Trump says he wants to withdraw 4,000 US troops from Afghanistan by November election

 (August 5) In a recent Axios interview, Present Trump again announced that he intended to withdraw another 4,000 US troops from Afghanistan by the time of the November US election. He estimates that 4 or 5 thousand will remain.

Pentagon officials announced cuts were planned some time ago.

The US Taliban peace deal

The US and the Taliban signed a peace deal at the end of January. In accordance with the deal the US has already reduced it troop presence in Afghanistan down to 8,600 from 14,000. There is to be a complete US withdrawal by 14 months or next May 1. The Pentagon insists that any further withdrawal is conditional upon the Taliban keeping their end of the agreement which is basically to ensure that Afghanistan is not used as a base by any terrorist groups to threaten the security of the US or its allies.

Trump anxious to cut US troop levels in Afghanistan.

He promised to do so in his campaign for president. The peace deal with the Taliban furthered his desire for withdrawal and he believes that a further troop withdrawal will help his re-election campaign in November. Trump can counter any criticism by noting that he still has thousands of troops in the country and is not in violation of the treaty with the Taliban. He should be able to accommodate to some extent both hawks and doves. So far US drawdowns are ahead of schedule even though peace seems still in the future as far as conflict between the Afghan government and the Taliban are concerned.

Trump has stressed that the Afghan war has gone on much too long, almost two decades, and would like to see it end as soon as possible.

Ceasefire between Taliban and Afghan government over the recent holiday

The Afghan government has been slow in meeting the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the Taliban US agreement.

The Taliban and Afghan government were able to negotiate a ceasefire over the recent three day Eid Al-Adha holiday. Talks will probably resume some time this week and the prisoner swap is almost complete. Conditions appear favorable for a peace agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump to leave 4,000 troops in Afghanistan until after the presidential election

 (July 4) The US has already reached the reduction of troops in Afghanistan from around 12,000 to a lower level of 8,600 as required by an agreement signed with the Taliban the end of February.

At least 4,000 troops to remain through November presidential election

While withdrawals are expected to continue even with withdrawals ahead of schedule, US officials now claim that at least 4,000 US soldiers will stay in the country at least until after the US election in November. Trump has been keen to reduce troop levels before the elections thinking that this would help him win another term in office. However, he has appeared to have decided that he would be better off if he leaves some troops in Afghanistan at least until after the election. By doing so, critics will not be able to accuse him of abandoning Afghanistan in his first term. Earlier, Trump seemed to favor withdrawing all US troops before the election.

Pentagon officials warned Trump that a complete withdrawal before the election could remove leverage to convince the Taliban to start talks with the Afghan government. The Afghan government was not a party to the February agreement and has rejected the terms of a prisoner swap that was part of the agreement. While the Taliban has not been attacking US troops except when they have come to the aid of the Afghan government there have been many attacks with accompanying casualties on the Afghan government forces. Officials also warned that withdrawing all troops by November could force the US to leave considerable quantities of equipment behind.

The benefits of Trump's new position

Trump's position allows him to take credit for his drawdown but there will be still enough troops present for him to reverse course and re-escalate the conflict after the election even though this could have politically negative results. However, one positive consequence is that this could assuage many of his hawk critics who were against the withdrawal in the first place. However, the existing agreement with the Taliban required the reduction to 8,600 and a complete withdrawal is required by May 1 next year, but this is contingent upon the Taliban keeping their part of the bargain. Basically the Taliban are required to ensure that neither Al Qaeda, the Islamic State or any other group use Afghan soil to threaten the US or its allies. Leaving 4,000 troops in Afghanistan through the election does not violate the terms of the agreement with the Taliban as full withdrawal is only required next year on May 1.

The Russian bounty issue

There has been a lot of discussion on the issue of the Russians offering bounties to the Taliban for killing Americans. These reports are from intelligence sources with all the sources being anonymous. There is no confirmation or real evidence that these reports are true. The reports have all the marks of a propaganda psyop campaign. They distract from the peace agreement with the US and Taliban which appears to have disappeared from the news. The appended video talks about the issue. The discussion can easily turn into a defense of leaving troops in Afghanistan. This is a bit strange in that, assuming the reports are true, if the US troops are not there then they cannot be killed because of the bounty. and the Taliban cannot use the bounties to help finance their activities.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Amid worries about the COVID-19 pandemic Trump wants all US troops withdrawn from Afghanistan

(April 28) With a peace deal signed in February between the Taliban and the 12,00 US, troops are already being withdrawn from Afghanistan. However, as concerns about the COVID-19 pandemic rise Trump would like to remove all US troops sooner rather than later.

The withdrawal according to the Taliban US agreement

According to the agreement signed the end of February over the following 135 days troop levels would be cut from 12,000 to 8,600 and five US bases would be closed. If both sides keep their commitments then all US forces could leave Afghanistan by spring of 2021. However, it is thought that the US wants to keep intelligence operatives on the ground. It is doubtful that the Taliban would allow this.

The prisoner swap

The US Taliban deal also promises work on a prisoner exchange ahead of Afghan talks due to start on 10 March, with the release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners in return for the insurgents freeing 1,000 government soldiers. However, the Afghan government was not part of the deal and refused to release the prisoners. There have been attempts to negotiate the release prisoners along with talks but so far these have not resulted in a deal. The Taliban reacted to the government refusal to carry out the swap deal by resuming attacks against it. The US came to defense of the Afghan government exacerbating the conflict and negating any cease fire for now. The situation is exacerbated by conflict within the Afghan government as the presidency of Ashraf Ghani is being challenged by Abdullah Abdullah who held his own inauguration ceremony.

Trump complains continually that US troops should be withdrawn now

The present withdrawal of US troops is apparently going ahead at a rate that will see the deadline down to 8,600 by 135 days or mid-July being met according to Lt. Col. Thomas Campbell a Pentagon spokesperson. However, Trump wants to get all US troops out before the COVID-19 pandemic has time to spread too much in the country.

US officials worried about COVID-19 in Afghanistan

Afghanistan lacks health care and testing facilities. It also shares borders with Iran which has been hard hit by the pandemic, As a result US officials have serious concerns about its possible spread in Afghanistan and among US troops. One former senior US official said that Afghanistan would have a significant coronavirus issue even though it is not manifested itself yet. It will.

As of Monday, the Afghan Ministry of Public Health reported 1,703 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 57 deaths in a country with an estimated population of 35 million.

Trump advisers however, constantly try to talk him out of withdrawing all troops. They argue that if COVID-19 is such a danger to troops they ought to withdraw US troops from Italy which is far worse hurt by the pandemic than Afghanistan. Advisers want to try to fix Trump's attention on something other than his concern about drawdowns from what he had in his presidential campaign called useless wars.

Conclusion

Trump is often inconsistent in his statements and sometimes acts differently than he has stated he would. It remains to be seen if Trump will be convinced by the attempts of his advisers and officials to slow down any withdrawal. If Trump were to withdraw all the US troops now, the US would have little leverage to force the Taliban to keep its side of the peace agreement and would also leave Afghan government at risk of facing a concerted Taliban attack against it. The hawks in the Trump administration will muster all the forces they can to force Trump to slow down if not to stop withdrawal altogether.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Nearly three quarters of US veterans favor fulll US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan

(April  23) Nearly 75 percent of US veterans and almost 70 percent of their family members support a full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, a new poll released Wednesday by a conservative activist group shows.

The US has about 13,600 troops in Afghanistan. It has already started withdrawing some under an agreement with the Taliban. Within 135 days they are to withdraw down to 8,600. However, the agreement signed the end of February involved a prisoner swap that the Afghan government has so far refused to honor as it was not a party to the agreement.

The poll was by Concerned Veterans for America

The group has close ties to the conservative Koch network ad the also the Trump administration. The results show an increase in those who want withdraw from the results of an identical survey last year. The group has been leading public efforts to convince lawmakers and the Trump administration to severely cut back military operations.

Nate Anderson executive director of the group said: “I think this shows the fatigue of almost two decades of war. And I think there is increased awareness among the American public about how long we have been fighting.”

The poll

The survey was across the nation and was conducted April 7 to 10. Those polled were about 700 military veterans and about 800 of veterans' family members. All were chosen at random.

About 57 percent of the veterans polled thought that the US should be less involved in military conflicts overseas. This is an increase of about 9 percent from last year's survey. Just 7 percent thought the US should be more involved.

As mentioned for Afghan specifically 73 percent favored a full US withdrawal, with 69 percent of family members having the same opinion. In contrast, the 2019 poll was about 60 percent in favor for each group. Over half of veterans favored full withdrawal very strongly.

Withdrawal from Iraq also favored

71 percent of veterans and 69 percent of military family members supported a full withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. The Iraqi parliament earlier this year passed a resolution that all foreign troops should leave Iraq. However, the US has refused to discussed the matter. Trump even threatened Iraq with severe sanctions if Iraq forces US troops to leave. Although US troops are supposedly there to fight the Islamic State or ISIS the group has been mostly defeated and is in survival mode control of any territory. The US wants to remain to counter Iranian influence.

About two thirds of veterans polled also wanted to see US foreign aid spending reduced. 17 percent even favored an overall decrease in US spending. However twice as many, 34 percent wanted to see an increase.

Group director Anderson said he hoped the poll would dispel some presumptions made about the military community's support for overseas operations and help sway policy makers to move away from more open-ended combat operations.

Trump supports peace deal with the Taliban

Trump has supported the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan as outlined in the February peace deal. However, the deal has been more or less sabotaged by the refusal of the Afghan government to agree to a prisoner swap as outlined in the agreement. Efforts to negotiate the swap with the Afghan government and Taliban have faltered and the Taliban have renewed attacks against the government. As the US defends the government this has involved conflict with the US as well. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the president Afram Ghani faces a challenger Abdullah Abdullah who also claims the presidency..

Since the conflict began in 2001, 2,300 US military personnel have been killed in Afghanistan.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Trump claims 8,600 troops will remain in Afghanistan after some are withdrawn

(August 29)Trump claims that the US will withdraw some troops from Afghanistan. He says that once a determination has been made 8,600 troops will be left less than half the number present now. Trump said Afghanistan would remain very well controlled

Trump's statement conflicts with Taliban demands

The Taliban has always insisted as a requirement of any peace deal that all foreign troops would withdraw. However Trump has said that even if a deal is reached that the US will always keep a presence in Afghanistan. Trump's comments may make it difficult for the Taliban to accept any deal. However, some reports claim that the two sides have virtually reached agreement.

Just two days ago an article reported: "Sources at the Taliban US peace talks in Doha Qatar claim that the recent talks have worked out a peace deal for Afghanistan. The plan is to announce the deal formally in a few days. This will give the US time to brief the Afghan government on the deal."

There seems no way that retaining 8,600 troops in Afghanistan could be consistent with reaching a deal with the Taliban. However, Trump seems have no consistent position on Afghanistan as a recent Digital Journal article argues. Perhaps Trump merely wants to mollify hawks within his administration.

A possible explanation

An agreement between the US and the Taliban would be a prelude to power-sharing talks between the Afghans and the Taliban. Afghan government officials involved would do so in an unofficial personal capacity. The Taliban refuse to negotiate directly with the Afghan government since they consider it a US puppet. The US is no doubt concerned that if they withdrew all their troops immediately the Afghan government would be left open to Taliban attacks as the Afghan government is not part of the agreement with the US.

The Taliban may have agreed that the US can keep some troops in Afghanistan pending an Afghan Taliban agreement. This would perhaps explain Trump's saying 8,600 troops would remain. However, the Taliban would surely insist that when there is an Afghan Taliban agreement that all remaining foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Military official also rejects total withdrawal for now

General Joseph Dunford, chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters that it is too early to talk of a full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan even as an agreement with the Taliban seems near if not completed. Dunford said that any US deal with the Taliban will be based upon security conditions on the ground. He said that Afghan forces need help from the US still to secure the country. Surely even with US help Afghanistan is not secure. The Taliban are continuing to constantly attack and threaten to take more territory.

Dunford said: "I'm not using the withdraw word right now. It's our judgment that the Afghans need support to deal with the level of violence in the country today."

These statements from Trump and Dunford bring into question whether there is any imminent deal with the Taliban since they are inconsistent with the continuing Taliban demand that all foreign troops must withdraw from Afghanistan for their to be any deal with them.

Previously published in  the Digital Journal

US may send 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan

President Donald Trump recently gave Defense Secretary Jim Mattis the authority to set troop levels in Afghanistan. Mattis could officially announce the increased troop level as early as next week.

The U.S. has been in Afghanistan now for 16 years with no sign of the war ending. Indeed, the Islamic State is now active in the country and the Taliban are gaining control of more territory. Mattis is now the third U.S. commander in chief in Afghanistan. The new force will be the largest since Donald Trump took power. Mattis had said that he did not have enough forces to help Afghan forces fight off the Taliban.

An anonymous administration official claimed that most of the additional troops will be used to train and advise Afghan forces. However, a smaller number will be used for counter-terror operations. The additional troops will no doubt result in more casualties. There have been several this year but the number will remain small in comparison to the period when the U.S. was involved in combat operations. In spite of the reports Jeff Davis a Navy Captain and Pentagon spokesperson said: "No decisions had been made". Earlier recommendations at the first of May were for 3,000 to 5,000 new troops.

Daulat Waziri, a spokesperson for the Afghan defense ministry said he supported the U.S. decision to send more troops saying:"The United States knows we are in the fight against terrorism. We want to finish this war in Afghanistan with the help of the NATO alliance. We are the frontline in the war against international terrorism." Even though Trump has given Mattis authority to set troop levels, Trump will still be held responsible for increasing U.S. involvement in America's longest conflict with no end in sight or even any clear idea of the U.S. aim or strategy. However, the troop levels are nowhere near that of their peak of more than 100,000 in 2009 under President Obama. While in 2001 Bush with Afghan allies were able to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan, the group's rebellion still rages in 2017 with the addition of competing Islamic State fighters in a few areas. Obama had set a cap of 8,400 troops in Afghanistan although there are probably at least 2,000 more than that classified as temporary.

General John Nicholson the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan had advised that more U.S. troops were necessary to train and advise the Afghan military. Mattis has not up to now given his own thinking on a troop increase except to say that US and Afghan efforts are making progress in weakening al-Qaida and the Islamic State(IS). However, the main is opponent is not Al-Qaeda or the IS but the Taliban. Mattis told a House Appropriation panel that reconciliation remained the goal: "We're not looking at a purely military strategy. All wars come to an end. Our job is to end it as quickly as possible without losing the very mission that we've recognized, through several administrations, that was worth putting those young Americans on the line for." However, the Taliban are unlikely to agree to any peace unless all foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan which seems unlikely in the near future. Indeed other NATO countries will also be asked to increase their troop deployments as the U.S. has done. Since 2001 the U.S. military has lost 2,400 and three were killed quite recently. As U.S. troops ground troops help the Afghan forces trying to slow down the Taliban advance they will inevitably become involved in combat with resultant casualties. However as long as the number remains small and most operations will be from the air there will not likely be much political fallout.

The Afghan government of Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah is not popular. After a recent truck bomb attack there were violent protests against the lack of security after a deadly truck bomb attack. The Americans could find that they also will also become the target of protests as their air and other attacks kill civilians. There may be more attacks against U.S. troops involving the very Afghan forces the U.S. is training.

US general wants 5,000 more troops in Afghanistan

General John Nicholson the top U.S. general in Afghanistan claims that the U.S. and Europe need to send 5,000 more troops to Afghanistan in order to break a stalemate between Afghan forces versus the Taliban and Islamic State.

General Nicholson told the Sunday Times of London: “We cannot afford to walk away from Afghanistan. This is where the war against terrorism started on 9/11. Failure here would embolden terrorists globally.” Nicholson is expected to request the additional forces at an upcoming meeting of NATO in May. He is reported to have the backing of US Defense Secretary James Mattis as well as the National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. Trump appears to be involving the US further in wars that he had criticised as being costly and without merit. Now he is spending more on the military and increasing US involvement in several areas. He has already boasted that he would defeat the Islamic State in Afghanistan this year as discussed in a recent Digital Journal article.

At present, there are 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan along with 5,000 troops from other NATO countries. Nicholson said that the Afghan government controlled about 62 percent of Afghanistan's people and 57 percent of the territory. Nicholson has been asking for more troops for some time but now he has set out the number he wants. The civil war in Afghanistan has been going on now for 16 years. While Nicholson calls the war a stalemate, it appears rather that the Taliban are continuing to gain ground. NATO countries may be becoming weary of sending troops to what seems a never-ending war so that most of the new troops could be from the U.S. The result may be just to extend the war longer.

The Islamic State(IS) is also in Afghanistan but mainly in one province and is a minor factor compared to the Taliban. Dawlat Waziri, a spokesperson for the Afghan Ministry of Defense said: “Daesh is not that strong that they show and it is not just Daesh in Afghanistan”. Daesh is another name for IS. Waziri said that the strength of the group is exaggerated. However, they have claimed responsibility for some attacks in Kabul the capital including one on a military hospital as shown on the appended video.

US contractors in Afghanistan outnumber troops by more than three to one

Data compiled by the Congressional Research Service shows that private contractors outnumber U.S. troops in Afghanistan by more than a three to one margin.

A detailed 12-page report called "Department of Defense Contractor and Troop Levels in Iraq and Afghanistan: 2007-2016" can be found at the Congressional Research Service website.

During the 2007-2016 period, the U.S. Defense Department spent more than $220 billion on contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan for a large variety of services and support.

Even as early as the middle of 2011, when there were still many U.S. troops in Afghanistan, they were outnumbered by private contractors. The number of private contractors peaked in 2012 at more than 117,000 while there were around 88,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Almost 23 percent of contractors worked as supplementary security personnel. A whopping 70 percent were actually foreign nationals that received money from U.S. companies and agencies.

The latest numbers covering just the first few months of this year show that there are still around 29,000 contractors in Afghanistan — well over three times the 9.000 troops. A smaller percentage, just about 10 percent, provide supplementary security. More than 12,000 provide logistics and maintenance services not just for U.S. but also Afghan troops. Another 1,.800 work as translators. 1,700 work on construction and another 2,200 as base support professionals. Some legislators have voiced concerns about the degree of oversight these private contracts receive as there have been reports of waste and fraud connected with some contracts. Early this summer about 2,500 contractors were hired solely for the purpose of fighting Islamic State militants in Afghanistan along with 4,000 U.S. troops.

The Obama Administration has long claimed to have "ended' the war in Afghanistan and promised to reduce troops, but the drawdown has been less than planned. While there is much less of a combat role for the remaining 9,000 troops, the additional 29,000 contractors are rarely discussed even though they are paid for ultimately by the U.S. tax-payer. The extensive use of contractors is a way of being able to have more boots on the ground than suggested by troop figures. The drawdown in Afghanistan, even when reduced, appears much greater than it is and there is little press coverage of the role or number of private contractors remaining.

In July, Obama announced that he would leave 8,400 troops in Afghanistan until the end of his term. Obama had pledged to end the 14-year war while he was president but it is still ongoing although with a lesser combat role for the U.S.. Obama had originally planned to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to 5,500 by early 2017.

US mistakenly kills 7 Afghan police.

I have seen a US media report that claims the Afghans thought an approaching US convoy were Taliban and opened fire and that the US returned fire and called in air support. Whatever the reason the two sides did not recognise each other. Perhaps the US does not trust local authorities enough to inform them when they are on a mission in the area. This is just one more instance where the US has lost the hearts and minds of locals.


U.S. troops mistakenly kill 7 Afghan police, officials say
Last Updated: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 | 1:32 AM ET
The Associated Press
U.S. forces mistakenly killed seven Afghan police officers and wounded four others in an incident early Tuesday in eastern Afghanistan, according to Afghan officials.

Police manning a remote checkpoint in Nangarhar province said an American convoy backed by helicopters approached and opened fire despite protests and calls for them to stop.

"I thought they were Taliban, and we shouted at them to stop, but they came closer and they opened fire," said Khan Mohammad, one of the policemen at the post.

"I'm very angry. We are here to protect the Afghan government and help serve the Afghan government, but the Americans have come to kill us."

The commander at the police post, Esanullah, who goes by one name, said a U.S. helicopter fired rockets, killing seven policemen and wounding four.

"I think there was a misunderstanding — the helicopter opened fire at the police post," said Khan.

Continue Article

A spokeswoman for NATO's International Security Assistance Force said she had no information that U.S. forces that fall under ISAF's command were involved. A spokesman for the separate U.S.-led coalition said he was looking into the report.

There were conflicting reports over how the fighting started.

Zurmai Khan, the Khogyani district chief, said fighting started just before midnight Monday between Taliban militants and Afghan police, and two hours into the battle U.S. forces arrived and opened fire on the police.

However, Esanullah and Noragha Zowak, spokesman for the Nangarhar governor, said no Taliban were involved in the incident.

Zurmai Khan labeled the incident a "misunderstanding."

"Unfortunately the Americans and the Afghans, the two sides didn't know it was the other," said Zowak.

©

US Sends more troops to Afghanistan

There does not seem to be much discussion of US involvement in Afghanistan. Obviously many NATO members are unwilling to commit any more troops or even aid but the Democrats uncritically support further US involvement. In fact they even criticise Bush for not doing enough!

Bush to keep higher troop levels in Afghanistan By Tabassum Zakaria
Thu Feb 15, 3:19 PM ET



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush said on Thursday the United States would keep higher troop levels in Afghanistan in anticipation of fierce fighting against the Taliban this spring after the most violent year since the hard-line group was ousted.






He called on NATO to provide additional troops and equipment when needed to ensure success in Afghanistan, and to lift restrictions on where and how their forces can fight to give commanders flexibility.

"The alliance was founded on this principle: An attack on one is an attack on all," Bush said in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

He also said he had been "very clear" with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that more action was needed to eradicate poppy cultivation, which had shown a "marked increase" last year and was helping the Taliban buy weapons.

Bush said he was asking the U.S. Congress for $11.8 billion over the next two years for Afghanistan to help "this young democracy survive."

The Pentagon had previously announced that a U.S. Army brigade of 3,200 troops will go to Afghanistan instead of Iraq to maintain higher troop levels, which Bush said would be sustained "for the foreseeable future."

The United States has about 27,000 troops in Afghanistan, of which about 15,000 are in the NATO force and the rest conduct missions ranging from counter-terrorism to training Afghan forces.

"Across Afghanistan last year, the number of roadside bomb attacks almost doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled, and suicide bombings grew nearly five-fold," Bush said.

"The snow is going to melt in the Hindu Kush Mountains, and when it does we can expect fierce fighting to continue. The Taliban and al Qaeda are preparing to launch new attacks."

Bush said it was important to increase cooperation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where Taliban and al Qaeda fighters were hiding in remote regions he called "wilder than the Wild West."

Democrats have long criticized the Bush administration as too focused on going to war in Iraq and not enough on finding al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden who are believed to be hiding in the remote Afghan-Pakistan border area.

"The Bush administration took its eye off the ball in Afghanistan, leaving a deteriorating situation to worsen and Osama bin Laden on the loose more than five years after 9/11," said Stacie Paxton, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee. "While ignoring Afghanistan, President Bush has focused on escalating the war in Iraq."

Bush is bolstering the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan at the same time he is sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq, a decision for which he has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. Congress as well as some of his Republican allies.

Unlike their response to Bush sending additional troops to Iraq, Democratic lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada said they supported having more troops in Afghanistan.

NATO, U.S. and Taliban commanders have warned of an increase of fighting in the spring after the bloodiest year since the Taliban were ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001.

"This spring there's going to be a new offensive in Afghanistan, and it's going to be a NATO offensive, and that's part of our strategy -- relentless in our pressure," Bush said.