Jim Mattis

Pentagon Considering Another 1000 Troops for Afghanistan

The U.S. Army is considering a plan where they will send an additional 1000 troops to Afghanistan where they would join the already 14,000 military forces there as the US-led coalition works to break the stalemate with the Taliban.

The Washington Post was reporting this first and quoted senior military officials that the proposal has yet to get official approval but would raise the troop level again. The additional forces could be part of the new Security Assistance Brigade which has been training at the Joint Readiness Training Center in preparation for deployment.

Defense Secretary James Mattis has not signed off on the plans to bring the total force to about 15,000 troops, which many of the Army’s senior leadership support, according to the report.
The proposals show a stark contrast between the Obama administration’s efforts to slowly pull out of Afghanistan in 2015 and President Trump‘s aggressive strategy to pursue radical groups in the conflict-torn region.
The number of troops in Afghanistan has risen from 8,500 to 14,000 since Trump took office. He has largely given the Pentagon the reins to deal with the issue, while emphasizing that he wants to see results.
“This is a concept that got accelerated for Afghanistan, and it has been quite a process,” a senior military official said, describing the process as a “roller coaster.”
A spokesman for the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson Jr., told the Post that they had not specifically asked for more troops, but indicated that new forces would likely lead to an adjustment under their current strategy instead of a new plan.

The additional troops could be an aviation or artillery package that would deploy and support the additional troops but the details on the proposal have not been made clear.

To read the entire article from The Hill, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Mattis: Lines Blurring Between SOF and Conventional Forces

In an interesting development, albeit a more muted approach than what we saw back in the fall, the Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis said on Tuesday that the lines that separate the Special Operations Forces from conventional operating forces are blurring. And that he expects general purpose forces will soon take on missions that were once the sole province of their Special Forces brethren.

Defense Secretary James N. Mattis told Pentagon reporters today that the experiences of war since 9/11 have blurred the lines.
This change will not be enshrined in strategy, he said, but will come about as a result of policy and the growth of general purpose forces’ capabilities.
Mattis said he expects more general purpose forces to take on missions in Iraq and Syria. “In the Trans-Sahel [region of Africa], many of the force supporting the French effort are general purpose forces,” the secretary said.
If a mission comes up, the secretary said he’ll determine the parameters of it and pass that to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The chairman will then determine what forces take on that mission. They may be special operations forces or general purpose forces with unique capabilities.
This is an evolution of the U.S. military spurred by the lessons of war, the secretary said.
Mattis said he does not want a force that is dominant in yesterday’s challenges, but irrelevant in today’s. The general purpose force, he added, is going to have to have the capabilities that were once associated only with special operations forces.
The secretary gave the example of remotely piloted vehicles. In 2001, he said, the only people who ran drones were special operations forces.

Mattis spoke about the SFAB units that are slated to deploy to Afghanistan and take over the training to the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces, doing for them what SF troops do for the Afghan SF troops. And he cited the work that conventional troops are doing in Fort Irwin, CA where conventional troops are doing tasks normally reserved for SOF and capable of doing it on par with SOF according to the secretary.

Whether it was a slip of the tongue or just a mistake, the last line is bound to get the attention of the Special Forces troops. The secretary talked about the blurring of Special Operations and conventional troops but then said that the missions “once the sole province of Special Forces” won’t go over well with SF troops already smarting of the SFAB troops being issued “olive green” berets.

To read the entire article from DOD News, click here:

Photo courtesy DOD

Trump, Mattis Relax Rules of Engagement for Troops in Afghanistan

Back in August, President Donald Trump pledged to lift the restrictions and expand the authorities for US troops in Afghanistan in a move to break the stalemate in the sixteen-year long war. And now Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has overturned a stipulation in the rules of engagement that US troops must be in contact with enemy forces before opening fire.

“You see some of the results of releasing our military from, for example, a proximity requirement — how close was the enemy to the Afghan or the U.S.-advised special forces,” Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “That is no longer the case, for example. So, these kind of restrictions that did not allow us to employ the airpower fully have been removed, yes.”
Mattis also confirmed the changes at a later hearing, saying, “We are no longer bound by the need for proximity to our forces. It used to be we have to basically be in contact with that enemy.”
“Those units with NATO and American advisers win, and those without them often do not win,” he said. “So we are going to spread the number of units with advisers to bring that air support to win.”

The move easing the requirement of being in close proximity to the enemy as well as pushing the U.S. advisers down to lower level Afghan units is seen as a small but important step in breaking the stalemate with the Taliban who still control large areas of the country.

Mattis was quick to point out however, that these changes do not mean an increase in Afghan civilian targeting stating that U.S. forces will do everything “humanly possible” to avoid civilian casualties.

To read the entire article from Fox News, click here:

Photo courtesy Department of Defense

Rockets Hit Kabul Airport as Insurgents Target Defense Secretary Mattis

Insurgents fired a barrage of rockets at the Kabul International Airport on Wednesday that they claimed was targeting the plane of US Defense Secretary James Mattis. Both the Taliban and the Islamic State (ISIS) rushed to claim responsibility for the attack.

The US then responded with an airstrike at the suspected launch sites. One of the missiles fired by the US apparently malfunctioned and hit a civilian area. There were civilian casualties, however, the extent wasn’t immediately known.

In the attack by the Taliban, one civilian Afghan woman was killed and 11 others wounded before Afghan Special Forces drove them off, killing four insurgents in the resulting battle.

Speaking on the brazen attack by the insurgents, a statement by the US military admitted the missile response and the malfunction that followed.

“Tragically, one of the missiles malfunctioned, causing several casualties,” the U.S. command said. It expressed regret for having harmed civilians but did not say whether any of the casualties were killed.
“We take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, even as the enemies of Afghanistan continue to operate in locations that deliberately put civilians at very high risk,” it added. The statement said the original Taliban attackers had fired several rounds of “high-explosive ammunition, including mortars, in the vicinity of” the Kabul airport.
Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, claimed responsibility for the attack on his official Twitter account. The Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) also claimed responsibility for the attack.
The U.S. statement said the insurgents also detonated suicide vests, “endangering a great number of civilians.”

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in a press interview stated, that the “attack on the airport is a sign of weakness, not the sign of strength” and added that to “attack a civilian airport is a criminal act, it is terrorist act and it just shows the importance of fighting these kinds of organizations in Afghanistan.”

To read the entire article from CBS News click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Contractors Taking Over in Afghanistan: The Story That Refuses to Die

Opinion – The administration of President Trump, when not engaging in a 7th grade Twitter War with King Jong Un from North Korea, has invested long-term in Afghanistan. Right or wrong isn’t the topic here but the manner in which the United States decides to prosecute the war.

A couple of the President’s advisers, including his son-in-law, wanted the President to listen to Erik Prince, the former owner of Blackwater whose idea was to turn the war over to contractors. Prince’s plan was to keep a small force of American Special Operations and support troops (around 2,000) and a force of 6,000 contractors. He claims that this will allow the support of the Afghans and allow all of the conventional U.S. troops to go home.

Prince calls for the use of Special Operations veterans to live, train and operate alongside their Afghan counterparts at the company and battalion level, much like they are used now. He calls for supplemental Afghan air power, with Afghan markings to fly with Afghan pilots and only a contractor (safety officer) on board. All contractors would be subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, as American troops are now.

Prince’s idea is to combine all of the US efforts under an “American Viceroy” and base the private army directly under the Viceroy’s control. He previously used the example of Douglas MacArthur in Japan. He also characterized it along the lines of the East India Company, however, as being under Afghan command and control and following Afghan rules of engagement. One can’t fault Prince with his faith in his idea and in his contractors. After all, they’ve made him millions of dollars in both Iraq and Africa and this proposal, had it come to fruition would have made him even more. But would it work? Most of the President’s advisors wisely thought no.

The faction of the Trump White House behind this plan got Prince an audience with Secretary of Defense Mattis where he pitched his idea. Reports said, Mattis listened politely and then ended the meeting without asking any questions. That pretty much sums up how they felt about his plan.

The turning over the war or outsourcing to private contractors is fraught with several problems. The first is how can the US influence the conduct of the war when the Viceroy doesn’t answer to the Congress or the Pentagon but only to the President himself? And to a lesser degree, is the company beholden to the United States? What if problems arise (as they are bound to do), and a third-party government offers to “take over” the contract. As far-fetched as this sounds it could conceivably happen and then what?

Second, the Afghans have stated clearly that they do not want a “Viceroy” by this or any other name on their turf. And if they’re clearly not going to support this idea, then it would be ultimately doomed to failure.

Certain parts of his plan have merit, although they merely echo what US Special Operations forces have been trying to do there for several years. The deep embed of the local contractor/troops with the local military/security forces and the ability to create long-term expertise in the operational area. These are things that our SOF try to do but are limited by tour lengths in-country.

Another problem is that by basing the contractors with local security forces and using local private language and support patrons will give the rise to local warlords, not decrease their existence. The private contractor actually degrades the integration between military and political goals, which is a must in a counterinsurgency. This was a problem that the East India Company ran into in India. And despite their private army fielded in India, the country was only pacified due to massive influxes of regular British military troops.

A further issue is over liability. Prince claims that the contractors will fall under the UCMJ. Of whose military? The US or Afghanistan? Contractors must be liable for their actions, no different than US troops are now. And the Afghans would have to agree to whatever policy is put into effect. And if Prince were to hire contractors from a myriad of countries, who is the authority that the company employees must answer to?

Prince’s Blackwater troops were involved in one of the worst diplomatic disasters for the US in Iraq when they killed 17 civilians and wounded about 20 more in Baghdad. Several of the contractors were tried and convicted of manslaughter. A fourth was convicted of murder. An appeals court threw out the sentences and rest assured, the Afghans are watching the developments of that closely.

And as a footnote to whom Prince plans to hire, he claimed that only ex-Special Operations veterans would be hired. However, none of the four contractors that were convicted as Blackwater operatives were Special Operations veterans. And most only served an initial tour of duty in the military. So, who is going to vet these contractors? The vetting would have to be done to find the right people and Prince’s prior job of doing that fell far short.

And by using MacArthur and the East India Company has its own questions. The history books I grew up with said the MacArthur was fired by President Truman for abusing those viceroy powers. And here in Boston, the East India Company isn’t fondly remembered. The company with its monopoly on tea being brought into Britain tried to gouge the colonists in America by putting a large tax on the tea being brought to the Colonies and deigned to sell a shipload of tea that had already begun to mildew and go bad to the people of Boston. The result was the Boston Tea Party, which lit a powder keg that began the American Revolution.

Thankfully the President’s other advisers have convinced him that Prince’s way wasn’t the way to go and in the long run, the cost, which would’ve been less under Prince’s plan would have been too steep for the US to absorb.

But something tells me that we still haven’t seen the last of this proposal. War is always an opportunity for some people to make large sums of money and this one has had people coming out of the woodwork. One security contractor, New Century Consulting racked up costs that included the luxury vehicles, $42,000 for automatic weapons and salaries of $420,000 to the significant others of the company CEO and CFO as executive assistants. Why did contractors in Afghanistan require Bentleys, Porsches, Alfa Romeos and an Aston Martin (perhaps 007?) to fulfill their contract?

Photo Courtesy: Wikipedia

Mattis Suggests Transgenders May Continue to Serve

With the Trump White House has still not provided the Defense Department the necessary policy guidance on transgender persons serving in the armed forces, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis told the press, that DOD was continuing to study the issue. That statement hints that transgender military members may be allowed to continue to serve despite President Trumps’ announcement to ban their service back in July.

“We are going to study the issue,” Mattis said to the press on Monday at the Pentagon.

“The policy is going to address whether or not transgenders can serve under what conditions, what medical support they require, how much time would they be perhaps non-deployable leaving others to pick up their share of everything. There’s a host of issues and I’m learning more about this than I ever thought I would and it’s obviously very complex to include the privacy issues which we respect,” Mattis said.
“I am waiting right now to get the President’s guidance in and that I expect to be very soon,” he added.
Trump announced his plan to ban transgender service members on Twitter last month. The move took the Joint Chiefs of Staff by surprise, and the Pentagon has said it is awaiting an official order from Trump before making a policy change.

The White House still hasn’t sent any guidance to the Pentagon on the issue and Mattis told the press that the guidance issued by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Joseph Dunford in July still stands.

Dunford wrote in a memo “no modifications to the current policy until the President’s direction has been received by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary has issued implementation guidelines.” “In the meantime, we will continue to treat all of our personnel with respect,”

Trump when questioned by the media last week, stated that by banning transgender troops, he was, “doing the military a great favor.”

To read the entire article from CNN, click here:

Photo courtesy DOD

Mattis: Get Rid of Senseless Exercises, Get Back to Warfighting

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis wants the military to get back to the art of fighting wars and do realistic training and stop wasting time on what he termed “senseless exercises.” Mattis came to this conclusion after hearing complaints of thousands of service members.

Many service members said that too much of their time is spent covering mandatory training that has nothing to do with their warfighting capabilities.

The training that is the subject of complaints covers everything from alcohol use to active shooters to sexual harassment to stress management.
Addressing the service secretaries and chiefs of the Armed Forces, Mattis has ordered the formation of a new working group to “determine changes to military personnel policies” to “equip more ready and lethal forces.” The working group will include the second in command of each branch of the U.S. military and report to the deputy secretary of defense and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The secretary wants each service to examine its military education to “regain a concentration on the art and science of warfighting” and look into the hours of “mandatory force training that does not directly support core tasks” such as flying jets, jumping out of planes, and hundreds of other U.S. military missions essential to defending the United States and its allies.
One official with knowledge of the discussions surrounding the memo told Fox News, “servicemembers spending too much time on senseless training that is really a waste of time.” One U.S. military officer said there is “too much sexual harassment training” and not enough time spent at places like the shooting range, for example.
Last year, Fox News traveled to Ellsworth Air Force Base where numerous B-1B bomber pilots said that in addition to planning and flying training missions that can take over 12 hours at a time, they spend “countless hours” on mandatory training they view as unnecessary.
Currently, only about half the Air Force’s fleet of long-range B-1B bombers are fully mission capable.
Mattis also wants the working group to look into “hiring practices for the [DoD] civilian workforce,” which some senior military officers have complained has become too large in recent years despite Obama-era cuts involving tens of thousands of uniformed servicemembers.
“There are more civilians working for the Pentagon than there are uniformed troops in the Navy and Air Force combined,” Katherine McIntire Peters, deputy editor of Government Executive Media Group, wrote in a recent op-ed. Peters put the Defense Department’s civilian work force at 770,000.

Mattis also wants to overhaul and improve the counter-intelligence capability of the military as well. He has given a deadline for recommendations no later than December 1.

To read the entire article from Fox News click here:

Photo courtesy DOD

Defense Chief Mattis Says North Korea is US Security’s Greatest Threat

United States Defense Secretary Jim Mattis declared to the House Armed Services Committee on Monday that North Korea is the “most urgent and dangerous threat to peace and security,” moving the rogue regime of Kim Jong Un past Russia as the No. 1 threat that the United States faces.

This is an escalation of the war of words being waged between the US and North Korea. China, the North’s biggest supporter is being stuck in the middle and trying to keep the peace between the North Koreans and the UN. who continue to levy sanctions against Kim Jong Un’s government.

The statement was included in the defense secretary’s prepared opening statement, five months after Mattis identified Russia as first among threats facing the United States. The change comes as Pyongyang moves forward with what the United States calls an unprecedented number of tests on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and as the Trump administration’s connections to Russia are scrutinized by the FBI.
“North Korea’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them has increased in pace and scope,” Mattis said. “The regime’s nuclear weapons program is a clear and present danger to all, and the regime’s provocative actions, manifestly illegal under international law, have not abated despite United Nations’ censure and sanctions.”
But Mattis still identified Russia as a threat, along with China, Iran and terrorist organizations. Russia and China, he said, are both “resurgent and more aggressive” and have placed the “international order under assault.” The secretary has sought to reassure allies in both Europe and the Pacific in recent months that the United States still stands with them, after President Trump repeatedly raised questions about whether he was committed to long-standing military alliances.
Mattis appeared alongside Marine Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Pentagon comptroller David Norquist. In Dunford’s prepared testimony, he did not list a No. 1 threat, but labeled Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and terrorist groups as “key challenges” that the United States faces.

North Korea’s insistence on testing its missiles and on procuring nuclear weapons have been thorny subjects for the US and the Trump Administration. The US had been installing the THAAD missile defense system in South Korea. However, those attempts have been put on hold as an olive branch by the South to appease the North’s “crazy as a fox” dictator.

To read the entire article from The Washington Post, click here:

Photo courtesy Getty Images

North Korea Fires Scud Ballistic Missile into the Sea of Japan

The North Koreans are it again, test firing a Scud-type ballistic missile that successfully launched and landed in the Sea of Japan off Korea’s east coast. This was the latest in a series of missile tests that the reclusive, belligerent nation has conducted in recent weeks.

This latest test unleashed a protest from Japan who stated that the missile landed in their exclusive economic zone. President Trump, returning from a weeklong trip overseas was briefed on the situation. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis spoke on television about the latest developments and was asked what a conflict in Korea would be like answering, “probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes”.

The missile was believed to be a Scud-class ballistic missile and flew about 450 km (280 miles), South Korean officials said. North Korea has a large stockpile of the short-range missiles, originally developed by the Soviet Union.
Monday’s launch followed two successful tests of medium- to long-range missiles in as many weeks by the North, which has been conducting such tests at an unprecedented pace in an effort to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting the mainland United States.
North Korea likely showing its determination to push ahead in the face of international pressure to rein in its missile program and “to pressure the (South Korean) government to change its policy on the North”, South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Roh Jae-cheon said.
It was the third ballistic missile test-launch since South Korea’s liberal President Moon Jae-in took office on May 10 pledging to engage with the reclusive neighbor in dialogue.

The Russians called for restraint in the area while Pyongyang’s protector, China, in a statement to the UN’s Security Council that the council’s resolutions had ‘clear rules’ and urged the North Korean government to follow them.

In a statement from the Foreign Ministry, China stated, “The situation on the Korean peninsula is complex and sensitive, and we hope all relevant sides maintain calm and exercise restraint, ease the tense situation as soon as possible and put the issue back on the correct track of peaceful dialogue.”

To read the entire article from the Reuters click here:

Photo courtesy BBC