there are 50,000 to 60,000 Afghans and their families that the US wants to evacuate.

The US will keep troops in Afghanistan until every American who wants to leave the country has gotten out, President Joe Biden told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.

In the August 18 interview, Biden told Stephanopoulos the US will try to complete its troop evacuation by August 31.

While Biden stopped short of saying troops will remain in Afghanistan past this deadline, he said the US would "determine at the time who's left."

"... if there's American citizens left, we're gonna stay to get them all out," Biden told Stephanopoulos.

The White House did not immediately reply to Insider's request for comment for this story.

There are 10,000 to 15,000 Americans who need to be evacuated from Afghanistan, Biden said in the interview.

He estimated that the administration wants to evacuate an additional 50,000 to 60,000 Afghan allies and family members from the country.

"It depends on where we are and whether we can get to ramp these numbers to five, to 7,000 a day coming out."

"If that's the case, they'll all be out," Biden said of meeting the August 31 evacuation deadline.

"The commitment holds to get everyone out," the president said.

More than 270,000 people have been displaced from their homes in Afghanistan this year while fleeing the Taliban's advances, the United Nations estimated in a July 13 report.

The Taliban stormed Kabul on August 15.

According to CNN, as of August 17, the US has evacuated more than 3,200 people on 13 flights.

This number includes more than 1,100 US citizens and permanent residents, and more than 2,000 Afghan special immigrants and their families.

Army Maj. Gen. William Taylor said in an August 18 Pentagon briefing that the US is aiming to have one flight departing Afghanistan every hour, per Reuters.

The eventual goal is to move 5,000 to 9,000 people out of Afghanistan every day, per Bloomberg.

While the Taliban pledged this week to guarantee "safe passage" to civilians out of Afghanistan, people are being beaten by the Taliban on their way to Kabul's Hamid Karzai airport.

Reports have described chaotic scenes at the airport, with people swarming the airport tarmac, scaling a jet bridge, and clinging to the sides of a US Air Force plane as it taxied down the runway.

A State Department security alert released on Wednesday said the US "cannot ensure safe passage" for Americans still in Afghanistan.

The US embassy is prioritizing US citizens and legal permanent residents in its evacuation process, per the security alert.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/bi ... hp&pc=U531
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

THE NEW YORK TIMES

"ISIS Branch Poses Biggest Immediate Terror Threat to Evacuation in Kabul"


Eric Schmitt

25 AUGUST 2021

WASHINGTON — The United States has been battling the Taliban and their militant partners in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network, for 20 years.

But the biggest immediate threat to both the Americans and the Taliban as the United States escalates its evacuation at the Kabul airport before an Aug. 31 withdrawal deadline is a common rival that is lesser known: Islamic State Khorasan, or ISIS-K, the terrorist group’s affiliate in Afghanistan.


Created six years ago by disaffected Pakistani Taliban, ISIS-K has carried out dozens of attacks in Afghanistan this year.

American military and intelligence analysts say threats from the group include a bomb-laden truck, suicide bombers infiltrating the crowd outside Hamid Karzai International Airport and mortar strikes against the airfield.

These threats, coupled with new demands by the Taliban for the United States to leave by Aug. 31, probably influenced President Biden’s decision on Tuesday to stick to that deadline.

“Every day we’re on the ground is another day we know that ISIS-K is seeking to target the airport and attack both U.S. and allied forces and innocent civilians,” Mr. Biden said.

The threats lay bare a complicated dynamic between the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Haqqani network, and their bitter rival, ISIS-K, in what analysts say portends a bloody struggle involving thousands of foreign fighters on both sides.

A United Nations report in June concluded that 8,000 to 10,000 fighters from Central Asia, the North Caucasus region of Russia, Pakistan and the Xinjiang region in western China have poured into Afghanistan in recent months.

Most are associated with the Taliban or Al Qaeda, the report said, but others are allied with ISIS-K.

“Afghanistan has now become the Las Vegas of the terrorists, of the radicals and of the extremists,” said Ali Mohammad Ali, a former Afghan security official.

“People all over the world, radicals and extremists, are chanting, celebrating the Taliban victory."

"This is paving the way for other extremists to come to Afghanistan.”

American officials say they are preparing to combat both immediate and longer-term terrorist challenges in Afghanistan.

First and foremost is the threat at the Kabul airport.

Jake Sullivan, Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, said on Sunday that the threat from ISIS-K was “acute” and “persistent,” and that American commanders and other officials were taking all possible steps to thwart any attacks.

That includes striking an unlikely accommodation with the Taliban, at least temporarily, not only to allow safe passage to American citizens and Afghan allies to the airport for flights out of the country, but also to actively defend against an ISIS-K attack.

The leaders of the Islamic State in Afghanistan denounced the Taliban takeover of the country, criticizing their version of Islamic rule as insufficiently hard line, and the two groups have fought in recent years.

An attack on the airport, current and former American officials said, would be a strategic blow to both the United States and the Taliban leadership, which is trying to demonstrate that it can control the country.

Such a strike would bolster ISIS-K’s stature in the jihadist world, but that opportunity greatly diminishes after the last American Marine or soldier pulls out.

The Taliban and the Haqqani network, a militant group based in Pakistan, are essentially one and the same, terrorism experts say.

Siraj Haqqani has been the deputy emir of the Taliban since 2015.

In turn, the Haqqanis are close, operationally and ideologically, to Al Qaeda.

“The Taliban, Haqqani network, and Al Qaeda function as a triumvirate, and one that is very much part of the same militant network, they work together hand-in-glove,” said Colin P. Clarke, a counterterrorism analyst at the Soufan Group, a security consulting firm based in New York.

These three entities are inextricably linked, Mr. Clarke said, and in fact, have grown closer over the past decade, a trend that is likely to continue after the U.S. withdrawal, especially as they close ranks against adversaries like ISIS-K and the growing resistance movement in Afghanistan’s north.

On the other side of the jihadist ledger is ISIS-K.

The group is one of many affiliates that the Islamic State established after it swept into northern Iraq from Syria in 2014, and created a religious state or caliphate the size of Britain.

An American-led campaign crushed the caliphate, but more than 10,000 ISIS fighters remain in Iraq and Syria, and ISIS affiliates like the Sahel or the Sinai Peninsula are thriving.

But ISIS-K has never been a major force in Afghanistan, much less globally, analysts say.

The group’s ranks have dropped to about 1,500 to 2,000 fighters, about half from its peak levels in 2016 before American airstrikes and Afghan commando raids took a toll.

Since June 2020, however, under an ambitious new leader, Shahab al-Muhajir, the affiliate “remains active and dangerous,” and is seeking to swell its ranks with disaffected Taliban fighters and other militants, the U.N. report concluded.

“They have not been a first-tier ISIS affiliate, but with the Afghan commandos gone and the American military gone, does that give them breathing room?"

"It could,” said Seth G. Jones, an Afghanistan specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

Even as the group’s overall ranks have declined in recent years, Mr. Jones said, ISIS-K has maintained cells of clandestine fighters who have carried out terrorist attacks.

United Nations counterterrorism officials said in the June report that the Islamic State had conducted 77 attacks in Afghanistan in the first four months of this year, up from 21 in the same period in 2020.

The attacks last year included a strike against Kabul University in November and a rocket barrage against the airport in Kabul a month later.

ISIS-K is believed to have been responsible for a school bombing in the capital that killed 80 schoolgirls in May.

Some analysts believe ISIS-K may have links to the Haqqani network.

Indeed, Shahab al-Muhajir, the ISIS leader, is reported to have been a former midlevel Haqqani commander before defecting.

“Since many ISIS commanders and fighters were once part of Al Qaeda or an Al Qaeda franchise, it is not surprising that there should be this contact,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“In most cases, this contact has not produced any lasting reconciliation.”

The rivalry between the Taliban and its partners and ISIS-K will continue after the last American troops leave, analysts say.

And the fragile cooperation between American and Taliban commanders is already fraying, and the two could easily revert to their adversarial stances.

The American military is treating the Taliban’s red line about Aug. 31 seriously.

The recent evacuations have been possible because of Taliban cooperation — in allowing most people to reach the airport unscathed, and in working against the threat of ISIS attacks, commanders say.

After Aug. 31, military officials say, there is a real concern that at best, the cooperation with the Taliban will end.

At worst, that could lead to attacks on U.S. forces, foreign citizens and Afghan allies, either by Taliban elements or by their turning a blind eye to Islamic State threats.

Mr. Biden has pledged to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups that want to attack the American homeland.

Military commanders say that will be a difficult task, with no troops and few spies on the ground, and armed Reaper drones thousands of miles away at bases in the Persian Gulf.


In the February 2020 agreement with the Trump administration, the Taliban vowed not to allow Al Qaeda to use Afghan territory to attack the United States.

But analysts fear that is not happening and that Al Qaeda remains the longer-term terrorism threat.

As the U.N. report put it: “The Taliban and Al Qaeda remain closely aligned and show no indication of breaking ties.”

Adam Nossiter contributed reporting from Paris.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/is ... d=msedgntp
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73429
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: THE DOD

Post by thelivyjr »

CNBC

"12 U.S. service members were killed, 15 wounded in attack near Kabul airport, Pentagon says"


Amanda Macias @AMANDA_M_MACIAS

PUBLISHED THU, AUG 26 2021

KEY POINTS

* The Pentagon on Thursday confirmed that 12 U.S. service members have been killed and 15 wounded after two suicide bombers detonated explosives near Hamid Karzai International Airport in Afghanistan.

* U.S. Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, said that a number of Afghan civilians were also killed but was not able to provide a precise number.

* He said that the U.S. is still monitoring “extremely active threats” to the airport that range from suicide bombers to rocket attacks.

* The terrorist group ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack.

* President Joe Biden will address the nation on the attack at 5:00 p.m. ET.


WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Thursday confirmed that 12 U.S. service members have been killed and 15 wounded after two suicide bombers detonated explosives near Hamid Karzai International Airport in Kabul, Afghanistan.

U.S. Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, said that a number of Afghan civilians were also killed but was not able to provide a precise number.


The explosions took place near the airport’s Abbey Gate and the Baron Hotel immediately adjacent, McKenzie said.

Several gunmen opened fire on civilians and military forces after the explosion at Abbey Gate, he said.

The general, who oversees the U.S. military’s operations in the region, said that the Pentagon is working to determine attribution for the attack, but added that the current assessment is that the bombers are affiliated with ISIS.

ISIS later claimed responsibility for the attack.

McKenzie said that the U.S. is still monitoring “extremely active threats” to the airport that range from suicide bombers to rocket attacks.

McKenzie said that despite the attack, the U.S. emergency evacuation mission continues.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin expressed his condolences in a statement Thursday and condemned the attack that “took their lives at the very moment these troops were trying to save the lives of others.”

“We will not be dissuaded from the task at hand."

"To do anything less -- especially now -- would dishonor the purpose and sacrifice these men and women have rendered our country and the people of Afghanistan,” Austin added.

About 5,400 U.S. servicemembers are assisting with evacuation efforts in Kabul.

The British have about 1,000 troops assisting with the evacuation.

The U.K. Ministry of Defense said there were no reported casualties among its government and military personnel in Kabul after the attack.

President Joe Biden will address the nation on the attacks at 5:00 p.m. ET.

“The president met with his national security team Thursday morning, including Austin, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley as well as commanders on the ground in Kabul,” the White House said in a statement.

“He will continue to be briefed on updates on the evolving situation throughout the day,” the statement added.

The U.S. Embassy in Kabul had issued a security alert on Wednesday urging Americans to avoid the airport: “U.S. citizens who are at the Abbey Gate, East Gate, or North Gate now should leave immediately,” the alert said.

The embassy again told Americans on Thursday not to travel to the airport and avoid its gates after the attack.

In the last 24 hours, Western forces evacuated 13,400 people out of Kabul on 91 military cargo aircraft flights.

Since the mass evacuations began Aug. 14, approximately 95,700 people have been airlifted out of Afghanistan.

About 101,300 people have been evacuated since the end of July, including about 5,000 U.S. citizens and their families.

A State Department spokesperson said Thursday that about 500 of the 1,500 Americans believed to be in Afghanistan have been evacuated.

“We are now in contact with the roughly 1,000 Americans we believe remain in Afghanistan."

"And, the vast majority – over two-thirds – informed us that they were taking steps to leave,” the spokesperson added.

Biden on Tuesday reiterated to leaders of the G-7, NATO, United Nations and European Union that the United States will withdraw its military from Afghanistan by the end of the month.

The president warned that staying longer in Afghanistan carries serious risks for foreign troops and civilians.

Biden said ISIS-K, an Afghanistan-based affiliate of the terror group, presents a growing threat to the airport.

“Every day we’re on the ground is another day we know that ISIS-K is seeking to target the airport and attack both U.S. and allied forces and innocent civilians,” he said.

The Taliban said earlier Tuesday that the group will no longer allow Afghan nationals to leave the country on evacuation flights nor will they accept an extension of the withdrawal deadline beyond the end of the month.

“We are not in favor of allowing Afghans to leave,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told reporters during a news conference Tuesday.

“They [the Americans] have the opportunity, they have all the resources, they can take all the people that belong to them, but we are not going to allow Afghans to leave and we will not extend the deadline,” he said.

Evacuations carried out by foreign forces after Aug. 31 would be a “violation” of a Biden administration promise to end the U.S. military’s mission in the country, Mujahid said.

-- CNBC’s Spencer Kimball contributed to this report from New York.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/26/explosi ... firms.html
Post Reply