Military Resistance 14K1
October 22, 2016 Military Times
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency To Reanimate Eisenhower’s Corpse In Time For Presidential Election:
“The Overwhelming Consensus Of The Troops Is That The Idea Of Either Current Major Party Candidate Being The Next Commander In Chief Makes Most In Uniform ‘Want To Suck-Start A Shotgun’”
The thought of the next Commander in Chief either being a probable felon who couldn’t protect national secrets if her life depended on it, or a blustering buffoon who “knows more about war than the generals” is just not that appealing, according to Stein, especially to the men and women who “will unfortunately have to execute whatever ill-conceived, cockamamie, fucking war that one of those two will inevitably get them into.”
November 3, 2016 by SaltySam, The Duffle Blog
THE PENTAGON — The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is attempting to bring President Dwight D. Eisenhower back to life, sources familiar with the top secret plans say.
“Let’s be honest,” said Dr. Frank Stein, the head of DARPA’s reanimation directorate. “We haven’t had a decent President since Eisenhower.
“After Ike, it’s either been them all getting us into endless wars or dipping their quills in every goddamn inkwell they can find.”
According to sources, the DOD has spent the past six months polling the military, and the overwhelming consensus of the troops is that the idea of either current major party candidate being the next Commander in Chief makes most in uniform “want to suck-start a shotgun.”
The thought of the next Commander in Chief either being a probable felon who couldn’t protect national secrets if her life depended on it, or a blustering buffoon who “knows more about war than the generals” is just not that appealing, according to Stein, especially to the men and women who “will unfortunately have to execute whatever ill-conceived, cockamamie, fucking war that one of those two will inevitably get them into.”
It was reported that Eisenhower was chosen over all preceding presidents due to his overwhelming popularity, the relative peace and prosperity experienced during his tenure, and his unimpeachable character.
However, sources close to the project indicate that Eisenhower’s prescient words upon leaving office, “beware the military-industrial complex,” have many inside the Pentagon concerned.
“That dead bastard Eisenhower will totally screw the sweet deal I have going with Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics,” Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, told reporters. “I have to put the kibosh on this.”
In response to DARPA’s announcement, the Clinton campaign released the following statement:
“If our troops are looking for leadership from among the walking dead, they needn’t look any further. Secretary Clinton sold her soul to the devil decades ago.”
Not to be outdone, Donald Trump tweeted, “Eisenhower was a hack. I like leaders who don’t die, ok?”
AFGHANISTAN WAR REPORTS
2 U.S. Troops Killed In Kunduz Province, Afghanistan:
26 Civilians Killed By U.S. Air Operations;
“Residents Later Carried More Than A Dozen Corpses Of The Dead, Including Children, Toward The Local Governor’s Office In A Show Of Rage”
November 3, 2016 By: Michelle Tan; Army Times & NBC News [Excerpts]
Two U.S. service members, 26 civilians and three local troops were killed and four others were wounded Thursday during operations in Kunduz province, Afghanistan, military officials have said.
The soldiers were working to clear a Taliban position and disrupt the group’s operations in a Kunduz district.
Two senior U.S. military officials told NBC News on Thursday that Afghan troops and U.S. military advisers were on a night raid against an unspecified Taliban target when they came under attack from gunfire after their helicopters landed in darkness. U.S. jets responded with air support, they said.
Afghan officials said they were still investigating the attack and its civilian casualties, some of which may have been caused by the airstrikes.
Residents later carried more than a dozen corpses of the dead, including children, toward the local governor’s office in a show of rage a year after American forces attacked an area hospital.
Kunduz official Mohammad Yousf Ayoubi and parliament member Malim Chari both told The Associated Press that civilians were killed in the fighting, though they had few details.
Dr. Mohammad Naim Mangal, the director of a Kunduz hospital, said his facility received the bodies of a dead man and a child and treated 30 people, including children, wounded in the fighting.
U.S. Brig. Gen. Charles Cleveland, briefing journalists in Brussels during a teleconference, said three Afghan troops were killed in the assault. Mohammad Radmanish, a deputy spokesman at the Afghan Defense Ministry, offered the same figure.
In a later statement, Cleveland said that "friendly forces received direct fire and airstrikes were conducted to defend themselves" and an investigation was underway.
He earlier described the assault as "not a common event," without elaborating.
POLITICIANS REFUSE TO HALT THE BLOODSHED
THE TROOPS HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THE WAR
Resistance Action
Nov 5 (AP)
KABUL, Afghanistan -- An Afghan official says one person has been killed after a sticky bomb targeted a district chief’s vehicle in the country’s east.
Attaullah Khogyani, spokesman for the provincial governor in Nangarhar province, said Saturday that the bomb was attached to the vehicle of Ghalib Mujahid, chief of the Bati Kot district. Mujahid’s driver was killed, and Mujahid and another person were wounded.
Elsewhere four people were wounded by a second sticky bomb attached to a police vehicle in the Afghan capital, Kabul, according to the office of the Kabul police chief.
US Military Assessment Of Taliban Control Of Afghan Districts Is Flawed:
“The US Military’s Estimate Does Not Explain How The Taliban Is Able To Support Multiple Concurrent Offensives Across The Country And Threaten Five Provincial Capitals”
November 2, 2016 By Bill Roggio, The Long War Journal. [Excerpts] Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of The Long War Journal.
The US military says that the Taliban “influences” at least 25 of Afghanistan’s 407 districts and controls only 8 more.
The numbers are at odds with an assessment by The Long War Journal of Taliban control in Afghanistan.
The US military’s estimate does not explain how the Taliban is able to support multiple concurrent offensives across the country and threaten five provincial capitals.
The US military’s estimate of Taliban control and influence of Afghan districts was reported by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, in its quarterly report to Congress that was released on Oct. 30. The data are current as of Aug. 28, 2016.
“[O]f the 407 districts within the 34 provinces, 258 districts were under government control (88 districts) or influence (170), 33 districts (in 16 provinces) were under insurgent control (8) or influence (25), and 116 districts were ‘contested,’ SIGAR noted, based on discussions with US Forces-Afghanistan, or USFOR-A.
“USFOR-A described contested districts as having ‘negligible meaningful impact from insurgents,’” SIGAR continued.
It is unclear if the so-called contested districts have a “negligible meaningful impact” from the Afghan government.
The names of the Taliban controlled and influenced districts, as well as those that are contested, were not disclosed by USFOR-A.
Additionally, USFOR-A said that the Afghan government controls or influences 68.5% of the population (~22.0 million) and controls 61.3% of Afghanistan’s territory (~350,000 square kilometers), and the Taliban controls or influences 8.1% (~2.8 million) and controls 8.7% of the ground (~66,000 square kilometers). The remaining 28.5% of the population (~7.3 million) and 22.7% of the land (~183,000 square kilometers) is contested.
The Long War Journal believes that the US military’s assessment of the state of play in Afghanistan’s districts is flawed.
A study by The Long War Journal estimates the Taliban controls 42 Afghan districts and contests (or influences) another 55. (Note, USFOR-A’s definition of “influence” matches that of LWJ’s definition of “contested.” The term “influenced/contested” will be used for clarity to describe these districts. LWJ does not assess districts that are defined by USFOR-A as “contested,” which means neither the Taliban or Afghan government hold sway.)
The number of Taliban controlled and influenced/contested districts has risen from 70 in October 2015 to 97 this month.
Districts under Taliban command are typically being administered by the group, or the group controls the district center. Additionally, districts where the district center frequently changes hands are considered Taliban-controlled. In influenced/contested districts, the Taliban dominates all of the areas of a district except the administrative center.
A map created by LWJ lists the districts thought to be controlled or influenced/contested by the Taliban.
For instance, the Taliban has traditionally held significant sway in many districts in eastern and northeastern Afghanistan, however the status of these districts cannot be assessed based on open source information.
Without USFOR-A’s list of Taliban controlled or influenced/contested districts, it is difficult to compare the discrepancies between the US military and LWJ’s assessments.
However, USFOR-A did provide information on one province which reveals that the military is providing a best-case scenario of the situation on the ground.
According to SIGAR, USFOR-A said that only 21% of Helmand province is controlled or influenced/contested. This means that, according to USFOR-A, only 3 of Helmand’s 14 districts are Taliban controlled or influenced/contested.
However, numerous local and international press reports indicate that all of Helmand remains a battleground, and the Taliban controls or influences/contests far more than three districts.
Based on these reports, LWJ has assessed that of Helmand’s 14 districts, six are known to be controlled by the Taliban (Now Zad, Nawa, Musa Qala, Baghran, Dishu, and Khanashin), and another seven, including the provincial capital, are heavily influenced/contested (Lashkar Gah, Nahr-i-Sarraj, Kajaki, Nad Ali, Marjah, Garmsir, and Sangin). The status of Washir district is uncertain as new reports from the district are scarce. Nearly all of Helmand has been controlled or influenced/contested for well over a year.
The situation in Helmand is so bleak that the Taliban has effectively surrounded the provincial capital of Lashkar Gah for well over a year, and have launched several forays into the city.
Less than three weeks ago, the Taliban ambushed a large convoy of Afghan troops after they negotiated their safe passage from their base on the outskirts of Lashkar Gah. More than 200 Afghan troops were killed, wounded, captured, or surrendered
The Taliban has also attacked four other provincial capitals: Kunduz City, Tairn Kot, Maimana, and Farah City over the past several months.
Additionally, last week, the Taliban cut off the main roads to Maidan Wardak, the capital of Wardak province just outside of Kabul.
In order to threaten these provincial capitals, the Taliban has deliberately sought to control the rural districts surrounding them.
These districts are vital to the Taliban’s insurgency.
The areas are used to recruit and train fighters, raise funds, resupply, and launch attacks into the population centers. This strategy was explained by Mullah Aminullah Yousuf, the Taliban’s shadow governor for Uruzgan, in April 2016.
Despite the success the Taliban has had employing this strategy, General John Nicholson, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan and Resolute Support, NATO’s mission in the country, has downplayed the Taliban’s control of rural areas.
Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai Denounces Slaughter Of Civilians By U.S. Airstrikes:
“I Saw The Photos Of The Victims. There Were Children From 6 Months To Toddlers, Near-Teens And Elders. Why?”
“Is This Really A War Against Terror, Or Is It Something Else In Which The Lives Of Afghans Don’t Matter?”
November 4 By Pamela Constable, Washington Post [Excerpts]
KABUL — Hamid Karzai, the former Afghan president, was in high dudgeon Friday morning. His children were playing hide-and-seek on the lawn outside his book-lined study, and a waiter had brought in trays of tea and cakes, but his mind was on a deadly NATO [translation: U.S. government] airstrike that killed 30 civilians in northern Kunduz province early Thursday.
“I spoke to the families yesterday. I saw the photos of the victims. There were children from 6 months to toddlers, near-teens and elders. Why?” Karzai demanded angrily. A few moments later, he turned to an aide and asked, “Was there any mention of this mass tragedy on CNN, on BBC? I didn’t see anything.”
The exact events in Kunduz were still unclear Friday, but Afghan officials confirmed an updated death toll of 30 civilians and at least 25 wounded in airstrikes launched outside the embattled provincial capital after a firefight with Taliban forces.
The civilian deaths sparked protests by victims’ relatives in Kunduz and denunciations by some rights groups, including Amnesty International. A recent U.N. report found that casualties attributed to pro-government forces here have jumped by 42 percent in the past year.
As Karzai saw it, the fatal bombings Thursday were further proof of his long-standing contention that the U.S. military role in Afghanistan has been misguided, needlessly deadly and possibly motivated by a cynical agenda that he believes has subordinated Afghan lives and sovereignty to strategic international goals.
“I am not an anti-Western person, but what has made me outspoken and angry at America are the casualties,” he said.
“Just show me one example of a bombing that has taken Afghanistan one step closer to peace. Fifteen years on, do we have more Taliban or less, more radicalization or less, more terror or less? Is this really a war against terror, or is it something else in which the lives of Afghans don’t matter?”
Afghanistan:
The War Trump And Clinton Have Ignored;
“Neither Of The Candidates’ Websites, Which Usually Go Into Detail On Policy Matters, Have A Mention Of The U.S. Military Presence In Afghanistan Or What To Do About It”
November 3, 2016 By: Robert Burns and Deb Riechmann, The Associated Press [Excerpts]
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have said next to nothing about how they would handle the war in Afghanistan.
That’s remarkable, given the enormous U.S. investment in blood and treasure over the past 15 years — including two American deaths on Thursday — the resilience of the Taliban insurgency and the risk of an Afghan government collapse that would risk empowering extremists and could force the next president’s hands.