Tag: Military

Categories
Politics

Navy Ramps Up Evacuations From Kabul, however Bottlenecks Persist

Military Ramps Up Evacuations From Kabul, but Bottlenecks Persist

WASHINGTON – As the August 31 deadline for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan draws nearer, the Pentagon has stepped up the evacuation rate from Kabul Airport and flown 21,600 people out in 24 hours, Defense Department officials said Tuesday. But bottlenecks in the system and President Biden’s insistence that all troops leave the country by the end of the month could prevent the military from maintaining this pace.

The race against time means that the 5,800 Marines and soldiers at Hamid Karzai International Airport must try to evacuate thousands more Americans and Afghan allies, only to come out themselves over the next seven days to find the rubble of the 20 Years War in Afghanistan to eliminate somehow.

That process began on Tuesday when Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said several hundred headquarters, maintenance and other support forces not strictly necessary for the escalating evacuation operation had left the country.

Defense officials do not say publicly, however, which is becoming increasingly clear: some people are being left behind.

Since August 14, when Kabul fell to the Taliban, more than 70,700 people had been evacuated from Afghanistan by Tuesday evening, Biden said.

That is significantly less than the number of American citizens, foreigners and Afghan allies trying to get out. “We’re trying to get as many out as possible,” said John F. Kirby, the Pentagon’s main spokesman. He said American troops at Kabul airport “wanted to continue this pace as aggressively as possible”.

But despite all of Mr. Biden’s persistence in meeting his withdrawal deadline, neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the Department of State have been able to increase review and processing times to the extent necessary to meet demand.

A US official said it took up to 12 hours for immigration officers to screen arriving Afghans at Al Udeid Air Base outside Doha, Qatar against the National Counter Terrorism Center watch list. The official said that the verification and screening processes need to move faster to prevent the evacuation pipeline at Al Udeid, the largest base receiving Afghans, from re-clogging, as it did for several hours last week.

The Taliban have warned of “consequences” if the US military stays past the deadline. And on Tuesday, a Taliban spokesman said the group’s militants were physically preventing Afghans from going to the airport.

The Pentagon has opened military bases in Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin and New Jersey to temporarily house Afghan refugees and is likely to add more in the coming days, officials said.

Updated

Aug. 24, 2021, 9:51 p.m. ET

Kirby said US Afghan allies who fear Taliban reprisals are still being handled at Kabul airport, despite the airport gates being closed several times over the past week due to the onslaught of people.

The United States will continue to evacuate Afghans until the final days following the withdrawal of troops and equipment. Dozens of Afghan commandos – trained by the US – are also at the airport and have to be evacuated.

Understanding the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan

Map 1 of 5

Who are the Taliban? The Taliban emerged in 1994 amid the unrest following the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989. They used brutal public punishments, including flogging, amputation and mass executions, to enforce their rules. Here is more about their genesis and track record as rulers.

Who are the Taliban leaders? These are the top leaders of the Taliban, men who for years have been on the run, in hiding, in prison and dodged American drones. Little is known about them or how they plan to rule, including whether they will be as tolerant as they say they are.

What is happening to the women of Afghanistan? When the Taliban was last in power, they banned women and girls from most jobs or from going to school. Afghan women have gained a lot since the Taliban was overthrown, but now they fear that they are losing ground. Taliban officials are trying to reassure women that things will be different, but there are indications that they have begun to reintroduce the old order in at least some areas.

For the military, part of the problem is that so many people are being promoted so quickly and with so little notice. For example, the C-17 military aircraft, which carry 400 people per load, have one or two toilets, and the flight from Kabul to Qatar takes four hours.

Once the flights arrive at Al Udeid in Qatar and other intermediate bases in the Middle East and Europe, the evacuees will be screened by Homeland Security and State Department officials who will determine if they qualify to enter the United States.

The military takes the Taliban’s red line seriously on August 31, also because some of the group’s commanders are cooperating with the US military and giving many people access to the airport, despite harsh speeches from Taliban spokesmen. In addition, the American military and the Taliban are cooperating against the threat of attacks by the Islamic State.

But after August 31, all bets will be gone, a senior US official said.

With so many people at Kabul Airport, Doha and other bases, concerns about sanitation, food and water are growing. The C-17 planes bringing refugees from Afghanistan turn around bringing in additional dumpsters, portable hand washing stations, refrigerated trucks to keep the water cool, and food and water.

Three babies were born to evacuees in the past four days, Defense Department officials said. A woman went into labor on Saturday during a flight landing at the Ramstein air base in Germany, officials from the air force said. The aircraft commander descended to a lower altitude to increase the air pressure in the jet, a decision officials said saved the mother’s life as she had low blood pressure. When the plane landed, paramedics rushed on board and gave birth to the baby – a girl – in the hold. All three babies are in good shape, Mr. Kirby said Tuesday.

After receiving a secret briefing Monday night, Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee, said the August 31 deadline for US troops to withdraw from Kabul was unrealistic.

“I think it is possible, but I think it is very unlikely,” Schiff told reporters. Using the abbreviation for special immigrant visas, he added, “Given the number of Americans who have yet to be evacuated, the number of SIVs, the number of other members of the Afghan press, civil society leaders, female leaders – it’s hard me I can imagine that all of this can be achieved by the end of the month. “

Categories
Politics

Intelligence Warned of Afghanistan Navy Collapse, Regardless of Biden’s Assurances

Intelligence Warned of Afghanistan Military Collapse, Despite Biden’s Assurances

WASHINGTON – Geheime Einschätzungen amerikanischer Geheimdienste im Laufe des Sommers zeichneten ein zunehmend düsteres Bild der Aussicht auf eine Übernahme Afghanistans durch die Taliban und warnten vor dem schnellen Zusammenbruch des afghanischen Militärs, obwohl Präsident Biden und seine Berater öffentlich sagten, dass dies unwahrscheinlich sei so schnell, so aktuelle und ehemalige amerikanische Regierungsbeamte.

Im Juli wurden viele Geheimdienstberichte pessimistischer und stellten die Frage, ob afghanische Sicherheitskräfte ernsthaften Widerstand leisten würden und ob die Regierung in der Hauptstadt Kabul durchhalten könne. Präsident Biden sagte am 8. Juli, dass es unwahrscheinlich sei, dass die afghanische Regierung gestürzt werde und dass es keine chaotischen Evakuierungen von Amerikanern wie nach dem Ende des Vietnamkrieges geben werde.

Das Trommelfeuer der Warnungen im Sommer wirft die Frage auf, warum Beamte der Biden-Regierung und Militärplaner in Afghanistan auf den letzten Vorstoß der Taliban in Kabul, einschließlich des Versäumnisses, die Sicherheit am Hauptflughafen zu gewährleisten und Tausende weiterer Truppen zu hetzen, schlecht vorbereitet zu sein schienen zurück ins Land, um die endgültige Ausreise der Vereinigten Staaten zu schützen.

Ein Bericht im Juli – als Dutzende afghanischer Bezirke fielen und Taliban-Kämpfer mehrere Großstädte belagerten – legte die wachsenden Risiken für Kabul dar und stellte fest, dass die afghanische Regierung laut einer mit der Intelligenz.

Geheimdienste sagten voraus, dass es im Falle einer Eroberung der Städte durch die Taliban schnell zu einem kaskadenartigen Zusammenbruch kommen könnte und die afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte stark auseinanderfallen würden. Es ist unklar, ob andere Berichte während dieser Zeit ein optimistischeres Bild über die Fähigkeit des afghanischen Militärs und der Regierung in Kabul vermittelten, den Aufständischen standzuhalten.

Eine dem Kongress vorgelegte historische Analyse kam zu dem Schluss, dass die Taliban Lehren aus ihrer Übernahme des Landes in den 1990er Jahren gezogen hatten. Diesmal, so der Bericht, würde die militante Gruppe zunächst Grenzübergänge sichern, Provinzhauptstädte kommandieren und Teile des Nordens des Landes einnehmen, bevor sie in Kabul einmarschieren, eine Vorhersage, die sich als zutreffend erwies.

Aber wichtige amerikanische Entscheidungen wurden lange vor Juli getroffen, als sich die Geheimdienste einig waren, dass die afghanische Regierung bis zu zwei Jahre durchhalten könnte, was genügend Zeit für einen geordneten Austritt geblieben wäre. Als das Außenministerium am 27. April die Abschiebung von nicht unbedingt erforderlichem Personal aus der Botschaft in Kabul anordnete, lautete die allgemeine Einschätzung der Geheimdienste, dass eine Übernahme durch die Taliban nach Angaben von Verwaltungsbeamten noch mindestens 18 Monate entfernt sei.

Ein hochrangiger Verwaltungsbeamter, der unter der Bedingung der Anonymität sprach, um über die geheimen Geheimdienstberichte zu sprechen, sagte, dass die Geheimdienste selbst im Juli, als die Lage immer volatiler wurde, nie eine klare Vorhersage einer bevorstehenden Taliban-Übernahme gemacht hätten. Der Beamte sagte, dass ihre Einschätzungen auch nicht mit „hohem Vertrauen“ bewertet wurden, dem höchsten Grad an Sicherheit der Agenturen.

Noch eine Woche vor dem Fall Kabuls ergab die allgemeine Analyse des Geheimdienstes, dass eine Übernahme durch die Taliban noch nicht unvermeidlich war, sagte der Beamte. Beamte sagten auch, dass er und seine Adjutanten rund um die Zeit der Äußerungen von Herrn Biden im Juli, in denen er die afghanischen Führer aufforderte, „zusammenzukommen“, sie privat dazu drängten, Zugeständnisse zu machen, die den Geheimdienstberichten zufolge notwendig waren, um einen Zusammenbruch der Regierung abzuwenden .

Sprecherinnen der CIA und der Direktor des nationalen Geheimdienstes lehnten es ab, die Einschätzungen des Weißen Hauses zu diskutieren. Geheimdienstbeamte räumten jedoch ein, dass die Analysen ihrer Agenturen nüchtern gewesen seien und sich die Einschätzungen in den letzten Wochen und Monaten geändert hätten.

Während seiner Rede am Montag sagte Herr Biden, seine Regierung habe „für jeden Notfall geplant“ in Afghanistan, aber die Situation habe sich „schneller entwickelt, als wir erwartet hatten“.

Angesichts klarer Beweise für den Zusammenbruch der afghanischen Streitkräfte haben amerikanische Beamte begonnen, intern die Schuld zu geben, einschließlich Aussagen aus dem Weißen Haus, die auf ein Versagen der Geheimdienste hindeuten. Solche Fingerzeigen treten oft nach größeren Zusammenbrüchen der nationalen Sicherheit auf, aber es wird Wochen oder Monate dauern, bis ein vollständigeres Bild der Entscheidungsfindung in der Biden-Regierung entsteht, die in den letzten Tagen zu dem Chaos in Kabul geführt hat.

Geheimdienste haben lange einen endgültigen Sieg der Taliban vorhergesagt, noch bevor Präsident Donald J. Trump und Herr Biden beschlossen haben, ihre Truppen abzuziehen. Diese Schätzungen lieferten eine Reihe von Zeitplänen. Sie stellten zwar Fragen nach dem Willen der afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte, ohne Amerikaner an ihrer Seite zu kämpfen, sagten jedoch keinen Zusammenbruch innerhalb von Wochen voraus.

In den letzten Monaten wurden die Einschätzungen jedoch immer pessimistischer, da die Taliban laut aktuellen und ehemaligen Beamten größere Gewinne erzielten. In den Berichten dieses Sommers wurde der Kampfwille der afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte und die Fähigkeit der Regierung in Kabul, die Macht zu halten, in krassen Worten in Frage gestellt. Mit jedem Bericht über Massendestruktionen, sagte ein ehemaliger Beamter, sah die afghanische Regierung weniger stabil aus.

Ein weiterer CIA-Bericht vom Juli stellte fest, dass die Sicherheitskräfte und die Zentralregierung die Kontrolle über die Straßen nach Kabul verloren hatten, und stellte fest, dass die Lebensfähigkeit der Zentralregierung ernsthaft gefährdet sei. In anderen Berichten der Geheimdienst- und Forschungsabteilung des Außenministeriums wurde auch darauf hingewiesen, dass die afghanischen Streitkräfte im Kampf gegen die Taliban versagt haben und dass die sich verschlechternden Sicherheitsbedingungen nach Angaben von Regierungsvertretern zum Zusammenbruch der Regierung führen könnten.

„Geheimdienst ist nicht zu sagen, dass am 15. August der Sturz der afghanischen Regierung bevorsteht“, sagte Timothy S. Bergreen, ein ehemaliger Stabsdirektor des Geheimdienstausschusses des Repräsentantenhauses. „Aber was jeder wusste, ist, dass die Afghanen ohne die Verstärkung der internationalen Streitkräfte und insbesondere unserer Streitkräfte nicht in der Lage waren, sich selbst zu verteidigen oder zu regieren.“

Aktualisiert

August 18, 2021, 7:57 Uhr ET

Afghanistan erhielt in der im April veröffentlichten jährlichen Bedrohungsanalyse des Büros des Direktors des Nationalen Geheimdienstes wenig Aufmerksamkeit; Aber die kurze Diskussion war düster, da die Taliban zuversichtlich waren, einen militärischen Sieg erringen zu können.

„Die Taliban werden wahrscheinlich auf dem Schlachtfeld Gewinne erzielen, und die afghanische Regierung wird sich bemühen, die Taliban in Schach zu halten, wenn die Koalition ihre Unterstützung zurückzieht“, heißt es in dem Bericht.

Aktuelle und ehemalige Beamte sagten jedoch, dass die CIA zwar einen Zusammenbruch der afghanischen Regierung vorhergesagt habe, es jedoch oft schwierig sei, Analysten der Agentur dazu zu bringen, klar vorherzusagen, wie schnell dies geschehen würde, insbesondere wie es Mr. Trump und dann Mr. Biden machten Entscheidungen darüber, wie schnell Truppen abgezogen werden sollen.

Zwei ehemalige hochrangige Beamte der Trump-Administration, die einige der Einschätzungen der CIA zu Afghanistan überprüften, sagten, die Geheimdienste hätten Warnungen vor der Stärke der afghanischen Regierung und der Sicherheitskräfte abgegeben. Die Agentur weigerte sich jedoch, einen genauen Zeitrahmen anzugeben, und die Einschätzungen konnten oft auf verschiedene Weise interpretiert werden, einschließlich der Schlussfolgerung, dass Afghanistan schnell oder möglicherweise im Laufe der Zeit fallen könnte.

Scharfe Meinungsverschiedenheiten gab es auch in der Geheimdienstgemeinschaft. Die CIA sieht die Ausbildung der afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte seit Jahren pessimistisch. Aber der Defence Intelligence Agency und andere Geheimdienste innerhalb des Pentagons gaben laut aktuellen und ehemaligen Beamten optimistischere Einschätzungen über die Bereitschaft der Afghanen ab.

Militärische und geheimdienstliche Einschätzungen, die voraussagen, dass die Regierung in Kabul mindestens ein Jahr vor einer Machtübernahme durch die Taliban durchhalten könnte, wurden auf einer Prämisse aufgebaut, die sich als fehlerhaft erwies: dass die afghanische Armee kämpfen würde.

„Die meisten US-Bewertungen innerhalb und außerhalb der US-Regierung hatten sich darauf konzentriert, wie gut die afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte im Kampf mit den Taliban abschneiden würden. In Wirklichkeit haben sie nie wirklich gekämpft“, sagte Seth G. Jones, ein Afghanistan-Experte am Zentrum für strategische und internationale Studien in Washington, während des Taliban-Blitzes im ganzen Land.

Die Taliban-Übernahme in Afghanistan verstehen

Karte 1 von 5

Wer sind die Taliban? Die Taliban entstanden 1994 inmitten der Unruhen nach dem Abzug der sowjetischen Truppen aus Afghanistan 1989. Sie setzten brutale öffentliche Strafen ein, darunter Auspeitschungen, Amputationen und Massenhinrichtungen, um ihre Regeln durchzusetzen. Hier ist mehr über ihre Entstehungsgeschichte und ihre Bilanz als Herrscher.

Wer sind die Taliban-Führer? Dies sind die obersten Anführer der Taliban, Männer, die jahrelang auf der Flucht, untergetaucht, im Gefängnis und amerikanischen Drohnen ausgewichen sind. Sie tauchen jetzt aus der Dunkelheit auf, aber über sie oder ihre Regierungspläne ist wenig bekannt.

Wie haben die Taliban die Kontrolle erlangt? Sehen Sie, wie die Taliban die Kontrolle in Afghanistan übernahmen und in wenigen Monaten 20 Jahre Verteidigung zunichte machten.

Vor zwei Jahrzehnten spielte sich diese Dynamik in umgekehrter Richtung ab. Als Ende 2001 von den USA unterstützte afghanische Milizen begannen, den Taliban Territorium zu erobern, brachen die Taliban-Kämpfer relativ schnell zusammen, und sowohl Kabul als auch Kandahar fielen noch in diesem Jahr.

Einige Taliban ergaben sich, andere wechselten die Seiten, und eine weitaus größere Zahl verschmolz einfach mit der Bevölkerung, um mit der Planung eines 20-jährigen Aufstands zu beginnen.

Geheimdienstbeamte haben lange beobachtet, dass Afghanen kalte Berechnungen darüber anstellen, wer in einem Konflikt wahrscheinlich die Oberhand gewinnen und die Siegerseite unterstützen wird ehemalige Analysten.

Der Kern des amerikanischen Verlustes in Afghanistan war die Unfähigkeit, eine eigenständige Sicherheitskraft aufzubauen, aber dieser Fehler wurde noch dadurch verschlimmert, dass Washington nicht auf diejenigen hörte, die Fragen zum afghanischen Militär aufwarfen.

Ein Teil des Problems, so ehemalige Beamte, sei, dass die aufrichtige Haltung des Militärs häufig eine ehrliche und genaue Einschätzung der Leistung der afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte verhindert habe. Obwohl niemand blind gegenüber Desertionen oder Schlachtfeldverlusten war, zögerten amerikanische Kommandeure, die mit der Ausbildung des afghanischen Militärs beauftragt waren, zuzugeben, dass ihre Bemühungen fehlgeschlagen waren.

Selbst Militärs, die den Fähigkeiten der afghanischen Sicherheitskräfte skeptisch gegenüberstanden, glaubten, dass sie nach dem Abzug der Amerikaner noch eine Zeit lang kämpfen würden.

Seit Monaten ziehen Geheimdienstler Vergleiche zwischen den afghanischen nationalen Sicherheitskräften und der südvietnamesischen Armee am Ende des Vietnamkriegs. Es dauerte zwei Jahre, bis das Militär Südvietnams, bekannt unter dem amerikanischen Akronym ARVN, zusammenbrach, nachdem die Vereinigten Staaten Truppen und finanzielle Unterstützung abgezogen hatten. Optimisten glaubten, dass das afghanische Militär – mit amerikanischer Finanzierung – fast genauso lange bestehen könnte. Pessimisten dachten, es wäre viel kürzer.

„In den letzten zwei oder drei Jahren habe ich reumütig bemerkt, dass ANSF für ARVN afghanisch ist“, sagte Bergreen, der von 2003 bis 2021 auf dem Capitol Hill für Geheimdienstangelegenheiten arbeitete bis zum langfristigen Kampf. Aber ich glaube nicht, dass jemand damit gerechnet hat, dass sie so schnell dahinschmelzen.“

Die jüngsten diplomatischen Manöver der Taliban mit anderen Ländern in der Region, insbesondere China, hätten einer Taliban-Übernahme einen Hauch von Unvermeidlichkeit verliehen, die die afghanischen Regierungstruppen weiter demoralisierte, sagte Jones.

Am Ende, so Analysten, haben die Taliban mit der Strategie gewonnen, die sich während des jahrzehntelangen Krieges in Afghanistan so oft als erfolgreich erwiesen hat – sie überdauerten ihren Gegner.

„Ich bin nicht überrascht, dass es so schnell und umfassend war“, sagte Lisa Maddox, eine ehemalige CIA-Analystin. „Die Taliban haben sicherlich ihre Fähigkeit bewiesen, durchzuhalten, sich niederzukauern und zurückzukommen, selbst nachdem sie zurückgeschlagen wurden. Und Sie haben eine Bevölkerung, die so müde und konfliktmüde ist, dass sie die Siegerseite umdrehen und unterstützen wird, damit sie überleben kann.“

Categories
Politics

Lockdown ends at D.C. navy base after suspect is detained

Lockdown ends at D.C. military base after suspect is detained

Arnold Gate of the Anacostia-Bolling joint military base in Washington, Wednesday, April 17, 2013.

Alex Brandon | AP

A lockdown at a U.S. military base in Washington, D.C., was lifted Friday after authorities detained a possibly armed individual who had entered the campus.

The all-clear announcement came at 2:50 p.m., more than two hours after Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling alerted people that the individual, initially described as a Black man with a medium-build carrying a Gucci bag, was on base.

The suspect had been detained by security forces at the base and would be transferred to the Metropolitan Police Department, whose officers were on the scene, a spokesman for the base told CNBC. The spokesman declined to say if the person surrendered willingly or if he was armed at the time he was detained.

Earlier, a spokeswoman for the MPD told CNBC that the department had received a phone call at 12:04 p.m. regarding the sound of gunshots being heard at a location east of the base.

No victims were been identified, the spokeswoman said.

MPD said they would only verify the person was male.

A social media account for the base at 12:37 p.m. first announced the potential threat.

“LOCKDOWN LOCKDOWN LOCKDOWN,” said a post on the base’s Facebook page.

“If you encounter the individual and have a safe route, RUN. If you do not have a safe route to run, HIDE. Barricade your door, turn off the lights and your cell phone ringer, and remain silent. If you are hiding, prepare to FIGHT,” the post said.

An update later described the individual as a Black man with a medium build and “dreads that are mid-back in length.” The person was wearing blue or green pants and a white tank top, and he may have been carrying a bag, according to that Facebook post.

That update, which came more than an hour after the lockdown order was posted, advised people to “continue to shelter in place.”

About 15 minutes beforehand, the Facebook page had alerted people to be on the lookout for two individuals: one a Black male with medium build “with dreads” and “wearing ripped blue jeans,” and the other a Black man wearing green pants and a white top who “may be injured.”

That was revised to just one person in subsequent posts.

Google Earth viewo of Anacostia-Bolling Air Force Base, DC.

Google Earth

Categories
World News

The Afghan Navy Was Constructed Over 20 Years. How Did It Collapse So Shortly?

The Afghan Military Was Built Over 20 Years. How Did It Collapse So Quickly?

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan – The surrenders appear to be as quick as the Taliban can travel.

Under the pressure of an advance by the Taliban that began in May, the Afghan security forces have collapsed in more than 15 cities in the past few days. Officials on Friday confirmed it included two of the country’s main provincial capitals: Kandahar and Herat.

The swift offensive has resulted in mass surrenders, captured helicopters, and millions of dollars in American equipment displayed on grainy cellphone videos by the Taliban. Fierce fighting had been going on for weeks in the outskirts of some cities, but the Taliban eventually overtook their lines of defense and then invaded with little or no resistance.

This implosion comes despite the fact that the United States has poured more than $ 83 billion in weapons, equipment, and training into the country’s security forces over two decades.

Building the Afghan security apparatus was one of the key elements of the Obama administration’s strategy, which nearly a decade ago sought a way to surrender security and leave. Out of these efforts, an army modeled on the US military emerged, an Afghan institution that was to outlast the American war.

But it will likely be gone before the United States is.

As Afghanistan’s future seems increasingly uncertain, one thing is becoming abundantly clear: the United States’s 20-year effort to rebuild Afghanistan’s military into a robust and independent force has failed, and that failure is now happening in real time as the country is under control the Taliban gets caught.

How the Afghan military fell apart for the first time was evident not last week but months ago in an accumulation of casualties that began before President Biden announced that the United States would withdraw by September 11th.

It began with individual outposts in rural areas, in which starving and ammunition-poor soldiers and police units were surrounded by Taliban fighters and promised a safe passage if they surrender and leave their equipment behind, and the insurgents slowly gaining control over roads and then whole Districts existed. When the positions collapsed, the complaint was almost always the same: there was no air support, or supplies and groceries had run out.

But even before that, the systemic weaknesses of the Afghan security forces were evident, which on paper numbered around 300,000 people, but in the last few days, according to US officials, only amounted to a sixth of them. These shortcomings can be attributed to numerous problems arising from the West’s insistence on building a fully modern military, with all the necessary logistics and supply complexities, which have proven unsustainable without the United States and its NATO allies.

Soldiers and police officers have expressed deeper and deeper grudges against the Afghan leadership. Officials have often turned a blind eye knowing that the real number of Afghan forces was much lower than what the books said, skewed by the corruption and secrecy they tacitly accepted.

And when the Taliban gained momentum after the US withdrawal announcement, it only reinforced belief that it was not worth dying for the fighting within the security forces – for President Ashraf Ghani’s administration. In interview after interview, soldiers and police officers described moments of desperation and abandonment.

On a front line in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar last week, the Afghan security forces’ apparent inability to repel the Taliban’s devastating offensive was due to potatoes.

After weeks of fighting, a carton full of slimy potatoes should pass as a police unit’s daily ration. They had had nothing but tubers of various shapes for several days, and their hunger and tiredness wore them down.

“Those fries won’t hold those front lines!” Yelled one policeman, disgusted by the lack of support they received in the second largest city in the country.

That front line collapsed on Thursday and Kandahar was under Taliban control by Friday morning.

In recent weeks, Afghan troops have been consolidated to defend Afghanistan’s 34 provincial capitals as the Taliban focused on urban attacks from attacks on rural areas. But this strategy proved in vain when the insurgent fighters overran one city after another, captured around half of the provincial capitals of Afghanistan and encircled Kabul within a week.

“They are just trying to get us ready,” said Abdulhai, 45, a police chief who held the Kandahar Northern Front last week.

The Afghan security forces have suffered well over 60,000 deaths since 2001. But Abdulhai was not talking about the Taliban, but about his own government, which he felt was so incapable that it had to be part of a larger plan to cede territory to the Taliban.

The months of defeats seemed to peak on Wednesday when the entire headquarters of an Afghan army corps – the 217th – at Kunduz airport in the north of the city fell to the Taliban. The insurgents captured a disused attack helicopter. Images of a US-supplied drone seized by the Taliban were circulating on the Internet along with images of rows of armored vehicles.

Brig. General Abbas Tawakoli, commander of the 217th Afghan Army Corps, who was in a nearby province when his base fell, echoed Abdulhai’s sentiments as reasons for his troops’ defeat on the battlefield.

“Unfortunately, a number of MPs and politicians knowingly and unknowingly kindled the flame kindled by the enemy,” General Tawakoli said just hours after the Taliban released videos of their fighters raiding the general’s sprawling base.

“No region fell from the war, but from the psychological war,” he said.

This psychological war has taken place on different levels.

Afghan pilots say their leadership cares more about the condition of planes than about the people who fly them: men and at least one woman burned out from countless evacuation missions – often under fire – while the Taliban wages a brutal assassination campaign against them .

The remnants of the elite commandos, used to holding territory still under government control, are transported from one province to another with no clear destination and very little sleep.

The ethnically oriented militias, known as forces to reinforce the lines of government, have also been almost all overrun.

The second city to fall this week was Sheberghan in northern Afghanistan, a capital defended by a formidable force commanded by Marshal Abdul Rashid Dostum, a notorious warlord and former Afghan vice president who has survived for the past 40 years should of the war by cutting deals and changing sides.

Another prominent Afghan warlord and former governor, Mohammad Ismail Khan, surrendered on Friday.

“We are drowning in corruption,” said Abdul Haleem, 38, a police officer on the Kandahar frontline earlier this month. His special unit was half-strength – 15 out of 30 – and several of his comrades who stayed at the front were there because their villages had been captured.

“How are we supposed to defeat the Taliban with so much ammunition?” He said. The heavy machine gun, for which his unit had very few bullets, broke later that night.

On Thursday it was unclear whether Mr. Haleem was still alive and what was left of his comrades.

As the Taliban ransack the country almost continuously, their strength is in question. Official estimates have long been between 50,000 and 100,000 fighters. Now that number is even darker as the international armed forces and intelligence capabilities retreat.

Some US officials say Taliban numbers have risen due to the influx of foreign fighters and an aggressive conscription campaign in captured areas. Other experts say the Taliban got much of their strength from Pakistan.

Yet even in the midst of a possible total surrender by the Afghan government and its armed forces, troops are still fighting.

As in any conflict since the dawn of time, soldiers and police officers mostly fight for each other and for the subordinate leaders who inspire them to fight in spite of the hell that lies ahead.

When the Taliban invaded the outskirts of the southern city of Lashkar Gah in May, a hodgepodge of border guards held the line. The police officers who were supposed to defend the area had long since surrendered, withdrawn or been paid by the Taliban, as happened in many parts of the country over the past year.

Armed with rifles and machine guns, some in uniform, some not, the border guards beamed when their stubborn captain Ezzatullah Tofan arrived at their grenade-shattered position, a house abandoned during the fighting.

He always comes to the rescue, said one soldier.

When the Taliban were advancing into Lashkar Gah, provincial capital of Helmand Province, late last month, an outpost called their headquarters elsewhere in the city and asked for reinforcements. In an audio recording obtained from the New York Times, the commander in chief on the other end told them to stay and fight.

Captain Tofan bring reinforcements, he said, and should hold out a little longer. That was about two weeks ago.

On Friday, despite weary resistance from the Afghan military, repeated reinforcement flights and even American B-52 bombers, the city was in the hands of the Taliban.

Taimoor Shah and Jim Huylebroek contributed to coverage from Kandahar, Afghanistan. Najim Rahim and Fatima Faizi contributed from Kabul. Eric Schmitt contributed to the reporting.

Categories
Politics

Wanting the Mandate They Crave, Army Leaders Race to Vaccinate Troops

Short of the Mandate They Crave, Military Leaders Race to Vaccinate Troops

COLORADO SPRINGS – Three soldiers in camouflage huddled around a table at a popular burrito restaurant near Fort Carson on Friday, chewing over the announcement that the military could soon vaccinate all troops against coronavirus. Two of the soldiers had already received the shot. One didn’t have it.

The military had ordered her to be given a quiver of other vaccines, including the annual flu shot. The big difference to this one was that she finally had a choice.

“Honestly, if the Army wants something from you, they’ll force you. It was still voluntary, so I just postponed it, ”said the unvaccinated soldier, adding that a busy schedule and fear of side effects made her delay easier.

The soldier declined to give her name because she was not allowed to speak to the news media, but said that although most of the soldiers in the post’s 25,000 active soldiers are vaccinated, she has other concerns and takes advantage of a rare digression not often granted the base.

That may change soon. Late on Thursday evening, the Pentagon announced that all military and civilian employees would be asked to prove that they were vaccinated or undergoing masking, physical distancing, and regular tests and travel restrictions, just as President Biden would do with the rest of the citizens. The new requirements bring the armed forces one step closer to a mandate.

Forced syringes are a standard practice for the military, requiring from training camps that troops be vaccinated against at least a dozen diseases. For now, however, the military is trying to navigate how more troops can be fired without simply issuing an order.

Of the 1,336,000 active military personnel, about 64 percent are fully vaccinated, and more than 60 percent of Americans over 18 are fully vaccinated. But for the military, that quota is unacceptably low because it is difficult to send unvaccinated troops to countries with strict local restrictions, and because an increase in the virus among troops can cripple readiness.

Military leaders cannot request the shots because the coronavirus vaccines are not fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration and are only approved in an emergency. Mr Biden could order mandatory vaccination for troops but was reluctant to exercise that power, and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III previously said he would not be comfortable with a mandate until vaccines are fully approved.

Although coronavirus vaccines have become a political focus among civilians, several military leaders said they did not expect much resistance if an order was issued because troops are used to getting mandatory shots. But while following orders is central to military culture, they added, the soldier’s axiom is “never voluntary for anything” as well.

At the same time, the U.S. military knows how deadly infectious diseases can be because it has fought them for centuries.

In the winter of 1777, the Continental Army’s smallpox was so raging that the ability to continue the fight was in doubt. General George Washington proposed the very first mass vaccination by infecting healthy troops with the pus of their suffering comrades. The practice, which often led to illness but drastically reduced deaths, profoundly polarized. Many colonists viewed it as a conspiracy of the devil, or worse, the crown. Some colonies banned the practice, and in Virginia rioters attacked doctors who offered the treatment.

However, Washington felt it had no other choice, telling one of its medical officers that “the need appears not only to approve but to require the measure.”

Mass vaccination ended the epidemic and may have been crucial to winning the war, said Carol R. Byerly, military medicine historian.

“It was the beginning of the realization that public health is a strategic weapon – and the military has led the way ever since,” said Ms. Byerly.

As new conflicts pushed US forces into new corners of the world, disease often killed far more people than the enemy. Military doctors tried to find ways to fight diseases like typhoid and yellow fever. The troops, some of which served as guinea pigs, were generally not given a say.

“There has always been protest,” Ms. Byerly said, referring to the year 1911, when many soldiers and their families launched a letter campaign against a newly developed smallpox vaccine, which became the first universal, compulsory vaccination in the army. “But the military knows that vaccines are the best weapon. Even if there is controversy, the leaders thought it was worthwhile. “

The ordering of a mandatory vaccination, however, carries its own risks for the military readiness. By the 1990s, the military grew tired of vaccinating the entire force against the anthrax virus. Troop units refused to comply. Hundreds were fined – some with dishonorable layoffs. Others quit in protest. In one Air National Guard squadron, a quarter of pilots dropped out instead of taking the vaccine, affecting the unit’s operational capability.

Anthrax vaccination efforts have been hampered by legal proceedings and supply problems and ultimately reduced to just a small fraction of the high-risk troops.

Without an order, the service branches attempt to encourage members who are hesitant to take the coronavirus vaccine in a way that they believe addresses their specific concerns.

Naval leaders have found that talking about the vaccine as both a weapon and a means of preparedness is most effective. “Our sailors understand that they must wear protective equipment when walking into a hostile or dangerous environment,” said Rear Adm. Bruce L. Gillingham, the Navy surgeon general. “It’s biological body protection.”

In Fort Bragg, NC, a weekly podcast featured troops speaking to Army medical leaders about their concerns about the vaccine.

In a recent interview, Sgt. Colt Joiner and Lt. Col. Owen Price discussed a misconception often raised by young soldiers: that they are at greater risk of dying from the side effects of a gunshot than from Covid-19. This belief is increasingly worrying military commanders as data on the delta variant show high rates of serious illness in young unvaccinated people.

“I’m a 24 year old guy,” said Sergeant Joiner, “I think this isn’t such a big risk for me right now. At the moment I just don’t see it as a priority. “

The notion that the coronavirus is a threat only to older Americans is “eroding,” Colonel Price told him. “The percentage of people your age who see these effects is increasing.”

In Fort Carson this week, an officer in a brigade preparing for the mission proudly said their vaccination rate was 71 percent, well above the Army average. Success, he said, means taking leadership – getting senior soldiers and officers, explaining their choices to the young soldiers, and encouraging them to volunteer.

But was that volunteering actually “volunteering” – the army’s cherished tradition of telling the troops that they are absolutely expected to do something that is technically voluntary?

When asked, the officer laughed. “Yes,” he said. “Probably a little of that.”

Dave Philipps reported from Colorado Springs and Jennifer Steinhauer from Washington.

Categories
Politics

Invoice to Change How Navy Prosecutes Felonies Faces Resistance

Bill to Change How Military Prosecutes Felonies Faces Resistance

WASHINGTON – After years of opposition from Pentagon leaders, New York Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand appeared to be nearing victory over a fundamental change in the way the military handles sexual assault cases. However, their emphasis on including all serious crimes in the measure for reasons of racial justice now threatens to weaken their support.

Ms. Gillibrand’s push to remove commanders from decisions in prosecuting sexual assault cases had received bipartisan support despite opposition from military leaders. Last month, President Biden and Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III endorsed a similar change recommended by an independent military body.

But Mr. Austin and some of Mrs. Gillibrand’s strongest allies in Congress on this issue are reluctant to make broader changes to the military justice system. Some lawmakers say they only recently focused on the details of the measure after months of discussion.

“Your bill is much broader than I thought,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and an early proponent of Ms. Gillibrand’s move. “I believe she has made a compelling case for sexual assault and related allegations to be removed from the chain of command.”

But Ms. Collins said she didn’t think there was any justification for removing other alleged crimes from the military justice system.

Ms. Gillibrand’s bill would overturn the decision to prosecute serious crimes such as sexual assault and other crimes such as murder from military commanders to military prosecutors. The Pentagon panel proposed a more limited change: that a special victim unit should be set up within the military for cases of sexual assault and some other crimes.

But Ms. Gillibrand argues that this would create an unequal system and has said that her proposal would also help fight racial injustice.

A bill that would cover most crimes is “necessary,” she said in the Senate on Tuesday, “because the current military justice system simply does not provide justice, especially for soldiers of color.”

This tactic has helped attract other voices to their cause.

“Racial and gender bias in the military has resulted in inadequate prosecution of sexual assault cases and excessive prosecution of black and brown officers,” said Anthony Brown, Rep. Anthony Brown, Democrat of Maryland, a veteran and former Army Attorney General an interview this week.

While there have been differences in prosecution in the military over time, he said, “I think after the tragic murder of George Floyd, it really got a lot of us to say, ‘Hey, this is a real opportunity here, this one Fix inequalities and differences. ‘“

Studies over the years have identified racial differences in the military justice system, including the way in which discipline is exercised.

The tensions over Ms. Gillibrand’s move and the closer changes recommended by the Military Commission are potentially difficult terrain for Mr. Austin. He said strengthening the fight against sexual assault, racism and extremism in the ranks is a top priority.

Many military leaders who oppose changes in sexual assault cases may also oppose the loss of other prosecutorial powers. But focusing on other crimes could also alienate some of Ms. Gillibrand’s supporters – many of whom were brought back after years of courting.

“My inclination now is to commit sexual assault,” said Senator Angus King, Maine Independent, after previously saying he would register with Ms. Gillibrand. “That has been the goal of our work for eight years.”

Among the 70 or so senators from both parties who joined this spring, Ms. Gillibrand still seems to enjoy support. Senator Ted Cruz, a Republican from Texas, has been with their side for years, while some Democrats, like Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, recently joined their efforts.

“There are many reasons to professionalize crime-dealing,” said Kaine, who previously worked as a lawyer. “Kirsten has a bright line that was maybe a little different from the one she drew earlier. But it’s a line that makes sense for us lawyers. “

Republican Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri agreed. “As a lawyer and former prosecutor, I think there is some value in having continuity and saying that every crime is handled the same way no matter what it is. I like that as a former prosecutor and I like it as a defense attorney. For me it’s a plus. “

Both men said they support the bill in writing but welcome further debate on the proposed changes that would require a Congressional resolution.

Senator Jack Reed, Democrat of Rhode Island and chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, now supports changing the prosecution for sexual assault after years of opposition. But he is a leading voice against extending this trial to other crimes.

Data on racial differences is mixed and sometimes inconclusive, in large part due to the military’s lack of consistent data on race and the justice system, several reports say.

A recent report by the Government Accountability Office found that black and Hispanic military personnel were more likely than whites to be tried in a military trial, but that race “was not a statistically significant factor in conviction.”

A report by the Air Force Inspector General last year found that black service members were 1.64 times more likely to be suspicious in Office of Special Investigations criminal cases, but said that “identifying racial differences does not automatically imply racial bias or racism available”. . “

Categories
World News

South African Army Is Referred to as In to Quell Violence

South African Military Is Called In to Quell Violence

JOHANNESBURG – Government officials in South Africa on Monday deployed the military to quell the increasingly destructive unrest that has gripped parts of the country in recent days, causing multiple deaths and tens of millions of dollars in damage to businesses and highways and closings Transport services.

The volatility began last week with demonstrations in eastern KwaZulu-Natal province over the imprisonment of Jacob Zuma, the former South African president, and has turned into looting, arson and gunfire, with chaos spreading to Johannesburg, the nation’s financial hub.

The looming unrest represents a deepening crisis for the country’s leadership as President Cyril Ramaphosa and his ruling African National Congress face deep divisions within their ranks and social upheaval in a nation marked by high unemployment and a devastating wave is rocked by coronavirus infections.

Mr Ramaphosa has been criticized for his silence in the early days of the riot. “We will not tolerate any criminal activity,” he said during a national address on Sunday evening that was mainly intended to focus on the restrictions of Covid-19.

“Although at this moment there are those who can be hurt and angry,” he said, “there can never be any justification for such violent, destructive and disruptive acts.”

On Monday, much of the destruction appeared to have little to do with anger over Mr. Zuma’s detention, government officials said, but instead appeared to be opportunistic lawlessness. Some analysts and activists said it was an uprising that arose out of deeper problems of poverty and the lack of opportunities in the country.

Pictures on local news channels showed shopping malls burning, hundreds of people leaving stores selling items such as clothing and household appliances, and police followed and arrested anyone they could.

“While these actions are described by some as a form of political protest, they are now clearly criminal acts,” said Jessie Duarte, assistant secretary general of the African National Congress, during a press conference Monday.

The riots would hurt the poor and the marginalized the most, Ms. Duarte said, by destroying businesses that employ people and disrupting public services and transportation that workers rely on to get to their jobs.

Parts of important highways were closed after vandals burned trucks in the middle of them. As of Monday morning, there were 219 arrests and six dead nationwide, according to police, although the details of these deaths are still under investigation.

Mr Zuma, 79, was sentenced to 15 months in prison by the Constitutional Court, the country’s highest judicial authority, for refusing to appear before a commission investigating widespread corruption allegations during his tenure as President from 2009 to 2018. He and his supporters sharply criticized the decision on the grounds that it had been treated unfairly and that a prison sentence without trial was unconstitutional.

Mr Zuma initially refused to go to prison as ordered by the court, but after lengthy negotiations with the police he finally gave in at the last moment and filed a complaint last Wednesday. His supporters, who vowed never to allow his arrest, then demanded the closure of his home province of KwaZulu-Natal. One of Mr. Zuma’s daughters, Duduzile Zuma-Sambudla, posted pictures of the destruction on Twitter with messages of praise.

Amid the first flare-ups of the unrest in the streets, Mr. Zuma’s eponymous foundation said on Twitter that it had “noticed the reactive, sincere anger of the people”. The Post also indicated that people were provoked by Mr. Zuma’s detention.

Mzwanele Manyi, a spokesman for the foundation, said in an interview that she could not be blamed for the upheavals spreading across South Africa.

“We are not in a position to tell people how to react to the given situation,” he said, adding that Mr. Zuma was fighting the decision in court.

The Constitutional Court heard arguments on Monday in a motion from Mr Zuma for the waiver of his arrest warrant.

The imprisonment of Mr Zuma, a populist who has drawn a passionate following, heightened tensions between a loyal faction within the African National Congress and one loyal to Mr Ramaphosa, the current party leader. Zuma allies have tried to portray the current unrest as a failure of Mr. Ramaphosa’s leadership.

Ms. Duarte said the riots were orchestrated by people within the ANC to delegitimize and sabotage the current leadership. The party gave the police the names of people to investigate, she said.

“We can’t deny that this has been brewing,” she said. “It is unfortunate because anger and frustration can never induce you to do so much damage that has already been done.”

Categories
World News

Philippine Navy Airplane Crashes With 96 Folks Aboard

Philippine Military Plane Crashes With 96 People Aboard

MANILA – A Philippine Air Force aircraft with 96 soldiers and crew on board crashed on the southern island of Jolo on Sunday, officials said. At least 31 people were killed, including two civilians on the ground, and it was feared that the number would rise.

The chief of the Philippine Armed Forces, General Cirilito Sobejana, said the plane missed a runway while attempting to land and crashed near a village called Bangkal in the city of Patikul, a stronghold of the Abu Sayyaf militant group.

Major General William Gonzales, the commander of Joint Task Force Sulu, said 50 people have been hospitalized and that “29 bodies have already been recovered from the scene of the accident.”

“We remain confident that we can find more survivors,” General Gonzales said in a statement. “Our search and rescue operations are still ongoing, 17 people are not known.”

Military officials said that in addition to the two civilians killed on the ground, four others were injured.

In addition to the 96 people on board the aircraft, a C-130 Hercules, there were also five military vehicles, officials said. The C-130, a US-built turboprop, is used by the military around the world and is sometimes kept in service for decades.

Defense Minister Delfin Lorenzana said he had “ordered a full investigation to get to the bottom of the incident once the rescue and recovery operation is complete”.

The plane, which crashed on Sunday, first flew in 1988 and was used by the United States Air Force until it was sold to the Philippines in January, according to the Philippine Air Force and a website that tracks C-130s around the world.

The Filipino military has tried to modernize its aging fleet. Last month, a newly acquired Black Hawk helicopter crashed during a night training flight, killing six people on board.

This crash occurred about two months after another helicopter, an MG-520 attack helicopter, crashed in the central Philippines, killing its pilot. And in January, a refurbished Vietnam War-era UH-1H helicopter crashed in the south, killing seven soldiers.

In 2008, a Philippine Air Force C-130 crashed into the sea shortly after taking off from Davao City on the southern island of Mindanao, killing nine crew members and two passengers on board.

The soldiers on the plane that crashed on Sunday were flown to Jolo to support the military’s operations against Abu Sayyaf, a small Islamist group that the Philippine government regards as a terrorist organization.

A faction of Abu Sayyaf sworn allegiance to the Islamic State has been blamed for the January 2019 bombing of a cathedral on Jolo, carried out by an Indonesian couple that killed at least 23 people. Filipino authorities believe a similar attack near the cathedral in 2020, killing 14, was carried out by the same Abu Sayyaf faction. Its leader, Hatib Hajan Zavadjaan, has reportedly been killed since then, and the military has stepped up operations against the group in hopes of eliminating them.

Austin Ramzy contributed the coverage from Hong Kong.

Categories
Politics

Biden Helps Altering Army Legislation on Sexual Assault Instances

Biden Supports Changing Military Law on Sexual Assault Cases

President Biden said Friday that he wanted the military to remove the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases from the control of commanders, a sea change for the military justice system.

An independent commission formally recommended to Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III this week that sexual assault, sexual harassment and related cases be shifted to special victims prosecutors outside of the chain of command in the military, something military leaders have long resisted, arguing that it would hinder order and discipline.

“Sexual assault is an abuse of power and an affront to our shared humanity,” Mr. Biden said in a prepared statement. “And sexual assault in the military is doubly damaging because it also shreds the unity and cohesion that is essential to the functioning of the U.S. military and to our national defense.”

While Mr. Austin and Mr. Biden have supported the findings of the commission — which are all but certain to receive pushback from officials from some branches of the military — it will be up to Congress to change the military law.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, has a bipartisan measure that would overhaul the way the military prosecutes sexual assault but also other serious crimes, which some lawmakers believe is crucial in adjudicating cases like the one involving Army Specialist Vanessa Guillen. Law enforcement officials said she was killed by another soldier at Fort Hood last year.

Her bill has gained support from at least 70 members of the Senate — including many who voted against the same bill in 2014, arguing it would undermine commanders. Reconciling her bill with the vision of the commission will now be in the hands of lawmakers.

In 2019, the Defense Department found that there were 7,825 reports of sexual assault involving service members as victims, a 3 percent increase from 2018. The conviction rate for cases was unchanged from 2018 to 2019; 7 percent of cases that the command took action on resulted in conviction, the lowest rate since the department began reporting in 2010.

“I want to recognize the experience of our service members who have survived sexual assault and the bravery of those who have shared their stories with the world and advocated for reform,” Mr. Biden said, adding, “I hope this announcement offers some reassurance that the Department of Defense leadership stands with you, starting with your commander in chief.”

Categories
Politics

Previous-Guard Senators Defy Adjustments in How Navy Treats Intercourse Assault Instances

Old-Guard Senators Defy Changes in How Military Treats Sex Assault Cases

WASHINGTON – For nearly a decade, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has meticulously crafted a bipartisan Senate majority for legislation that would revise the way the military deals with sexual assault and other serious crimes, a shift many pundits believe is long overdue .

Ms. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, has won the support of President Biden – something President Barack Obama never openly admitted – and a rare one from numerous colleagues who voted against the law when it was last spoken Turn of events in a deeply divided body.

But now she faces one final hurdle: resistance from the leaders of her Chamber’s Armed Services Committee, Senators Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, and James M. Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma. There is hardly a political sweater set that the two men, both army veterans who came to the Senate in the mid-1990s, often coordinate as one in military matters.

Mr Reed, 71, and Mr Inhofe, 86, have teamed up to oppose Mrs Gillibrand’s legislation and delay any move towards a speedy vote, a stance that many supporters of the bill say they are Protocols shows far more deference to military commanders and the committee than is warranted given decades of failure to protect victims in the armed forces. Ms. Gillibrand’s bill would cut off the military chain of command from decisions to prosecute military personnel for sexual assault, as well as many other serious crimes, which would fundamentally transform the military justice system.

“This is a remarkable moment for an extremely important cause,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat and longtime advocate for change, in an interview last week. Bringing the legislation past Mr. Reed and Mr. Inhofe, he said, was “part of that mosaic.”

The landscape is emblematic of growing bipartisan dissatisfaction in Congress with military leaders on a number of fronts, while concurring with Congress’s long-standing respect for commanders regarding politics.

The conflict played out over several days in the Senate last week when Ms. Gillibrand – flanked by the two Conservative Republican Senators from Iowa, Charles E. Grassley and Joni Ernst, and Mr. Blumenthal – made a highly unusual procedural attempt to get one Votes by the entire Senate, bypassing the Armed Services Committee. Mrs Gillibrand and many of her supporters fear that if the bill remains on committee where it is brought into the debate on the annual defense bill, it will either never get to the vote or fall victim at the last minute, as similar measures have done in the past have done.

“The committee has abandoned survivors for the past 10 years,” said Ms. Gillibrand, 54, on the floor. “And I don’t think it’s your responsibility to make that final decision.”

Mrs. Ernst agreed. “If a foreign power attacked one of our soldiers abroad, a rush of senators would come on the floor demanding action,” she said. “Now I only hear the steps of those who keep us from thinking about anything that would help prevent attacks on our soldiers by their own.”

Mr. Reed, who opposed a notable reprimand from a committee member of his own party, moved with Mr. Inhofe to prevent Senators from bringing the bill outside the committee, where it can be changed at his discretion.

“I am committed to ensuring that due consideration is given to any idea or change brought up by our committee members,” said Reed. He said that he found Mrs Gillibrand’s calculation too broad and too far-reaching.

For many advocates of the law, the reticence shown in varying degrees by Mr. Reed and Mr. Inhofe threatens the will of the Senate majority, tired of the inaction of military leaders, to reduce the number of abuses and offer victims a fairer opportunity to seek justice .

“His heart is in the right place,” said Mr. Blumenthal of Mr. Reed. But by narrowing the scope of the legislation, he said, “We are about to go back to small steps that could not address the real problem.”

Mrs. Gillibrand was more blunt. “You are both against my law and want to kill it in committee,” she said in an interview on Friday. “They have such a great respect for the chain of command that they often show it too much deference.”

If it could get into the Senate, Ms. Gillibrand’s bill would easily break the 60-vote threshold for filibusters that hinders many other laws. It has 66 other senators who have signed – including many who voted against the same bill in 2014, arguing that it would undermine commanders – and more than 70 total who agreed to vote yes.

But Mr. Inhofe remains opposed to removing the military chain of command from prosecuting military personnel for sexual assault.

“Those of us in the military have a very strong sense of the role of commander,” he said, referring to his previous life as a private first class. In an email he later added, “Unfortunately, there are many other flaws in this bill that make it difficult and time-consuming to implement, creating an unstable judicial system and even creating the potential for convictions during this transition.” could be knocked over. “

Mr Reed has said that he is now open to changes in the way sexual assault is judged – after years of resisting such moves – but does not want any other crimes included in the bill.

He prefers the proposals of a panel appointed by Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III, which has made this issue one of its first priorities. This commission has not yet published its final recommendations, but has signaled that independent military lawyers reporting to a special victim prosecutor should take on the role commanders are currently playing in deciding whether people are charged with sexual assault, sexual harassment, or domestic Are charged with violence, will be tried before a court-martial.

Ms Gillibrand’s action covers a wider range of serious crimes.

“I think I support efforts to eradicate sex-related crimes,” said Mr Reed in an interview last week. “I think it is important to have a very robust and energetic debate about the other provisions,” he added, “which are only general products and not related to sexual content.” (Proponents of Ms. Gillibrand’s proposal argue that anyone in the military charged with serious crimes should be brought to justice by a trained military attorney outside the immediate chain of command of the defendant or the prosecutor.)

Mr. Austin has given all service secretaries a few weeks to read through the recommendations of the commission. According to people informed of their responses but not allowed to discuss them publicly, Army and Navy leaders have refused, while some Air Force and Navy members have been more open about considering at least some versions of the proposed changes to pull.

Many senators who spoke out against Ms. Gillibrand’s bill in 2014 have since changed their minds, citing the lack of progress in combating sexual assault and harassment in the military, underscored by a case last year involving an army specialist from another soldier in Fort. Hood was killed in Texas, police said. Her family and some investigators said she was sexually molested at the base.

In 2014, many legislators from both parties gave in to generals and admirals who opposed such changes, but most are now much less patient with their arguments. Not so, Mr. Reed.

“We are awaiting some input from the Department of Defense to ensure that we are doing everything in our power to improve prevention and create a leadership climate that supports all of these efforts,” he said.

Nobody really believed that Ms. Gillibrand and her allies would get a quick vote on their bill. Their movements on the floor should clearly draw attention to the objections of Mr. Reed and Mr. Inhofe.

However, while Mr Reed advocates a debate on the bill as part of the annual Defense Policy Bill, where even many of its proponents agree that it would fit most naturally, Ms. Gillibrand and Ms. Ernst, 50, have reason to be suspicious of the process. You have looked for another way, for example, as an independent measure without a vote in the committee, which occasionally happens, to sit in the Senate.

A much smaller measure – a pilot program for the service academies that would have reflected Ms. Gillibrand’s efforts – was removed from the bill last year before a final vote. In 2019, another measure that would have protected sexual assault survivors from being charged with so-called collateral offenses was gutted in the same way.

Any move to negotiate the bill without Mr Reed’s blessing could be a headache for Senator Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat and majority leader. He would then have to decide whether to bring a leader of his own party to his knees or to oppose the junior senator of his own state, whose bill he supports.

In the meantime, Mr Reed and Mr Inhofe have stressed the breadth of the bill in hopes of drawing attention to this potential problem.

“This is something I want to talk to Kirsten about,” said Senator Angus King, regardless of Maine, who once opposed the law but has since expressed his support. “And see why she needs such a large margin.”

Mr. Grassley, who himself chaired the committee many times over his decades in the Senate, is among those who oppose Mr. Reed and Mr. Inhofe.

“We’ve waited almost a decade,” he said. “There is no reason to wait any longer. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support the protection of our men and women in the military and to have this law passed. “