JUST the Stolen Documents/Mar-A-Lago/"Judge" Cannon Trial

[njbill]

This reinforces my hunch that this is primarily to facilitate a legacy narrative document dump.

I think you may be right about that, not that I agree with declassifying material to further Trump’s personal agenda.

[old salt]

This reinforces my hunch that this is primarily to facilitate a legacy narrative document dump.

I think you may be right about that, not that I agree with declassifying material to further Trump’s personal agenda.

They can give the classified stuff to Senate committees. They can hold closed hearings then issue a non-specific unclass report with a classified annex if necessary. They can blur Azra Turk's face & tattoos, so long as they release pics.

[old salt]

JIm Jeffrey proudly acknowledges his Syrian shell game. Like Mattis, Kelly & McMaster, he prevented Trump from damaging the national interest.
Remarkable sleight of hand by a dedicated nonpartisan career diplomat.

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020 ... rd/170012/

[old salt]

Looks like the rumored Afghan pullout may be a troop reduction from 4,500 to 2,500 by Feb.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

The new appointees include Christopher Miller, who leapfrogged several more senior administration officials in the Pentagon to become acting defense secretary; Kash Patel, a former aide of Trump ally Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.); and Douglas Macgregor, a retired Army colonel who has often called for the end of the war in Afghanistan.

Miller, most recently the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and Patel have both worked at length with national security adviser Robert O’Brien, who has disagreed publicly in recent weeks with Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about what the administration’s plan entails.

During a speech last month, O’Brien announced at an event in Las Vegas that the United States “will go down to 2,500” by early next year in Afghanistan.

Milley dismissed those remarks during an interview with NPR as “speculation” and said the United States wanted to end the war “responsibly” and “deliberately.”

O’Brien then doubled down. “When I’m speaking, I’m speaking for the president, and I think that’s what the Pentagon is moving out and doing,” he said.

Jonathan Rath Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement Friday that Miller is working with Trump and the entire national security team “on meeting our Afghanistan strategic objectives.” In calls and meetings with NATO partners this week, Miller “consistently assured them of our process with respect to Afghanistan,” Hoffman added.

One former senior government official who occasionally talks to the president said he thought it was possible that Trump may order cuts to 2,500. The official questioned the wisdom of that, saying it gives away “leverage in the peace negotiations.”

Miller is seen by others in the administration as open to cutting deeper than 4,500. In a memo to the Defense Department released on Friday night, he said that the war against al-Qaeda has been long and is not over, but that it is time “we transition our efforts from a leadership role to a supporting role.”

“We are not a people of perpetual war — it is the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought,” Miller wrote. “All wars must end.”

He made no mention of the Pentagon’s shift over the past few years to focus first on security concerns raised by China.

On Friday he spoke to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about issues that include Afghanistan, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said in an email.

“We have been in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, and no NATO ally wants to stay any longer than necessary,” Lungescu said. “At the same time, we want to preserve the gains made with such sacrifice, and to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists that can attack the United States or any other NATO ally.”

Partner nations have made clear to the Trump administration that they cannot and will not remain in Afghanistan if there is a complete U.S. withdrawal, but have been told by Miller that there has been no change in policy and there will be no surprises.

The Afghan government has not been informed of a change to the U.S. withdrawal timeline, according to an Afghan official. President Ashraf Ghani’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and U.S. Forces Afghanistan referred questions to the Pentagon.

The possibility of a rapid withdrawal comes as violence has spiked in Afghanistan. The latest government watchdog report states that attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government groups had recently spiked 50 percent. In the regions hardest hit, local officials are warning that if the withdrawal timeline is accelerated, government forces might be unable to defend themselves.

“If we didn’t have American airstrikes, the Taliban would be in Lashkar Gah today,” said Sher Mahmad Akhunzada, a member of Parliament, referring to Helmand’s provincial capital.

One U.S. official said the time frame associated with a potential drawdown decision would inform the logistics of that process and “how much more dangerous it would be rather than a fully planned and well-executed withdrawal.”

The official said that while there is “some indication” that the Taliban has ordered its fighters not to attack American personnel, that might not hold true during a final withdrawal. As U.S. personnel make rapid air and ground movements to prepare for their departure and remaining facilities becoming more scarcely manned, “it would be more difficult to get out safely and rapidly,” the official said.

A rushed exit would also likely mean leaving behind valuable equipment. Some large hardware containing sensitive technology, like the UH-60 Blackhawk, can fit in the back of a cargo plane. But other sensitive items would need to be destroyed in place.

Edward Dorman, a retired major general who served as U.S. Central Command’s director for logistics from 2016 to 2018, said that if an American departure is authorized, some U.S. bases or facilities would probably be turned over to the Afghan military, as long as officials were confident they would be maintained and not lost to the Taliban.

Even if a handover does occur, it would require significant steps to prepare. Bases that weren’t handed over to the Afghan military would need to be torn down and, either way, environmental remediation would likely be required.

Biden has not directly addressed the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February, leading to the partial withdrawal of troops that is now underway. But he has said he plans to reduce the number of troops to “several thousand” to ensure that neither al-Qaeda nor the Islamic State is in a position to launch attacks against the United States.

Michele Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official who is seen as a leading candidate for defense secretary under Biden, has said that a “precipitous” withdrawal would undermine peace and that a counterterrorism force should remain in Afghanistan at least until a comprehensive agreement between the Taliban and Afghan government is in place.

The U.S.-Taliban deal promises full U.S. withdrawal by the end of April if its conditions, including Taliban negotiations with the Afghan government and a reduction in violence, have been met. It contains no provision for a residual U.S. counterterrorism force.

Asked whether Biden plans to continue with the deal, the withdrawal and the current U.S. envoy to the peace talks, Zalmay Khalilzad, a Biden spokesperson said Friday that “President-elect Biden laid out an extensive foreign agenda over the course of the campaign and looks forward to delivering on it once in office.”

The spokesperson, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said that no more details would be offered at this time. Biden, he said, “firmly believes in the principle that there must be only one president at a time guiding our country’s foreign policy and national security as he is focused on preparing to govern.”

[cradleandshoot]

Looks like the rumored Afghan pullout may be a troop reduction from 4,500 to 2,500 by Feb.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

The new appointees include Christopher Miller, who leapfrogged several more senior administration officials in the Pentagon to become acting defense secretary; Kash Patel, a former aide of Trump ally Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.); and Douglas Macgregor, a retired Army colonel who has often called for the end of the war in Afghanistan.

Miller, most recently the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, and Patel have both worked at length with national security adviser Robert O’Brien, who has disagreed publicly in recent weeks with Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about what the administration’s plan entails.

During a speech last month, O’Brien announced at an event in Las Vegas that the United States “will go down to 2,500” by early next year in Afghanistan.

Milley dismissed those remarks during an interview with NPR as “speculation” and said the United States wanted to end the war “responsibly” and “deliberately.”

O’Brien then doubled down. “When I’m speaking, I’m speaking for the president, and I think that’s what the Pentagon is moving out and doing,” he said.

Jonathan Rath Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement Friday that Miller is working with Trump and the entire national security team “on meeting our Afghanistan strategic objectives.” In calls and meetings with NATO partners this week, Miller “consistently assured them of our process with respect to Afghanistan,” Hoffman added.

One former senior government official who occasionally talks to the president said he thought it was possible that Trump may order cuts to 2,500. The official questioned the wisdom of that, saying it gives away “leverage in the peace negotiations.”

Miller is seen by others in the administration as open to cutting deeper than 4,500. In a memo to the Defense Department released on Friday night, he said that the war against al-Qaeda has been long and is not over, but that it is time “we transition our efforts from a leadership role to a supporting role.”

“We are not a people of perpetual war — it is the antithesis of everything for which we stand and for which our ancestors fought,” Miller wrote. “All wars must end.”

He made no mention of the Pentagon’s shift over the past few years to focus first on security concerns raised by China.

On Friday he spoke to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg about issues that include Afghanistan, NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said in an email.

“We have been in Afghanistan for almost 20 years, and no NATO ally wants to stay any longer than necessary,” Lungescu said. “At the same time, we want to preserve the gains made with such sacrifice, and to ensure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists that can attack the United States or any other NATO ally.”

Partner nations have made clear to the Trump administration that they cannot and will not remain in Afghanistan if there is a complete U.S. withdrawal, but have been told by Miller that there has been no change in policy and there will be no surprises.

The Afghan government has not been informed of a change to the U.S. withdrawal timeline, according to an Afghan official. President Ashraf Ghani’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and U.S. Forces Afghanistan referred questions to the Pentagon.

The possibility of a rapid withdrawal comes as violence has spiked in Afghanistan. The latest government watchdog report states that attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government groups had recently spiked 50 percent. In the regions hardest hit, local officials are warning that if the withdrawal timeline is accelerated, government forces might be unable to defend themselves.

“If we didn’t have American airstrikes, the Taliban would be in Lashkar Gah today,” said Sher Mahmad Akhunzada, a member of Parliament, referring to Helmand’s provincial capital.

One U.S. official said the time frame associated with a potential drawdown decision would inform the logistics of that process and “how much more dangerous it would be rather than a fully planned and well-executed withdrawal.”

The official said that while there is “some indication” that the Taliban has ordered its fighters not to attack American personnel, that might not hold true during a final withdrawal. As U.S. personnel make rapid air and ground movements to prepare for their departure and remaining facilities becoming more scarcely manned, “it would be more difficult to get out safely and rapidly,” the official said.

A rushed exit would also likely mean leaving behind valuable equipment. Some large hardware containing sensitive technology, like the UH-60 Blackhawk, can fit in the back of a cargo plane. But other sensitive items would need to be destroyed in place.

Edward Dorman, a retired major general who served as U.S. Central Command’s director for logistics from 2016 to 2018, said that if an American departure is authorized, some U.S. bases or facilities would probably be turned over to the Afghan military, as long as officials were confident they would be maintained and not lost to the Taliban.

Even if a handover does occur, it would require significant steps to prepare. Bases that weren’t handed over to the Afghan military would need to be torn down and, either way, environmental remediation would likely be required.

Biden has not directly addressed the U.S.-Taliban agreement signed in February, leading to the partial withdrawal of troops that is now underway. But he has said he plans to reduce the number of troops to “several thousand” to ensure that neither al-Qaeda nor the Islamic State is in a position to launch attacks against the United States.

Michele Flournoy, a former top Pentagon official who is seen as a leading candidate for defense secretary under Biden, has said that a “precipitous” withdrawal would undermine peace and that a counterterrorism force should remain in Afghanistan at least until a comprehensive agreement between the Taliban and Afghan government is in place.

The U.S.-Taliban deal promises full U.S. withdrawal by the end of April if its conditions, including Taliban negotiations with the Afghan government and a reduction in violence, have been met. It contains no provision for a residual U.S. counterterrorism force.

Asked whether Biden plans to continue with the deal, the withdrawal and the current U.S. envoy to the peace talks, Zalmay Khalilzad, a Biden spokesperson said Friday that “President-elect Biden laid out an extensive foreign agenda over the course of the campaign and looks forward to delivering on it once in office.”

The spokesperson, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said that no more details would be offered at this time. Biden, he said, “firmly believes in the principle that there must be only one president at a time guiding our country’s foreign policy and national security as he is focused on preparing to govern.”

Bidens Lackeys can nope that in the bud

[kramerica.inc]

In reading some of the posts above, I note how righties condemn Obama's use of drones in killing Iraqis but they have no problem with traitor Bush's lies about WMD which caused the war. No outrage over Abu Ghraib, no outrage over the needless deaths of Americans, no outrage over the USA's loss of international estimation, and no outrage over the incredible increase in the nation's debt because of this needless imperialistic war.

Double standards, much???

Lame Duck Trump likely to order further withdrawal of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan:

https://twitter.com/breaking911/status/ ... 96259?s=21

[dislaxxic]

Republicans livid over Trump’s plan to reduce troops in Afghanistan

..

[CU77]

Trump's refusal to start the transition is a yuge security risk. There is NO excuse for this.

[Farfromgeneva]

More good stuff

https://www.axios.com/trump-fires-cyber ... 7f7bd.html

[old salt]

BFD

[CU77]

How about the troop drawdowns o.s.? Yea or nay?

[old salt]

How about the troop drawdowns o.s.? Yea or nay?

A tentative Yea, ....so long as the Pentagon has a quick response backfill contingency plan available. I don't have access to detailed information to hold an informed opinion. Depending on how it is structured, manned & equipped, a residual force of 2500 can be a significant force with which to sustain a presence, protect our advisers, diplomats & embassies, share intel with our host govts, & call in air strikes or evac flights, if necessary, to prevent a Saigon-like pullout scenario in Afghanistan &/or Iraq.

This is a phased drawdown, not a regional pullout. We still have substantial, mobile combat power staged in the region on the ground, offshore & just over the horizon. We're leaving forces on the ground with our Kurdish allies in Iraq & Syria & with our Arab allies in the region.
It also leaves a basis, & sufficient time, for the incoming Biden admin to backfill as they deem necessary.

Apparently, this is the only way we can end our post 9-11 wars. We're finally acknowledging we've done all we can to transform the societies which attacked us, their nations of origin & the safe havens which spawned them.
The military will always push for as much as we can get to improve our odds.
Members of Congress are influenced by vets, bases & industries in their jurisdictions,
Trump is doing all he can responsibly do to follow through on his campaign promises, leaving Biden the opportunity to implement his strategy.

[seacoaster]

How about the troop drawdowns o.s.? Yea or nay?

A tentative Yea, ....so long as the Pentagon has a quick response backfill contingency plan available. I don't have access to detailed information to hold an informed opinion. Depending on how it is structured, manned & equipped, a residual force of 2500 can be a significant force with which to sustain a presence, protect our advisers, diplomats & embassies, share intel with our host govts, & call in air strikes or evac flights, if necessary, to prevent a Saigon-like pullout scenario in Afghanistan &/or Iraq.

This is a phased drawdown, not a regional pullout. We still have substantial, mobile combat power staged in the region on the ground, offshore & just over the horizon. We're leaving forces on the ground with our Kurdish allies in Iraq & Syria & with our Arab allies in the region.
It also leaves a basis, & sufficient time, for the incoming Biden admin to backfill as they deem necessary.

Apparently, this is the only way we can end our post 9-11 wars. We're finally acknowledging we've done all we can to transform the societies which attacked us, their nations of origin & the safe havens which spawned them.
The military will always push for as much as we can get to improve our odds.
Members of Congress are influenced by vets, bases & industries in their jurisdictions,
Trump is doing all he can responsibly do to follow through on his campaign promises, leaving Biden the opportunity to implement his strategy.

Did the President do this unilaterally, or did the JCOS and service heads agree? Because it does seem like Trump is simply leaving a very thin force on the ground in a volatile area, creating potential issues and flash points for his successor. Instead of transition, is Trump preparing the ground so that a Biden Administration is hamstrung or at risk (and using the 2500 person force to do it)? And yes, I am paranoid.

[CU88]

How about the troop drawdowns o.s.? Yea or nay?

A tentative Yea, ....so long as the Pentagon has a quick response backfill contingency plan available. I don't have access to detailed information to hold an informed opinion. Depending on how it is structured, manned & equipped, a residual force of 2500 can be a significant force with which to sustain a presence, protect our advisers, diplomats & embassies, share intel with our host govts, & call in air strikes or evac flights, if necessary, to prevent a Saigon-like pullout scenario in Afghanistan &/or Iraq.

This is a phased drawdown, not a regional pullout. We still have substantial, mobile combat power staged in the region on the ground, offshore & just over the horizon. We're leaving forces on the ground with our Kurdish allies in Iraq & Syria & with our Arab allies in the region.
It also leaves a basis, & sufficient time, for the incoming Biden admin to backfill as they deem necessary.

Apparently, this is the only way we can end our post 9-11 wars. We're finally acknowledging we've done all we can to transform the societies which attacked us, their nations of origin & the safe havens which spawned them.
The military will always push for as much as we can get to improve our odds.
Members of Congress are influenced by vets, bases & industries in their jurisdictions,
Trump is doing all he can responsibly do to follow through on his campaign promises, leaving Biden the opportunity to implement his strategy.

This is the OS that I come to these boards for reading. Thanks for the input.

[foreverlax]

At least Trump isn't telling anyone....he believes very strongly in not telling anyone about our military plans.

[CU88]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil," goes the quote typically attributed to Edmund Burke, "is for good men to do nothing."

[CU88]

Right now, Ivanka Trump has access to information that Joe Biden doesn't.

Let that sink in for a minute.

[a fan]

Right now, Ivanka Trump has access to information that Joe Biden doesn't.

Let that sink in for a minute.

It's pretty hilarious that we haven't even started Bidens term, and FoxNation hypocrites who complained about Obama sabotaging Trump's transition and first year are completely MIA.

Like this is a surprise.

[cradleandshoot]

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil," goes the quote typically attributed to Edmund Burke, "is for good men to do nothing."

It is so true of some tin horn dictators and a few fanatical regimes we see around the planet today. It sure warms the cackles of my soul they are working desperately to get nuclear weapons or perfect the systems they already have. Is that part of the quote appropriate where good men do nothing?

[cradleandshoot]

Right now, Ivanka Trump has access to information that Joe Biden doesn't.

Let that sink in for a minute.

It's pretty hilarious that we haven't even started Bidens term, and FoxNation hypocrites who complained about Obama sabotaging Trump's transition and first year are completely MIA.

Like this is a surprise.

I thought it was HRC that sabotaged trumps transition? That is what trumps people were saying. BHO just wanted to go out and make speeches and make his family a whole lotta money. IMO the first thing BHO did when he left office was to rip the rear view mirror off of the car. What was behind him was no longer important.