DOCSLIB.ORG

Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan (This page left intentionally blank) Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan June 2016 Report to Congress In Accordance With Section 1225 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291), as amended. Preparation of this report cost the Department of Defense a total of approximately $233,000 in Fiscal Year 2016. This includes $3,000 in expenses and $230,000 in labor. Generated on May 27, 2016 Ref ID: 5-C8A03CB This report is submitted in accordance with section 1225 of the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 (P.L. 113-291) as amended by sections 1213 and 1531 of the NDAA for FY 2016 (P.L. 114-92). It includes a description of the strategy of the United States for enhancing security and stability in Afghanistan, a current and anticipated threat assessment, as well as a description and assessment of the size, structure, strategy, budget, and financing of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces. This report is the third in a series of reports required semi-annually through calendar year 2017, and it was prepared in coordination with the Secretary of State. This report describes efforts to enhance security and stability in Afghanistan from December 1, 2015, through May 31, 2016. It complements other reports and information about Afghanistan provided to Congress, and is not intended to be the single source of all information about the combined efforts or the future strategy of the United States, its coalition partners, or Afghanistan. A classified annex accompanies this report. The next report will include an analysis of efforts to enhance security and stability in Afghanistan from June 1 to November 30, 2016. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Section 1 – Strategy and Objectives ............................................................................................... 7 1.1 U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan ................................................................................................. 7 1.2 U.S. Objectives in Afghanistan ............................................................................................. 7 1.3 U.S. Counterterrorism Mission ............................................................................................. 8 1.4 NATO-led Resolute Support Mission ................................................................................... 9 1.5 Indicators of Effectiveness .................................................................................................. 20 Section 2 – Threat Assessment .................................................................................................... 24 2.1 Importance of Afghanistan-Pakistan Relations ................................................................... 24 2.2 Current Security Conditions ................................................................................................ 25 2.3 Anticipated Security Conditions ......................................................................................... 33 Section 3 – Overview of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces .............................. 34 3.1 Strategy................................................................................................................................ 34 3.2 Budget ................................................................................................................................. 35 3.3 Force Size and Structure .................................................................................................... 36 3.4 Capabilities .......................................................................................................................... 39 3.5 Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 42 Section 4 – Ministry of Defense and Afghan National Army ...................................................... 43 4.1 Ministry of Defense ............................................................................................................. 43 4.2 Afghan National Army ........................................................................................................ 56 Section 5 – Ministry of Interior and Afghan National Police ....................................................... 76 5.1 Ministry of Interior .............................................................................................................. 76 5.2 Afghan National Police ....................................................................................................... 87 Section 6 – Financing the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces ................................... 97 6.1 Holding the Afghan Ministries Accountable ...................................................................... 97 6.2 U.S. Contributions ............................................................................................................... 97 6.3 International Contributions ................................................................................................. 98 6.4 Afghan Government Contributions ..................................................................................... 98 Annex A – Indicators of Effectiveness for the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior ..................................................................................................................................................... 102 Annex B – Acronyms.................................................................................................................. 106 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) have begun their third year in the lead for security in Afghanistan and the second year in which they have full security responsibility with limited U.S. or coalition support on the battlefield. During the December 1, 2015, to May 31, 2016, reporting period, the ANDSF addressed key capability gaps as they recovered from a tough 2015, maintained a high operational tempo during the winter months amidst challenging security conditions, and developed and began to implement an offensive campaign plan as they headed into the traditional spring and summer fighting season. Through Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS), United States Forces – Afghanistan (USFOR-A) continue to conduct two well-defined and complementary missions: training, advising, and assisting the ANDSF through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led Resolute Support (RS) mission and supporting counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al Qaeda and its associates. In recognition of the threat of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) (also known as Daesh) outside of its Iraq-Syria base and the emerging foothold of an affiliate in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region, in this reporting period President Obama authorized USFOR-A to conduct offensive counterterrorism operations against the Islamic State – Khorasan (IS-K) (also known as the Islamic State – Khorasan Province), the ISIL affiliate in Afghanistan. Consistent with the President’s October 2015 announcement that U.S. forces would maintain a force posture in Afghanistan of up to 9,800 military personnel through most of 2016, USFOR-A maintained its forces at or below this level throughout the reporting period.1 These U.S. forces served alongside approximately 6,876 forces from NATO Allied and partner nations who are committed to Afghanistan’s continued development. In particular, the continued U.S. and coalition presence in Afghanistan is focused on making progress in developing the ANDSF into a more effective, sustainable, and affordable force that can protect the Afghan people and contribute to regional and international security. This force presence will also help prevent threats to the homeland, U.S. allies, and U.S. interests abroad from terrorist actors in the region, particularly al Qaeda, and it will maintain pressure on other terrorist groups such as IS-K. THREAT ENVIRONMENT AND SECURITY CONDITIONS The security situation in Afghanistan continues to be dominated by a resilient insurgency; but the Afghan government remains in control of all major population centers and key lines of communication, and the ANDSF continues to deny the Taliban strategic ground throughout the country. Although the Taliban maintained a higher-than-usual operational tempo over the winter, overall levels of violence this reporting period were consistent with historical trends of a seasonal decrease in violence over the winter months and an uptick leading into the traditional spring and summer fighting season. Over the last six months, both ANDSF and insurgent casualties have increased, continuing their upward trend from the previous reporting period. 1 Per the reporting requirement outlined in section 1213 of the NDAA for FY 2016, because there was no drawdown of U.S. forces during this reporting period, this report does not contain an assessment of the risks to the mission in Afghanistan of such a drawdown. 1 Increased insurgent fighting in urban areas has also contributed to record-high civilian casualties, primarily caused by insurgent and extremist groups. During the early part of the reporting period, insurgents maintained consistent pressure in Helmand Province against a diminished Afghan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Buildup and Battle
    Buildup and Battle Afghanistan’s Bagram Airfield has grown to accommodate a greater Air Force mission. Photography by Clive Bennett Text by June Lee 46 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2010 Buildup and Battle A C-17 Globemaster III rolls to a stop on a Bagram runway after a resupply mission. Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, has been a hotspot for NATO and US operations in Southwest Asia and there are no signs of the pace letting up. AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2010 47 n Afghanistan, Bagram Airfield Ihosts several thousand airmen and other troops, deployed from all over the world. The 455th Air Expedition- ary Wing at Bagram provides air support to coalition and NATO Inter- national Security Assistance Forces on the ground. |1| The air traffic control tower is one of the busiest places on Bagram Airfield, with more than 100 movements taking place in a day. Civilian air traffic control- lers keep an eye on the runway and the skies above Afghanistan. |2| An F-15E from the 48th Fighter Wing at RAF Lakenheath, UK, taxis past revetments for the start of another mission. All F-15s over Afghanistan fly two-ship sorties. |3| A CH-47 Chinook from the Georgia Army National Guard undergoes line main- tenance by Army Spc. Cody Staley and Spc. Joe Dominguez (in the helicopter). 1 2 3 48 AIR FORCE Magazine / December 2010 1 22 3 4 5 |1| A1C Aaron Simonson gives F-16 C-17 at Bagram wait to be unloaded. EFS, Hill AFB, Utah, and the 79th pilot Capt. Nathan Harrold the ap- These mine-resistant ambush-pro- EFS, Shaw AFB, S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • D.D.C. Apr. 20, 2007
    Case 1:06-cv-01707-GK Document 20 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) RUZATULLAH, et al.,) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 06-CV-01707 (GK) ) ROBERT GATES, ) Secretary, United States Department of ) Defense, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) RESPONDENTS’ REPLY TO PETITIONERS’ REPLY AND OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED PETITION Respondents respectfully submit this reply brief in response to Petitioners’ Reply and Opposition to Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Petition. In their opening brief, respondents demonstrated that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the present habeas petition because the petition, filed by two alien enemy combatants detained at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, falls squarely within the jurisdiction-limiting provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (“MCA”), Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600 (2006). Respondents also demonstrated that petitioners do not have a constitutional right to habeas relief because under Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), aliens detained abroad, such as petitioners, who have no significant voluntary connections with this country, cannot invoke protections under the Constitution. Subsequent to respondents’ motion to dismiss, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Boumediene v. Bush, 476 F.3d 981 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 1478 (2007), which removes all doubt that the MCA divests federal courts of jurisdiction to review petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by aliens captured abroad and detained as enemy Case 1:06-cv-01707-GK Document 20 Filed 04/20/2007 Page 2 of 22 combatants in an overseas military base.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Operations Are on the Rise As the Air Force Disperses Throughout Afghanistan to Take the Fight to the Enemy
    Air operations are on the rise as the Air Force disperses throughout Afghanistan to take the fight to the enemy. Boom Time in Afghanistan fghanistan’s Paktika prov- as the contrails of tankers occasionally in the thick of insurgent and Taliban ince lies due south of the crossed the mountain-studded landscape territory. Concurrently, the metrics for capital Kabul by just over and low flying fighter aircraft crossed US and coalition airpower reflect an 100 miles, over moun- the plains in between. intense fight. In 2008, Air Forces Central Atainous and rugged terrain, abutting Now closing in on its 10th year, the recorded 20,359 close air support sorties, Pakistan’s border to the east. There are war in Afghanistan is flaring anew. but in 2010, AFCENT flew 33,679 CAS few paved roads, but in early March An infusion of troops and resources is missions. In addition, with the arrival there was plenty of traffic high above, placing American and coalition troops of Gen. David H. Petraeus, US Forces Two Army Chinook helicopters lift off on a mission from Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan, behind an F-15E Strike Eagle deployed from Sey- mour Johnson AFB, N.C. Bagram, located north of Kabul, has expand- ed significantly since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001, as a large number of close air support, airlift, and supply sorties originate from, or route through, the airfield every week. 28 AIR FORCE Magazine / June 2011 Boom Time in Afghanistan By Marc V. Schanz, Senior Editor Afghanistan commander, in July 2010, US and coalition forces entering con- nearly daily clearance and interdiction sorties with weapons releases began tested areas—and staying.
    [Show full text]
  • Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan
    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD REPORT E-11A, T/N 11-9358 430TH EXPEDITIONARY ELECTRONIC COMBAT SQUADRON 455TH AIR EXPEDITIONARY WING BAGRAM AIRFIELD, AFGHANISTAN LOCATION: GHAZNI PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN DATE OF ACCIDENT: 27 JANUARY 2020 BOARD PRESIDENT: BRIG GEN CRAIG BAKER Conducted IAW Air Force Instruction 51-307 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION E-11A, T/N 11-9358 GHAZNI PROVINCE, AFGHANISTAN 27 JANUARY 2020 On 27 January 2020, at approximately 1309 hours local time (L), an E-11A, tail number (T/N) 11- 9358, was destroyed after touching down in a field in Ghanzi Province, Afghanistan (AFG) following a catastrophic left engine failure. The mishap crew (MC) were deployed and assigned to the 430th Expeditionary Electronic Combat Squadron (EECS), Kandahar Airfield (KAF), AFG. The MC consisted of mishap pilot 1 (MP1) and mishap pilot 2 (MP2). The mission was both a Mission Qualification Training – 3 (MQT-3) sortie for MP2 and a combat sortie for the MC, flown in support of Operation FREEDOM’S SENTINEL. MP1 and MP2 were fatally injured as a result of the accident, and the Mishap Aircraft (MA) was destroyed. At 1105L, the MA departed KAF. The mission proceeded uneventfully until the left engine catastrophically failed one hour and 45 minutes into the flight (1250:52L). Specifically, a fan blade broke free causing the left engine to shutdown. The MC improperly assessed that the operable right engine had failed and initiated shutdown of the right engine leading to a dual engine out emergency. Subsequently, the MC attempted to fly the MA back to KAF, approximately 230 nautical miles (NM) away.
    [Show full text]
  • Länderinformationen Afghanistan Country
    Staatendokumentation Country of Origin Information Afghanistan Country Report Security Situation (EN) from the COI-CMS Country of Origin Information – Content Management System Compiled on: 17.12.2020, version 3 This project was co-financed by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Disclaimer This product of the Country of Origin Information Department of the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum was prepared in conformity with the standards adopted by the Advisory Council of the COI Department and the methodology developed by the COI Department. A Country of Origin Information - Content Management System (COI-CMS) entry is a COI product drawn up in conformity with COI standards to satisfy the requirements of immigration and asylum procedures (regional directorates, initial reception centres, Federal Administrative Court) based on research of existing, credible and primarily publicly accessible information. The content of the COI-CMS provides a general view of the situation with respect to relevant facts in countries of origin or in EU Member States, independent of any given individual case. The content of the COI-CMS includes working translations of foreign-language sources. The content of the COI-CMS is intended for use by the target audience in the institutions tasked with asylum and immigration matters. Section 5, para 5, last sentence of the Act on the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA-G) applies to them, i.e. it is as such not part of the country of origin information accessible to the general public. However, it becomes accessible to the party in question by being used in proceedings (party’s right to be heard, use in the decision letter) and to the general public by being used in the decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Lead Inspector General for Operation Freedom's Sentinel April 1, 2021
    OFS REPORT TO CONGRESS FRONT MATTER OPERATION FREEDOM’S SENTINEL LEAD INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS APRIL 1, 2021–JUNE 30, 2021 FRONT MATTER ABOUT THIS REPORT A 2013 amendment to the Inspector General Act established the Lead Inspector General (Lead IG) framework for oversight of overseas contingency operations and requires that the Lead IG submit quarterly reports to Congress on each active operation. The Chair of the Council of Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency designated the DoD Inspector General (IG) as the Lead IG for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS). The DoS IG is the Associate IG for the operation. The USAID IG participates in oversight of the operation. The Offices of Inspector General (OIG) of the DoD, the DoS, and USAID are referred to in this report as the Lead IG agencies. Other partner agencies also contribute to oversight of OFS. The Lead IG agencies collectively carry out the Lead IG statutory responsibilities to: • Develop a joint strategic plan to conduct comprehensive oversight of the operation. • Ensure independent and effective oversight of programs and operations of the U.S. Government in support of the operation through either joint or individual audits, inspections, investigations, and evaluations. • Report quarterly to Congress and the public on the operation and activities of the Lead IG agencies. METHODOLOGY To produce this quarterly report, the Lead IG agencies submit requests for information to the DoD, the DoS, USAID, and other Federal agencies about OFS and related programs. The Lead IG agencies also gather data and information from other sources, including official documents, congressional testimony, policy research organizations, press conferences, think tanks, and media reports.
    [Show full text]
  • Saving Lives in the Heat of Battle
    Alumni SAV Ing LIV ES IN THE HEAT of BATTLE Christian Benjamin, MD, MPH ’96 and Michael McCarten, DO, MPH ’99 are delivering evidence-based military medicine in Afghanistan. edics roll a badly wounded U.S. soldier into the military hospital in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He has lost both legs to Ma roadside bomb, and his abdomen, head, and neck are torn up. The international surgical team snaps into action to clean his exposed flesh; specialists check for head trauma. A few days later, the bandaged young soldier is flown to another military hospital for more surgery, then begins his journey home to recover. Heart-wrenching scenes like this unfold regularly at the NATO Role III Multinational Medical Unit in Kandahar. “The trauma we see here is devastating,” says U.S. Navy Capt. Michael McCarten, DO, MPH ’99, who spent a year commanding the hospital in 2010–11. “Sometimes the anatomy is unrecognizable.” About 300 miles away, U.S. Air Force Col. Christian (“Chris”) Benjamin, MD, MPH ’96, witnessed similarly grave injuries during his year leading the Craig Joint Theater Hospital at Bagram Air Field. Equipped with operating rooms, ICU beds, laboratories, and other state-of-the-art services, these trauma centers treat both coalition forces and Afghan soldiers and civilians, including children maimed by explosives. The hospitals boast 98 percent survival rates, and McCarten and Benjamin credit their resourceful teams and several public health strategies—such as reducing the lag time between injury and surgery—with helping save lives in the decade-long war in Afghanistan. U.S. LASTING LESSONS A Benjamin and McCarten belong to a cadre of alumni who attended Harvard School of Public Health as part of their mili- ir Force photo by/ Master Sgt.
    [Show full text]
  • Aeronautical Information Publication Republic Of
    AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION REPUBLIC OF AFGHANISTAN AERODROME (AD) PART 3 EDTITION 85/2018 Effective Date: 19 JULY 2018 AIP AD 0.6–1 AFGHANISTAN 01 Feb 18 PART 3 –AERODROMES (AD) AD –TABLE OF CONTENTS AD 0 Page AD 0.1 PREFACE ............................................................................ Not applicable AD 0.2 RECORD OF AIP AMENDMENTS ...................................... Not applicable AD 0.3 RECORD OF AIP SUPPLEMENTS ..................................... Not applicable AD 0.4 CHECKLIST OF AIP PAGES ............................................... Not applicable AD 0.5 LIST OF HAND AMENDMENTS TO THE AIP ..................... Not applicable AD 0.6 PART 3 – AERODROMES (AD) TABLE OF CONTENTS ... AD 0.6–1 AD1 AERODROMES/HELIPORTS – INTRODUCTION AD 1.1 Aerodrome/Heliport Availability ............................................ AD 1.1–1 AD 1.2 Rescue and Fire Fighting Services ...................................... AD 1.2–1 AD 1.3 Index to Aerodromes ............................................................ AD 1.3–1 AD 1.4 Grouping of Aerodromes/Heliports ...................................... AD 1.4–1 AD2 AERODROME INFORMATION 1. Bagram…........................................................ ................................. OAIX AD 2.1–1 2. Bamyan ........................................................................................... OABN AD 2.1–1 3. Bastion ............................................................................................ OAZI AD 2.1–1 4. Bost ............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Security and Stability in Afghanistan
    Enhancing Security and Stability In Afghanistan June 2020 Report to Congress In Accordance With Section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, as amended; Section 1521(c) of the NDAA for FY 2017; Section 602(b)(14) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); and Section 1520 of the NDAA for FY 2020. The estimated cost of this report for the Department of Defense is approximately $101,000 for the Fiscal Year 2020. This includes $1,000 in expenses and $100,000 in DoD labor. Generated on Jun 12, 2020 RefID: E-2BA2571 This page left intentionally blank This report is submitted in accordance with and fulfills the reporting requirements of Section 1225 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, as amended; Section 1521(c) of the NDAA for FY 2017; Section 602(b)(14) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note); and Section 1520 of the NDAA for FY 2020. The report also provides information on the requests contained in page 348 of House Report 116-84, the Committee on Appropriations Report to accompany H.R. 2968, the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 2020, and in page 264 of the Senate Report 116-48, the Committee on Armed Services Report to accompany S.1790, the NDAA for FY 2020. It includes a description of the strategy of the United States for enhancing security and stability in Afghanistan, a current and anticipated threat assessment, and a description and assessment of the size, structure, strategy, budget, and financing of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.
    [Show full text]
  • Toppling the Taliban: Air-Ground Operations in Afghanistan, October
    Toppling the Taliban Air-Ground Operations in Afghanistan, October 2001–June 2002 Walter L. Perry, David Kassing C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr381 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Perry, Walter L., author. | Kassing, David, author. Title: Toppling the Taliban : air-ground operations in Afghanistan, October 2001/June 2002 / Walter L. Perry, David Kassing. Other titles: Air-ground operations in Afghanistan, October 2001/June 2002 Description: Santa Monica, CA : RAND, [2015] | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2015044123 (print) | LCCN 2015044164 (ebook) | ISBN 9780833082657 (pbk. : alk. paper) | ISBN 9780833086822 (ebook) | ISBN 9780833086839 (epub) | ISBN 9780833086846 ( prc) Subjects: LCSH: Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001- | Afghan War, 2001---Campaigns. | Afghan War, 2001---Aerial operations, American. | Postwar reconstruction—Afghanistan. Classification: LCC DS371.412 .P47 2015 (print) | LCC DS371.412 (ebook) | DDC 958.104/742—dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015044123 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover photo by SFC Fred Gurwell, U.S. Army Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use.
    [Show full text]
  • Apr 252017 for the Northern District of Georgia Atlanta Division James N
    Case 1:17-cr-00138-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 1 of 9 FILED IN OPEN COURT ~ U.S.D.C. Atlanta 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 252017 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JAMES N. ATT Cleric By: epuy eric (1) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) — o v. ) Criminal Indictment CHRISTOPHERA.MCCRAY ) No. 1 ~17 - CR-i 3 8 ) ) ) THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT: COUNT ONE Conspiracy to Commit Offenses against the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371) 1. Beginning in or about August 2012, and continuing through in or about May 2014, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, in the Northern District of Georgia and elsewhere, defendant CHRISTOPHER ANTONIO MCCRAY (MCCRAY), and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, including a principal of a Sub-Contractor (referred to herein as “Person # 1”), did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate and agree with each other to commit offenses against the United States, namely to engage in unlawful kickback transactions, in violation of4l U.S.C. § 8702, by knowingly and willfully soliciting and accepting money from Person # 1, an employee of a Subcontractor in relation to a prime contract with the United States, in exchange for improper favorable treatment in connection with a prime contract or subcontract Case 1:17-cr-00138-UNA Document 1 Filed 04/25/17 Page 2 of 9 BACKGROUND At all times relevant to the Indictment, unless otherwise noted: 2. Defendant MCCRAY’s permanent residence in the United States was in Jonesboro, Georgia, which is in Clayton County in the Northern District of Georgia.
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan ORBAT
    COALITION COMBAT AND ADVISORY FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN AFGHANISTAN ORDER OF BATTLE BY WESLEY MORGAN September 1, 2015 This document describes the composition and placement of U.S. and other Western forces in Afghanistan down to battalion level. It includes advisory and ?white? special operations units, as well as many of the units that support them: artillery, engineers, explosive ordnance disposal, aviation, but not some other categories such as logistics, medical, and intelligence units, and ?black? special operations forces. Some of the organizational changes that accompanied the December 2014 transition from N ATO?s International Security Assistance Force to the Resolute Support M ission and from the U.S. Operation Enduring Freedom to Operation Freedom?s Sentinel remain unclear? which U.S. units, for example, fall under Operation Freedom?s Sentinel but not under the Resolute Support M ission. Resolute Support Mission / United States Forces? Afghanistan (Gen. John Campbell, USA)? Camp Resolute Support, Kabul Kabul Support Unit / 2 Royal Regiment of Scotland (UK)? Camp Souter, Kabul; security force supporting British personnel and facilities and ISAF headquarters1 TF Golden Dragons / 2 - 14 Infantry (Lt. Col. Michael Kovacevic, USA)? U/I location; theater response force Special Operations Joint Task Force? Afghanistan / NATO Special Operations Component Command? Afghanistan (Maj. Gen. Sean Swindell, USA)? Camp Integrity, Kabul2 Special Operations Task Force? Afghanistan / U/I Special Forces battalion (USA)? Bagram Airfield; supporting Afghan Defense Ministry special operations forces ISAF Special Operations Forces (UK/Australia)? Kabul; supporting Afghan Interior Ministry special operations forces3 Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan (Maj. Gen Todd Semonite, USA) Kabul; U.S. institutional support to Afghan security forces 9th Air and Space Expeditionary Task Force? Afghanistan (Maj.
    [Show full text]