Yeah, that's because I listened to the senate committee hearing this morning. Apparently you've been only enjoying the Examiner. Multiple times Republican members tried to phrase their questions for sound bites only and on two occasions it was pointed out that their recommendation was not to exceed the end of August. Specifically because it would not have helped.Originally Posted by Tgo01
SENATOR, AS A MATTER OF PROFESSIONAL ADVICE, I WOULD ADVISE ANY LEADER, DON'T PUT DATE CERTAINS ON END DATES. MAKE THINGS CONDITIONS BASED. TWO PRESIDENTS IN A ROW PUT DATES ON IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S -- MY ADVICE IS DON'T PUT SPECIFIC DATES. MAKE THINGS CONDITIONS BASED. THAT IS HOW I'VE BEEN TRAINED OVER MANY, MANY YEARS. WITH RESPECT TO, THOUGH, TO THE 31st AND THE DECISION ON THE 25th, THE RISK TO MISSION AND THE RISK TO FORCE, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE RISK TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT ARE REMAINING, THAT WAS GOING TO GO UP, NOT DOWN, ON THE 1st OF SEPTEMBER. AND THE AMERICAN CITIZENS -- I KNOW THERE'S AMERICAN CITIZENS THERE, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AT GREATER RISK HAD WE STAYED PAST THE 31st, IN OURPROFESSIONAL OPINION.IT WAS OF THE JOINT CHIEFS, PLUS GENERAL MILLEY, ADMIRAL VAZELY AND GENERAL DONAHUE. THE REASON WAS THE RISK TO AMERICAN MILITARY AND AMERICAN CITIZENS. WE WERE ALREADY IN CONFLICT WITH ISIS. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, IF WE STAYED PAST THE 31st, WHICH MILITARILY IS FEASIBLE BUT IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED AN ADDITIONAL COMMITMENT OF SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF FORCES, PROBABLY 15, 20, MAYBE 25,000 TROOPS. WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO DECLARE KABUL OF THE 6,000 TALIBAN THAT WERE ALREADY IN KABUL. THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEGINNING ON THE 1st. IT WOULD HAVE PUT U.S. CASUALTIES ON THE AMERICAN SIDE AND IT WOULD HAVE PUT CIVILIANS THAT ARE STILL THERE AT GREATER RISK. SO ON THE 25th WE RECOMMENDED WE SWITCH TO A DIPLOMATIC OPTION ON THE 31st.THAT'S CORRECT, SENATOR. WE SAID RISK TO MISSION, RISK TO FORCE AND RISK TO REMAINING AMERICAN CITIZENS IN AFGHANISTAN WAS GOING TO GO TO EXTREMELY HIGH BEGINNING SEPTEMBER IF WE STAYED PAST THE 31st WITH U.S. FORCES.YES, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ASSESSED. IF WE STAYED PAST THE 31st, THE RISK TO FORCE, CASUAL TIRKS THE RISK TO THE MISSION, THE ABILITY TO EXECUTE AND THE RISK TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS THAT ARE STILL THERE WAS GOING TO GO TO HIGH LEVELS AND WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A LEVEL OF RISK UNACCEPTABLE.I THINK THE POINT IS HAD WE STAYED PAST THAT DATE THAT WAS AGREED UPON EARLY ON, THAT THE TALIBAN WOULD BEGIN TO ATTACK OUR FORCES HERE. AND WE'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS ON HOW TO REINFORCE OUR FORCES SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE, QUITE POSSIBLY INCREASING THE FORCE.
AND IN THE AGREEMENT PRESIDENT TRUMP AGREED TO LEAVE WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON MAY 1st. THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN TESTIFIED BY THE PANEL THAT WERE REALLY NEVER ACHIEVED, NEVER CHALLENGED BY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION. WOULD YOU CONSIDER THAT AN AD VOCATION OR SURRENDER, THAT AGREEMENT?
I I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT CONDITIONS WERE PRESET. AND AGAIN WE LIVED UP TO ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WERE OBLIGED TO DO. WE DIDN'T ATTACK THEM. AND WE DREW DOWN OUR FORCES. BUT THE TALIBAN, THE ONLY THING THEY LIVED UP TO WAS THEY DIDN'T ATTACK US.
AND WE SAW A GREAT DEAL OF DIFFICULTY IN MEETING THE DEADLINE, WHICH WAS AUGUST 31st. WOULD IT APPEAR TO YOU THAT A MAY 1st DEADLINE WOULD HAVE CAUSED MORE COMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF GETTING EQUIPMENT OUT AND PERSONNEL OUT, IDENTIFYING AMERICANS ELIGIBLE TO LEAVE AND GETTING PAPERWORK, SINCE YOU WOULD BE DOING IT IN A MUCH SHORTER TIMEFRAME?
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FEESABLE TO DO IN AN ORDERLY FASHION.
Reply With Quote
