Pentagon: U.S. to respond if bounty reports are true

WASHINGTON — Top Pentagon leaders told Congress on Thursday that reports of Russia offering Taliban militants bounties for killing Americans were not corroborated by defense intelligence agencies, but said they are looking into it and the U.S. will respond if necessary.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said his military commanders heard initial reports on the the bounty issue in January and he first saw an intelligence paper about it in February. While the threats were taken seriously, he said they have not yet been found credible.

Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, were testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the role of the military during recent protests triggered by the killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police. Several House members asked about the Russian bounty reports. Milley said Russia and other nations have long worked against the U.S. in Afghanistan and provided support to the Taliban, but the specific notion of bounties hasn’t been proven.

President Donald Trump initially labeled the reports about bounties “just another hoax” made up by the media. The White House has said Trump wasn’t briefed on the intelligence until after the stories broke. According to U.S. intelligence officials, information that Russia offered bounties to Taliban militants for killing American troops was included in a briefing for Trump in late February.

Milley and Esper appeared to walk a fine line. Esper said he didn’t recall a briefing that mentioned the word “bounties.” But, under questioning he later acknowledged reports that mentioned “payments.”

And Milley was pressed about the difference between Iran backing militants in Iraq — which has triggered U.S. retaliation — and what the Russians are doing in Afghanistan. He said that while Russia continues to back the Taliban, there is no evidence it directed militant attacks on U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

“In the case of the Russians, we do not have concrete, corroborating evidence, intelligence, to show ‘directing.’ That’s a big difference. If we did, it would be a different response, too,” he said, adding that the military is still digging into the matter and will get to the bottom of it.