Trump, frustrated by Afghan war, suggests firing U.S. commander: officials

[Syt]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-afghanistan-idUSKBN1AI2Z3

Trump, frustrated by Afghan war, suggests firing U.S. commander: officials

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's doubts about the war in Afghanistan has led to a delay in completing a new U.S. strategy in South Asia, skepticism that included a suggestion that the U.S. military commander in the region be fired, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

During a July 19 meeting in the White House Situation Room, Trump demanded that his top national security aides provide more information on what one official called "the end-state" in a country where the United States has spent 16 years fighting against the Taliban with no end in sight.

The meeting grew stormy when Trump said Defense Secretary James Mattis and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford, a Marine general, should consider firing Army General John Nicholson, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, for not winning the war.

"We aren't winning," he told them, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In addition, once the meeting concluded, Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, got into what one official called "a shouting match" with White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster over the direction of U.S. policy.

Some officials left the meeting "stunned" by the president's vehement complaints that the military was allowing the United States to lose the war.

Mattis, McMaster and other top aides are putting together answers to Trump's questions in a way to try to get him to approve the strategy, the officials said.

The White House had no comment on the accounts of the meeting.

Another meeting of top aides is scheduled on Thursday.

Although Trump earlier this year gave Mattis the authority to deploy U.S. military forces as he sees fit, in fact the defense secretary's plans to add around 4,000 more U.S. troops to the 8,400 currently deployed in Afghanistan are being caught up in the delay surrounding the strategy, the officials said.

"It's been contingent all along informally on the strategy being approved," a senior administration official said of the troop deployment.

Trump has long been a skeptic of lingering U.S. involvement in foreign wars and has expressed little interest in deploying military forces without a specific plan on what they will do and for how long.

Officials said Trump argued that the United States should demand a share of Afghanistan's estimated $1 trillion in mineral wealth in exchange for its assistance to the Afghan government.

But other officials noted that without securing the entire country, which could take many years, there is no way to get the country's mineral riches to market, except to Iran. Trump complained that the Chinese are profiting from their mining operations, the officials said.

[The Brain]

Duty has been derelicted.

[The Minsky Moment]

When the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[The Minsky Moment]

BTW the reference to taking Afghanistan's mineral wealth and to Chinese miners is directly lifted from the "McArthur Model" editorial by Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater - already the subject of a prior thread.  This story is proof that Bannon and Kushner have succeeded in getting the Prince-Feinberg military privatization concept to the top of Trump's mind.

[mongers]

BTW the reference to taking Afghanistan's mineral wealth and to Chinese miners is directly lifted from the "McArthur Model" editorial by Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater - already the subject of a prior thread.  This story is proof that Bannon and Kushner have succeeded in getting the Prince-Feinberg military privatization concept to the top of Trump's mind.

I think mind is too strong, it implies some coherence, say rather a bullshit idea has found the ideal receptacle, the bullshitter-in-chief.

[garbon]

He does love money.

[CountDeMoney]

You all knew it was going to be this way, you know.

[The Minsky Moment]

Interesting fact - more than six months in - here's what you get if you search for the National Security Council:

Home

National Security Council
Check back soon for more information.

Kind of says it all . . .

One feature of the Trump White House and cabinet is that there is no civilian with any meaningful expertise on the defense/security/foreign policy side. 

His defense/security team is heavily military: Mattis, McMaster, Waddell, Kellog - and now they are being reinforced with Kelly as Chief of Staff.  With Trump basically an empty chair on these issues, it raises real concern about blurring the bright line of civilian control over the military establishment.

Problem is - there is no real alternative.  There are some civilians with expertise but they are a few steps down the org chart.  Bossert I guess is the most senior civilian with real experience.   Tillerson is an oil man.  The only other source of advice for POTUS is Bannon and his people and the freelance son-in-law and they are in turn easy dupes for some shady nasty people.  Not to mention they are pretty shady on their own to begin with.

The Kelly appointment seems to have been the impetus for a mini-shadow coup, with Bannon's guys getting purged from the NSC.  One would expect Kelly to side with McMasters and against Bannon and it's hard to argue against that.   But it does mean that there will be no credible civilian voice to offer a differing perspective. 

[Grey Fox]

That's fine. The civilian side are christian white supremacists only there to siphon money out of the government.

[grumbler]

Interesting fact - more than six months in - here's what you get if you search for the National Security Council:

Home

National Security Council
Check back soon for more information.

Kind of says it all . . .

One feature of the Trump White House and cabinet is that there is no civilian with any meaningful expertise on the defense/security/foreign policy side. 

His defense/security team is heavily military: Mattis, McMaster, Waddell, Kellog - and now they are being reinforced with Kelly as Chief of Staff.  With Trump basically an empty chair on these issues, it raises real concern about blurring the bright line of civilian control over the military establishment.

Problem is - there is no real alternative.  There are some civilians with expertise but they are a few steps down the org chart.  Bossert I guess is the most senior civilian with real experience.   Tillerson is an oil man.  The only other source of advice for POTUS is Bannon and his people and the freelance son-in-law and they are in turn easy dupes for some shady nasty people.  Not to mention they are pretty shady on their own to begin with.

The Kelly appointment seems to have been the impetus for a mini-shadow coup, with Bannon's guys getting purged from the NSC.  One would expect Kelly to side with McMasters and against Bannon and it's hard to argue against that.   But it does mean that there will be no credible civilian voice to offer a differing perspective.

The civilians who have relevant backgrounds are seen as "part of the swamp."  I think Trump sincerely believes that the war in Afghanistan can be won if you just put the right guy in charge.  It can't be all that hard to win a war, after all.

[garbon]

Babur did it and he didn't have a shred of our tech or resources!

[The Brain]

He's an elephant.

[garbon]

He's an elephant.

Said the white imperialist.

[grumbler]

He's an elephant.

Katmai's real name is "Babur?" 

[The Brain]

He's an elephant.

Katmai's real name is "Babur?" 

Don't call him Babur.