US general claims 10 to 20 thousand US troops needed in Afghanistan to defeat Taliban

General Jack Keane, former vice chief of staff of the U.S. army said that the 16-year-old U.S. involvement in Afghanistan was a disgrace.

Speaking with Fox News, Keane claimed that 10 to 20 thousand more troops were needed to win against the Taliban. Keane made his remarks just as reports emerged that Defense Secretary Mattis would send about another 4,000 troops to the country. Earlier recommendations were for from 3,000 to 5,000 to be sent.

Keane insisted that the report of 4,000 additional troops being sent is only speculation but that such an amount would not be enough to defeat the Taliban saying: "There's no doubt the 4,000 will be helpful. But the real question is: Will it change the momentum of the war to our favor? My judgment is it’s likely not to." Given that the combat mission in Afghanistan is supposed to be over and that at one time there were as many as 100,000 U.S. trips in Afghanistan and the Taliban were still not defeated it hardly seems wise to send more troops into the country. With so many troops there are bound to be more casualties. The recent reported insider attack will be but a drop in the bucket. The Pentagon confirmed with Fox News that no final determination had been made about sending additional troops. Nevertheless the 4,000 number has been reported in a number of places. Pentagon spokesperson Jeff Davis nevertheless said: "No decisions have been made." An official told Reuters last month that 3,800 troops could be sent but it could be changed depending on how many troops NATO allies were willing to send. The White House did not respond immediately to a request to comment.

Although a year ago Obama set a cap of 8,400 there are believed to be about 2,000 more than that there on a temporary basis. Keane retired in 2003. He blamed the Obama administration for failing to change the momentum of the war saying: "It’s 16 years we’ve been involved in this war and it’s an absolute disgrace that we have not ended this war before, favorable to ourselves. When we took the 100,000 plus troops out of Afghanistan – just left 8,000 – we took all the support that the Afghan Army had," including "attack helicopters and anti-IED intelligence, communications and logistics. We have to put that back if they’re going to be effective." Even Defense Secretary Mattis admitted that the US and its allies are not winning in Afghanistan and had told Senator John McCain that "we will correct this as soon as possible"":“We want a strategy, and I don’t think that’s a hell of a lot to ask." Keane also claimed that Taliban safe havens in Pakistan had to be destroyed and that the Pakistani military had to cease helping the Taliban.

Obama's withdrawal from the combat role in Afghanistan probably helped him politically. The cost in U.S. lives creates a political backlash that U.S. politicians are anxious to avoid. It is unlikely that the U.S. will throw good money after bad and sacrifice more lives for a battle that it is not clear that they can win without completely destroying Afghanistan, leaving them with an almost impossible task of rebuilding the nation, a task that the U.S. has not shown itself very willing to undertake. Any move to double or even triple the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan is likely to renew controversy about the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan that after 16 years is the U.S. longest lasting conflict. However, the addition of a few thousand troops is as Keane points out unlikely to result in victory or even stop the Taliban from further advances.

US wants to raise $15 billion to fund Afghan security forces through 2020

Last month it was reported that the United States would try to raise $15 billion to fund Afghan security forces through 2020, but without new conditions to ensure the money is not siphoned off before funding the programs it was meant to finance.

	1 of 2
The Washington Post reported in June that the demand will be made on July 9 at a NATO summit in Warsaw. About $10.5 billion is expected to be provided by the U.S. The funds would pay and clothe Afghan security forces while providing them with fuel, weapons and ammunition to fight the Taliban and now Islamic State insurgents..

Over the past 15 years billions of aid dollars have been wasted or even stolen. Major General Gordon Davis, commander of the Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistna said NATO leaders will probably not link aid payments to new anti-corruption standards for the Afghan military. The U.S.-led coalition is still planning to fund 352,000 Afghan troops and police even though auditors have a number of times questioned whether there are actually that many. Davis said: “There was discussion last year about having some specific benchmarks before the Warsaw summit, but I think the allies felt it was impractical. There just wasn’t enough time.” He said NATO had confidence that Afghan president Ashraf Ghani would safeguard aid money. The U.S. political stance appears to be more hawkish. There appears little appetite for trying to impose stricter rules on providing aid for fear it might antagonize important U.S. political allies in Afghanistan.

Foreign ministers had agreed in May to extend their assistance past 2016. At the summit meeting in Warsaw on Friday and Saturday they are expected to confirm their support for Kabul as they see no alternative way to keep the country together and avoid having it fall into the hands of the Taliban. The conflict has been going on now for some 15 years. Ismail Aramaz, the senior NATO civilian representative in Afghanistan said: "These decisions are very much about demonstrating NATO's enduring and steadfast commitment to Afghanistan. Afghanistan will not stand alone."

The summit will happen just as President Obama must consider whether he will see US Afghan forces reduced from 9,800 to just 5,500 by the beginning of next year. Since the NATO international force ceased most combat operations at the end of 2014, the Taliban have made major territorial gains. They now control more territory than at any time since they were ousted from power in 2001.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) has demanded that NATO should endorse concrete measures to ensure that civilians are protected during conflicts in Afghanistan. A letter to NATO said that the organization should press the Afghan government to stop abuses by its security forces, including attacks on health care facilities, recruitment of children and misuse of schools. The group recommended that NATO appoint a high-level envoy to deal with protection of civilians, and provide expert analysis and advice.

Brad Adams, Asia director of HRW said:“The Warsaw Summit is a crucial opportunity for NATO to commit to a more robust role in reducing Afghan civilian casualties. Despite NATO’s reduced military presence and redefined support mission, the alliance is well situated to make good on its pledges to help protect civilians...NATO is uniquely placed to improve protection for Afghan civilians due to its high-level engagement with those in a position to stop abuses, including the very officials who are personally responsible for abuses.NATO should deliver on its pledges and produce concrete measures to help protect Afghan civilians from armed conflict.”

UPDATE: "In a surprise statement Wednesday, Obama says security situation in Afghanistan warrants keeping 8,400 forces there when he leaves office".

U.S. may change plans about cutting troop strength in Afghanistan

Commander of the US forces in Afghanistan General John Nicholson claims there is a shift in the relationship of the Taliban to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He claims this is complicating anti-terrorism efforts.

Nicholson claims the closer relationship has developed since the death of the former Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, who was replaced by Mullah Akhtar Mansour. Nicholson says that Mansour cultivated the closer relationship as a means of winning support in a leadership battle. This development could influence plans to cut US troops in Afghanistan. The presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has all along been the reason for U.S. and NATO forces to go into Afghanistan in the first place even though for some while the numbers of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were not large. A perceived resurgence of the group could be a justification for the U.S. not cutting their forces or even increasing them even though the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan is supposedly ended.

Nicholson said: "You see a more overt cooperation between the Taliban and these designated terrorist organizations. Our concern is that if the Taliban were to return, that because of their close relationships with these groups, that they would offer sanctuary to these groups."Nicholson is reviewing a plan that would see U.S. troop numbers in Afghanistan cut in half to 5,500 by 2017. Some U.S. politicians and Afghan commanders are requesting that Washington reconsider its plans. Nicholson would not comment on the review which is to be presented this June. The warning about Al Qaeda is rather suspicious given that U.S. officials estimates that there are just 100 to 300 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan although some claim the estimate is low.

It is the Taliban who are still the main threat to the US-supported Afghan government. It numbers its fighters in the thousands and has retaken swaths of territory in the southern province of Helmand, and even took over the northern city of Kunduz for a short period. A recent attack on Kunduz has been repulsed with more than 50 Taliban reported killed but the Taliban remain on the outskirts where they took over some military outposts. The Taliban just announced their spring offensive.

U.S. operations in Afghanistan have already picked up since the Islamic State in Khorasan has been designated as a terrorist group this January. In just the first 3 months of this year the U.S. has carried out nearly 100 strikes against the group mainly in the province of Nangarhar in eastern Afghanistan. The Islamic State and the Taliban are enemies with the IS attacking the Taliban as well as the government. Another source gives slightly different figures about the number of attacks: In the three months since the Obama Administration gave forces in Afghanistan authority to strike ISIS even when they don’t pose a direct threat, the Pentagon says some 70-80 such airstrikes have been launched, with 70% to 80% of them in Nangarhar Province.General Charles Cleveland said that airstrikes had been quite effective in that at one point the Islamic State controlled six to eight districts but now controls only two to three. Before this announcement, the U.S. had not officially confirmed that the IS controlled any territory in Afghanistan. Cleveland estimates that there are around 1,000 Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan, considerably more than Al Qaeda.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-al-qaeda-growth-in-afghanistan-may-signal-more-usa-intervention/article/463104#ixzz46bDf3zAx

Former drone pilots speak out against US drone program

According to human rights attorney, Jesselyn Radack, the U.S. government has tried to silence four former drone pilots who are now critics of the drone program.

+ Add Image

Radack claims the U.S. government tried to silence them through threats of criminal prosecution and also attempts to intimidate some family members.The four former pilots are Michael Haas , Brandon Bryant, Cian Westmoreland and Stephen Lewis. The four have written an open letter to President Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and CIA Director John Brennan: They all claim the drone attacks are unconstitutional, and engender further hatred for the United States: We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution. We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were killing only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This administration and its predecessors have built a drone program that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world.Some details of the drone program and pilot experiences are covered in the appended video Drone.

Michael Haas said the culture of the program emphasized and encouraged the dehumanization of those targeted. Haas said he took refuge in alcohol and drug abuse, a common occurrence he claimed among drone pilots. Haas took part in the mission that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen. Haas considered in doing so, even if he was a traitor and deserved to die, was a violation of his oath to uphold the U.S. constitution:“We were told that al-Awlaki deserved to die, he deserved to be killed as a traitor, but article 3 of section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that even a traitor deserves a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers."

Haas said you were made to think of killing the targets as like stepping on ants. The people are just black blobs on a screen. This made it easier to do the job. You had to ignore any inner voices saying what you were doing was not right.

Bryan Brant recalls his first shot. He guided in a F-16 fighter aircraft to kill three individuals said to be reinforcements coming to help the Taliban. However, when he saw the targets, their body motions indicated they were terrified, and were gesturing wildly, suggesting to Bryant they were not trained fighters but likely individuals trying to escape the battle. In another instance he watched what was supposedly a group with a camel carrying weapons to the Taliban. He saw no evidence of weapons. After the group settled down for the night they were all killed with a Hellfire missile. Bryant noticed that there were no secondary explosions suggesting that there had been no weapons or at least ammunition with them.

When a pilot leaves the service they are given an envelope with a sort of report card in it showing the number of killings the pilot played some part in. When Bryant was discharged honourably in 2011 the number on his card was 1626. Haas did not open his card. There are interviews with some of the pilots on Democracy Now.

US could keep up to 10,000 troops in Afghanistan through 2016

Although the Afghan war was supposedly "ended" as far as foreign combat troops were concerned a couple of years ago, almost 10,000 US troops still remain.

+ Add Image

After recent deliberations among officials, the present plans include options that would leave thousands of troops in Afghanistan through 2016. Plans for successive withdrawals may be scrapped in the face of a continuing Taliban threat and with the Islamic State also trying to gain a foothold in Afghanistan. The Taliban claims there will be no peace agreement as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.

Proponents of keeping more U.S. troops in place argue that the Afghan forces are simply not capable of beating back the Taliban on their own. The Taliban have gained ground over this year in several areas. The U.S. has already been in Afghanistan for 14 years.

The top international commander in Afghanistan, US General John Campbell, has sent five separate recommendations to both the Pentagon and NATO each with its own risk assessment. Among the options is one that would keep the U.S. presence at near 10,000 troops. At the other end of the scale would be a minimal force of just several hundred troops.

As the officials consider the alternatives, many point to what happened in Iraq after the U.S. left. Opposition to the government grew and the Islamic State was able to take advantage of a weak military. While the emphasis will no doubt remain on training and advising, with counter-terrorism missions as well, many in the military worry that any force reduction could result in a failed mission. The Afghan government itself wants foreign troops to remain.

Current plans call for all US remaining bases to be handed over to Afghan control by the end of 2016 and just a few hundred troops to remain in Kabul by the end of his term of office. Obama already agreed to keep 9,800 troops in Afghanistan to the end of this year at the request of the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, even though Obama had planned to reduce the level to 5,500.

Other NATO members also may keep more troops in Afghanistan than planned. Some officials insist that continued financial support is also crucial in keeping the Taliban and Islamic State at bay. The total NATO and US forces in Afghanistan at present are about 13,000. NATO will be closely monitoring any US decision on troop levels. One NATO official said: "There are 30-plus countries ready to contribute; the question is how big the U.S. will be...Enablers give others confidence that if they get in a real pinch, the U.S. will be able to help them out. Will the U.S. provide the backbone around which NATO brings 30 more countries?"