that the plot was hatched in an Afghanistan ruled by the Taliban.
That resulted in George Bush launching a campaign against the Taliban regime.
Bush's focus on Iraq, however, which wasn't involved in 9/11, and Rumsfeld's belief that he could wage war with a minimum of forces, lead to us initially grossly under committing to Afghanistan.
Barack Obama committed to a surge there, which lead to the war being ultimately a low grade one, albeit one that Afghan forces did poorly in, overall.
Donald Trump arranged a deal with the Taliban to withdraw, which would ultimately mean its return to power. Joe Biden merely carried it out.
Well, unfortunately, this year has been and will continue to be sufficiently newsworthy war wise that we now have a part two of this thread.
This has been mostly brought about due to the US abandonment of Afghanistan.
August 8, 2021
Taliban v. Afghan Government
Everyone knows the stakes and what is occurring, but the Taliban took the city of Sheberghan yesterday, one of a growing number of cities it's taken.
Some analysts have tried to qualify the increasing number of Taliban captures by noting that these areas are largely unoccupied, and the Afghan commandos are still fighting. But that's trying to put a shine on something that doesn't deserve it. The Afghan forces are collapsing, save for the commandos, now that Western forces have left, tired of what always promised to be a long fight requiring a societal transformation. The U.S. Air Force has increased its missions, somehow, to the region recently, but things look very bad indeed.
August 9, 2021
Lebanon
The Lebanese Maronite Patriarch has called upon the Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah. This follows upon his earlier statements to the effect that all military power in the country should be in the hands of the army alone, and nobody else, a position well within the confines of Catholic understanding on the legitimacy of militaries being vested in the state. The Maronite Church is in communion with the Catholic Church.
August 12, 2021
Taliban v. Afghan Government
In spite of outnumbering the Taliban and having an air force, the Afghan government's forces are rapidly collapsing and the Taliban is now in control of 2/3s of the country.
The US is clearly not going to reverse its decision to withdraw, but at this point the Taliban takeover of the country is turning into a route, and there should be no doubt that this is a US defeat due to a complete lack of will on the American part to do anything about the situation combined with a bizarre collapse of morale on the Afghan government forces side.
Cont:
US sending troops into Afghanistan to help evacuate embassy staff
Headline from the Trib.
It's Saigon 1975 all over again.
Cont:
The US is sending in 3,000 troops into Afghanistan in order to facilitate the withdrawal from the embassy.
The President of Afghanistan has been transported out of the country.
The US is evacuating its embassy personnel.
Cont:
Official: Taliban to declare Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.
August 17, 2021
President Biden delivered a speech yesterday on Afghanistan. He stated:
Good afternoon.
I want to speak today to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan,
the developments that have taken place in the last week and the steps we’re
taking to address the rapidly evolving events.
My national security team and I have been closely monitoring the
situation on the ground in Afghanistan and moving quickly to execute the plans
we had put in place to respond to every contingency, including the rapid
collapse we’re seeing now.
I’ll speak more in a moment about the specific
steps we’re taking. But I want to remind everyone how we got here and what
America’s interests are in Afghanistan.
We went to Afghanistan almost 20 years ago with clear goals: get
those who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001, and make sure Al Qaeda could not use
Afghanistan as a base from which to attack us again. We did that. We severely
degraded Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We never gave up the hunt for Osama bin Laden
and we got him.
That was a decade ago. Our mission in Afghanistan was never
supposed to have been nation-building. It was never supposed to be creating a
unified, centralized democracy. Our only vital national interest in Afghanistan
remains today what it has always been: preventing a terrorist attack on
American homeland.
I’ve argued for many years that our mission should be narrowly
focused on counterterrorism, not counterinsurgency or nation-building. That’s why
I opposed the surge when it was proposed in 2009 when I was vice president. And
that’s why as president I’m adamant we focus on the threats we face today, in
2021, not yesterday’s threats.
Today a terrorist threat has metastasized well beyond Afghanistan.
Al Shabab in Somalia, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al Nusra in Syria,
ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq and establishing
affiliates in multiple countries in Africa and Asia. These threats warrant our
attention and our resources. We conduct effective counterterrorism missions
against terrorist groups in multiple countries where we don’t have permanent
military presence. If necessary, we’ll do the same in Afghanistan. We’ve
developed counterterrorism over-the-horizon capability that will allow us to
keep our eyes firmly fixed on the direct threats to the United States in the
region, and act quickly and decisively if needed.
When I came into office, I inherited a deal
that President Trump negotiated with the Taliban. Under his agreement, U.S.
forces would be out of Afghanistan by May 1, 2021, just a little over three
months after I took office. U.S. forces had already drawn down during the Trump
administration from roughly 15,500 American forces to 2,500 troops in country.
And the Taliban was at its strongest militarily since 2001.
The choice I had to make as your president was either to follow
through on that agreement or be prepared to go back to fighting the Taliban in
the middle of the spring fighting season. There would have been no cease-fire
after May 1. There was no agreement protecting our forces after May 1. There
was no status quo of stability without American casualties after May 1. There
was only the cold reality of either following through on the agreement to
withdraw our forces or escalating the conflict and sending thousands more
American troops back into combat in Afghanistan, and lurching into the third decade
of conflict.
I stand squarely behind my decision. After 20 years, I’ve
learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces.
That’s why we’re still there. We were cleareyed about the risks. We planned for
every contingency. But I always promised the American people that I will be
straight with you.
The truth is, this did unfold more quickly than we had
anticipated. So what’s happened? Afghanistan political leaders gave up and fled
the country. The Afghan military collapsed, sometimes without trying to fight.
If anything, the developments of the past week reinforced that ending U.S.
military involvement in Afghanistan now was the right decision.
American troops cannot and should not be fighting in a war and
dying in a war that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves. We
spent over a trillion dollars. We trained and equipped an Afghan military force
of some 300,000 strong. Incredibly well equipped. A force larger in size than
the militaries of many of our NATO allies. We gave them every tool they could
need. We paid their salaries, provided for the maintenance of their air force,
something the Taliban doesn’t have. Taliban does not have an air force. We
provided close air support. We gave them every chance to determine their own
future. What we could not provide them was the will to fight for that future.
There are some very brave and capable Afghan special forces
units and soldiers. But if Afghanistan is unable to mount any real resistance
to the Taliban now, there is no chance that one year — one more year, five more
years or 20 more years — that U.S. military boots on the ground would have made
any difference.
Here’s what I believe to my core: It is wrong to order American
troops to step up when Afghanistan’s own armed forces would not. The political
leaders of Afghanistan were unable to come together for the good of their
people, unable to negotiate for the future of their country when the chips were
down. They would never have done so while U.S. troops remained in Afghanistan
bearing the brunt of the fighting for them. And our true strategic competitors,
China and Russia, would love nothing more than the United States to continue to
funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing
Afghanistan indefinitely.
When I hosted President Ghani and Chairman
Abdullah at the White House in June, and again when I spoke by phone to Ghani
in July, we had very frank conversations. We talked about how Afghanistan
should prepare to fight their civil wars after the U.S. military departed. To
clean up the corruption in government so the government could function for the
Afghan people. We talked extensively about the need for Afghan leaders to unite
politically. They failed to do any of that. I also urged them to engage in
diplomacy, to seek a political settlement with the Taliban. This advice was
flatly refused. Mr. Ghani insisted the Afghan forces would fight, but obviously
he was wrong.
So I’m left again to ask of those who argue that we should stay:
How many more generations of America’s daughters and sons would you have me
send to fight Afghanistan’s civil war when Afghan troops will not? How many more
lives, American lives, is it worth, how many endless rows of headstones at
Arlington National Cemetery? I’m clear on my answer: I will not repeat the
mistakes we’ve made in the past. The mistake of staying and fighting
indefinitely in a conflict that is not in the national interest of the United
States, of doubling down on a civil war in a foreign country, of attempting to
remake a country through the endless military deployments of U.S. forces. Those
are the mistakes we cannot continue to repeat because we have significant vital
interest in the world that we cannot afford to ignore.
I also want to acknowledge how painful this is to so many of us.
The scenes that we’re seeing in Afghanistan, they’re gut-wrenching,
particularly for our veterans, our diplomats, humanitarian workers — for anyone
who has spent time on the ground working to support the Afghan people. For
those who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan, and for Americans who have
fought and served our country in Afghanistan, this is deeply, deeply personal.
It is for me as well.
I’ve worked on these issues as long as anyone. I’ve been
throughout Afghanistan during this war, while the war was going on, from Kabul
to Kandahar, to the Kunar Valley. I’ve traveled there on four different
occasions. I’ve met with the people. I’ve spoken with the leaders. I spent time
with our troops, and I came to understand firsthand what was and was not
possible in Afghanistan. So now we’re focused on what is possible.
We will continue to support the Afghan people. We will lead with
our diplomacy, our international influence and our humanitarian aid. We’ll
continue to push for regional diplomacy and engagement to prevent violence and
instability. We’ll continue to speak out for the basic rights of the Afghan
people, of women and girls, just as we speak out all over the world.
I’ve been clear, the human rights must be the center of our
foreign policy, not the periphery. But the way to do it is not through endless
military deployments. It’s with our diplomacy, our economic tools and rallying
the world to join us.
Let me lay out the current mission in Afghanistan: I was asked
to authorize, and I did, 6,000 U.S. troops to deploy to Afghanistan for the
purpose of assisting in the departure of U.S. and allied civilian personnel from
Afghanistan, and to evacuate our Afghan allies and vulnerable Afghans to safety
outside of Afghanistan. Our troops are working to secure the airfield and
ensure continued operation on both the civilian and military flights. We’re
taking over air traffic control. We have safely shut down our embassy and
transferred our diplomats. Our diplomatic presence is now consolidated at the
airport as well.
Over the coming days we intend to transport
out thousands of American citizens who have been living and working in
Afghanistan. We’ll also continue to support the safe departure of civilian
personnel — the civilian personnel of our allies who are still serving in
Afghanistan. Operation Allies Refuge, which I announced back in July, has
already moved 2,000 Afghans who are eligible for special immigration visas and
their families to the United States. In the coming days, the U.S. military will
provide assistance to move more S.I.V.-eligible Afghans and their families out
of Afghanistan.
We’re also expanding refugee access to cover other vulnerable
Afghans who work for our embassy. U.S. nongovernmental organizations and
Afghans who otherwise are a great risk in U.S. news agencies — I know there are
concerns about why we did not begin evacuating Afghan civilians sooner. Part of
the answer is some of the Afghans did not want to leave earlier, still hopeful
for their country. And part of it because the Afghan government and its
supporters discouraged us from organizing a mass exodus to avoid triggering, as
they said, a crisis of confidence.
American troops are performing this mission as professionally
and as effectively as they always do. But it is not without risks. As we carry
out this departure, we have made it clear to the Taliban: If they attack our
personnel or disrupt our operation, the U.S. presence will be swift, and the
response will be swift and forceful. We will defend our people with devastating
force if necessary. Our current military mission is short on time, limited in
scope and focused in its objectives: Get our people and our allies as safely
and quickly as possible. And once we have completed this mission, we will
conclude our military withdrawal. We will end America’s longest war after 20
long years of bloodshed.
The events we’re seeing now are sadly proof that no amount of
military force would ever deliver a stable, united, secure Afghanistan, as
known in history as the graveyard of empires. What’s happening now could just
as easily happen five years ago or 15 years in the future. We have to be
honest, our mission in Afghanistan made many missteps over the past two
decades.
I’m now the fourth American president to preside over war in
Afghanistan. Two Democrats and two Republicans. I will not pass this
responsibility on to a fifth president. I will not mislead the American people
by claiming that just a little more time in Afghanistan will make all the
difference. Nor will I shrink from my share of responsibility for where we are
today and how we must move forward from here. I am president of the United
States of America, and the buck stops with me.
I’m deeply saddened by the facts we now face. But I do not
regret my decision to end America’s war-fighting in Afghanistan and maintain a
laser focus on our counterterrorism mission, there and other parts of the
world. Our mission to degrade the terrorist threat of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
and kill Osama bin Laden was a success. Our decades-long effort to overcome
centuries of history and permanently change and remake Afghanistan was not, and
I wrote and believed it never could be.
I cannot and will not ask our troops to fight on endlessly in
another country’s civil war, taking casualties, suffering life-shattering
injuries, leaving families broken by grief and loss. This is not in our
national security interest. It is not what the American people want. It is not
what our troops who have sacrificed so much over the past two decades deserve.
I made a commitment to the American people when I ran for president that I
would bring America’s military involvement in Afghanistan to an end. While it’s
been hard and messy and, yes, far from perfect, I’ve honored that commitment.
More importantly, I made a commitment to the
brave men and women who serve this nation that I wasn’t going to ask them to
continue to risk their lives in a military action that should’ve ended long
ago. Our leaders did that in Vietnam when I got here as a young man. I will not
do it in Afghanistan.
I know my decision will be criticized. But I would rather take
all that criticism than pass this decision on to another president of the
United States, yet another one, a fifth one. Because it’s the right one, it’s
the right decision for our people. The right one for our brave service members
who risked their lives serving our nation. And it’s the right one for America.
Thank you. May God protect our troops, our
diplomats and all brave Americans serving in harm’s way.
While a little surreal, given that President Biden is carrying out, albeit badly, what President Trump set in motion, and which was also set to conclude badly, former President Trump has called on President Biden to resign "in disgrace".
I'd concur that the situation is disgraceful, but it's a disgrace they both share.
The putative Emirate declared an "amnesty" and invited women to join their new government, but in keeping with Sharia law. It's unclear what this means.
The United Nations called for an end to the fighting and for the government to be inclusive.
August 19, 2021
President Biden stated yesterday that US troops would remain in Afghanistan until all American citizens are out of the country.
August 27, 2021
And this just gets more and more pathetic, in the true and original meaning of the word.
The debacle of surrender to the Taliban, and this is effectively what is occurring, saw the predictable death of American servicemen at the apparent hands of a new Afghanistan based terrorist group. That's tragic in and of itself, but it also emphasizes that this is a massive American retreat.
And it's a retreat shared by two Presidents. President Trump got it rolling last year with his abandonment and absurd negotiations with the Taliban, and it is being completed by President Biden. Those yelling at Biden now, and he deserves to be yelled at, seem to forget that this debacle was commenced by Trump.
August 28, 2021
One of the Marines killed in the ISIL-K attack in Afghanistan was from Bondurant Wyoming.
Governor Gordon Orders Flags
Be Flown at Half-Staff Statewide Through August 30
CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Governor Mark Gordon, pursuant to President Joe
Biden's Proclamation, has ordered both the U.S. and State of Wyoming flags be
flown at half-staff statewide immediately to honor and
pay our respects to the U.S. service members and other victims killed in the
terrorist attack on August 26, 2021, in Kabul, Afghanistan. Flags should remain
lowered until sunset on August 30, 2021.
The Presidential Proclamation follows:
HONORING THE VICTIMS OF THE ATTACK IN
KABUL, AFGHANISTAN
- - - - - - -
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION
As a mark of respect for the U.S. service members and other
victims killed in the terrorist attack on August 26, 2021,
in Kabul, Afghanistan, by the authority vested in me as
President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag
of the United States shall be flown at half-staff at the
White House and upon all public buildings and grounds, at all
military posts and naval stations, and on all naval vessels of
the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and
throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions
until sunset, August 30, 2021. I also direct that the flag
shall be flown at half-staff for the same length of time at all
United States embassies, legations, consular offices, and other
facilities abroad, including all military facilities and naval
vessels and stations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-sixth day of August, in the year of our Lord
two thousand twenty-one, and of the Independence of the
United States of America the two hundred and forty-fifth.
--END--
The US carried out a retaliatory drone strike in ISIL-K and the President vowed to hunt down the perpetrators of the attack.
August 30, 2021
A drone strike apparently thwarted a second ISIL-K attack yesterday.
The weekend news shows were extremely interesting. Secretary Blinken was making the rounds with his excuses, something he's been having to do the last couple of weeks. He was grilled on stating that the Taliban had provided "assurances" that anyone wishing to leave Afghanistan could do so. 100,000 Afghans have already left via airport evacuations, an amazing number. Blinken came across poorly, as the line he has to feed isn't credible.
Former National Security Adviser H. R. McMasters was on Meet The Press and was very interesting.
One thing that's become very obvious is that the Biden Administration, and the late Trump Administration, expected Afghanistan to fall, just not as quickly as it did, meaning they were essentially taking the same approach there that the US did in leaving Vietnam. Of note, more than one security official was of the view that a minimal ongoing US troop commitment would have allowed the government to survive indefinitely.
August 31, 2021
In a final set of days marked by disgrace, the United States completed its withdrawal from the country.
The last U.S. soldier in the country, at least officially, was Army Maj. Gen. Chris Donahue.
September 1, 2021
President Biden, yesterday:
THE PRESIDENT: Last night in Kabul, the United States ended 20 years of war in Afghanistan — the longest war in American history.
We completed one of the biggest airlifts in history, with more than 120,000 people evacuated to safety. That number is more than double what most experts thought were possible. No nation — no nation has ever done anything like it in all of history. Only the United States had the capacity and the will and the ability to do it, and we did it today.
The extraordinary success of this mission was due to the incredible skill, bravery, and selfless courage of the United States military and our diplomats and intelligence professionals.
For weeks, they risked their lives to get American citizens, Afghans who helped us, citizens of our Allies and partners, and others onboard planes and out of the country. And they did it facing a crush of enormous crowds seeking to leave the country. And they did it knowing ISIS-K terrorists — sworn enemies of the Taliban — were lurking in the midst of those crowds.
And still, the men and women of the United States military, our diplomatic corps, and intelligence professionals did their job and did it well, risking their lives not for professional gains but to serve others; not in a mission of war but in a mission of mercy. Twenty servicemembers were wounded in the service of this mission. Thirteen heroes gave their lives.
I was just at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer. We owe them and their families a debt of gratitude we can never repay but we should never, ever, ever forget.
In April, I made the decision to end this war. As part of that decision, we set the date of August 31st for American troops to withdraw. The assumption was that more than 300,000 Afghan National Security Forces that we had trained over the past two decades and equipped would be a strong adversary in their civil wars with the Taliban.
That assumption — that the Afghan government would be able to hold on for a period of time beyond military drawdown — turned out not to be accurate.
But I still instructed our national security team to prepare for every eventuality — even that one. And that’s what we did.
So, we were ready when the Afghan Security Forces — after two decades of fighting for their country and losing thousands of their own — did not hold on as long as anyone expected.
We were ready when they and the people of Afghanistan watched their own government collapse and their president flee amid the corruption and malfeasance, handing over the country to their enemy, the Taliban, and significantly increasing the risk to U.S. personnel and our Allies.
As a result, to safely extract American citizens before August 31st — as well as embassy personnel, Allies and partners, and those Afghans who had worked with us and fought alongside of us for 20 years — I had authorized 6,000 troops — American troops — to Kabul to help secure the airport.
As General McKenzie said, this is the way the mission was designed. It was designed to operate under severe stress and attack. And that’s what it did.
Since March, we reached out 19 times to Americans in Afghanistan, with multiple warnings and offers to help them leave Afghanistan — all the way back as far as March. After we started the evacuation 17 days ago, we did initial outreach and analysis and identified around 5,000 Americans who had decided earlier to stay in Afghanistan but now wanted to leave.
Our OperationAllies Refuge ended up getting more than 5,500 Americans out. We got out thousands of citizens and diplomats from those countries that went into Afghanistan with us to get bin Laden. We got out locally employed staff of the United States Embassy and their families, totaling roughly 2,500 people. We got thousands of Afghan translators and interpreters and others, who supported the United States, out as well.
Now we believe that about 100 to 200 Americans remain in Afghanistan with some intention to leave. Most of those who remain are dual citizens, long-time residents who had earlier decided to stay because of their family roots in Afghanistan.
The bottom line:Ninety-eight percent of Americans in Afghanistan who wanted to leave were able to leave.
And for those remaining Americans, there is no deadline. We remain committed to get them out if they want to come out. Secretary of State Blinken is leading the continued diplomatic efforts to ensure a safe passage for any American, Afghan partner, or foreign national who wants to leave Afghanistan.
In fact, just yesterday, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution that sent a clear message about what the international community expects the Taliban to deliver on moving forward, notably freedom of travel, freedom to leave. And together, we are joined by over 100 countries that are determined to make sure the Taliban upholds those commitments.
It will include ongoing efforts in Afghanistan to reopen the airport, as well as overland routes, allowing for continued departure to those who want to leave and delivery of humanitarian assistance to the people of Afghanistan.
The Taliban has made public commitments, broadcast on television and radio across Afghanistan, on safe passage for anyone wanting to leave, including those who worked alongside Americans. We don’t take them by their word alone but by their actions, and we have leverage to make sure those commitments are met.
Let me be clear: Leaving August the 31st is not due to an arbitrary deadline; it was designed to save American lives.
My predecessor, the former President, signed an agreement with the Taliban to remove U.S. troops by May the 1st, just months after I was inaugurated. It included no requirement that the Taliban work out a cooperative governing arrangement with the Afghan government, but it did authorize the release of 5,000 prisoners last year, including some of the Taliban’s top war commanders, among those who just took control of Afghanistan.
And by the time I came to office, the Taliban was in its strongest military position since 2001, controlling or contesting nearly half of the country.
The previous administration’s agreement said that if we stuck to the May 1st deadline that they had signed on to leave by, the Taliban wouldn’t attack any American forces, but if we stayed, all bets were off.
So we were left with a simple decision: Either follow through on the commitment made by the last administration and leave Afghanistan, or say we weren’t leaving and commit another tens of thousands more troops going back to war.
That was the choice — the real choice — between leaving or escalating.
I was not going to extend this forever war, and I was not extending a forever exit. The decision to end the military airlift operations at Kabul airport was based on the unanimous recommendation of my civilian and military advisors — the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all the service chiefs, and the commanders in the field.
Their recommendation was that the safest way to secure the passage of the remaining Americans and others out of the country was not to continue with 6,000 troops on the ground in harm’s way in Kabul, but rather to get them out through non-military means.
In the 17 days that we operated in Kabul after the Taliban seized power, we engaged in an around-the-clock effort to provide every American the opportunity to leave. Our State Department was working 24/7 contacting and talking, and in some cases, walking Americans into the airport.
Again, more than 5,500 Americans were airlifted out. And for those who remain, we will make arrangements to get them out if they so choose.
As for the Afghans, we and our partners have airlifted 100,000 of them. No country in history has done more to airlift out the residents of another country than we have done. We will continue to work to help more people leave the country who are at risk. And we’re far from done.
For now, I urge all Americans to join me in grateful prayer for our troops and diplomats and intelligence officers who carried out this mission of mercy in Kabul and at tremendous risk with such unparalleled results: an airma- — an airlift that evacuated tens of thousands to a network of volunteers and veterans who helpedidentify those needing evacuation, guide them to the airport, and provided them for their support along the way.
We’re going to continue to need their help. We need your help. And I’m looking forward to meeting with you.
And to everyone who is now offering or who will offer to welcome Afghan allies to their homes around the world, including in America: We thank you.
I take responsibility for the decision. Now, some say we should have started mass evacuations sooner and “Couldn’t this have be done — have been done in a more orderly manner?” I respectfully disagree.
Imagine if we had begun evacuations in June or July, bringing in thousands of American troops and evacuating more than 120,000 people in the middle of a civil war. There still would have been a rush to the airport, a breakdown in confidence and control of the government, and it still would have been a very difficult and dangerous mission.
The bottom line is: There is no evacuatio- — evacuation from the end of a war that you can run without the kinds of complexities, challenges, and threats we faced. None.
There are those who would say we should have stayed indefinitely for years on end. They ask, “Why don’t we just keep doing what we were doing? Why did we have to change anything?”
The fact is: Everything had changed. My predecessor had made a deal with the Taliban. When I came into office, we faced a deadline — May 1. The Taliban onslaught was coming.
We faced one of two choices: Follow the agreement of the previous administration and extend it to have — or extend to more time for people to get out; or send in thousands of more troops and escalate the war.
To those asking for a third decade of war in Afghanistan, I ask: What is the vital national interest? In my view, we only have one: to make sure Afghanistan can never be used again to launch an attack on our homeland.
Remember why we went to Afghanistan in the first place? Because we were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda on September 11th, 2001, and they were based in Afghanistan.
We delivered justice to bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011 — over a decade ago. Al Qaeda was decimated.
I respectfully suggest you ask yourself this question: If we had been attacked on September 11, 2001, from Yemen instead of Afghanistan, would we have ever gone to war in Afghanistan — even though the Taliban controlled Afghanistan in 2001? I believe the honest answer is “no.” That’s because we had no vital national interest in Afghanistan other than to prevent an attack on America’s homeland and their fr- — our friends. And that’s true today.
We succeeded in what we set out to do in Afghanistan over a decade ago. Then we stayed for another decade. It was time to end this war.
This is a new world. The terror threat has metastasized across the world, well beyond Afghanistan. We face threats from al-Shabaab in Somalia; al Qaeda affiliates in Syria and the Arabian Peninsula; and ISIS attempting to create a caliphate in Syria and Iraq, and establishing affiliates across Africa and Asia.
The fundamental obligation of a President, in my opinion, is to defend and protect America — not against threats of 2001, but against the threats of 2021 and tomorrow.
That is the guiding principle behind my decisions about Afghanistan. I simply do not believe that the safety and security of America is enhanced by continuing to deploy thousands of American troops and spending billions of dollars a year in Afghanistan.
But I also know that the threat from terrorism continues in its pernicious and evil nature. But it’s changed, expanded to other countries. Our strategy has to change too.
We will maintain the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and other countries. We just don’t need to fight a ground war to do it. We have what’s called over-the-horizon capabilities, which means we can strike terrorists and targets without American boots on the ground — or very few, if needed.
We’ve shown that capacity just in the last week. We struck ISIS-K remotely, days after they murdered 13 of our servicemembers and dozens of innocent Afghans.
And to ISIS-K: We are not done with you yet.
As Commander-in-Chief, I firmly believe the best path to guard our safety and our security lies in a tough, unforgiving, targeted, precise strategy that goes after terror where it is today, not where it was two decades ago. That’s what’s in our national interest.
And here’s a critical thing to understand: The world is changing. We’re engaged in a serious competition with China. We’re dealing with the challenges on multiple fronts with Russia. We’re confronted with cyberattacks and nuclear proliferation.
We have to shore up America’s competitive[ness] to meet these new challenges in the competition for the 21st century. And we can do both: fight terrorism and take on new threats that are here now and will continue to be here in the future.
And there’s nothing China or Russia would rather have, would want more in this competition than the United States to be bogged down another decade in Afghanistan.
As we turn the page on the foreign policy that has guided our nat- — our nation the last two decades, we’ve got to learn from our mistakes.
To me, there are two that are paramount. First, we must set missions with clear, achievable goals — not ones we’ll never reach. And second, we must stay clearly focused on the fundamental national security interest of the United States of America.
This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.
We saw a mission of counterterrorism in Afghanistan — getting the terrorists and stopping attacks — morph into a counterinsurgency, nation building — trying to create a democratic, cohesive, and unified Afghanistan -– something that has never been done over the many centuries ofAfghanistan’s history.
Moving on from that mindset and those kind of large-scale troop deployments will make us stronger and more effective and safer at home.
And for anyone who gets the wrong idea, let me say it clearly. To those who wish America harm, to those that engage in terrorism against us and our allies, know this: The United States will never rest. We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down to the ends of the Earth, and we will — you will pay the ultimate price.
And let me be clear: We will continue to support the Afghan people through diplomacy, international influence, and humanitarian aid. We’ll continue to push for regional diplomacy and engagement to prevent violence and instability. We’ll continue to speak out for basic rights of the Afghan people, especially women and girls, as we speak out for women and girls all around the globe. And I’ve been clear that human rights will be the center of our foreign policy.
But the way to do that is not through endless military deployments, but through diplomacy, economic tools, and rallying the rest of the world for support.
My fellow Americans, the war in Afghanistan is now over. I’m the fourth President who has faced the issue of whether and when to end this war. When I was running for President, I made a commitment to the American people that I would end this war. And today, I’ve honored that commitment. It was time to be honest with the American people again. We no longer had a clear purpose in an open-ended mission in Afghanistan.
After 20 years of war in Afghanistan, I refused to send another generation of America’s sons and daughters to fight a war that should have ended long ago.
After more than $2 trillion spent in Afghanistan — a cost that researchers at Brown University estimated would be over $300 million a day for 20 years in Afghanistan — for two decades — yes, the American people should hear this: $300 million a day for two decades.
If you take the number of $1 trillion, as many say, that’s still $150 million a day for two decades. And what have we lost as a consequence in terms of opportunities? I refused to continue in a war that was no longer in the service of the vital national interest of our people.
And most of all, after 800,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan — I’ve traveled that whole country — brave and honorable service; after 20,744 American servicemen and women injured, and the loss of 2,461 American personnel, including 13 lives lost just this week, I refused to open another decade of warfare in Afghanistan.
We’ve been a nation too long at war. If you’re 20 years old today, you have never known an America at peace.
So, when I hear that we could’ve, should’ve continued the so-called low-grade effort in Afghanistan, at low risk to our service members, at low cost, I don’t think enough people understand how much we have asked of the 1 percent of this country who put that uniform on, who are willing to put their lives on the line in defense of our nation.
Maybe it’s because my deceased son, Beau, served in Iraq for a full year, before that. Well, maybe it’s because of what I’ve seen over the years as senator, vice president, and president traveling these countries.
A lot of our veterans and their families have gone through hell — deployment after deployment, months and years away from their families; missed birthdays, anniversaries; empty chairs at holidays; financial struggles; divorces; loss of limbs; traumatic brain injury; posttraumatic stress.
We see it in the struggles many have when they come home. We see it in the strain on their families and caregivers. We see it in the strain of their families when they’re not there. We see it in the grief borne by their survivors. The cost of war they will carry with them their whole lives.
Most tragically, we see it in the shocking and stunning statistic that should give pause to anyone who thinks war can ever be low-grade, low-risk, or low-cost: 18 veterans, on average, who die by suicide every single day in America — not in a far-off place, but right here in America.
There’s nothing low-grade or low-risk or low-cost about any war. It’s time to end the war in Afghanistan.
As we close 20 years of war and strife and pain and sacrifice, it’s time to look to the future, not the past — to a future that’s safer, to a future that’s more secure, to a future that honors those who served and all those who gave what President Lincoln called their “last full measure of devotion.”
I give you my word: With all of my heart, I believe this is the right decision, a wise decision, and the best decision for America.
Thank you. Thank you. And may God bless you all. And may God protect our troops.
September 6, 2021
Taliban v. Afghan Warlords
The last Afghan province not to be in Taliban control fell yesterday.
September 11, 2021
United States in the Middle East; and
Yemeni Civil War
The United States has pulled its missile defense systems from Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has been active in the civil war in Yemen and has been receiving occasional missile strikes from inside the country.
September 29, 2021
United States v. Taliban and the United States and China.
Gen. Milley testified yesterday before Congress.
It'll be interesting to see what the reaction to his testimony will be. Right wing Americans have been creeping up on accusing Milley of treason due to his late Trump administration call to the Chinese, which is discussed below, while his testimony yesterday makes it plain that he didn't really agree with the disgraceful American departure from Afghanistan, which the same demographic has been upset about, while at the same time also ignoring Trump's role in brining that about. People, and often the same people, will probably be both praising and condemning what the general had to say.
Here's Gen. Milley testimony before Congress: Text
Of specific interest on Afghanistan:
And perhaps most importantly, for US national security, that Taliban has never renounced Al-Qaeda or broke its affiliation with them. We the United States adhered to every condition. In the fall of 2020 my analysis was that an accelerated withdrawal without meeting specific and necessary conditions risks losing the substantial gains made in Afghanistan, damaging US worldwide credibility, and could precipitate a general collapse of the ANSF and the Afghan government resulting in a complete Taliban takeover or general civil war. That was a year ago. My assessment remained consistent throughout. Based on my advice and the advice of the commanders, then Secretary of Defense, Esper, submitted a memorandum on nine November recommending to maintain US forces at a level between about 2500 and 4500 in Afghanistan until conditions were met for further reduction. Two days later on 11, November, 2020, I received an unclassified signed order directing the United States military to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan no later than 15, January, 2021.
After further discussions regarding the risks associated with such a withdrawal, the order was rescinded. On 17 November we received a order, to reduce levels to 2,500 plus enabling forces no later than 15 January. When president Biden was inaugurated, there were approximately 3,500 US troops, 5,400 NATO troops and 6,300 contractors in Afghanistan with a specified task of train, advise and assist along with a small contingent of counter terrorism forces. The strategic situation at inauguration was stalemate. The Biden administration through the National Security Council process conducted a rigorous interagency review of the situation in Afghanistan in February, March and April. During this process, the views of the joint chiefs of staff, all of us, the CENTCOM commander, General McKenzie, the [US 4A commander 00:33:49], General Miller and myself were all given serious consideration by the administration. We provided a broad range of options and our assessment of their potential outcomes. The cost benefit, risk to-… of their potential outcomes. The cost, benefit, risk to force, and risk to mission were evaluated against the national security objectives of the United States. On 14 April, the president announced his decision, and the US military received a change of mission to retrograde all US military forces, maintain a mall contingency force of 600 to 700 to protect the embassy in Kabul until the Department of State could coordinate contractor security support, and also to assist Turkey to maintain the Karzai International Airport, and transition the US military to an over-the-horizon counterterrorism support and security force assistance. It is clear, it is obvious the war in Afghanistan did not end on the terms we wanted with the Taliban now in power in Kabul. Although the NEO was unprecedented, and is the largest air evacuation history evacuating 124,000 people, it came at an incredible cost of 11 Marines, one soldier, and a Navy corpsman. Those 13 gave their lives so that people they never met will have an opportunity to live in freedom.
And we must remember that the Taliban was and remains a terrorist organization, and they still have not broken ties with Al-Qaeda. I have no illusions who we are dealing with. It remains to be seen whether or not the Taliban can consolidate power, or if the country will further fracture into civil war, but we must continue to protect the United States of America and its people from terror attacks coming from Afghanistan. A reconstituted Al-Qaeda or ISIS with aspirations to attack the United States is a very real possibility, and those conditions to include activity in ungoverned spaces could present themselves in the next 12 to 36 months. That mission will be much harder now, but not impossible, and we will continue to protect at the American people. Strategic decisions have strategic consequences. Over the course of 4 presidents, 12 secretaries of defense, 7 chairman, 10 CENTCOM commanders, 20 commanders in Afghanistan, hundreds of congressional delegation visits, and 20 years of congressional oversight, there are many lessons to be learned.
Milley on the rapid collapse:
I think, Senator, we absolutely missed the rapid 11-day collapse of the Afghan military and the collapse of their government. I think there was a lot of intelligence that clearly indicated that after we withdrew, that it was a likely outcome of a collapse of the military and collapse of the government. Most of those intelligence assessments indicated that that would occur late fall, perhaps early winter. Kabul might hold till next spring. It depends on when the intel assessment was written. So after we leave, the assessments were pretty consistent that you’d see a general collapse of the government and the military.
Gen. Milley: (56:03) While we were there, though, up through 31 August, there’s no intel assessment that says the government’s going to collapse and the military’s going to collapse in 11 days that I’m aware of. And I’ve read, I think, pretty much all of them. And even as late as the 3rd of August, and there’s another one on the 8th of August, et cetera, they’re still talking weeks, perhaps months, et cetera. General McKenzie can illuminate on his own views on the same topic. He gave his assessments at the same time. And although General Miller did, in many, many assessments, say rapid, fast, hard for collapse, he also centered into the October-November timeframe as opposed to August.
Milley and McKenzie on the Trump Doha Agreement.
Mr. Reed: (44:56) Now, General Milley and General McKenzie, did the Doha Agreement affect the morale of the Afghan forces? I.e., was there a sense now that even though it was months away, that the United States was leaving since we had agreed to leave?
Gen. Milley: (45:17) I’ll let Frank talk the details, but my assessment is yes, Senator, it did affect the morale of the Afghan security forces.
Gen. McKenzie: (45:26) Sir, it’s my judgment that the Doha Agreement did negatively affect the performance of the Afghan forces, in particular by some of the actions that the government of Afghanistan was required to undertake as part of that agreement.
Gen. Milley on the overall defeat.
I mentioned that there’s been four presidents, 20 commanders on the ground, seven or eight chairman as joint chiefs, dozens of secretaries of defense, et cetera. The outcomes like this are not determined in the last five days, the last 20 days, or the last year for that matter. Outcomes in a war like this, an outcome that is a strategic failure, the enemy is in charge in Kabul. There’s no way else to describe that. That outcome is a cumulative effect of 20 years, not 20 days.
General Milley: (02:23:23) There are a huge amount of strategic, operational and tactical lessons that need to be learned from this. Some of them in the military sphere, the narrow military sphere. One of them, for example, is the mirror imaging of the building of the Afghan National Army based on American doctrine, tactics, techniques, and procedures. That made a military that may, I’m going to wait full evaluation, but may have been overly dependent upon us, our presence, contractors, and higher tech systems, in order to fight a counterinsurgency war. That’s one area that needs to be fully explored. Another is the intel. How did we miss collapse of an army in a government that big, that fast in only 11 days? That needs to be pulled apart. Then there are other factors that are not strictly military, but things like the legitimacy of the government, corruption, the parasitic nature of the police forces. That there’s a whole series of 10 or 20 that I wrote down just a week or two ago, that need to be looked at, and looked at in depth, and very seriously and comprehensively over time.
Gen. Milley on some yes and no questions:
Senator Blackburn: (02:40:10) These are yes or no questions, so quick answers are appreciated. General Milley, were there options given for keeping American troops in Afghanistan, rather than the unconditional, chaotic withdrawal?
Senator Blackburn: (02:40:52) Had Bagram stayed open, would our support to the Afghan Air Force have been more effective in your view?
General Milley: (02:40:59) I’m sorry, I didn’t catch the last part.
Senator Blackburn: (02:41:01) If Bagram had stayed open, would our support to the Afghan Air Force have been more effective in your view? Yes or no.
General Milley: (02:41:11) Frankly, I’m not sure on that one, because most of the Afghan Air Force was at different bases, specifically at HKIA.
I haven't discussed the Milley China incident as I haven't thought that there's been enough clarity on it to really comment. Some right wing Americans, as noted, have been accusing him of treason for speaking to his Chinese counterpart during the final days of the Trump Administration.
My take so far is this had been as follows. He had two conversations with
the Chinese, and one with Pelosi. That’s about all we really knew until yesterday, when we got his version.
At a 40,000 foot level, the Chairman assuring a foreign
military that an exercise is just an exercise, probably isn’t outside of his
normal duties, if that’s all he said, and that's what he's represented. That would be in the nature
of avoiding Able Archer type misunderstandings, assuming that a foreign
military leader would really believe what you had to say. I frankly doubt
that if the Chairman calls his Chinese equivalent, that really does much for
the Chinese figure in reality. I.e., if he’s really worried, he probably
doesn’t feel relieved and take the weekend off. Indeed, the fact that you
got a call might make you more nervous than you were before, if you were
nervous.
The Pelosi matter is of a different character. The
Chairman probably has to take a call from senior members of Congress, but the
question is what was really said. We know what Woodward said was said in his book, which brought this to a head,
but we don’t really know what was said in context. What Miley says is that Pelosi quested Trum's mental state, and that he didn't comment on that and noted that he wasn't qualified to do so. He assured her that there are procedures in place to revent an "illegal" launching of nuclear weapons.
Of course, without answering the question, or venturing an
opinion, lurking in the background of this is the question of what occurs if
the Chairman is truly fearful that a President (we’ll make it abstract, just
“a” President) has actually gone unhinged and is about to engage in an unlawful
act using the military.
I.e, would using the military to launch a war by
an unhinged occupant of the Oval Office be an unlawful act, and if you know
that this is what was occurring, what would your duty have been as
Chairman? The question there would be whether a Chairman in this position
would be justified in determining not to follow the orders, if he could, or to
inform other civilian authorities of his fears.
I'll further note that in my view using a nuclear weapon in a first strike would always be an unquetionably illegal act, although my view is a minority view.
I'll further note that no matter what Gen. Milley may have told Congressman Pelosi, a President may very clearly launch a nuclear strike on his own initiative. That's the problem.
I guess while treading onto dangerous ground, I’ll note
this, although it really puts me out on to thin ice and I’m risking making
everyone mad. Theodore Roosevelt was 42 years old when he became
President. Franklin Roosevelt was 51. Ronald Reagan, who seemed
ancient at the time, was 69.
Most Presidents have been in their 50s when they took
office.
There's a reason for that.
It's only in the last decade, as baby boomers reached their
70s, that we’ve suddenly started electing really old men as President.
Trump was old (70 when he took office), and he was competing against Clinton
who didn’t graduate from high school yesterday. Biden is old. Trump
is claiming he’ll run again and Biden has asserted he will too. Locally,
the legislature here is thinking about upping the judicial retirement age from
70 to 75. Statistically 25% of people in their 70s have some mental
impairment to some degree (again, not wanting to make everyone mad), and
upwards of 50% do once people hit their 80s. In the 60s, it’s 1 in 8,
which is relatively low.
I know that the two aren’t directly connected, but for the
last six years I’ve heard plenty of speculation on whether Trump, and then
Biden, have some cerebral impacts of aging going on. In a country where
the median age is 38, the sudden shift to senior leaders in the White House and
Congress to leaders whose median age may be in their 70s, may be creating some
unique problems, and if it keeps up indefinitely, it probably will.
So what's a general to do?
Well, the entire episode may in fact be quite overblown. Here's what Gen. Milley on his China call:.
Thank you, Chairman. And if I could, I know
that there’s some issues in the media that are of deep concern to many members
on the committee, and with your permission, I’d like to address those for a
minute or two. Again, I’ve submitted memorandum for the committee to take a
look at.
Mr. Chairman, I’ve served this nation for 42 years. I’ve spent years in combat,
and I’ve buried a lot of my troops who died while defending this country. My
loyalty to this nation, its people, and the Constitution hasn’t changed and
will never change as long as I have a breath to give. My loyalty is absolute,
and I will not turn my back on the fallen. With respect to the Chinese calls, I
routinely communicated with my counterpart General Li with the knowledge and
coordination of civilian oversight. I am specifically directed to communicate
with the Chinese by Department of Defense guidance, the policy dialogue system.
These military-to-military communications at the highest level are critical to
the security of the United States in order to de-conflict military actions,
manage crisis, and prevent war between great powers that are armed with the
world’s most deadliest weapons. The calls on 30 October and 8 January were
coordinated before and after with Secretary Esper and Acting Secretary Miller’s
staffs and the interagency.
The specific purpose of the October and January calls were generated by
concerning intelligence which caused us to believe the Chinese were worried
about an attack on them by the United States. I know, I am certain, that
President Trump did not intend to attack the Chinese, and it is my directed
responsibility, and it was my directed responsibility by the secretary, to
convey that intent to the Chinese. My task at that time was to de-escalate. My
message, again, was consistent. Stay calm, steady, and de-escalate. We are not
going to attack you. At Secretary of Defense Esper’s direction, I made a call
to General Li on 30 October. Eight people sat in that call with me, and I read
out the call within 30 minutes of the call ending. On 31 December, the Chinese
requested another call with me. The deputy assistant secretary of defense for
Asia Pacific policy helped coordinate my call, which was then scheduled for 8
January, and he made a preliminary call on 6 January.
11 people attended that call with me, and readouts of this call were
distributed to the interagency that same day. Shortly after my call ended with
General Li, I personally informed both Secretary of State Pompeo and White
House Chief of Staff Meadows about the call, among other topics. Soon after
that, I attended a meeting with Acting Secretary Miller, where I briefed him on
the call. Later that same day on 8 January, Speaker of the House Pelosi called
me to inquire about the president’s ability to launch nuclear weapons. I sought
to assure her that nuclear launch is governed by a very specific and deliberate
process. She was concerned and made various personal references characterizing
the president. I explained to her that the president is the sole nuclear launch
authority, and he doesn’t launch them alone, and that I am not qualified to
determine the mental health of the president of the United States.
There are processes, protocols, and procedures in place, and I repeatedly
assured her that there is no chance of an illegal, unauthorized, or accidental
launch. By presidential directive and secretary defense directives, the
chairman is part of the process to ensure the president is fully informed when
determining the use of the world’s deadliest weapons. By law, I am not in the
chain of command, and I know that. However, by presidential directive and DOD
instruction, I am in the chain of communication to fulfill my legal statutory
role as the president’s primary military advisor. After the Speaker Pelosi
call, I convened a short meeting in my office with key members of my staff to
refresh all of us on the procedures which we practiced daily at the action
officer level. Additionally, I immediately informed Acting Secretary of Defense
Miller of Speaker Pelosi’s phone call. At no time was I attempting to change or
influence the process, usurp authority, or insert myself in the chain of
command. But I am expected, I am required, to give my advice and ensure that
the president is fully informed on military matters. I am submitting for the
record a more detailed and unclassified memorandor that I believe you all now
have, although late, and I welcome a thorough walkthrough on every single one
of these events. And I’d be happy in a classified session to talk in detail
about the intelligence that drove these calls. I’m also happy to make available
any email, phone logs, memoranda, witnesses, or anything else you need to
understand these events. My oath is to support the Constitution of the United
States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic, and I will never
turn my back on that oath. I firmly believe in civilian control of the military
as a bedrock principle, essential to the health of this republic, and I’m
committed to ensuring that the military stays clear of domestic politics. I
look forward to your questions, and thank you, Chairman, for the extra time.
September 29, 2021 cont.
United States v. Taliban
For the ultimate Boomer "they're all the Vietnam War" angle on our cut and run from Afghanistan you can check out Slate, the online magazine, which presents the argument that Milley and company said that the Taliban had regarded August 31 as the final terminal withdrawal date from Afghanistan and, the article relates, that Biden knew that leaving any troops behind would have been regarded as a violation of that.
For primitives like the Taliban, I'd note, that might be true, but I'd also note that just argues for abrogating the Doha agreement, which Biden was free to do. It was an agreement, not a treaty.
Anyway, Slate argues that Milley says that this would have requierd the US to commit 30,000 men, and hence Biden wisely avoided a trap.
Slate also states that this goes back to Biden's youth when there were always more men needed to win the Vietnam War.
I don't know if this was Biden's logic, but hence the Boomer problem. At its height, the US had 500,000 men in Vietnam. We never had anywhere near that in Afghanistan. 30,000 men is two American divisions. Not that major of an commitment, frankly.
The article is entitled:
We Now Know Why Biden Was in a Hurry to Exit Afghanistan
He made several missteps, but on the big picture, he was right.
BY FRED KAPLAN
Well, if every war involves the Tet Offensive of 1968, this might be right.
But they don't.
The real problem, unaddressed, with the war in Afghanistan, is Pakistan, fwiw. Pakistan was our supply route, the refuge for the Taliban, and the locus of their intellectual inspiration.
September 30, 2021
United States v. the Taliban.
I watched some of the later testimony on C-Span when it was
rebroadcast in the evening. It was well
worth watching.
At one point both Milley and McKenize summed up what they
think went wrong in Afghanistan. They
way they had it was:
The war
had reached a point of stalemate, and appeared likely to be in that condition indefinitely.
The Doha Agreement was signed and at that point
that changed. The military lost confidence that the US would be there to back
it up and began to erode.
The US, in keeping with the Doha Agreement
withdrew its air support of the Afghan military. That made things worse as the
Afghan military had become accustomed to operating with it. Milley was particularly critical of having
the Afghan military “mirror” the American military.
At that point, Milley was of the view that
retaining 2,500 troops in the country would have kept the status quo
(stalemate) and prevented the country collapsing to the Taliban.
It was Milley’s view that the Taliban would have
regarded that as a violation of the Doha Agreement and would have attacked U.S.
forces. This would have required additional US forces being committed, which
Milley estimated would have brought the number to 4,000 (one publication is
claiming he said 30,000, but that’s not what he said when I heard him so that
must have come from some other statement perhaps in some other context. The
same publication, which is supporting Biden’s decision, specifically related
this to his youth and recollections of the U.S experience in Vietnam in regard
to the military’s estimates of troops required.)
The US actually began to draw down its forces
from Doha forward. They were withdrawn for the most part prior to the disastrous
extraction of civilian personnel. Particularly
surprising to me was the number of contractors removed, which somewhat
outnumbered military personnel at the start, something nobody followed up on
but which Milley noted as particularly significant and which he specifically
pointed out.
In addition, I'd note, the formate of the testimony is odd with each member of the committee limited to five minutes. For the most part the questions were good ones, even though they featured the typical Congressional long rambling introduction into the question which drives trial lawyers nuts. A couple of GOP figures, including Matt Goetz, used their time to launch into attacks on the witnesses, with at least two demanding Gen. Milley's resignation. The Chairman at one point launched into a really long monologue which was ineffective and demonstrated, in my view, a misunderstanding on the point of the hearings, emphasizing his view that Biden was unquestionably right in bringing the war to an end, which at least in my view is in fact pretty questionable.
