House investigation into military's Afghan withdrawal quietly makes inroads

[mystery-ak]

House investigation into military's Afghan withdrawal quietly makes inroads
by Mike Brest, Defense Reporter
December 17, 2023 04:00 AM

The House investigation into the Biden administration's military withdrawal from Afghanistan more than two years ago is continuing to progress even as it's out of the spotlight.

House Foreign Affairs Committee investigators have conducted more than 15 transcribed interviews in the last six months with various current or former administration officials, a committee aide told the Washington Examiner.

The interviews were with Brian McKeon, former Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources; Amb. Ross Wilson, former chief of mission at Embassy Kabul; Amb. Zalmay Khalilzad, previously the Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation; Ned Price, the former State Department spokesman and now a senior adviser to Secretary Antony Blinken; and Suzy George, Blinken's chief of staff, among others.

"I'll say what we've learned so far was that this was entirely predictable," the aide said. "The State Department had blinders up, you know, after the Biden administration took over in January 2021. I'll say the one thing that has become very apparent through this Kabul-centric approach with respect to Afghan security, and the complete disregard of the Taliban's rapid monthslong advances across much of the rest of Afghanistan."

The White House has “entirely stonewalled” the committee’s requests for interviews, the aide added, while the State Department has been more forthcoming with documents and interviews in recent months, but it had been uncooperative as well at the beginning of the investigation.

more
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/house-investigation-military-afghanistan-withdrawal-moving

[catfish1957]

Quietly?

Treason maybe in the upper echilons of the Pentagon?

Don't forget....  Miley admitted he would warn the Chicoms if we attacked.

</tinfoil off>

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Don't forget....  Miley admitted he would warn the Chicoms if we attacked.

What possible legitimate grounds did we have to launch a surprise military attack on China in January 2021?  Or to put it differently, if a pissed-off Trump would have ordered Milley to sneak-attack China on January 19, with no apparent justification, do you think he should have obeyed that order?

I can't stand Milley, and Trump's decisions to overrule his advisors to pick Milley as CJCS was probably his worst personnel decision.  But I don't believe Milley did a damn thing wrong with respect to this particular incident.

When there was an attempted coup and uncertainty in the Soviet Union/Russia in 1991, the head of the Soviet military contacted the Pentagon and told us that no matter what, he wasn't going to permit either of those factions to start a war with us, and that if we saw troop movements, it would be internal stuff.  He didn't want us to misread something and perhaps react militarily to something that wasn't really directed at us.

It was a military to military contact to ensure that there wouldn't be a potentially tragic mistake that could start WWIII.  Given all the uncertainty and rhetoric around the election, calls for martial law, etc., I think it was completely appropriate for Milley to do the same to ensure that WWIII wouldn't get started accidentally.  It worked because most of those generals have met each other over time and developed professional, though still adversarial, relationships.

[catfish1957]

What possible legitimate grounds did we have to launch a surprise military attack on China in January 2021?  Or to put it differently, if a pissed-off Trump would have ordered Milley to sneak-attack China on January 19, with no apparent justification, do you think he should have obeyed that order?

I can't stand Milley, and Trump's decisions to overrule his advisors to pick Milley as CJCS was probably his worst personnel decision.  But I don't believe Milley did a damn thing wrong with respect to this particular incident.

When there was an attempted coup and uncertainty in the Soviet Union/Russia in 1991, the head of the Soviet military contacted the Pentagon and told us that no matter what, he wasn't going to permit either of those factions to start a war with us, and that if we saw troop movements, it would be internal stuff.  He didn't want us to misread something and perhaps react militarily to something that wasn't really directed at us.

It was a military to military contact to ensure that there wouldn't be a potentially tragic mistake that could start WWIII.  Given all the uncertainty and rhetoric around the election, calls for martial law, etc., I think it was completely appropriate for Milley to do the same to ensure that WWIII wouldn't get started accidentally.  It worked because most of those generals have met each other over time and developed professional, though still adversarial, relationships.

I've read historical accounts that non-abolitionist leaning leading generals in Lincoln's Army were, let me say....  less than zealous in Carrying our the CIC's orders, and maybe from some's POV, treasonous.  What If one of them gave details of troop movement as the Union Army convened upon Chancellorsville?

 Not exactly a 100% analogus situation, but I hope you see the point of Miley's contact with the Chicoms,

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I've read historical accounts that non-abolitionist leaning leading generals in Lincoln's Army were, let me say....  less than zealous in Carrying our the CIC's orders, and maybe from some's POV, treasonous.  What If one of them gave details of troop movement as the Union Army convened upon Chancellorsville?

 Not exactly a 100% analogus situation, but I hope you see the point of Miley's contact with the Chicoms,

It's barely 1% analogous.  I mean, why not address the reality of what actually happened, and why, rather than using an analogy that has absolutely nothing in common with this situation?

The absolute best analogy here is what the Soviet military leadership did during a time of domestic turmoil in their country.  It was just to make sure WWIII didn't get started by mistake, and that's all Milley was doing.  The criticism really amounts to criticizing him for things he didn't actually do.  the "but what if he..." type of stuff.

He just called his Chinese military counterpart to let him know he wasn't going to let WWIII start because of domestic political turmoil that might go off the rails.  Again, I can't stand Milley, but this has particular issue has become something of a boogeyman among some folks, and it is just misplaced.

[catfish1957]

It's barely 1% analogous.  I mean, why not address the reality of what actually happened, and why, rather than using an analogy that has absolutely nothing in common with this situation?

The absolute best analogy here is what the Soviet military leadership did during a time of domestic turmoil in their country.  It was just to make sure WWIII didn't get started by mistake, and that's all Milley was doing.  The criticism really amounts to criticizing him for things he didn't actually do.  the "but what if he..." type of stuff.

He just called his Chinese military counterpart to let him know he wasn't going to let WWIII start because of domestic political turmoil that might go off the rails.  Again, I can't stand Milley, but this has particular issue has become something of a boogeyman among some folks, and it is just misplaced.

Maj...  we agree usually 99% of the time.  In this case, let me bring up a few points:
1. We already have a Executive Branch of our government that IMO, has Chicom ties, and it's pretty much been proven that they have  been paid in influence money.
2. As this becomes the perceived norm, and even with oaths to protect the United States, what is to keep an errant General from taking a Biden Path, or more likely having an associate in that role.
3. I am a major proponent recognizing when precedence has been set.  Yes, you provided the USSR example, but with Miley's event....... What's to keep the next Joint Chief Chair to take that wiggle room just a little further.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Maj...  we agree usually 99% of the time.  In this case, let me bring up a few points:
1. We already have a Executive Branch of our government that IMO, has Chicom ties, and it's pretty much been proven that they have  been paid in influence money.
2. As this becomes the perceived norm, and even with oaths to protect the United States, what is to keep an errant General from taking a Biden Path, or more likely having an associate in that role.

But that's not what Milley did.  That's my point.  The criticism all seems to be taking what he did, and criticizing him as if he has done something worse.  Military people talk cross-nation with some frequency to ensure that something doesn't start accidentally that neither side really wants.  The CJCS is someone whose selection requires Senate approval and is a position of major responsibility.  I'd also point out that the Constitution leaves it to the Congress to declare war, and the exceptions are basically due to emergency/timeliness issue.

3. I am a major proponent recognizing when precedence has been set.  Yes, you provided the USSR example, but with Miley's event....... What's to keep the next Joint Chief Chair to take that wiggle room just a little further.

I don't think the slippery slope argument works in this context.

Do you believe that the CJCS -- and really it is the folks below him, but let's just leave it to the CJCS for now -- should execute every order the President gives, or are there limits?  To put it differently, if Biden woke up one morning and thought "we should nuke Moscow to help Ukraine", should the CJCS execute that order without question, or should they refuse? 

I say they should refuse -- that in the event of an unprovoked attack that starts World War III, with no apparent legal justification or logic, the CJCS should NOT mindlessly execute that kind of order, and instead should make sure the appropriate cabinet members and leadership in Congress is informed.  But the slippery slope in that context is the Lincoln generals issue, right?  That if we recognize that there are times the generals have to refuse to obey an order like that, then that would set a "dangerous precedent" of generals doing whatever they wanted.

I just don't think the real world works that way, and we have to recognize the reality of nuance and judgment.  Preventing an accidental start to World War III seems to be to be squarely within where we should want our military command to operate.