Friday, October 16, 2020

President Trump's Top General, National Security Adviser Clash On Afghanistan Troop Withdrawal

National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley 


"I'm speaking for the president," Robert O'Brien shot back at Gen. Mark Milley. President Donald Trump's top military chief and national security adviser are in open disagreement about U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In different public appearances, National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley have contradicted each other on whether U.S. troops will withdraw -- a marked display of chaos surrounding Trump's push to end the 19-year-old war in the weeks before the 2020 election. 

Trump himself has added to that confusion, tweeting last week that all remaining U.S. service members "should ... be home by Christmas." 


WNU Editor: National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien is speaking for the President. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Mark Milley is not the person to decide what U.S. policy towards Afghanistan should be. This is not the first time that the Pentagon is butting heads with the White House. It is almost as if some in the Pentagon have made the calculation that President Trump will be gone in a few months, so why push the President's agenda when his opponent has already committed that he would keep a small force in Afghanistan should he win the election... 

 More News On President Trump's Top General And National Security Adviser Clashing On Afghan Troop Withdrawal 

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think those generals are right
20 years in Afghanistan just isn't a long enough time. If they only had 21 years and Trump wouldn't be such a pacifist...

Idiots

G said...

Go to hell all unholy generals

G said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The number of US Combat deaths is low.

https://www.defense.gov/casualty.pdf

66 KIA since 2016.

The ongoing overseas contingency operations are at least 200 billion a year. The budgeting for that was a thing when George Bush was in charge and Democrats cared about the budget.

Did the generals insist that the cost be broken out? If they did I am glad, because we all know that if it wasn't Democrats would hollow it R&D, maintenance and active duty force structure.

There is no plan to win. Pakistan our purported ally has a minimalistic way to win. Give the Taliban some aid and a safe place to rest, recuperate and reload. If we go into the Taliban safe place to root them out and defeat them, Pakistan screams like stuck pig (that
it is).

Pakistan by extension the Taliban can wait us out. Prosecution of the war against us is much cheaper for our ally Pakistan than us.

Pakistan is also an ally of China.

So if Pakistan is an ally of China and an Ally of the US, who wins? China o the US?

Will we outlast China with out 1/2 trillion per year trade deficit?

In my opinion Milley is a nasty, rude, mean, stupid or horrible person. He wants us in a war without a winning strategy and he is willing to go above his paygrade (he was not elected) to do it.

If we get in a general war and Pakistan flips (i.e. declares for China), our troops are over 428 miles /689 km (Karachis to Quetta) from the littoral ansd safety. Assuming we can make the littoral safe for the Navy.

Sure the US NAVY can beat the Pakistan Navy and air force. But what fraction of the US Navy can defeat Pakistan when the US Navy is engaged in the South China sea or the Western Pacific?

Sure India is a natural ally, but they might sit it out for awhile to see which way things go. So count on them?

Point is if there is a general war. The garrison outside Kabul is over 500 miles deep in Indian territory.

Outside of war, what is the strategy to defeat the Taliban pay master, Pakistan, again?

Anonymous said...


First link shows the cost of operations.

Granted it isn't much like in 2003 to 2010. But if you need to balance the budget, save the dollar, save reserve currency status, grow the economy. It has to be done.

For that extra spending what are we getting? Sunk cost fallacy?

Maybe for the blood and treasure we would get mining rights in Afghanistan. Share profits 50/50. use the operation to grow an Afghani middle and upper class. Entice the Taliban to defect and join it.

But that would smack of imperialism to the uneducated (Liberals), so we can't do that. We gotta let the Chinese come in and buy shit up.




www.cbo.gov/system/files/2018-10/54219-oco_spending.pdf?mod=article_inline

https://www.dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/Article/2367794/fy-2021-comprehensive-oversight-plan-for-overseas-contingency-operations/

Anonymous said...


I'm not convinced we have anything for our costs other than to say we tried.
I could see a small advisory role, no more.

G said...

Fools who are u send people to die

G said...

Fools who are u send people to die

Anonymous said...

Milley Vanilley