Trump poised to settle for partial Afghan withdrawal, despite Pentagon shakeup - sources

[webfact]

Trump poised to settle for partial Afghan withdrawal, despite Pentagon shakeup - sources

By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali

 

FILE PHOTO: A U.S. Marine(C) talks with Afghan National Army (ANA) soldiers during a training in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 5, 2017.REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's new Pentagon team has not yet signalled an imminent withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan, raising expectations among U.S. officials and allies that Trump might settle for a partial reduction before leaving office.

 

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the military was expecting formal orders in the coming days to go down to about 2,500 troops in Afghanistan by early next year from around 4,500 currently.

 

A NATO official also cited expectations of a 1,500 to 2,000 troop decline.

 

Trump fired his defense secretary, Mark Esper, and appointed other top Pentagon officials last week after longstanding concerns that his priorities were not being dealt with urgently enough at the Defense Department.

 

They included ending the 19-year-old Afghan engagement by Christmas, an ambitious target that opponents of the country's longest war welcomed but which Trump's critics warned could be reckless given ongoing militant violence plaguing Afghanistan.

 

Afghanistan has featured in a flurry of introductory calls by acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, Esper's replacement, to U.S. allies' defense ministers and chiefs of defense, a senior U.S. defense official told Reuters.

 

"It was a part of many of them because it is of great importance to our NATO allies, our allies in the region and also just global security and protecting the American homeland," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

 

But the official, speaking after the calls with allies, suggested that Trump would not push a withdrawal faster than conditions on the ground allow.

 

U.S. and Afghan officials are warning of troubling levels of violence by Taliban insurgents and persistent Taliban links to al Qaeda.

 

It was those ties that triggered U.S. military intervention in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks, which al Qaeda carried out. Thousands of American and allied troops have died in fighting in Afghanistan since then.

 

Some U.S. military officials, citing U.S. counter-terrorism priorities in Afghanistan, have privately urged Trump against going to zero at this point and want to keep U.S. troop levels at around 4,500 for now.

 

"The president has acted appropriately in this, has never said: 'Hey, we're going to zero. Let's go tomorrow.' It has always been a conditions-based effort and that effort continues," the senior U.S. defense official said, without explicitly detailing future drawdown plans.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

'SEE FIGHT TO THE FINISH'

Over the past four years, predicting Trump's policy pronouncements has not always been easy.

 

On Oct. 7, Trump said on Twitter

 

But U.S. officials say he has yet to issue orders to carry that withdrawal out. On Monday the first U.S. official said the Pentagon had told commanders to start planning for the more moderate reduction to 2,500 troops.

 

A total withdrawal now would be difficult for the U.S. military to execute, especially given the reliance of NATO allies on the United States for logistical support, they add.

 

The NATO official, who asked not to be named, said the belief was the United States could soon announce a drawdown to 2,500 to 3,000 troops by Christmas.

 

National security adviser Robert O'Brien already raised such a possibility, saying last month the United States would go down to 2,500 by early 2021, in comments overshadowed by Trump's Christmas timeline.

 

A NATO diplomat said Miller, in his introductory call with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, did not suggest a complete withdrawal but instead a reduction of troops.

 

The senior U.S. defense official said U.S. withdrawals from Afghanistan had been carried out in an "educated way so as not to revisit the Iraq withdrawal that failed in 2011."

 

Then-President Barack Obama withdrew troops against military advice, only to return them to Iraq three years later.

 

Regardless of what Trump might do, Taliban militants, fighting against the U.S.-backed government in Kabul, have called on the United States to stick to a February agreement with the Trump administration to withdraw U.S. troops by May, subject to certain security guarantees.

 

Violence has been rising throughout Afghanistan, with the Taliban attacking provincial capitals, in some case prompting U.S. airstrikes.

In Kabul, there is growing fear of a precipitous withdrawal that could further embolden the Taliban and undercut already sputtering peace talks, sources say.Miller, in a message to the U.S. armed forces chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://media.defense.gov/2020/Nov/14/2002535407/-1/-1/0/INITIAL-MESSAGE-TO-THE-DEPARTMENT.PDF?source=GovDelivery released over the weekend, echoed Trump's desire to end America's overseas engagements by saying "it's time to come home." But he did not offer a timetable and stressed the need to finish the fight against al Qaeda.

 

The Taliban harbored al Qaeda's leaders and the U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan said the Taliban had not fulfilled their February accord commitment to break ties with al Qaeda.

 

"We are on the verge of defeating al Qaeda and its associates, but we must avoid our past strategic error of failing to see the fight through to the finish," wrote Miller, a former Green Beret and counter-terrorism official.

 

(Additional reporting by Steve Holland in Washington, Robin Emmott in Brussels and John Irish in Paris; Reporting by Phil Stewart; Editing by Mike Collett-White)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-11-17

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[Jingthing]

I'm not an expert on the troop needs there, but this appears to be good news from a U.S. domestic POV.

Why?

 

-- There has been widespread concern that 45's firing of Esper signaled he might be preparing for a military backed self coup attempt. As Esper had been on record opposing using the military on U.S. streets to handle unrest, added to 45's bizarre behavior of refusing to acknowledge an election he clearly lost, there were grounds for those concerns.

 

-- So, if he fired Esper as Esper has not been in favor of a rapid withdrawal of troops, that's a different story.

 

-- The fact that 45 wants to rush this (against what the pentagon wants) before January 20 indicates that 45 has accepted (privately) that he will have to leave by January 20 and he wants to sort of keep one of his promises before he's out of there. It also makes things messy for President Elect Biden which of course will be pleasing to 45 because Biden might need to quickly reverse the decision if that's called for by the reality on the ground. 

 

So while not conclusive, this news seems a good clue that the U.S. will have a peaceful transition of power to our new President Elect Biden. Perhaps with none of the usual and needed cooperation and almost certainly no formal concession, but at least no coup. 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Jingthing

[ChouDoufu]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I'm not an expert on the troop needs there, but this appears to be good news from a U.S. domestic POV.

Why?

 

-- There has been widespread concern that 45's firing of Esper signaled he might be preparing for a military backed self coup attempt. As Esper had been on record opposing using the military on U.S. streets to handle unrest, added to 45's bizarre behavior of refusing to acknowledge an election he clearly lost, there were grounds for those concerns.

 

-- So, if he fired Esper as Esper has not been in favor of a rapid withdrawal of troops, that's a different story.

 

-- The fact that 45 wants to rush this (against what the pentagon wants) before January 20 indicates that 45 has accepted (privately) that he will have to leave by January 20 and he wants to sort of keep one of his promises before he's out of there. It also makes things messy for President Elect Biden which of course will be pleasing to 45 because Biden might need to quickly reverse the decision if that's called for by the reality on the ground. 

 

So while not conclusive, this news seems a good clue that the U.S. will have a peaceful transition of power to our new President Elect Biden. Perhaps with none of the usual and needed cooperation and almost certainly no formal concession, but at least no coup. 

 

i see this a little differently.  trump is (was!) commander in chief for four years.  he could have withdrawn at any time.  claiming the "deep state" was preventing it was just more bee-ess, cover for not doing what he didn't want to do in the first place.

 

the point of withdrawing half the troops now?  leave the remaining troops in indefensible positions, meaning biden either has to "surge" more troops and trump can claim how biden is a military industrial swamp rat, or he has to quickly remove the remaining troops in a panicky redeployment via embassy rooftop helipads, or leave them in place so more "losers" will die which trump gets to blame on biden's ineffective commander in chief prowess. 

 

either way, the "suckers" pay the price for trump's political maneuverings.

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

i see this a little differently.  trump is (was!) commander in chief for four years.  he could have withdrawn at any time.  claiming the "deep state" was preventing it was just more bee-ess, cover for not doing what he didn't want to do in the first place.

 

the point of withdrawing half the troops now?  leave the remaining troops in indefensible positions, meaning biden either has to "surge" more troops and trump can claim how biden is a military industrial swamp rat, or he has to quickly remove the remaining troops in a panicky redeployment via embassy rooftop helipads, or leave them in place so more "losers" will die which trump gets to blame on biden's ineffective commander in chief prowess. 

 

either way, the "suckers" pay the price for trump's political maneuverings.

I agree that's definitely part or most of it. To mess up Biden and support his narrative. In

fact 45 is taking a lot of actions throughout the government to make Biden's job as hard as possible. Beyond just not allowing the transition to happen.

[Tug]

I’d sure like the brass to drag their heels on this one till a competent TEAM is in the White House you can be sure trump isent pushing this for the betterment of the country this is to wreck as much of the government as he can leaving the United States in the worst possible position because we rejected him imo 

[ChouDoufu]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I agree that's definitely part or most of it. To mess up Biden and support his narrative. In

fact 45 is taking a lot of actions throughout the government to make Biden's job as hard as possible. Beyond just not allowing the transition to happen.

 

reports, in the "fake news" of course, are that he was asking his military advisors about bombing iran before leaving office.

 

that would screw up biden's plans to rejoin the jcpoa.

 

but sure, why, not!!! what's the worst that could happen?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-sought-options-for-attacking-iran-to-stop-its-growing-nuclear-program/ar-BB1b4gw1?li=BBnb7Kz

[RJRS1301]

Surely as CiC he would be more wise to make his announcements with the backing of the military chiefs.

Then I realised being "wise" and prudent are not attributes found in CiC current POTUS.

 

 

[Jingthing]

40 minutes ago, ChouDoufu said:

 

reports, in the "fake news" of course, are that he was asking his military advisors about bombing iran before leaving office.

 

that would screw up biden's plans to rejoin the jcpoa.

 

but sure, why, not!!! what's the worst that could happen?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-sought-options-for-attacking-iran-to-stop-its-growing-nuclear-program/ar-BB1b4gw1?li=BBnb7Kz

Yeah I heard that.

Would he really?

Who knows. 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah I heard that.

Would he really?

Who knows. 

I would hope the people having to execute an order like that would refuse.

[Jingthing]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I would hope the people having to execute an order like that would refuse.

Sorry to inform that until January 20 Mr. Trump is commander in chief meaning all military personnel are obligated to obey all of his legal orders.

 

An attack on military targets in a perceived enemy nation is legal. 

 

The more interesting question is whether the military would follow orders to effect a self coup to keep Mr. Trump in power.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jingthing

[RJRS1301]

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sorry to inform that until January 20 Mr. Trump is commander in chief meaning all military personnel are obligated to obey all of his legal orders.

 

An attack on military targets in a perceived enemy nation is legal. 

 

The more interesting question is whether the military would follow orders to effect a self coup to keep Mr. Trump in power.

It takes more than the CiC to order it. It has to go through many layers to ensure the legality of orders

[stevenl]

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sorry to inform that until January 20 Mr. Trump is commander in chief meaning all military personnel are obligated to obey all of his legal orders.

 

An attack on military targets in a perceived enemy nation is legal. 

 

The more interesting question is whether the military would follow orders to effect a self coup to keep Mr. Trump in power.

But would that be a legal order.

[Jingthing]

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

But would that be a legal order.

I don't think the legality of an American president ordering the military to keep him in power has been litigated. Meaning he could try it and see what happens. Not saying he will. Am saying I wouldn't rule out any outrageous action as not  being a possibility by this particular president.

Edited November 17, 2020 by Jingthing

[Thailand]

Another on bites the dust!

 

"President Trump said he "terminated" Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) chief Chris Krebs for his "highly inaccurate" remarks on vote integrity."

 

Simply did not agree with the guy who is making sure the rep of the USA gets below gutter level before he is dragged screaming and blubbing from the Whitehouse (Wishful thinking).

[EricTh]

1 hour ago, Thailand said:

Another on bites the dust!

 

"President Trump said he "terminated" Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) chief Chris Krebs for his "highly inaccurate" remarks on vote integrity."

 

Simply did not agree with the guy who is making sure the rep of the USA gets below gutter level before he is dragged screaming and blubbing from the Whitehouse (Wishful thinking).

 

Let's hope that everyone he fired will make a comeback once Biden takes office.

 

Trump has a big ego , he likes to fire everyone but can't accept the fact that he is fired.

 

 

[Sujo]

Where is trump, hiding in the basement? 

[billd766]

50 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Where is trump, hiding in the basement? 

Probably enjoying himself playing golf at one of his courses (while he still has them).

[Slickrick]

After all states certify and he is defeated, off course he will leave office on Jan 20th.  That's why you cannot believe what the media says.  They want to sell newspapers and keep jobs for people and drag it on as long as possible.   Oh but wait what happens after he is gone.

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Slickrick said:

After all states certify and he is defeated, off course he will leave office on Jan 20th.  That's why you cannot believe what the media says.  They want to sell newspapers and keep jobs for people and drag it on as long as possible.   Oh but wait what happens after he is gone.

The issue is what Trump says, not what the media says. You do have a point though, maybe simply ignoring him would be best.

[RJRS1301]

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

The issue is what Trump says, not what the media says. You do have a point though, maybe simply ignoring him would be best.

Deprive him and family of oxygen. No press no media send them to oblivion and allow to live in ignominy 

Edited November 18, 2020 by RJRS1301