Gates Wants Afghan Withdrawal to Leave Combat Troops

“I would try and maximize my combat capability as long as this process goes on — I think that’s a no-brainer,” he said. “I’d opt to keep the shooters, and take the support out first.”

Mr. Gates also said he anticipated that the administration would conduct a review of force levels in Afghanistan that went far beyond simply announcing the number of troops returning home starting in July, as pledged by President Obama.

The administration was likely to create what Mr. Gates called “bookends,” an initial number to be withdrawn beginning in July and a date by which all of the 30,000 reinforcements sent last year would have departed Afghanistan.

His comments came during a farewell tour across south and southwestern Afghanistan, home to most of the 30,000 additional troops sent by Mr. Obama to push back a tenacious insurgency.

At each stop, the troops asked Mr. Gates about future force levels. He noted that many of the logistical, engineering and construction units sent to build housing and lay runways to support the surge now could be sent home while leaving the combat force undiminished.

He said that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Afghanistan, had not yet given the president formal options for withdrawing the 30,000 surge troops. A separate timetable would manage the departure of all foreign troops, including the rest of the American combat force beside the surge units, about 70,000 troops, by the end of 2014 as agreed by NATO and the Afghan government.

The decisions on forces in Afghanistan could mirror how Mr. Obama managed the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While a status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad requires American combat forces to leave by the end of this year, Mr. Obama unilaterally set an earlier date by which the military first reduced its presence to 50,000.

Senior Pentagon officials noted that after Mr. Obama set a firm deadline for dropping to 50,000 troops in Iraq, he then let his commanders in Baghdad manage the specifics of which units to order home and when, so long as they met the president’s ultimate timeline.

A similar system may be decided by the administration to manage the withdrawal of the surge units from Afghanistan, officials said, with General Petraeus, and his nominated successor, Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, given the leeway to decide how to draw down forces to meet the president’s deadline.

Mr. Gates advocated sustaining the combat force to continue pressing the insurgency to give up the fight and negotiate reconciliation with the government in Kabul. With continued success on the battlefield, Mr. Gates said, such talks could begin in earnest by late this year.

Mr. Gates also said the reduction of American troops should be carefully calibrated so as not to give allied nations “reason to rush to the exits.”

View the original article here

Gates Wants Afghan Withdrawal to Leave Combat Troops

 

“I would try and maximize my combat capability as long as this process goes on — I think that’s a no-brainer,” he said. “I’d opt to keep the shooters, and take the support out first.”

Mr. Gates also said he anticipated that the administration would conduct a review of force levels in Afghanistan that went far beyond simply announcing the number of troops returning home starting in July, as pledged by President Obama.

The administration was likely to create what Mr. Gates called “bookends,” an initial number to be withdrawn beginning in July and a date by which all of the 30,000 reinforcements sent last year would have departed Afghanistan.

His comments came during a farewell tour across south and southwestern Afghanistan, home to most of the 30,000 additional troops sent by Mr. Obama to push back a tenacious insurgency.

At each stop, the troops asked Mr. Gates about future force levels. He noted that many of the logistical, engineering and construction units sent to build housing and lay runways to support the surge now could be sent home while leaving the combat force undiminished.

He said that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Afghanistan, had not yet given the president formal options for withdrawing the 30,000 surge troops. A separate timetable would manage the departure of all foreign troops, including the rest of the American combat force beside the surge units, about 70,000 troops, by the end of 2014 as agreed by NATO and the Afghan government.

The decisions on forces in Afghanistan could mirror how Mr. Obama managed the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. While a status of forces agreement between Washington and Baghdad requires American combat forces to leave by the end of this year, Mr. Obama unilaterally set an earlier date by which the military first reduced its presence to 50,000.

Senior Pentagon officials noted that after Mr. Obama set a firm deadline for dropping to 50,000 troops in Iraq, he then let his commanders in Baghdad manage the specifics of which units to order home and when, so long as they met the president’s ultimate timeline.

A similar system may be decided by the administration to manage the withdrawal of the surge units from Afghanistan, officials said, with General Petraeus, and his nominated successor, Lt. Gen. John R. Allen, given the leeway to decide how to draw down forces to meet the president’s deadline.

Mr. Gates advocated sustaining the combat force to continue pressing the insurgency to give up the fight and negotiate reconciliation with the government in Kabul. With continued success on the battlefield, Mr. Gates said, such talks could begin in earnest by late this year.

Mr. Gates also said the reduction of American troops should be carefully calibrated so as not to give allied nations “reason to rush to the exits.”

View the original article here

Syrian Troops Reportedly Enter Restive Coastal City

The military’s move against Baniyas, a predominantly Sunni Muslim city that witnessed some of the largest protests in nationwide demonstrations a day earlier, was another signal that the Syrian government was determined to crush by force dissent that has posed a sweeping challenge to President Bashar al-Assad’s 11-year rule.

It comes nearly two weeks after the military stormed Dara’a, a poor town near the Jordanian border where protests galvanized demonstrations across the country.

Reports were scant, as the military succeeded in blocking communication with most people in the town. Opposition groups, relying on their networks there, said the military entered the city from three directions before dawn and that civilians were forming human shields to block their deployment. There were no immediate reports of fatalities, but opposition groups reported hearing intense gunfire over the phone lines.

Gunboats were spotted off the coast.

“Landlines and cell phones have been out since dawn and power outages are spreading,” one activist said on condition of anonymity, citing reports from Baniyas.

For days, residents had braced for an attack on Baniyas, as the Syrian military deployed scores of tanks and armored vehicles to the city’s southern outskirts. Paramilitary groups were said to have massed at its northern edge, populated by the minority Alawite sect, from which Mr. Assad’s government draws much of its support.

“They are preparing a scenario to justify raiding the city, they don’t have one yet and that is why they haven’t entered yet,” a resident there said by phone Friday. “When they will do they will make Baniyas a lesson to all the Syrians, and it is going to be ugly.”

On Friday, security forces fired on demonstrators in six Syrian towns and cities in a day of protests that activists declared a “Friday of Defiance,” killing 26. But a withering crackdown subdued the most restive town and prevented many protesters from gathering in larger demonstrations, activists and human rights groups said.

The worst violence was reported in Homs, Syria’s third-largest city, where activists described a chaotic, bloody day, as tanks entered the town. The government said 10 soldiers were killed there by what it described as “terrorists,” while activists said at least nine soldiers had defected to their side. Sixteen protesters were killed, they said.

Only in Baniyas and Jassem, a town near Dara’a, were demonstrators able to mass in larger protests. The resident in Baniyas said that protesters there had carried olive branches and red and white roses to hand to soldiers if the troops entered the city, but by evening they had not. He estimated that the crowd numbered at least 7,000, many of whom chanted for freedom, for the government’s fall and for the military to lift its siege of Dara’a. “Peaceful, peaceful,” he quoted them as chanting, “our demands are patriotic.”

Authorities have described Baniyas as a center of militant Islamists and even some activists acknowledge that they have a presence there, though by no means the majority. Civic leaders in Baniyas have insisted that the charge is a government ploy to stoke tensions between Sunni Muslims and Alawites, one of the fault lines in a country beset by smoldering sectarian tensions among the Sunni Muslim majority and minorities of Christians and heterodox Muslim sects. Eastern Syria is populated by an ethnic minority, Kurds, who appeared to turn out in greater numbers in the streets on Friday.

Mr. Assad, who inherited power from his father, Hafez, in 2000, initially claimed that Syria was immune to the tumult sweeping the Arab world. When the uprising erupted in Dara’a, he initially responded with a mix of crackdown and concessions that proved largely rhetorical. For the past two weeks, the government has almost entirely relied on force, and there appears to be a sense in official circles that the government has the upper hand. In addition to Baniyas, the towns on the capital’s outskirts, along with Homs, Syria’s third-largest city, and its hinterland have proven especially restive.

Activists said they had reports that electricity was cut to some of Damascus’ suburbs, which are said to be suffused with checkpoints and soldiers.

View the original article here

Sports of The Times: Mets Thank Troops in a Meaningful Setting

In a tasteful gesture to American troops in the wake of the mission against Osama bin Laden on Sunday night, the Mets’ management decided Monday morning to invite military personnel to see Tuesday’s game against the Giants.

“Four thousand tickets in 36 hours,” said Castleton, who has two sons and a daughter-in-law on active duty, often in combat. He serves by donating time and considerable energy to helping military people enjoy themselves in their off-hours.

Through his efforts, there was a modest military presence in the ballpark, which was still fairly desolate, despite the ultimate announced attendance of 32,288 for a game the Mets lost, 7-6, in 10 innings. The Mets and most other teams in baseball not drawing well because of the weather, the economy and perhaps the bloated prices of the luxury-box age.

Still, the 4,000 tickets were a nice touch, and so was the fact that the Mets had no intention of alluding to the daring mission that took out the nihilist responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001.

“We just want to say thank you,” said David Howard, the Mets’ executive vice president and general counsel, referring obliquely to what he called “the events of Sunday night.”

In addition to the military presence, it was also Asian Heritage Night, with Chinese dancers performing in the outfield before the game and a few fans in Indian saris spotted in the parking lot — a perfect potpourri for the ethnic borough of Queens.

The Mets did not intend to whip anybody into a patriotic mood akin to the spontaneous rally of Sunday night after Bin Laden’s death was announced, when young people swarmed to Lafayette Park outside the White House, climbing trees, boosting friends on their shoulders, waving flags and chanting “U.S.A.!,” the ubiquitous response to gold medals at the Olympics.

In Philadelphia, in a tie game meandering past midnight, fans chanted “U.S.A.!” It mystified the players for a while, but they caught on.

The Mets have been in the middle of responses to the attacks of 9/11. In 2001, the Mets went back to work in a subdued Pittsburgh, and the first game back in New York was at funky old Shea Stadium. New Yorkers were starting to make noise again, particularly when Mike Piazza’s home run won the game.

Bravado was still needed for the first World Series game in the Bronx late that October, and President George W. Bush’s swagger to the mound and his hard strike for the ceremonial first ball was a perfect body-language moment.

Over the years, the legacy of 9/11 became a patriotic ritual before the home half of the seventh at Yankee Stadium — long enough to freeze relief pitchers who had already warmed up.

To their credit, the Mets played it low-key Tuesday, as five service members in uniform threw out the first ball. Greg and Valerie Jensen of Ridgefield, Conn., who had paid $10,000 in an auction to throw out the ball, graciously deferred to another night. And here and there, some military uniforms were seen.

Marine Sgt. Elizabeth Qui?ones sang “God Bless America” during the traditional stretch, and the fans cheered.

It is a fact that the Mets have extra tickets. Attendance is down all over the majors, and even the Giants, the World Series champions, are not a big draw on the road. The Mets have a history with the military. Fred Wilpon helped found ’Welcome Back Veterans, which provides services for returning military members and their families. The tickets were available — and the Mets put the tickets in the hand of Castleton, who runs an Internet consulting company, in West Islip on Long Island.

“This is a wonderful country,” said Castleton, who never served in the military and is proud of his three family members who do. He was raving about the mission in Pakistan. “Kudos to the Seals for having the guts to do it, and kudos to President Obama for having the guts to order it,” he said. “And I’m a Republican,” he added.

Castleton said one of his favorite sights at U.S.O. functions is Iraq veterans looking up to Vietnam veterans. “They revere them,” he said. As Johnny Cash put it in his classic song “Drive On”:

“He said I think my country got a little off track

It took ’em twenty-five years to welcome me back.”

Castleton and the U.S.O. and the Mets found one way to welcome troops back.

But tickets are not everything. Families are under terrible stress without an adequate support system, and veterans often have to virtually beg for care when they come home damaged in body and mind.

Not long after the strike against Bin Laden, an editorial in The New York Times discussed a shortages of judges, a result of political squabbling over appointments and said, “The bureaucratic logjam for veterans pursuing benefit claims has gotten so huge that judges — in Dickensian fashion — are having to work nights and weekends as they decide more than 600 cases each annually.” The first lady, Michelle Obama, has spoken up for more support for the families of veterans.

A trip to the ballpark — and Olympic-style chants over the death of a murderer — are nice, as far as they go. They are not quite the same as a grateful nation remembering how to take care of its own.

 

Some Troops Should Stay in Iraq, Speaker Says

WASHINGTON — After a high-level trip to Iraq, House Speaker John A. Boehner said on Tuesday that he would support keeping a contingent of troops in Iraq beyond the end of the year, when all American forces are scheduled to be withdrawn.

Speaker John A. Boehner recently visited Iraq, as well as Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The latest on President Obama, the new Congress and other news from Washington and around the nation. Join the discussion.

Mr. Boehner, in an interview with news organizations, said he reached that decision after meetings with American military and diplomatic officials in Iraq as well as conversations with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that convinced him of looming gaps in Iraqi security arrangements.

“I think Iraq is critical to our immediate and long-term national security interests,” said Mr. Boehner, who also visited Pakistan and Afghanistan over the spring Congressional recess. He added that too much had been invested “to simply just walk away.”

“I think a small residual force should remain and the sooner the administration engages the Iraqi government, I think the better off we are going to be,” he said.

As the top Republican and chief official of the House, Mr. Boehner’s position carries enormous weight in Congress and his view would be crucial in shaping the Republican majority’s military and fiscal position on Iraq. He would be likely to meet resistance from members of both parties who believe the occupation has gone on too long and is too costly given the current fight over budget deficits.

Under the current framework, all American soldiers are to be out of Iraq before the beginning of 2012, a departure specified in a security agreement between the two countries. But there have been indications that the Iraqi government is willing to ask that some troops stay longer. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has suggested that some American military forces could remain.

Even as he supported the idea, Mr. Boehner noted the situation was politically delicate in Iraq and in the United States, where President Obama has pledged to withdraw American forces.

Mr. Boehner said he had no recommendation on the size of the contingent that might remain or how long the troops should stay, but the military has been exploring the idea of a force of about 10,000, people briefed on the plan said. At the end of April, there were 47,000 American troops in Iraq.

“There is assistance they are going to need,” Mr. Boehner said. “I would hope that our military and diplomatic officials begin serious conversations with the Iraqis in terms of identifying those gaps in their security that they have and try to come to an agreement as soon as possible.”

 

Afghanistan War Report Cites Progress By Troops

 

WASHINGTON — Tangible progress has been made in expanding security across Afghanistan, the Pentagon reported on Friday, saying that successes on the battlefield over the past several months could be attributed to the 30,000 additional troops sent to the war by President Obama.

But the optimistic tone of the report was tempered by assessments from senior officials in Kabul and Washington that the Taliban and other insurgent groups were expected to attempt spectacular counterattacks, perhaps in the near future.

Fighting across Afghanistan usually increases each year with the spring thaw, and Pentagon and military officials say they expect insurgent leaders to make a major effort soon to prove that their loss of territory to Mr. Obama’s troop increase could be reversed this year.

A senior Pentagon official agreed that the latest update’s tone was more optimistic, even if cautiously so, than that of previous reports, which since 2009 have described the security situation in Afghanistan as deteriorating. Congress requires the progress reports twice a year.

American, allied and Afghan forces have halted the insurgency’s momentum and have achieved “tangible progress in some really key areas,” the Pentagon official said.

Echoing a view often expressed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, the official warned that the assessment clearly noted that the advances were fragile and reversible.

“It does show progress,” said the official, who briefed reporters under ground rules imposed by the Pentagon that precluded identifying him by name. “It also points out that we do have a resilient enemy,” the official added.

There remain significant shortages of foreign trainers, hampering the development of Afghan security forces, the official noted. And progress in economic development and governance has not kept pace with advances on the battlefield. In addition, corruption across all levels of government puts the military’s gains at risk.

“There is still a lot to do,” the official said. He agreed with military and intelligence officers who said that the public should “expect spectacular attacks” by the insurgency.

The Taliban recently scored both a tactical and a propaganda victory with a major prison break of insurgent fighters. In anticipation of an increasing pace of attacks and bombings, the official contended that individual acts of insurgent violence would not be enough to derail the allied and Afghan campaign.

Noting advances made by allied and Afghan security forces, in particular in the insurgent heartland of southern Afghanistan, the official said that “the pushback of the Taliban out of these key areas in the last year is really a strategic defeat for the Taliban.”

“How they respond, whether it’s attacks there, attacks elsewhere, I don’t know,” the official said.?“But given that strategic setback that they’ve suffered, they’re going to try and send messages to the population in other ways that they’re going to be able to come back.? And that’s going to be a big challenge for the Afghan forces, for us, as those efforts are made.”

The report on progress and stability in Afghanistan again cited the harmful effects of the safe havens that insurgent fighters maintain across the border in Pakistan, allowing them to rest, plan and train before moving back into Afghanistan to mount attacks.

The report was released as General Petraeus was finalizing his proposals for how quickly to start withdrawing American forces from Afghanistan in July, as ordered by the president.

 

Blasts Kill 3 NATO Troops in Afghanistan, Joint Forces Kill 3 Top Insurgents

 VOA News ?April 24, 2011

An Army carry team carries the transfer case containing the remains of Army Sgt. John Castro, of Andrews, Texas, at Dover Air Force Base, DE Saturday, April 23, 2011

NATO says roadside bombs in southern Afghanistan have killed three of its personnel, while coalition and Afghan forces in the east have dealt a blow to the Haqqani insurgent group by killing three of its leaders.

The NATO alliance says the roadside bombings killed one of its service members Sunday and two others on Saturday. Another NATO service member died Saturday when a coalition helicopter crashed in the eastern province of Kapisa. The cause is under investigation. The nationalities of the four NATO personnel have not been disclosed.

NATO also confirmed Sunday that coalition and Afghan forces killed the three Haqqani network leaders in a joint operation Friday in eastern Afghanistan's Khost province. The group has close ties to al-Qaida and operates primarily in the Afghan provinces of Khost, Paktika and Paktiya.

The alliance named one of those killed as Salih Khan, whom it said trained bomb makers, organized car bombings and directed logistics and communications for Haqqani insurgents in the Nadir Shah Kot district of Khost. It said Khan led 20 fighters in two attacks on coalition bases in the past week.

NATO said coalition and Afghan troops have captured or killed at least 15 Haqqani leaders and 130 other Haqqani insurgents so far this year.

The coalition also said a combined force captured a Taliban insurgent leader and several of his associates in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. It said the senior militant provided weapons to insurgents in Kunduz and was responsible for attacks on multiple targets, including election sites last September.

In other violence, the Afghan government said a gunman assassinated a former top local government official in the southern province of Helmand late Saturday. It said Abdul Zahir was killed in the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah. He had served as the civilian chief of Helmand's Marjah district.

[All VOA blogs...]

Going Green
Watch Rebecca Ward's report on the BP?Gulf oil spill - one year later.

 

Iraq Must Decide Within Weeks if U.S. Troops Will Stay Past 2011, Top Official Says

The official, Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said there were “irrevocable logistics and operational decisions” that had to be made by the United States before the withdrawal of forces was scheduled to accelerate.

“For the withdrawal, there’s what I call a physics problem,” Admiral Mullen said at a news conference at Camp Victory, the sprawling American base here. “We have 47,000 troops here, lots of equipment, and physically it just takes time to move them.”

He said, “Time is running short for any negotiations to occur.”

Admiral Mullen made his statements after meeting with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and high-ranking Iraqi military officials on Thursday. He said that there had been no formal discussions about United States forces remaining here.

“Should the Iraqi government desire to discuss the potential for some U.S. troops to stay, I am certain my government will welcome that dialogue,” he said.

The United States and Iraq agreed in 2008 that all American U.S. forces would leave by the end of this year.

Since the agreement, violence has decreased significantly, and Iraqi security forces have taken over patrolling the streets. But the Iraqis still lack the capacity to defend their borders and airspace, and they rely heavily on the American forces for intelligence sharing and training.

Independent military analysts and officials of both countries believe that if all American forces leave as scheduled, it could threaten security in Iraq, where there are daily explosions and where ethnic tensions remain high. A continued American military presence could also serve as a counterbalance to Iran, which has significant influence here.

Complicating matters are plans for the State Department to have a huge presence in Iraq after the end of this year. There are many questions among policymakers in Washington about whether the State Department can operate here without the logistical support and protection of the American military. The State Department is planning to roughly double its size in Iraq, to about 16,000 people, and it will require an army of private contractors to protect its personnel.

When the leaders of the United States and Iraq negotiated the agreement in 2008, the timetable was primarily created so that Iraqi political leaders could show their constituencies that they were taking a stand against the long-term presence of American troops. It was understood by both parties at the time that Iraq’s security forces would not be ready to defend the country by 2011, and that a new deal would be needed.

But since then, domestic politics in both countries have made it difficult for American troops to stay on beyond this year, even as military leaders on both sides acknowledge that Iraq’s security forces are not ready to defend the country on their own.

President Obama rose to national prominence opposing the Iraq war, and in his recent public comments, like his State of the Union address and his recent speech on Libya, he has emphasized that American troops will be leaving Iraq.

In Baghdad, Mr. Maliki has to contend with constituencies and coalition partners who oppose the United States’ presence. Moktada al-Sadr, the radical and anti-American Shiite cleric, for one, has vowed to renew insurgent warfare if American soldiers stay.

Mr. Sadr, whose Mahdi Army twice fought significant battles with American and coalition forces, became a prominent political player in Iraq after candidates loyal to him won 39 seats in last year’s parliamentary election.

“Sadr has been a significant complicating factor in Iraq for a long period of time,” Admiral Mullen said.

Referring to Mr. Sadr’s threat against American forces if they remain beyond this year, Admiral Mullen said: “Iraq has seen more than its fair share of violence and death. So I think a statement like that is irresponsible in terms of taking care of Iraqi citizens in the future.

“And obviously it will take the political leadership here in Iraq from every single party to come together to make sure that Iraq is stable and better for the Iraqi people and not return to the violence, which has been so devastating in recent years.”

 

French troops advance in Abidjan

 11 April 2011 Last updated at 08:08 ET A pro-Gbagbo naval base in Abidjan was on fire after the air strikes on Sunday French ground troops have entered the centre of the main Ivory Coast city of Abidjan for the fist time as incument leader Laurent Gbagbo refuses to quit.

Helicopter gunships are firing in the area around Mr Gbagbo's residence.

On Sunday, UN and French helicopter gunships began a new operation they said was aimed at destroying heavy weapons near Mr Gbagbo's residence.

Mr Gbagbo has been refusing to cede power to internationally-recognised President Alassane Ouattara.

Loud explosions can be heard echoing around the lagoons which surround the centre of the city, says the BBC's Mark Doyle in Abidjan.

On Monday morning, a large column of French armoured vehicles left the French military base in Abidjan.

A spokesman for Mr Ouattara has said his troops were involved as well, and that this was the largest joint attack since the conflict began.

The action will not stop until Mr Gbagbo steps down, the spokesman added.

French helicopter strikes have partially destroyed Mr Gbagbo's residence, one of his ministers said.

But the Ivorian leader was still alive, according to one of his spokesmen in Paris, quoted by Reuters news agency.

An aide to French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said the French strikes are to avoid a "bloodbath" rather than to depose Mr Gbagbo.

Sunday strikes

Monday's strikes came a day after a hotel serving as the headquarters for Mr Ouattara came under fire.

The French, who are by far the best equipped military force in Ivory Coast, are operating with a United Nations mandate, our correspondent adds.

Their official justification for Monday's action is to remove Mr Gbagbo's heavy weapons, which the UN says have been used against civilians, and have also been targeting the UN.

Mr Gagbo's side says this is just a pretext, and that the French want to kill the incumbent leader.

Mr Gbagbo has been surrounded in his residence for days by pro-Ouattara troops.