Mattis & Nicholson Press Conference

And, as if we needed a reminder, as I stand here before you, of the type of enemy that we're up
against, the killing of Afghan citizens, soldiers, protectors of the people, just as they were coming out
of a mosque, you know, coming out of a house of worship -- it certainly characterizes this fight for
exactly what it is.

Mattis refers here to the 2017 Camp Shaheen attack. He starts his speech with describing the enemy:
a ruthless, barbaric enemy without religious foundation. The use of the word barbaric is interesting,
compare it to Getting savages to fight barbarians.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Camp_Shaheen_attack)

These people have no religious foundation. They -- they are not devout anything, and -- and it shows
that we -- why we stand with the people of this country against such heinous acts perpetrated by --
and the word gets used often, I think too often, but this is -- this barbaric enemy and what they
do. Kind of makes it clear to me why it is we stand together.

The threat of terrorist attacks is used as a justification for the presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

We discussed his initiative to make the government of national unity more responsive to all of the
Afghan people.

This is important, because one of the reasons people sympathize with the Taliban is the corruption of
the government.

If the Taliban wished to join the political process and work honestly for a positive future for the
Afghan people, who have suffered long and hard, they need only to renounce violence and reject
terrorism. It's a pretty low standard to join the -- join the political process.

Should be read as an invitation to the Taliban to realign with government forces. Political solution is
the only solution.

Well, first -- let me take the second question first. The secretary has talked about the strike we
conducted in Achin last week. I really have nothing to add with respect to that. I will say we were
sending a very clear message to ISIS -- not only to ISIS here in Afghanistan, but also ISIS main.

The U.S. is willing to battle ISIS with all available means.

We have not seen cooperation between ISIS-K and the Haqqanis, however we're always watching for
convergence between the various terrorist groups that we see here.

Convergence of interests seems not to be the case, quite the opposite in fact.

As the secretary talked about in his comments, the level of barbarity and cruelty, shooting patients in
their beds, killing young soldiers at the mosque in prayer -- they're reaching new lows in terms of their
behavior. And this is why the majority of the Afghan people -- something like 87 percent -- reject the
Taliban and do not want to see a return of this regime.

This is true! Find the article that says that, because of ISIS, the Taliban has become more cruel.

The U.S. seems to want to fight ISIS-K as part of its bigger battle against IS. Thats why it is so focused
on IS and seemingly less on the Taliban in Afghanistan these days.

Q: Let me ask that a slightly different way. Is NATO winning this conflict? And, if not, is it winnable?

SEC. MATTIS: The -- the bottom line is that this fight against terrorism is going to go on. You saw
what happened in Paris. You see the French troops engaged down in Africa. You find the NATO -- the
NATO-led force -- a lot more than just NATO -- here in Afghanistan. You see what's going on against
ISIS in Syria. This fight is going to go on.

Justification of the fight to protect American and Western citizens.