Even before any peace push-related drawdowns, the US military is expected to trim troop levels in Afghanistan as part of an efficiency drive by the new commander, a US general told Reuters on Friday, estimating the cuts may exceed 1,000 forces.

US President Donald Trump told Congress this month he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying, "Great nations do not fight endless wars."

US Army General Joseph Votel, the head of the US military's Central Command, said the decision to reduce some of the roughly 14,000 American forces in Afghanistan was not linked to those peace efforts, however.

Instead, he said it was part of an effort by Army General Scott Miller, who took over the more than 17-year war effort in September, to make better use of US resources.

"This is something that he started as he got into the position here and was looking at how we (can) be as efficient and as effective as we can be on the ground," Votel said in an interview during a trip to Oman.

Miller's decision represents a reversal of sorts after years in which the US military sought to slow or halt troop drawdowns under Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, and previously lobbied for more troops under Trump.

It was unclear how far along any troop reductions might already be. The Pentagon says US troop levels in Afghanistan are at around 14,000 but adds the number can fluctuate.

Other sources offered lower estimates. Diplomatic sources believe the efficiency push, which has been raising eyebrows in Kabul, was already driving down US troop levels.

"We're watching this very closely," said a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is clear General Miller's desire to streamline is already having an impact on numbers."

Asked whether Miller would likely cut more than 1,000 troops from Afghanistan under the efficiency drive, Votel said: "He probably will."

Votel added that some troops could be moved "over the horizon," still remotely supporting the war effort from overseas. That, he said, would also reduce vulnerabilities in America's longest war.

"This is his decision as commander here - how he most effectively uses the resources that he has and trying to be as efficient as he can be," Votel said, without offering a specific estimate of exactly how many troops Miller may withdraw.

Miller's spokesman, Army Colonel Dave Butler, declined to speculate on future troop levels. But Butler said Miller would still have surge capabilities into Afghanistan when needed for specific missions.

Costs have increasingly been a focus of discussions between Kabul and Washington. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently sent a letter to Trump offering to reduce US expenses in Afghanistan.

"How to do this more cost effectively is something that we have been working towards for a long time," Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters.

Endless wars

US officials have held several rounds of talks with the Taliban in Qatar since last year in what is widely seen as the most serious bid for peace in the 17-year war. Taliban negotiators will meet their US counterparts on February 18 in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.

US officials have told Reuters the military is planning for what a withdrawal of about half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan would look like.

That has raised concerns about whether a smaller force would be able to support the Afghan military and whether other European armies that rely on American helicopters and other support would pull out.

It also raises questions about how big of a US counter-terrorism force might be able to remain in the country.

Votel declined to discuss any internal deliberations, noting he had not received orders for a withdrawal.

Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan offered a similar reassurance this week, telling nervous NATO allies on Thursday that any potential U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will be done in a coordinated fashion.

Asked about Trump's concerns about endless wars, Votel said: "We don't want to fight endless wars either. We want to accomplish the mission here."

"I think the strategy that the president has allowed to get put in place here, the South Asia strategy, focused on reconciliation, has been a good one," he said.

Beyond US troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon relies on thousands of private contractors.

A recent report by the US Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted there were an additional 861 Defense Department civilians and 10,698 contractors who were U.S. citizens.

Diplomats familiar with NATO operations told Reuters they believed the number of contractors was not expected to be reduced along with U.S. troop withdrawals, and could actually increase.

Even before any peace push-related drawdowns, the US military is expected to trim troop levels in Afghanistan as part of an efficiency drive by the new commander, a US general told Reuters on Friday, estimating the cuts may exceed 1,000 forces.

Even before any peace push-related drawdowns, the US military is expected to trim troop levels in Afghanistan as part of an efficiency drive by the new commander, a US general told Reuters on Friday, estimating the cuts may exceed 1,000 forces. US President Donald Trump told Congress this month he intended to reduce US forces from Afghanistan as negotiators make progress in talks with Taliban insurgents, saying, "Great nations do not fight endless wars." US Army General Joseph Votel, the head of the US military's Central Command, said the decision to reduce some of the roughly 14,000 American forces in Afghanistan was not linked to those peace efforts, however. Instead, he said it was part of an effort by Army General Scott Miller, who took over the more than 17-year war effort in September, to make better use of US resources. "This is something that he started as he got into the position here and was looking at how we (can) be as efficient and as effective as we can be on the ground," Votel said in an interview during a trip to Oman. Miller's decision represents a reversal of sorts after years in which the US military sought to slow or halt troop drawdowns under Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, and previously lobbied for more troops under Trump. It was unclear how far along any troop reductions might already be. The Pentagon says US troop levels in Afghanistan are at around 14,000 but adds the number can fluctuate. Other sources offered lower estimates. Diplomatic sources believe the efficiency push, which has been raising eyebrows in Kabul, was already driving down US troop levels. "We're watching this very closely," said a senior Western diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It is clear General Miller's desire to streamline is already having an impact on numbers." Asked whether Miller would likely cut more than 1,000 troops from Afghanistan under the efficiency drive, Votel said: "He probably will." Votel added that some troops could be moved "over the horizon," still remotely supporting the war effort from overseas. That, he said, would also reduce vulnerabilities in America's longest war. "This is his decision as commander here - how he most effectively uses the resources that he has and trying to be as efficient as he can be," Votel said, without offering a specific estimate of exactly how many troops Miller may withdraw. Miller's spokesman, Army Colonel Dave Butler, declined to speculate on future troop levels. But Butler said Miller would still have surge capabilities into Afghanistan when needed for specific missions. Costs have increasingly been a focus of discussions between Kabul and Washington. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently sent a letter to Trump offering to reduce US expenses in Afghanistan. "How to do this more cost effectively is something that we have been working towards for a long time," Roya Rahmani, Afghanistan's ambassador to Washington, told Reuters. Endless wars US officials have held several rounds of talks with the Taliban in Qatar since last year in what is widely seen as the most serious bid for peace in the 17-year war. Taliban negotiators will meet their US counterparts on February 18 in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad. US officials have told Reuters the military is planning for what a withdrawal of about half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan would look like. That has raised concerns about whether a smaller force would be able to support the Afghan military and whether other European armies that rely on American helicopters and other support would pull out. It also raises questions about how big of a US counter-terrorism force might be able to remain in the country. Votel declined to discuss any internal deliberations, noting he had not received orders for a withdrawal. Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan offered a similar reassurance this week, telling nervous NATO allies on Thursday that any potential U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will be done in a coordinated fashion. Asked about Trump's concerns about endless wars, Votel said: "We don't want to fight endless wars either. We want to accomplish the mission here." "I think the strategy that the president has allowed to get put in place here, the South Asia strategy, focused on reconciliation, has been a good one," he said. Beyond US troops in Afghanistan, the Pentagon relies on thousands of private contractors. A recent report by the US Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted there were an additional 861 Defense Department civilians and 10,698 contractors who were U.S. citizens. Diplomats familiar with NATO operations told Reuters they believed the number of contractors was not expected to be reduced along with U.S. troop withdrawals, and could actually increase.

US may trim over 1,000 troops from Afghanistan in belt-tightening: Army general

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s special envoy Umer Daudzai has said that the rapid <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/trump-serious-about-afghan-withdrawal-taliban-194468">withdrawal of US troops</a> from the country would only create a "vacuum and increase bloodshed".

During an interview with CNN, Daudzai was quoted as saying, "If it happened in a matter that's not orderly ... if it happens that it leaves a vacuum behind, then obviously bloodshed would increase."

Daudzai told CNN that while the peace talks in Qatar have brought "clarity", neither side has fully agreed to anything.

The statement by Daudzai, President Ghani’s Special Representative on Regional Affairs for Consensus on Peace, came as the Afghan government along with the international community is seeking to re-establish peace in the region.

His remarks come after US Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad announced last week that the US and Taliban have agreed in principle to chalk out a framework for a deal that could end the 17-year old conflict in Afghanistan, during the six-day long talks in Doha.

During a press briefing at the Oval Office in White House on Friday, US President Donald Trump stated that Afghanistan is seeking for "very serious negotiations for the first time" on peace efforts in the past 18 years while adding "there’s a reason for that."

''You even look at what’s going on, and I can’t tell you that this is a guarantee because we’re going into close to 19 years in being in Afghanistan, and for the first time they’re talking about settling,” Trump said.“They’re talking about making an agreement and we bring our people back home if that happens,” Trump added.

Last year in December, Trump abruptly announced his decision to withdraw half of the US troops from Afghanistan.

The New York Times on January 30 reported that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in a letter to Trump had requested for a slow withdrawal of the US forces.&nbsp;

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s special envoy Umer Daudzai has said that the rapid withdrawal of US troops from the country would only create a "vacuum and increase bloodshed".

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s special envoy Umer Daudzai has said that the rapid withdrawal of US troops from the country would only create a "vacuum and increase bloodshed". During an interview with CNN, Daudzai was quoted as saying, "If it happened in a matter that's not orderly ... if it happens that it leaves a vacuum behind, then obviously bloodshed would increase." Daudzai told CNN that while the peace talks in Qatar have brought "clarity", neither side has fully agreed to anything. The statement by Daudzai, President Ghani’s Special Representative on Regional Affairs for Consensus on Peace, came as the Afghan government along with the international community is seeking to re-establish peace in the region. His remarks come after US Special Representative for Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad announced last week that the US and Taliban have agreed in principle to chalk out a framework for a deal that could end the 17-year old conflict in Afghanistan, during the six-day long talks in Doha. During a press briefing at the Oval Office in White House on Friday, US President Donald Trump stated that Afghanistan is seeking for "very serious negotiations for the first time" on peace efforts in the past 18 years while adding "there’s a reason for that." ''You even look at what’s going on, and I can’t tell you that this is a guarantee because we’re going into close to 19 years in being in Afghanistan, and for the first time they’re talking about settling,” Trump said.“They’re talking about making an agreement and we bring our people back home if that happens,” Trump added. Last year in December, Trump abruptly announced his decision to withdraw half of the US troops from Afghanistan. The New York Times on January 30 reported that Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in a letter to Trump had requested for a slow withdrawal of the US forces.

'Rapid US troops withdrawal would increase bloodshed', says Afghan envoy

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks.

White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue.''

But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks.

The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks.

He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo."

Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat"

It's interesting to add that Abu Dhabi had also hosted US-Taliban talks.&nbsp;

UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries.

The Afghan peace talks are expected to pave way for American troops to leave the country after 17 years. Stakes seem to be high and experts say dealing with Taliban will require a lot of patience.&nbsp;

India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Amar Sinha reacting to US Taliban Pact told WION, "We have seen only the outlines of a framework agreement and have also heard US Special Representative say that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed". &nbsp;But we all know "the devil &nbsp;is in the details."

Speaking to WION, Michael Kugelman South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Centre said, "It’s a big deal because it represents the first formal attempt to chart a way forward. There have been many meetings between the US and Taliban in the past, but not until now have they formally pledged to address each other’s demands. Could all this progress come crashing down? Certainly. At the end of the day, if the Taliban doesn’t like what’s on the table, it could easily break off the dialogue and fully redirect its attention to the battlefield. That’s why the talks that take place in the coming days will need to be carried out carefully."

India is cautiously watching the developments but so far hasn't reacted. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib was in Delhi in early January.

India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj met the Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Samarkand, Uzbekistan a few weeks ago on the sidelines of first India Central Asia dialogue.&nbsp;

Talking about India, Kugelman said, "For India, these talks are a reminder that its say in Afghanistan’s future, at least for now, is limited. India is a key regional player. But for now, it is left on the outside looking in and hoping that the result, whatever it is, doesn’t risk further instability for its Afghan friend."

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again.

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue.'' But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks. The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks. He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo." Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat" It's interesting to add that Abu Dhabi had also hosted US-Taliban talks. UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries. The Afghan peace talks are expected to pave way for American troops to leave the country after 17 years. Stakes seem to be high and experts say dealing with Taliban will require a lot of patience. India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Amar Sinha reacting to US Taliban Pact told WION, "We have seen only the outlines of a framework agreement and have also heard US Special Representative say that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed". But we all know "the devil is in the details." Speaking to WION, Michael Kugelman South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Centre said, "It’s a big deal because it represents the first formal attempt to chart a way forward. There have been many meetings between the US and Taliban in the past, but not until now have they formally pledged to address each other’s demands. Could all this progress come crashing down? Certainly. At the end of the day, if the Taliban doesn’t like what’s on the table, it could easily break off the dialogue and fully redirect its attention to the battlefield. That’s why the talks that take place in the coming days will need to be carried out carefully." India is cautiously watching the developments but so far hasn't reacted. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib was in Delhi in early January. India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj met the Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Samarkand, Uzbekistan a few weeks ago on the sidelines of first India Central Asia dialogue. Talking about India, Kugelman said, "For India, these talks are a reminder that its say in Afghanistan’s future, at least for now, is limited. India is a key regional player. But for now, it is left on the outside looking in and hoping that the result, whatever it is, doesn’t risk further instability for its Afghan friend."

Priority is to end Afghan war, peace negotiations will continue: White House

A day after US&nbsp;President Trump announced the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-islamic-state-defeated-us-will-pull-all-forces-out-of-syira-185369">withdrawal of forces from Syria</a>, media reports from the US said&nbsp;that Washington will be <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-withdraw-significant-number-of-troops-from-afghanistan-official-185569">withdrawing 7,000 troops from Afghanistan</a>.

According to a New York Times report, "the Trump administration is withdrawing roughly 7,000 troops from Afghanistan in the coming months."&nbsp;

The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the development.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/it-is-right-for-me-to-step-down-us-defense-secretary-jim-mattis-quits-185565">It is right for me to step down, says US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis&nbsp;</a>

The Pentagon is, however, mum on the development. In a reply to WION's question, Pentagon said, "have nothing to provide."

The development can have a major impact in the region especially with India playing an important developmental role in the war-torn country. In recent months hectic talks have been&nbsp;going on to stabilise the country - from the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-doubts-afghan-talibans-desire-for-peace-185562">US talking to the Taliban</a>, to Russia-led Moscow talks and China leading tri-party talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The Taliban recently held talks with the US in Abu Dhabi. The main point of contention from the group has been "withdrawal of foreign troops".

Meanwhile, earlier this week, Russian special envoy for &nbsp;Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov was in India for regular bilateral consultations between India and Russia on Afghanistan. The Russian special envoy held delegation-level talks with joint secretary (PAI) Deepak Mittal and called on foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale.&nbsp;

Giving details on the meeting, the&nbsp;ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said: "Both sides reiterated support for Afghan-led and Afghan-owned inclusive peace and reconciliation process."

The Russian side briefed the Indian side their efforts to support the Afghan peace process through the Moscow-format talks. It agreed to "maintain regular bilateral consultations and coordination to promote peace, security, stability, unity and prosperity in Afghanistan."

Earlier this year, India had informally participated in Moscow talks in which the Taliban also participated. India had sent two&nbsp;former envoys - Amar Sinha, who was India's ambassador to Afghanistan and TCA Raghavan, India's envoy to Pakistan to participate in the meet.

A day after US President Trump announced the withdrawal of forces from Syria, media reports from the US said that Washington will be withdrawing 7,000 troops from Afghanistan.

A day after US President Trump announced the withdrawal of forces from Syria, media reports from the US said that Washington will be withdrawing 7,000 troops from Afghanistan. According to a New York Times report, "the Trump administration is withdrawing roughly 7,000 troops from Afghanistan in the coming months." The Wall Street Journal was the first to report the development. Also read: It is right for me to step down, says US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis The Pentagon is, however, mum on the development. In a reply to WION's question, Pentagon said, "have nothing to provide." The development can have a major impact in the region especially with India playing an important developmental role in the war-torn country. In recent months hectic talks have been going on to stabilise the country - from the US talking to the Taliban, to Russia-led Moscow talks and China leading tri-party talks between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban recently held talks with the US in Abu Dhabi. The main point of contention from the group has been "withdrawal of foreign troops". Meanwhile, earlier this week, Russian special envoy for Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov was in India for regular bilateral consultations between India and Russia on Afghanistan. The Russian special envoy held delegation-level talks with joint secretary (PAI) Deepak Mittal and called on foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale. Giving details on the meeting, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said: "Both sides reiterated support for Afghan-led and Afghan-owned inclusive peace and reconciliation process." The Russian side briefed the Indian side their efforts to support the Afghan peace process through the Moscow-format talks. It agreed to "maintain regular bilateral consultations and coordination to promote peace, security, stability, unity and prosperity in Afghanistan." Earlier this year, India had informally participated in Moscow talks in which the Taliban also participated. India had sent two former envoys - Amar Sinha, who was India's ambassador to Afghanistan and TCA Raghavan, India's envoy to Pakistan to participate in the meet.

Nothing to provide, says Pentagon to WION on reports of US cutting troops in Afghanistan

US president Donald Trump may visit Afghanistan

Afghanistan&#39;s Nangarhar has been the deadliest province for the United States forces over the last year.

The Tolo News quoted reports, as claiming that, &quot;One-third of the 21 US service members killed in combat last year died there, more than in any other single spot where troops were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Niger.&quot;

It is one of the few provinces in Afghanistan, where US troops have been routinely accompanying Afghan forces into battle.

According to the report, US warplanes have carried out hundreds of airstrikes, while its special forces conducted ground operations in the province.

As per the new Afghan strategy of the US administration, which President Donald Trump announced in August, the forces have intensified the attacks against Taliban and the number of soldiers has gone up as well.

Around 14,000 US soldiers are currently in Afghanistan.

Earlier this week, one US soldier was killed and four others got injured during a &quot;combat engagement&quot; in the Achin district of Nangarhar province.

Nangarhar is one of the few provinces in Afghanistan, where US troops have been routinely accompanying Afghan forces into battle

Afghanistan's Nangarhar has been the deadliest province for the United States forces over the last year. The Tolo News quoted reports, as claiming that, "One-third of the 21 US service members killed in combat last year died there, more than in any other single spot where troops were fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia and Niger." It is one of the few provinces in Afghanistan, where US troops have been routinely accompanying Afghan forces into battle. According to the report, US warplanes have carried out hundreds of airstrikes, while its special forces conducted ground operations in the province. As per the new Afghan strategy of the US administration, which President Donald Trump announced in August, the forces have intensified the attacks against Taliban and the number of soldiers has gone up as well. Around 14,000 US soldiers are currently in Afghanistan. Earlier this week, one US soldier was killed and four others got injured during a "combat engagement" in the Achin district of Nangarhar province.

Nangarhar deadliest province for US troops in Afghanistan

NATO&nbsp;Secretary&nbsp;General&nbsp;Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday welcomed President Donald Trump&#39;s decision to dispatch <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-clears-way-for-troop-increase-in-afghanistan-19283">more troops to&nbsp;Afghanistan</a>.

&quot;NATO&nbsp;remains fully committed to&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;and I am looking forward to discussing the way ahead with (Defense)&nbsp;Secretary&nbsp;(James) Mattis and our Allies and international partners,&quot; Stoltenberg said in a statement.&nbsp;

NATO&nbsp;has 12,000 troops in&nbsp;Afghanistan, and 15 countries have pledged more, Stoltenberg said.

NATO?has 12,000 troops in?Afghanistan, and 15 countries have pledged more, NATO?Secretary?General?Jens Stoltenberg said

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on Tuesday welcomed President Donald Trump's decision to dispatch more troops to Afghanistan. "NATO remains fully committed to Afghanistan and I am looking forward to discussing the way ahead with (Defense) Secretary (James) Mattis and our Allies and international partners," Stoltenberg said in a statement. NATO has 12,000 troops in Afghanistan, and 15 countries have pledged more, Stoltenberg said.

NATO Secretary General welcomes new US approach on Afghanistan

Pentagon chief Jim Mattis told exasperated lawmakers Tuesday that America still is &quot;not winning&quot; in Afghanistan, as US military commanders push for additional troops to help stabilise the country&#39;s security crisis.

Mattis&#39;s latest assessment comes nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and amid a war that continues to claim the lives of US troops each year -- and those of thousands of local forces and civilians.

The &quot;Taliban had a good year last year, they are trying to have a good one this year,&quot; Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing about the Pentagon&#39;s budget.

&quot;Right now I believe the enemy is surging.&quot;

US military commanders, who saw fragile security gains eroded under Obama-era troop draw-downs, have been pushing for a new strategy that could see thousands of additional soldiers deploy to Afghanistan to help train and advise beleaguered Afghan partners.

Media reports have said Mattis is considering asking for 3,000 to 5,000 additional US and NATO troops, but the defence chief has said little on the matter.&nbsp;

In February, General John Nicholson, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned that he needs &quot;a few thousand&quot; more troops to reverse what he called a stalemate.

Despite months of expectation that a new Afghanistan strategy announcement is imminent, Mattis said this would not be ready before mid-July.

Republican Senator John McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced his &quot;palpable&quot; frustration.

&quot;We&#39;re now six months into this administration, we still haven&#39;t got a strategy for Afghanistan,&quot; McCain said, noting it was hard to get behind an Afghanistan budget request without knowing what the plan is.&nbsp;

&quot;We know what the strategy was for the last eight years: Don&#39;t lose. That hasn&#39;t worked.&quot;

Mattis acknowledged the reality on the ground.

&quot;We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. We will correct this as soon as possible,&quot; he said.

Residual force

The defence chief, who was a Marine combat commander in Afghanistan at the start of the war, stressed America must not walk away from the country and suggested a long-term residual US force needs to remain to help the Afghan army maintain a baseline of security.

&quot;It&#39;s going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and it&#39;s going to require a change in our approach from the last several years if we&#39;re to get it to that position,&quot; Mattis said.&nbsp;

The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led NATO troops at war there since 2001, after the ousting of the Taliban regime just months after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States.

The ongoing security crisis has seen not just the Taliban gain ground, but also the emergence of other groups such as a local Islamic State affiliate.&nbsp;

On Saturday, the Taliban claimed responsibility for an insider attack in which an Afghan commando turned his weapon on American troops, killing three and wounding another.&nbsp;

US troops in Afghanistan number about 8,400 today, and there are another 5,000 from NATO allies, who mainly serve in a training and advisory capacity.

&nbsp;

The Pentagon chief's statement comes?nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and at a time when US military commanders are pushing for additional troops to help stabilise the country's security crisis

Pentagon chief Jim Mattis told exasperated lawmakers Tuesday that America still is "not winning" in Afghanistan, as US military commanders push for additional troops to help stabilise the country's security crisis. Mattis's latest assessment comes nearly 16 years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and amid a war that continues to claim the lives of US troops each year -- and those of thousands of local forces and civilians. The "Taliban had a good year last year, they are trying to have a good one this year," Mattis told the Senate Armed Services Committee at a hearing about the Pentagon's budget. "Right now I believe the enemy is surging." US military commanders, who saw fragile security gains eroded under Obama-era troop draw-downs, have been pushing for a new strategy that could see thousands of additional soldiers deploy to Afghanistan to help train and advise beleaguered Afghan partners. Media reports have said Mattis is considering asking for 3,000 to 5,000 additional US and NATO troops, but the defence chief has said little on the matter. In February, General John Nicholson, who commands NATO forces in Afghanistan, warned that he needs "a few thousand" more troops to reverse what he called a stalemate. Despite months of expectation that a new Afghanistan strategy announcement is imminent, Mattis said this would not be ready before mid-July. Republican Senator John McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, voiced his "palpable" frustration. "We're now six months into this administration, we still haven't got a strategy for Afghanistan," McCain said, noting it was hard to get behind an Afghanistan budget request without knowing what the plan is. "We know what the strategy was for the last eight years: Don't lose. That hasn't worked." Mattis acknowledged the reality on the ground. "We are not winning in Afghanistan right now. We will correct this as soon as possible," he said. Residual force The defence chief, who was a Marine combat commander in Afghanistan at the start of the war, stressed America must not walk away from the country and suggested a long-term residual US force needs to remain to help the Afghan army maintain a baseline of security. "It's going to be an era of frequent skirmishing and it's going to require a change in our approach from the last several years if we're to get it to that position," Mattis said. The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led NATO troops at war there since 2001, after the ousting of the Taliban regime just months after the September 11 terror attacks in the United States. The ongoing security crisis has seen not just the Taliban gain ground, but also the emergence of other groups such as a local Islamic State affiliate. On Saturday, the Taliban claimed responsibility for an insider attack in which an Afghan commando turned his weapon on American troops, killing three and wounding another. US troops in Afghanistan number about 8,400 today, and there are another 5,000 from NATO allies, who mainly serve in a training and advisory capacity.

US not winning in Afghanistan: Mattis

US and Afghan troops killed the leader of the Islamic State group&#39;s Afghanistan affiliate in an April raid, US military officials confirmed on Sunday.

The raid in Nangarhar province targeted the leader, Sheikh Abdul Hasib, US-Forces Afghanistan said.&nbsp;

His group is affiliated with IS in Iraq and Syria, and the US military calls it Islamic State-Khorasan, or ISIS-K.

US-Forces Afghanistan said earlier that if confirmed, the death of the Hasib and his associates would &quot;significantly degrade ISIS-K operations in Afghanistan and help reach our goal of destroying them in 2017.&quot;

The compound was located near the tunnel complex where the US military on April 13 unleashed the &quot;Mother Of All Bombs&quot; -- a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast device that the Pentagon said was the biggest non-nuclear weapon it had ever used in combat.

Afghanistan&#39;s government meanwhile confirmed Habib&#39;s death on April 27th.&nbsp;

&quot;He had ordered the attack on 400 bed hospital in Kabul that resulted in the death and injuries of a number of our countrymen, women.

The Afghan government is committed to continuing its operations against Daesh and other terrorist groups until they are annihilated,&quot; it said in a statement, using another name for the IS group.

The Pentagon estimates about 1,000 IS fighters remain in Afghanistan.

The jihadists established a foothold there in early 2015 and their numbers now are about half what they were at their peak, US military data show.

The Pentagon will ask the White House next week to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan to break a deadlocked fight with the Taliban, a senior official said Thursday.

After a steady downsizing of US troop numbers since 2011, US military commanders say they need to strengthen the numbers on the ground to better support Afghan forces and help retake territory lost to the Taliban.

The Pentagon will ask for 3,000 to 5,000 more soldiers, mainly to be assigned to advise and train Afghan military and police, according to US media.

US troops in Afghanistan number about 8,400 today, and there are another 5,000 from NATO allies, also now in an advisory capacity.

But that is a far cry from the US presence of more than 100,000 six years ago, and the Afghan military has struggled to fill the void amid an unrelenting Taliban insurgency.

(AFP)

US-Forces Afghanistan had said earlier that if confirmed, the death of the Hasib and his associates would "significantly degrade ISIS-K operations in Afghanistan and help reach our goal of destroying them in 2017."

US and Afghan troops killed the leader of the Islamic State group's Afghanistan affiliate in an April raid, US military officials confirmed on Sunday. The raid in Nangarhar province targeted the leader, Sheikh Abdul Hasib, US-Forces Afghanistan said. His group is affiliated with IS in Iraq and Syria, and the US military calls it Islamic State-Khorasan, or ISIS-K. US-Forces Afghanistan said earlier that if confirmed, the death of the Hasib and his associates would "significantly degrade ISIS-K operations in Afghanistan and help reach our goal of destroying them in 2017." The compound was located near the tunnel complex where the US military on April 13 unleashed the "Mother Of All Bombs" -- a GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast device that the Pentagon said was the biggest non-nuclear weapon it had ever used in combat. Afghanistan's government meanwhile confirmed Habib's death on April 27th. "He had ordered the attack on 400 bed hospital in Kabul that resulted in the death and injuries of a number of our countrymen, women. The Afghan government is committed to continuing its operations against Daesh and other terrorist groups until they are annihilated," it said in a statement, using another name for the IS group. The Pentagon estimates about 1,000 IS fighters remain in Afghanistan. The jihadists established a foothold there in early 2015 and their numbers now are about half what they were at their peak, US military data show. The Pentagon will ask the White House next week to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan to break a deadlocked fight with the Taliban, a senior official said Thursday. After a steady downsizing of US troop numbers since 2011, US military commanders say they need to strengthen the numbers on the ground to better support Afghan forces and help retake territory lost to the Taliban. The Pentagon will ask for 3,000 to 5,000 more soldiers, mainly to be assigned to advise and train Afghan military and police, according to US media. US troops in Afghanistan number about 8,400 today, and there are another 5,000 from NATO allies, also now in an advisory capacity. But that is a far cry from the US presence of more than 100,000 six years ago, and the Afghan military has struggled to fill the void amid an unrelenting Taliban insurgency. (AFP)

US military confirms death of Afghanistan IS chief

President Barack Obama on Wednesday said 8,400 US troops will remain in Afghanistan into next year to tackle the threat from a resurgent Taliban.&nbsp;Obama, who was elected in 2008 on a promise to end America&#39;s longest war, had previously vowed to slash the US troop presence from its current level of 9,800 to 5,500 by 2017. 
 
He said a still &quot;precarious&quot; security situation, with Afghan security forces struggling to contain the Taliban, made such a move untenable. 
 
&quot;Instead of going down to 5,500 troops by the end of this year, the United States will maintain approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan into next year through the end of my administration,&quot; Obama said. 
 
&quot;It is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we&#39;ve invested in Afghanistan over the years, that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed,&quot; he added. 
 
With only a few months left in office, Obama said additional troops would enable his successor to have &quot;a solid foundation for continued progress&quot; in Afghanistan. 
 
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid mocked his announcement.&nbsp;&quot;The more American invaders in Afghanistan, the more casualties they will suffer,&quot; he said on Twitter.&nbsp;&quot;They will certainly be defeated,&quot; he added. &quot;We have good experience in fighting the idiots. We have high morale.&quot; 
 
NATO mission 
 
Most of the US troops, operating under the NATO banner, work as trainers or advisers to Afghan forces. Around 40 NATO members and partner countries currently contribute to the overall force of nearly 13,000. 
 
It was not immediately clear whether Obama&#39;s decision would influence other countries&#39; troop levels, expected to be a central issue at this week&#39;s NATO summit in Poland. 
 
&quot;I welcome @BarackObama&#39;s announcement on troop levels in Afghanistan. A strong signal of our continued commitment,&quot; NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Twitter. 
 
Obama&#39;s announcement effectively acknowledges that Afghan forces, which took charge of the country&#39;s security in 2015, still face massive institutional shortcomings. 
 
They have suffered devastating setbacks at the hands of the Taliban, including the temporary loss of the northern city of Kunduz, and more than 5,000 Afghan troops killed last year alone. 
 
Other organisations, including the Islamic State group, have meanwhile stepped up activity. 
 
&quot;The security situation in Afghanistan remains precarious,&quot; said Obama, who last month unveiled looser rules making it easier for US forces to strike Taliban targets. 
 
&quot;Afghan security forces are still not as strong as they need to be,&quot; he added. &quot;With our help, they&#39;re still working to improve critical capabilities, such as intelligence, logistics, aviation and command and control.&quot; 
 
Optics and politics 
 
Stephen Biddle, an Afghanistan expert and professor at George Washington University, said adjustments to the comparatively small US troop presence - the Afghans have about 320,000 police and troops - would make little difference to local security capabilities until Afghanistan tackles issues such as deeply entrenched corruption. 
 
&quot;The ability of the Afghans to hold the line is not primarily being shaped by whether there are 9,800 or 8,400 or 5,500 US soldiers,&quot; Biddle told AFP, noting that the troop count is &quot;more about the optics and the politics of this than it is about military capability&quot;. 
 
In particular, the Pentagon needs to maintain a steady troop level to ensure continued Congressional funding for the Afghan cause, Biddle said. 
 
Obama himself acknowledged the solution to the conflict, which has dragged on for 15 years, would not be military alone. 
 
&quot;The only way to end this conflict and to achieve a full drawdown of foreign forces from Afghanistan is through a lasting political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban,&quot; he said. 
 
&quot;That is why the United States will continue to strongly support an Afghan-led reconciliation process, and why we call on all countries in the region to end safe havens for militants and terrorists.&quot; 
 
But diplomatic efforts to engage with the Taliban are in disarray. The United States in May killed the group&#39;s leader, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, in a drone strike in Pakistan. 
 
Obama&#39;s decision follows a review of the security situation by General John Nicholson, the new commander of the US-led NATO mission in Afghanistan. 
 
Republican senator John McCain, a longtime critic of Obama&#39;s military policies, welcomed the move, but said the president should have kept the entire 9,800 US troops in the country.&nbsp;Still, he said, &quot;the decision to retain 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan into next year is certainly preferable to cutting those forces by nearly half.&quot; 
 
US forces have been in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion to oust the Taliban in late 2001.&nbsp;The United States has spent around $1 trillion in total since, and some 2,200 American lives have been lost in the longest war in US history. 
 
(AFP)

Obama himself acknowledged the solution to the conflict, which at 15 years is the longest war in US history, would not be military alone

President Barack Obama on Wednesday said 8,400 US troops will remain in Afghanistan into next year to tackle the threat from a resurgent Taliban. Obama, who was elected in 2008 on a promise to end America's longest war, had previously vowed to slash the US troop presence from its current level of 9,800 to 5,500 by 2017. He said a still "precarious" security situation, with Afghan security forces struggling to contain the Taliban, made such a move untenable. "Instead of going down to 5,500 troops by the end of this year, the United States will maintain approximately 8,400 troops in Afghanistan into next year through the end of my administration," Obama said. "It is in our national security interest, especially after all the blood and treasure we've invested in Afghanistan over the years, that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed," he added. With only a few months left in office, Obama said additional troops would enable his successor to have "a solid foundation for continued progress" in Afghanistan. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid mocked his announcement. "The more American invaders in Afghanistan, the more casualties they will suffer," he said on Twitter. "They will certainly be defeated," he added. "We have good experience in fighting the idiots. We have high morale." NATO mission Most of the US troops, operating under the NATO banner, work as trainers or advisers to Afghan forces. Around 40 NATO members and partner countries currently contribute to the overall force of nearly 13,000. It was not immediately clear whether Obama's decision would influence other countries' troop levels, expected to be a central issue at this week's NATO summit in Poland. "I welcome @BarackObama's announcement on troop levels in Afghanistan. A strong signal of our continued commitment," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said on Twitter. Obama's announcement effectively acknowledges that Afghan forces, which took charge of the country's security in 2015, still face massive institutional shortcomings. They have suffered devastating setbacks at the hands of the Taliban, including the temporary loss of the northern city of Kunduz, and more than 5,000 Afghan troops killed last year alone. Other organisations, including the Islamic State group, have meanwhile stepped up activity. "The security situation in Afghanistan remains precarious," said Obama, who last month unveiled looser rules making it easier for US forces to strike Taliban targets. "Afghan security forces are still not as strong as they need to be," he added. "With our help, they're still working to improve critical capabilities, such as intelligence, logistics, aviation and command and control." Optics and politics Stephen Biddle, an Afghanistan expert and professor at George Washington University, said adjustments to the comparatively small US troop presence - the Afghans have about 320,000 police and troops - would make little difference to local security capabilities until Afghanistan tackles issues such as deeply entrenched corruption. "The ability of the Afghans to hold the line is not primarily being shaped by whether there are 9,800 or 8,400 or 5,500 US soldiers," Biddle told AFP, noting that the troop count is "more about the optics and the politics of this than it is about military capability". In particular, the Pentagon needs to maintain a steady troop level to ensure continued Congressional funding for the Afghan cause, Biddle said. Obama himself acknowledged the solution to the conflict, which has dragged on for 15 years, would not be military alone. "The only way to end this conflict and to achieve a full drawdown of foreign forces from Afghanistan is through a lasting political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban," he said. "That is why the United States will continue to strongly support an Afghan-led reconciliation process, and why we call on all countries in the region to end safe havens for militants and terrorists." But diplomatic efforts to engage with the Taliban are in disarray. The United States in May killed the group's leader, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, in a drone strike in Pakistan. Obama's decision follows a review of the security situation by General John Nicholson, the new commander of the US-led NATO mission in Afghanistan. Republican senator John McCain, a longtime critic of Obama's military policies, welcomed the move, but said the president should have kept the entire 9,800 US troops in the country. Still, he said, "the decision to retain 8,400 US troops in Afghanistan into next year is certainly preferable to cutting those forces by nearly half." US forces have been in Afghanistan since the US-led invasion to oust the Taliban in late 2001. The United States has spent around $1 trillion in total since, and some 2,200 American lives have been lost in the longest war in US history. (AFP)

Obama slows Afghanistan pullout, 8,400 troops to stay

US President Barack Obama may not decide before the NATO summit next month whether to alter plans to nearly halve America&#39;s forces in Afghanistan, a diplomat and a US official said. 
 
A decision had been expected at or before the summit in Warsaw on July 8-9 on whether to stick to plans to slash the 9,800 troops to 5,500 before Obama leaves office next year. 
 
Former commanders and envoys have warned that it would be a mistake. And with preparations in full swing for the summit, the timing of any decision by Obama remains unclear. 
 
US defence secretary Ash Carter flies to Brussels on Monday to meet NATO counterparts, with Afghanistan expected to be high on the agenda. 
 
One reason to decide on slowing the US drawdown before the summit might be to encourage NATO allies to keep their troops in Afghanistan, where President Ashraf Ghani&#39;s government is battling a Taliban insurgency that has gathered fresh momentum. 
 
NATO allies seem less intent on cutting their troop presence, which could give Obama more time to formulate and telegraph his own plans. 
 
&quot;We have been moderately, pleasantly surprised at the willingness to stay at current levels of most other allies, and some willingness to consider increasing,&quot; said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 
 
&quot;Just because there is a summit doesn&rsquo;t mean (you) need a decision,&quot; he added. 
 
To be sure, Afghanistan will be a major issue at the summit and Obama still could make a decision before then. 
 
&quot;It does not have to happen by Warsaw but it certainly will be a topic there,&quot; said a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity. &quot;The size and scope of other nation contributions are a logical consideration in our decision-making.&quot; 
 
The White House has yet to receive the recommendations from its new commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, who conducted a comprehensive security review during his first 90 days on the job. The review&#39;s results have not been made public. 
 
In a sign of his willingness to broaden the US role in Afghanistan, Obama last week approved giving the US military greater ability to accompany and to enable Afghan forces in offensive operations, including carrying out air strikes. 
 
Speaking on Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the decision to broaden the remit &quot;does not limit in any way our ability to follow through with the plan to draw down our troops at a level of 5,500 troops by the end of this year.&quot; 
 
Obama would consider changing the troop numbers if Nicholson recommended that, Earnest said. 
 
Nicholson&#39;s predecessors and former US envoys to Afghanistan urged Obama earlier this month to keep troop levels steady at near 10,000 through the remainder of his term. 
 
&quot;This approach would also allow your successor to assess the situation for herself or himself and make further adjustments accordingly,&quot; the letter read. &nbsp; 
 
Cutting the forces to 5,500, in turn, would erode the morale of Afghan government forces and bolster the Taliban, they wrote. 
 
Obama has already scaled back the troop withdrawal plans he laid out in May 2014, when he pledged to cut to roughly 5,000 by end 2015 and to &quot;a normal embassy presence ... with a security assistance component, just as we&#39;ve done in Iraq&quot; by the end of 2016. 
 
Among the factors weighing in his troop decision include how much, if any, additional support he may get from other NATO nations; the signal that a cut will send to Ghani and to the Taliban; and what kind of legacy he leaves his successor.

One reason for the slow US draw down before the summit might be to encourage NATO allies to keep their troops in Afghanistan

US President Barack Obama may not decide before the NATO summit next month whether to alter plans to nearly halve America's forces in Afghanistan, a diplomat and a US official said. A decision had been expected at or before the summit in Warsaw on July 8-9 on whether to stick to plans to slash the 9,800 troops to 5,500 before Obama leaves office next year. Former commanders and envoys have warned that it would be a mistake. And with preparations in full swing for the summit, the timing of any decision by Obama remains unclear. US defence secretary Ash Carter flies to Brussels on Monday to meet NATO counterparts, with Afghanistan expected to be high on the agenda. One reason to decide on slowing the US drawdown before the summit might be to encourage NATO allies to keep their troops in Afghanistan, where President Ashraf Ghani's government is battling a Taliban insurgency that has gathered fresh momentum. NATO allies seem less intent on cutting their troop presence, which could give Obama more time to formulate and telegraph his own plans. "We have been moderately, pleasantly surprised at the willingness to stay at current levels of most other allies, and some willingness to consider increasing," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Just because there is a summit doesn’t mean (you) need a decision," he added. To be sure, Afghanistan will be a major issue at the summit and Obama still could make a decision before then. "It does not have to happen by Warsaw but it certainly will be a topic there," said a US official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The size and scope of other nation contributions are a logical consideration in our decision-making." The White House has yet to receive the recommendations from its new commander in Afghanistan, General John Nicholson, who conducted a comprehensive security review during his first 90 days on the job. The review's results have not been made public. In a sign of his willingness to broaden the US role in Afghanistan, Obama last week approved giving the US military greater ability to accompany and to enable Afghan forces in offensive operations, including carrying out air strikes. Speaking on Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the decision to broaden the remit "does not limit in any way our ability to follow through with the plan to draw down our troops at a level of 5,500 troops by the end of this year." Obama would consider changing the troop numbers if Nicholson recommended that, Earnest said. Nicholson's predecessors and former US envoys to Afghanistan urged Obama earlier this month to keep troop levels steady at near 10,000 through the remainder of his term. "This approach would also allow your successor to assess the situation for herself or himself and make further adjustments accordingly," the letter read. Cutting the forces to 5,500, in turn, would erode the morale of Afghan government forces and bolster the Taliban, they wrote. Obama has already scaled back the troop withdrawal plans he laid out in May 2014, when he pledged to cut to roughly 5,000 by end 2015 and to "a normal embassy presence ... with a security assistance component, just as we've done in Iraq" by the end of 2016. Among the factors weighing in his troop decision include how much, if any, additional support he may get from other NATO nations; the signal that a cut will send to Ghani and to the Taliban; and what kind of legacy he leaves his successor.

Decision to halve US troops in Afghanistan unlikely by Warsaw summit