Mattis Admits More Than 3,000 US Troops Will Be on ‘Combat Duty’ in Afghanistan

Secretary of Defense James Mattis says Afghan forces will lead in combat operations.

(ANTIWAR.COM) — Speaking to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James Mattis offered new details on the ongoing US escalation of the war in Afghanistan, revealing that more than 3,000 troops are being deployed into the country for “combat duty.”

The US troops in Afghanistan have for years been presented as purely “advise and assist” forces, with the suggestion that combat operations in the country have ended. Mattis said that while Afghan forces will “remain in the lead for the fighting,” the newly deployed US troops will be in combat duty.

Details on the overall size of the US deployment have not been made public, but the “more than 3,000” Mattis is referring to appears to be separate from the mid-September announcement of over 6,000 ground troops heading to Afghanistan from Fort Carson.

Mattis explicitly declined to tell senators how many troops were being sent to Afghanistan in Trump’s escalation. Despite Mattis long insisting he supports more transparency, he insisted numbers would “tell the enemy something that will help them.”

The only other detail Mattis and Gen. Joe Dunford offered at the committee session is that the escalation, at present, is estimated to cost over $1 billion more per year, bringing the annual Afghan War cost up to around $12.5 billion.

That’s a really rough estimate, too, as Mattis pointed out that while he’s confident he’s going to get all the troops he needs from Trump, he expressed openness to asking Trump for even more troops for the war if he feels it necessary.

By Jason Ditz / Republished with permission / ANTIWAR.COM / Report a typo

This article was chosen for republication based on the interest of our readers. Anti-Media republishes stories from a number of other independent news sources. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not reflect Anti-Media editorial policy.
Since you’re here…

…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us

    6