US lawmakers resist Pentagon plan to withdraw troops from Africa

(January 18) US Defense Secretary Mark Esper has been publicizing the Pentagon plan that would see troops from Africa moved to Asian areas around China and Russia, for some time.

The plan would be part of the national defense strategy (NDS) designed to counteract the growing influence of Russia and particularly China in East Asia. The move could be seen as a continuation of the Obama strategy described as a pivot to east Asia.

US troops in Africa claimed to be key in the global war on terrorism

Both the top Democrat and the top Republican of the US House of Representatives Armed Services Committee warned Esper that he should reconsider plans to reduce US forces in Africa: " In a letter to Esper obtained by Defense News, HASC Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., and ranking member Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, urged the secretary to “carefully consider the adverse implications of reducing our force posture in Africa,” cautioning that “the threat of violent extremism and terrorism persists” in the region overseen by U.S. Africa Command.“A decrease in our investment now may result in the need for the United States to reinvest at many more times the cost down the road,” the HASC leaders wrote in the letter, dated Jan. 16. It was also signed by House Intelligence and Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee Chairman Jim Langevin, D-R.I., and ranking member Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y.""

Among the reasons some critics gave for keeping the troops in Africa is that China and also Russia are also increasing their influence in Africa as well. However, China mostly uses economic and political means the increase it power in Africa.

Where the troop reductions could occur

A recent article suggests where the US troops might be removed: "U.S. troops in Africa have focused on defeating Islamic State and al-Qaida-linked militants such as al-Shabab. But several hundred U.S. troops in Niger, Chad and Mali are most likely to be pulled from the region as part of the Pentagon’s plan, the New York Times reports, citing officials familiar with the internal discussions.In particular, reduction options on the table include vacating Nigerien Air Base 201, which just became operational in November and cost $110 million. U.S. Africa Command announced last month that intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations previously conducted out of a base in Niamey, Niger, are now being conducted out of Nigerien Air Base 201 in Agadez."

Note that the plan takes troops from a base in Nigeria that was just finished last November at a cost of $110 million. The US may also remove US troops who are assisting French forces in Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso a move that might anger France which already has about 4,500 troops in West Africa.

Ester's pivot to the Pacific may not happen

The plan to send troops from Africa to Asia may not happen given the resistance to it. Perhaps some could come from Iraq but Trump seems determined to keep them there to counter Iran in spite of the fact that the Iraqi government wants them to leave.

Even if the plan were to go ahead, it does not seem that the number of troops to be moved are sufficient to make much difference.

Mara Karlin of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies warns: “Meaningfully implementing, the NDS will be impossible without a hard and serious look at new and different risks that emerge from posture changes. But failing to do so will neuter the U.S. military’s ability to enhance its focus on Asia and Europe — and minimizes serious dialogue on the risks of a fat and increasing Middle East posture as well.”

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Defense Secretary Esper was a former top lobbyist for US defense contractor Raytheon

(Janyuary 14) After the assassination- aka euphemistically as "targeted killing"- of Iranian top general Qassem Soleimani in a US operation in Baghdad on January 3 Raytheon a large US defense contractor saw its stock shoot up and close at a record high.

US Defense Secretary Esper was for years a top lobbyist for Raytheon

Wikipedia describes Raytheon briefly: "The Raytheon Company is a major U.S. defense contractor and industrial corporation with core manufacturing concentrations in weapons and military and commercial electronics. It was previously involved in corporate and special-mission aircraft until early 2007. Raytheon is the world's largest producer of guided missiles.[4] On June 9, 2019, Raytheon announced a merger of equals with the aerospace companies of United Technologies.[5]Established in 1922, the company reincorporated in 1928 and adopted its present name in 1959. As of 2018, the company had around 67,000 employees worldwide and annual revenues of approximately US$25.35 billion.[6] More than 90% of Raytheon's revenues were obtained from military contracts and, as of 2012, it was the fifth-largest military contractor in the world.[7] As of 2015, it is the third largest defense contractor in the United States by defense revenue.[8]"

When Mark Esper was leaving his job at Raytheon to join the Trump administration he claimed that his salary and bonuses added up to $1,524,018 that year. Esper said his job was to be: “Responsible for company interactions with members of Congress and their staff at the Federal level and with all state and local elected officials and their staff.”

Now Esper does not lobby for more defense spending he is the principle defense policymaker and adviser. He is a powerful actor and is able to sign off on huge government contracts including ones that profit his former employer although he may not necessarily do so. However, one can expect that he will try to obtain the most money he can for the arms industry from which he came.

Trump administration has hired many former lobbyists

Esper has plenty of company in that according to a Pro-Publica analysis has so far hired 281 lobbyists, often to work in areas in which they had formerly been lobbyists. You would think that Esper faces a conflict of interest when he makes decisions that involve Raytheon. Even though he no longer works for them there sure could be a perception that he might favor them in decisions. However, Esper has decided that he will not recuse himself from matters involving Raytheon during the time he works for the US government. The Trump government seems not to care about avoiding the perception of bias.

Dwight Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech

In a farewell address in 1961 then President Dwight Eisenhower, himself a former five stare general and also Supreme Commander of allied forces in Europe during the second World War warned about the dangers of what he called the military-industrial complex: "We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

The appointment of Mark Esper as the US Defense Secretary is a perfect example of the government doing exactly what Eisenhower had warned Americans about. Esper's appointment gives the military industrial complex the power to have unwarranted influence over decisions of the government.

The revolving door

Lobbyists of all sorts not just from the military-industrial complex but from other important industries such as drug manufacturing move freely from industry into government. But then when they leave government, after they have formed many bonds and contacts with government officials, these former lobbyists often return to their former jobs. They then offer corporations that hire them valuable expertise in how to have influence within the complicated structures of government.

Rick Perry had been on the board of a company that control Energy Transfer LP, a pipeline company he had worked for up until 2016 after which he became Energy Secretary. However, just one month after leaving his government position he was back on the board of the company. He now has government experience promoting oil and gas deregulation and a large list of useful contacts.

Esper's predecessor Jim Mattis rejoined the board of General Dynamics just a few months after his resignation as Secretary of Defense. Esper has said that he would not rule out rejoining Raytheon.

The fox guarding the hen house

The Trump administration sometimes appoints former lobbyists to oversee agencies that were once targets for their lobbying. Some critics see this as the fox guarding the hen house. Esper being in charge of US national defense is surely a prime example in which the military-industrial complex will have an unwarranted influence on potential military actions. This influence could often be against the overall interests of the US.

The US military budget for 2019 was over $693 billion much more than any other country in the world. There is a huge opportunity cost to this expenditure as the US has many unmet needs in spending on infrastructure, education, health, the environment and many other areas. The appended video talks about the effect of military spending on the environment and other costs. Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex was prescient but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Defense Secretary Mark Esper denies seeing any evidence attacks were planned on US embassies contrary to Trump's statements

(January 13)On Friday President Trump said he believed that assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani was plotting to attack four US embassies. However, Trump offered no evidence for his belief. The appended video contains Trump's remarks on the imminent attacks.

Esper said he had seen no evidence to back up Trump's belief

On CBS on Sunday Defense Secretary Esper said he had seen no evidence at to support the claim that US embassies were under imminent threat. Even after admitting he had no evidence Esper went on to say that he shared Trump's views that US embassies would probably have been attacked. There had been no warning to embassies that there might be an attack If there were an imminent attack feared one would think that a warning of some sort would have been issued.

When asked if he had any specific evidence of an attack on the four embassies mentioned by Trump Esper said: " “I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies.” In response to a question about whether Trump was “embellishing” the threat, Esper said, ”I don’t believe so.” "

In later appearances Esper changes his narrative

Esper's second appearance of the day was on CNN. Esper said he believed the same as Trump adding that Iran could very well have been targeting the US embassies.

Later in the day, Esper was actually bragging of the exquisite intelligence he had received. However, he claimed that everyone agreed that the US Congress should not be given access to this intelligence let alone the US populace. But if his earlier statement is true, this exquisite intelligence gave Esper no evidence of an imminent attack on US embassies.

Trump's security adviser plays down Trump's claim: "Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Robert O’Brien, the president’s national security adviser, played down Mr. Trump’s claim of specific, imminent threats to four American embassies in the region.“Look, it’s always difficult, even with the exquisite intelligence that we have, to know exactly what the targets are. We knew there were threats to American facilities, now whether they were bases, embassies — you know it’s always hard until the attack happens...But,” he added, “we had very strong intelligence.”

Senator complains about quality of information provided to Congress

A recent article notes: "Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) has continued to express concern about the quality of information given to Congress, and it seems that may extend to national security officials. President Trump never even suggested the four embassies belief had evidence behind it, it was just what he believes."

As noted earlier, Esper had no plan to share intelligence information on the issue with the entire US Congress: "Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday that the top congressional intelligence committee members did not think that information shared with them about a potential Iranian plot to attack the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad should be shared with other members of Congress. " Esper's view was shared by all other members of the intelligence committee. Perhaps the reluctance to share the information is because there is nothing there that shows there was any imminent attack on US embassies or on any other facilities.

US officials may be changing there stories so as not to appear to be contradicting President Trump as they fear that contradicting him could very well have negative consequences for their careers.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US Secretary of Defense claims US will stay in Syria many years

(December 12, 2019) Mark Esper, US Secretary of Defenses and General Mark Milley testified to the US House Armed Services Committee that the US will continue to have troops in Syria for many years. They claimed it was hard to foresee all US forces withdrawing anytime soon.

	1 of 2

US troops needed to combat ISIS

Both officials claimed that the US troops were needed to combat the threat of iSIS, the Islamic State. They claimed that it would be a long time before regional forces in Syria would be able to fight ISIS on their own. ISIS seems mostly defeated. The two did not specify what regional forces they are referring to but presumably it is the Kurds. The US withdrew from parts of Syria near the Turkish border giving the green light in effect for Turkey to occupy the safe zone along the border. The US troops are becoming more and more centered in a diminishing area.

Trump claims he moved troops to guard oil area

The Pentagon and other officials conflict with Trump's narrative about why US troops are staying in Syria. An article on November 13 reports: " President Donald Trump declared Wednesday that the U.S. mission in Syria is focused solely on protecting oil fields, which appears to contradict the Pentagon's contention that fighting ISIS is the priority."We're keeping the oil, we have the oil, the oil is secure, we left troops behind only for the oil," Trump told reporters during a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan at the White House."

Neither Esper nor the general mention oil only the threat of ISIS. Trump has long insisted that ISIS has been defeated, However Pentagon officials insist that ISIS is a continuing threat.

In contrast as a recent article points out: "President Trump now insists that the US war in Syria is exclusively about oil, and the only reason US troops are in Syria is to take Syrian oil with the help of US oil companies to be named later. President Trump has repeatedly reiterated this stance, despite military officials trying to make the war about something else."

Perhaps the time has come for complete withdrawal

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Trump made a campaign promise during his campaign for president that he would withdraw troops from Syria. However, many military officials are against this. Trump has given in but at the same time is providing an alternative justification for staying that is not sitting well with many officials.

It seems that the Pentagon narrative of the great danger of an ISIS comeback is not that convincing. No evidence is provided for it. On the other hand, Trump's rationale makes the US look very bad and there seems no legal basis for the US claiming Syrian oil. No large oil company has jumped at the opportunity Trump appears to be offering them. No doubt they think the legal risks are too great, Perhaps it is time for Trump to finally fully carry out his campaign promise to withdraw all US troops from Syria,

Previously published in the Digital Journal