Category Archives: ISIS ISIL Islamic State Caliphate

Private Contractors Left without Escape Plan in Afghanistan

Posted on by

The next Benghazi? State Department leaves contractors in Afghanistan without escape plan

Circa: The concerns are heightened by the fact that many of those civilians doing the security and nation-building work of the U.S. government hold sensitive security clearances, making them an attractive target for the enemy.

And the situation could become even more precarious after the U.S. military in Afghanistan draws down to just 8,400 troops by year’s end.

“It’s not just a political nightmare for somebody, it’s people’s lives at stake,” said Kevin Ofchus, head of Georgia-based firm Host Nations Perspectives Southwest Asia (HNPSWA) that has security contracts in Afghanistan.

The current situation

“The State Department says there’s a lack of infrastructure to support an emergency response after we’ve spent 15 years and billions of dollars on infrastructure,” he added.

Ofchus’s company is a member of the State Department’s Overseas Security Advisory Committee, and it chairs the Crisis Management Advisory Subcommittee in Kabul, which advises companies about security working in hot-zones.

And his sentiments are widely shared by a dozen other federal contractors in theater interviewed by Circa, some of whom would only talk on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisal from Washington.

“I was told ‘don’t bother going to Kabul, grab your weapon and fight your way through until you can reach an aircraft’ or whatever,” said one contractor working in Afghanistan, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

“I don’t think any of us count on State Department to have their shit together. I’ve never seen, heard or prepared for any evacuation plan.”

— -Anonymous contractor

So is there a plan?

State Department officials told Circa that there is an evacuation plan, but they could not release any details about it because it was classified.

Mike Warren, a security director for the USAID-backed Mining Investment and Development for Afghanistan Sustainability Project, known as MIDAS, says he believes State has a very remedial plan but it fails on almost every security protocol.

“The Department of State, in close coordination with the Department of Defense, has a crisis response plan for Afghanistan that encompasses civilians and contractors. U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, in close coordination with the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, maintains a classified Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations plan to support the chief of mission,” the department wrote in an email.

“I know the U.S. Embassy was working on a plan, but it’s a shell of what they need,” Warren said in a phone interview from Kabul. “There appears to be a lack of coordinated effort between the U.S. Embassy and the American companies and personnel here in Afghanistan.”

“I know the U.S. Embassy was working on a plan, but it’s a shell of what they need.”

— Mike Warren, security director for MIDAS

Circa obtained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the State Department and Department of Defense governing the protection and evacuation of U.S. citizens and nationals from threatened areas overseas. The document specifically outlines the duties and requirements of the various agencies.

The Secretary of State “will prepare the plans for the protection and evacuation of all U.S. citizens and nationals and designated other persons abroad, including the Department of Defense (non-combatants).” More terrifying details here from Circa.

*****

In part: Now, as President Obama prepares to hand off combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere, to his successor, he’s also bequeathing a way of war that relies on large numbers of guns-for-hire while, at least formally, restricting the number of American “troops” sent overseas. Since 2009, the ratio of contractors to troops in war zones has increased from 1 to 1 to about 3 to 1.

Private military contractors perform tasks once thought to be inherently governmental, such as raising foreign armies, conducting intelligence analysis and trigger-pulling. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, they constituted about 15 percent of all contractors. But don’t let the numbers fool you. Their failures have an outsized impact on U.S. strategy. When a squad of Blackwater contractors killed 17 civilians at a Bagdad traffic circle in 2007, it provoked a firestorm in Iraq and at home, marking one of the nadirs of that war.

Contractors also encourage mission creep, because contractors don’t count as “boots on the ground.” Congress does not consider them to be troops, and therefore contractors do not count again troop-level caps in places like Iraq. The U.S. government does not track contractor numbers in war zones. As a result, the government can put more people on the ground than it reports to the American people, encouraging mission creep and rendering contractors virtually invisible.

For decades now, the centrality of contracting in American warfare—both on the battlefield and in support of those on the battlefield—has been growing. During World War II, about 10 percent of America’s armed forces were contracted. During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, that proportion leapt to 50 percent. This big number signals a disturbing trend: the United States has developed a dependency on the private sector to wage war, a strategic vulnerability. Today, America can no longer go to war without the private sector. More here from DefenseOne.

Liberating Mosul, Iraq is Great Until it Isn’t Due to Iran

Posted on by

Did one ever consider that all those back-channels that Barack Obama opened early in 2008-2009 with Iran for an eventual deal on the nuclear program included a demand by Iran that the United States get out of Iraq, which we did in 2011 so Iran could annex the country and government? Signs are pointing for this to be true. The same goes with Russia annexing Syria and challenging the Baltics as well as Ukraine at the same time.

   

The United States has been forced to tolerate Iranian militia all over Iraq for many years…liberating Ramadi, Fallujah and soon to be Mosul is our work with the Kurds to hand it all over to Iran…really? Uh huh.

US officials: Up to 100,000 Iran-backed fighters now in Iraq

FNC: As many as 100,000 Iranian-backed Shiite militia are now fighting on the ground in Iraq, according to U.S. military officials — raising concerns that should the Islamic State be defeated, it may only be replaced by another anti-American force that fuels further sectarian violence in the region.

The ranks have swelled inside a network of Shiite militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Since the rise of Sunni-dominated ISIS fighters inside Iraq more than two years ago, the Shiite forces have grown to 100,000 fighters, Col. Chris Garver, a Baghdad-based U.S. military spokesman, confirmed in an email to Fox News. The fighters are mostly Iraqis.

Garver said not all the Shia militias in Iraq are backed by Iran, adding: “The [Iranian-backed] Shia militia are usually identified at around 80,000.”

According to some experts, this still is an alarmingly high number.

“The effect of the Obama administration’s policy has been to replace American boots on the ground with the Iranian’s. As Iran advances, one anti-American actor is being replaced with another,” Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said in a recent phone interview.

Garver said other Popular Mobilization fighters also consist of Sunni tribal fighters from Anbar and Nineveh provinces in Iraq.

Whether the force size is 80,000 or 100,000, the figures are the first-known estimates of the Iranian-backed fighters. The figure first surfaced in a recent Tampa Bay Times article and marks the latest evidence of Tehran’s deepening involvement in the war against ISIS, with the U.S. military also confirming that Russian bombers are now flying into Syria from a base in Iran. The growth also could create greater risk for Americans operating in the country, as at least one Iran-backed group vowed earlier this year to attack U.S. forces supporting the Iraqis.

Even more troubling to the U.S. military are reports that Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian general who commands the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force, is now on the ground outside Mosul ahead of an expected operation to retake Iraq’s second-largest city which has been under ISIS control for the past two years.

According to the Long War Journal, a spokesman for the Iranian-backed forces said earlier this month that Soleimani is expected to play a “major role” in the battle for Mosul.

When asked about Shia militias participating in the liberation of Sunni-dominated Mosul, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq said last week, “The government of Iraq is in charge of this war. We’re here to support them. So, who they [want in] the campaign is really their decision.”

A U.S. military official could not confirm Soleimani’s presence in Mosul, but said Soleimani had been seen throughout Iraq and Syria in the past two years coordinating activities.

Garver stressed Tuesday there is no coordination between the U.S. and Iranians. “We are not coordinating with the Iranians in any way, we are not working with them in any way,” he said during a press conference, adding: “However the government of Iraq comes up with the plan, we are supporting [their] plan for the seizure of Mosul.”

Last August, Fox News first reported Soleimani’s visit to Moscow 10 days after the landmark nuclear agreement in July to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and top Russian officials to plan Russia’s upcoming deployment to Syria in late September.

Soleimani is banned from international travel through United Nations Security Council resolutions. He was first designated a terrorist and sanctioned by the U.S. in 2005. In October 2011, the U.S. Treasury Department tied Soleimani to the failed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States at a popular restaurant in Washington, D.C. Soleimani’s Quds Force is the special forces external wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, responsible for supporting terrorist proxies across the Middle East.

At his confirmation hearing last year, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford was asked how many Americans were killed by Iranian-backed forces under the command of Soleimani.

“The number has been recently quoted as about 500. We weren’t always able to attribute the casualties we had to Iranian activity, although many times we suspected it was Iranian activity even though we didn’t necessarily have the forensics to support that,” Dunford said.

The threat to American troops remains. Last month, firebrand Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr — responsible for attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq a decade ago – once again called for his supporters to kill American troops.

“[U.S. forces] are a target for us,” he said on his website.

In March, one Iranian-backed group said it would attack U.S. forces after the Pentagon announced that hundreds of U.S. Marines were supporting Iraqi forces with artillery fire.

“If the U.S. administration doesn’t withdraw its forces immediately, we will deal with them as forces of occupation,” Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH) said on its TV channel.

The Iranian-backed group has claimed responsibility for over 6,000 attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq since 2006 and operates under the supervision of Soleimani, according to a report by the Institute for the Study of War.

Meanwhile, there are more indications that Russia and Iran are expanding their military ties. The U.S. military has confirmed that Russian bombers flying from a base in Iran have bombed three areas in Syria.

In addition to the up to 100,000 Iranian-backed forces in Iraq, there are thousands of Iranian-backed forces in Syria as well in support of President Bashar al-Assad.  Some of these Iranian-backed forces come from as far as Afghanistan and hundreds have recently died fighting Syrian rebels in the city of Aleppo, according to recent reports.

Russia v. Ukraine Real Conflict Coming?

Posted on by

For Putin, it is all financial and likely to flush out NATO operations if possible.

**** 

BusinessInsider: Ukraine says it thinks Vladimir Putin is planning a new invasion, and it’s not hard to see why: the Russian leader has built up troops on its border and resumed the hostile rhetoric that preceded his annexation of Crimea two years ago.

But despite appearances, some experts say Putin is more likely seeking advantage through diplomacy than on the battlefield, at least this time around.

“It’s about sanctions,” Andrey Kortunov, director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, a Moscow-based foreign policy think tank close to the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Reuters.

“It looks like a way of increasing pressure on Western participants of the Minsk peace process,” he said of a peace deal set up for eastern Ukraine, where pro-Russian separatists have battled against government forces.

For two years, Russia has been under U.S. and EU sanctions over its annexation of Crimea and support for the separatists in eastern Ukraine. European leaders say the sanctions cannot be lifted unless the Minsk peace deal is implemented, but for now it looks moribund, with fighting occasionally flaring and both sides blaming each other for failing to implement truce terms. More here.

A Ukrainian paratrooper walks among the ruins of building destroyed by pro-Russian separatists shelling on August 14, 2016. Pro-Russian rebels allegedly have ramped up their shelling of one key village: the once quiet coastal resort village of Shyrokyne in Donetsk has turned into one of the bloodiest battlefields of the 27-month separatist revolt. (Photo by ALEKSEY FILIPPOV/AFP/Getty Images)

Forbes: The fog of war has become a Russian specialty.  Did they invade Ukraine? Did they not? Did Crimeans vote for secession on their own volition? Did they not? In any event, the market seems to be ignoring the recent escalation of tensions between Ukraine and Russia. Tensions do not bode well for sanctions removal, even though it seems pretty certain to everyone that a Hillary Clinton presidency will keep sanctions in place come January.

The latest fiasco: a border skirmish in Crimea with Ukrainian forces led to the death of two Russian soldiers.

Nevertheless, the skirmish may not have even happened. The New York Times reported Monday from Moscow that Ukraine denied the killing of two soldiers. The official word from Kiev is that the Kremlin invented the story to escalate tensions in order to whip up nationalist passions ahead of parliamentary elections in September. A Russian television report documenting the arrest of a couple of Ukrainian commandos in Crimea included shots of a full moon at dusk, though the moon was waning on the date of the alleged incident, the Times reported. The shot may have been stock footage, however.

And while all this tit-for-tat was going on, the Market Vectors Russia (RSX) fund rose 2.27%, two times more than the MSCI Emerging Markets Index.

The jury is out as to why this is happening in Crimea. One theory is that Ukraine was the instigator. Ukraine has a strong, even existential, interest in ensuring that the U.S. continues to provide support. To this end, it is advantageous for Ukraine to paint Putin and Russia as bad guys, an increasingly easy task.

Pro-Russia political analyst Sergei Markov even says U.S. intelligence agencies and the Hillary Clinton campaign itself were behind it in order to make pro-Russia Republican Donald Trump look to be supportive of a rogue nation.

“An escalation of tensions between Russia and Ukraine would be highly expedient for Hillary Clinton, who has repeatedly issued sharp-worded, aggressive statements against Putin and Russia,” he was quoted as saying by the Khodorkovsky Center’s editorial writers on Monday.

RSX sold off only a tad late after market hours on Monday.

Why would Vladimir Putin want to cause more trouble in Ukraine than he already has? His United Russia party has very little opposition. His approval rating remains high. But a little bit of Russian firepower, especially where Russia is looked at as being picked on by Western back forces, plays well with United Russia fans.

Putin has state Duma elections coming up and he may take the view that both Europe and the U.S. are too weak to seriously punish him beyond extending sanctions, which is a given if in a Clinton presidency.

Putin may also take the view that a foreign policy distraction is a good pretext for a bit of political housecleaning at

home, explaining the exit of long-standing supporter, Chief of Staff Sergei Ivanov, notes Jan Dehn, head of research for emerging market investment firm Ashmore in London.

As for the investment implications, Russia’s ability and willingness to pay its debts to foreign banks remain solid. If bond spreads should blow out materially, buyers are likely to outweigh sellers in a rather short period of time. This happened back in November of 2014 when the central bank changed its currency trading band and raised interest rates three times in less than a month. Spreads were over 900 basis points over Treasurys. The Russian bond lords were the first to pile in.

That made Russia one of the best bond trades in the world and stood as evidence that the market has faith in Russia debt, at least. It will get paid. It actually yields. Holy lord…

Meanwhile, the Russian economy is turning a corner and investors are hoping to see GDP crack zero this year. Year on year growth rates were -0.6% in the second quarter from -1.2% in the first. Inflation is stabilizing but not enough yet for a rate cut. So long as inflation doesn’t go the other way, the central bank will cut rates and that will be supportive of equities.

The only thing to pull the rug out of Russia would be oil heading to the $30s again. It’s not unlikely. But it’s definitely not consensus.

Russia Making More Aggressive Moves in Iran and Syria

Posted on by

Shoigu Says Russia Prevented NATO Missile Strikes in Syria, Even as Russia Asks for Permission to Send Missiles Over Iran, Iraq

Pro-Assad Media Outlet: Russia Deploys Bombers To Iran

Interpreter: Al Masdar, a media outlet with close ties to the Syrian security apparatus which is widely considered to be pro-Assad, reports that Russian bombers are now operating out of the Hamedan Air Base in western Iran. The outlet says that they have received exclusive pictures from the base. Al Masdar reports:

Currently, the strategic TU-22M3 bombers take flight from southern Russia at Modzok airfield; however, this newly signed military agreement with Iran will allow Russia to reduce flight time by 60%, saving the Kremlin both money and improving airstrike effectiveness.

The distance of these flights equal roughly 2,150km to reach a target near Palmyra. From Hamedan Air Base in Iran the distance to reach a target near Palmyra equals roughly 900km.

The Khmeimim Airbase in Latakia province – which Russia was granted access to in late 2015 – is not suitable for the massive TU-22M3, the largest bomber jet in the world.

AMN – Al-Masdar News | المصدر نيوز

Russia deploys jets at Iranian Airbase to combat insurgents in Syria Al-Masdar News has obtained exclusive photos of Russian warplanes being deployed to the Hamedan Air Base in western Iran. Currently, the strategic TU-22M3 bombers take flight from southern Russia at Modzok airfield; however, this newly signed military agreement with Iran will allow Russia to reduce flight time by 60%, saving the Kremlin both money and improving airstrike effectiveness.

View full page →

Aug 16, 2016 00:40 (GMT)

The report has been circulated by several pro-Kremlin propagandists, adding credibility to the claims.

Just hours ago we reported that, according to Interfax, Russia has sought permission from Iran and Iraq to fire cruise missiles over their airspace.

— James Miller
*****

Tu-22M3 and Su-34 bombers flew from Iran’s Hamadan base Tuesday to attack Islamic State and Nusra Front targets in Syria’s Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor and Idlib provinces, the Russian Defense Ministry said in an e-mailed statement. They returned to the base after completing their missions, it said.

The bombers were supported by fighter jets from Syria’s Hmeimeem base that Russia’s used to carry out airstrikes in support of President Bashar al-Assad since September. Russia’s announcement that it’s using an Iranian base to carry out attacks in Syria comes after President Vladimir Putin discussed the fight against terrorism with Iranian leader Hassan Rouhani when they met in Azerbaijan last week. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Iranian defense officials agreed on expanded military cooperation at talks in Moscow this month, according to the Izvestia daily. Russia and Iran are backing Assad’s army against opposition groups in Syria’s civil war, which has killed more than 280,000 people and displaced millions.

Russia asked Iran and Iraq last week to allow cruise missiles to pass through their airspace, the Interfax news service reported Monday, citing an unidentified person with knowledge of the matter. Russian warships in the Caspian Sea fired 26 cruise missiles at targets in Syria in October, shortly after Putin ordered the military campaign to commence. More from Bloomberg.

*****

Russia Building New Underground Nuclear Command Posts

U.S. intelligence detects dozens of hardened bunkers for leaders

FreeBeacon: Russia is building large numbers of underground nuclear command bunkers in the latest sign Moscow is moving ahead with a major strategic forces modernization program.

U.S. intelligence officials said construction has been underway for several years on “dozens” of underground bunkers in Moscow and around the country.

Disclosure of the underground command bunkers comes as Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. European Command, warned recently that Russia has adopted a nuclear use doctrine he called “alarming.”

“It is clear that Russia is modernizing its strategic forces,” Scaparrotti told a conference sponsored by the U.S. Strategic Command.

“Russian doctrine states that tactical nuclear weapons may be used in a conventional response scenario,” Scaparrotti said on July 27. “This is alarming and it underscores why our country’s nuclear forces and NATO’s continues to be a vital component of our deterrence.”

Mark Schneider, a former Pentagon nuclear policy official, said Russia’s new national security strategy, which was made public in December, discusses increasing civil defenses against nuclear attack, an indication Moscow is preparing for nuclear war.

“Russia is getting ready for a big war which they assume will go nuclear, with them launching the first attacks,” said Schneider, now with the National Institute for Public Policy, a Virginia-based think tank.

“We are not serious about preparing for a big war, much less a nuclear war,” he added.

Additionally, Russian officials have been issuing nuclear threats.

“A lot of things they say they are doing relate to nuclear threats and nuclear warfighting,” he said. “Active and passive defense were a major Soviet priority and [current Russian leaders] are Soviets in everything but name.”

Russia is engaged in a major buildup of strategic nuclear forces, building new missiles, submarines, and bombers. A State Department report on Russian activities under the New START arms treaty stated in the spring that Moscow added 153 strategic nuclear warheads to its arsenal under the treaty.

The increase in warheads is said to be the result of the deployment of new SS-27 Mod 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and SS-N-32 submarine-launched missiles.

In addition to new missiles, Russia is building a drone submarine, code-named “Kanyon,” which is said to be designed to carry a megaton-class warhead. Moscow also is moving ahead with a hypersonic strike vehicle designed to deliver nuclear warheads through advanced missile defense systems.

A report by the National Institute for Public Policy concludes that one reason for the Russian nuclear expansion is to sow fear of Moscow.

“Russian leaders appear to view nuclear weapons as the ultimate way to make the world ‘fear,’ or at least respect Russia, and provide a political lever to intimidate, coerce, and deter Western states from attempting to interfere militarily against Russian expansionism,” the report said.

Military analysts say possible U.S. responses to Russia’s underground nuclear complexes include the development of deep-penetrating nuclear bombs capable of placing Russia’s command structure at risk.

Another option proposed by nuclear experts is to develop low-yield nuclear arms that could be used in precision strikes.

Few details about the new nuclear underground bunkers were disclosed. State-run Russian press reports have said underground bunkers are being built in Moscow as part of the strategic forces buildup.

Russia’s Defense Ministry revealed in January that a modernized command and control system will be delivered to strategic forces this year.

The system was described by RIA-Novosti as a fifth-generation advanced command and control system.

Defense Ministry spokesman Maj. Dmitri Andreyev stated that the new system, known by its Russian acronym IASBU, will use digital signals to send combat orders and control strategic forces.

“The fifth-generation advanced integrated automated combat control system is being tested at industry enterprises,” Andreyev said, adding that by the end of the year missile units will be equipped with the “modernized control posts and advanced strategic missile systems under development with IASBU sections.”

The new system is being used with new SS-27 intercontinental missile units and will provide greater security so that orders will reach those units.

“This will enable use of missile systems without limiting distances while carrying out maneuvering and broadening of options in choosing their combat patrol routes,” the spokesman said.

The new underground nuclear facilities appear similar to earlier construction for command and control complexes during the Cold War, one official said. Russia also continued building underground nuclear facilities after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The CIA reported through classified channels in March 1997 that construction included an underground subway system from the residence of then-President Boris Yeltsin outside Moscow to a leadership command center.

“The underground construction appears larger than previously assessed,” a CIA report on the facilities stated. “Three decrees last year [1996] on an emergency planning authority under Yeltsin with oversight of underground facility construction suggest that the purpose of the Moscow-area projects is to maintain continuity of leadership during nuclear war.”

Construction work was underway on what the report described as a “nuclear-survivable, strategic command post at Kosvinsky Mountain,” located deep in the Ural Mountains about 850 miles east of Moscow.

Satellite photographs of Yamantau Mountain, also located about 850 miles east of Moscow in the Urals near the town of Beloretsk, revealed development of a “deep underground complex” and new construction at each of the site’s above-ground support areas. Yamantau Mountain means “Evil Mountain” in the local Bashkir language.

“The command post at Kosvinsky appears to provide the Russians with the means to retaliate against a nuclear attack,” the CIA report said, adding that the Russians were building or renovating four complexes within Moscow that would be used to house senior Russian government leaders during a nuclear conflict.

The CIA identified a bunker to be used by Russian leaders at Voronovo, about 46 miles south of Moscow. A second bunker located at Sharapovo, some 34 miles from Moscow, was equipped with a special subway running directly to it.

The nuclear war preparations are estimated to cost billions of dollars, and raise questions about past U.S. aid to Moscow that was aimed at helping secure Russian nuclear facilities.

Mass Transfer out of Gitmo: Detainees to UAE

Posted on by

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti (AP) – Fifteen prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been released to the United Arab Emirates in the single largest transfer of detainees during the Obama administration.

The release of 12 Yemeni nationals and three Afghans comes amid a renewed push to whittle down the number of detainees held at the U.S. base in Cuba. The men have been cleared for transfer by U.S. government departments and agencies.

The Pentagon says 61 detainees remain at Guantanamo.

President Barack Obama has been seeking to close the detention center amid opposition from Congress.

Naureen Shah is Amnesty International USA’s director of national security and human rights. She says Monday’s transfers are a “powerful sign that President Obama is serious about closing Guantanamo before he leaves office.”

**** Photo from Miami Herald, click here for more details.

ABC: The latest batch of released prisoners had mostly been held without charge for some 14 years at Guantanamo. They were cleared for release by the Periodic Review Board, comprised of representatives from six U.S. government agencies.

The UAE successfully resettled five detainees transferred there last year, according to the Pentagon.

Lee Wolosky, the State Department’s special envoy for Guantanamo’s closure, said the U.S. was grateful to the United Arab Emirates for accepting the latest group of 15 men and helping pave the way for the detention center’s closure.

“The continued operation of the detention facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists,” Wolosky said.

Obama has been seeking to close the detention center amid opposition from Congress, which has prohibited transferring detainees to the U.S. for any reason. The administration has been working with other countries to resettle detainees who have been cleared for transfer.

According to Amnesty, one of the Afghans released to the UAE alleged that he was “tortured and subjected to other cruel treatment” while in U.S. military custody. The man, identified only as Obaidullah, was captured by U.S. special forces in July 2002 and allegedly admitted to acquiring and planting anti-tank mines to target U.S. and other coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan.

In clearing him for transfer, the review board said he hasn’t expressed any anti-U.S. sentiment or intent to re-engage in militant activities. However, a Pentagon detainee profile also said he provided little information and they had little “insight into his current mindset.”

One of the Yemeni men sent to the UAE was identified as Zahir Umar Hamis bin Hamdun, who traveled to Afghanistan in 1999 and later apparently acted as a weapons and explosives trainer.

A Pentagon profile from September 2015 said he expressed dislike of the U.S., which they identified as “an emotion that probably is motivated more by frustration over his continuing detention than by a commitment to global jihad.”

***** One such detainee profile:

Detainee to UAE