Since Donald Trump took office as president very little has been said about Afghanistan. During the campaign he appeared to discount it, placing more emphasis on Pakistan. The Voice of America speculates on what President Trump will do with respect to Afghanistan:
Some scholars suggest the Trump administration may shift its focus towards Pakistan. During the election campaign candidate Trump said the situation in Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the region’s main security problem.
“We know that Trump hasn’t said a lot about Afghanistan during the campaign or after the election but what he said about the region makes it sound like he is primarily interested in the strategic problems related to Pakistan,†said Rebecca Zimmerman, a policy researcher at Rand Corporation.
But Thomas H. Johnson, director of the Naval Postgraduate School’s Program for Cultural and Conflict studies warns against that.
“His initial conversation with Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was very strange and his eventual policies towards Pakistan will have a significant impact on his Afghan policies,†Johnson said.
Johnson added that given his statements concerning NATO, Germany and other traditional American security instruments and allies, the past polices may mean little to the new U.S. president.
Prominent Pakistani journalist and author Ahmed Rashid says, “What you have now is a much more complicated regional situation with the Taliban also getting backing from Iran. They are in talks with Russia. They have been in talks with China. You have many more regional players involved.”
Anthony Cordesman, national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies also believes Pakistan is not the only country the United States should be concerned about when it comes to dealing with Afghanistan.
He says the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, “I think we are looking at a year which is going to be another year of very serious fighting. There is very little immediate prospect that you are going to have the kind of negotiations that would actually have a major impact or a predictable impact.”
Over the course of the last 16 years the U. S. has suffered roughly 3,500 casualties in Afghanistan, most of them in the last eight years. There is a direct correlation between operational tempo and casualties. In 2008 Barack Obama ran on winning the war in Afghanistan. We presently have about 8,000 troops in Afghanistan.
What will President Trump do with respect to Afghanistan? What should he do?
It seems to me that there are four possible courses of action there:
- Increase forces again and try to win the war in Afghanistan.
- Maintain present force levels with the missions of force protection, counter-insurgency, and training the Afghan military. That was essentially President Obama’s policy at the end of his term of office.
- Maintain present force levels with the missions of force protection and counter-terrorism.
- Remove all of our troops from Afghanistan.
I believe that #1 and #2 are futile. If we adopt #4 we should be prepared to make punitive raids if Al Qaeda or DAESH attempts to set up bases in Afghanistan. It may also have geopolitical implications.
What should we do? What will President Trump do?
If we leave now, it will descend into chaos. If we leave in 10 years, it will descend into chaos. If we leave in 20….. Let’s leave now, but with the understanding that, as you said, we may need to make punitive raids. No one else has been able to “fix” Afghanistan. We don’t know how and it costs too much. Too many players. (India isn’t even listed in the above you cite.)
Steve
For me this is personal not only because I spent so much time in and studying Afghanistan, but also because I have friends and former colleagues there right now. Some of them are on their first deployment and were in grade school when this war started.
IMO any policy needs to consider two opposing factors:
– The US cannot “win” in Afghanistan.
– The US cannot political afford to see Afghanistan collapse or be retaken by the Taliban.
So our policy right now is to essentially kick the can.
Going forward, here is what I suggest:
First, recognize the long-term reality that Afghanistan is a buffer state that can never be independent of its neighbors given its present borders. This applies to Pakistan, in particular. We need to make it clear to the Pakistanis that with our departure we expect them to prevent the reemergence of an international terrorism threat in Afghanistan and that we will hold them accountable if they fail. We also need to reserve the right to independently intervene in response to any international terrorist threat.
– Pull all US conventional forces out by the end of this year. Maintain a limited number of special operations assets to conduct anti-terrorism efforts as necessary.
Andy:
As you may have divined, that approximates #3 and I think it’s the only viable alternative (and has been the only viable alternative for over a decade). Deciding the precise size or composition of the force that will need to remain in Afghanistan on an indefinite basis is beyond my expertise. I don’t know whether it’s 8, 80, 800, 8,000, or 80,000. I’d guess it would have to be in the thousands to be able to execute the objectives but that’s just a WAG.
What else do you do when you can’t stay and you can’t leave?
What Andy said.
The primary danger that Afghanistan poses is its status as a sovereign. To wit, diplomatic immunity and courtesies, diplomatic pouches and passport control. Cordon Kabul and the areas necessary to sustain it and let the warlords fight it out among themselves.