End proving elusive to Afghanistan war
Supporters, detractors of U.S. strategy wonder about conclusion.
By adjusting U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, President Donald Trump is trying to stave off defeat in that war-ravaged nation as opposed to gaining the quick victory many expected 16 years ago when a barrage of U.S. and British cruise missiles were launched against terrorist camps in the region.
In a national televised speech last Monday, Trump signaled the United States will likely remain in Afghanistan for years, opening the door to sending more American soldiers to assist Afghan troops in their fight against Taliban insurgents while simultaneously refusing to set a timetable for their removal.
Reaction has ranged from support to deep skepticism, with no one too sure how America’s longest war can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion. “The Taliban did not come to
the table for real negotiations when we had 100,000 troops there, so it seems like wishful thinking that 10,000, 12,000 or 15,000 today will convince them to negotiate,” said Michael Fuchs, a deputy assistant secretary of State for East Asian Affairs in the Obama administration.
In his speech, Trump called for a tougher line aga i nst nuclear-armed Pakistan and used phrases such “obliterating ISIS” and “crushing al-Qaeda” when describing the revised strategy. But despite the talk of killing terrorists, the effort appears to be aimed at forcing the Taliban to negotiate a peace with the pro-western Kabul government — an alliance that would lead Islamic State militants and al-Qaeda terrorists to vacate Afghanistan.
No one expects that to happen anytime soon.
“I agree with the president that this is going to be much a longer war than anyone had envisioned,” said retired Army Col. Peter Mansoor, now the General Raymond E. Mason chair of military history at Ohio State University. “But he clearly laid out why it is necessary for the national security of the United States to remain engaged.”
“Remaining engaged is going to cost the nation in terms of blood and treasure, but it is the only way to eventually see an outcome in Afghanistan we can live with,” said Mansoor, who served as executive officer to General David Petraeus in Iraq.
‘No good options’
Skeptics counter that Trump’s approach is a minor correction as opposed to a sweeping new strategy. Until the United States, Pakistan, Iran and Russia all agree to pressure the Taliban insurgents and Afghan government to end the conflict, they say, there is little hope of any outcome that could eliminate Afghanistan as a terrorist base.
“There are no good options in Afghanistan, but ... time and again it’s been proven a military solution alone will not end this conflict,” said Fuchs, now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington. “The one thing that unites many of these countries together is their abhorrence of instability in Afghanistan and that can bring together those countries with wildly different viewpoints.”
Loren Thompson, chief executive officer of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit defense organization in suburban Washington, said he was “afraid this strategy is a prescription for being in Afghanistan forever. The place is not fixable especially if we are not in the business of nation building.”
Trump entered office with a well-documented series of objections to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, which began a month after al-Qaeda terrorists based in Afghanistan used hijacked airplanes to destroy the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York and damage the Pentagon in suburban Wash- ington.
But in his Monday speech at Fort Myer across the Poto- mac River from Washington, Trump explained his rever
sal by saying, “Decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office,” adding “we must stop the resurgence of safe havens in Afghanistan” which could threaten Americans.
Trump, for the moment, appears to be heeding the advice of his national security team: Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, White House National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, and General John W. Nicholson, com- mander of the U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
“In Secretary Mattis, General Nicholson and H.R. McMaster we have three highly competent and expe- rienced officers in place who understand Afghanistan from on-the-ground experience as well as from a broader study of history,” said Mansoor,a classmate of Nicholson’s at West Point.
In a conference call with reporters last week, retired Marine Gen. John R. Allen said pulling out of Afghan- istan “was the worst of all options,” a sentiment shared by many others with deep experience in the region. But Vanda Felbab-Brown, an Afghanistan expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, warned against setting expectations too high.
The president’s strategy “is not a strategy for victory,” she said. “It’s a strategy for buying hope.”
Pakistan possible key
Most analysts have welcomed Trump’s blunt message to Pakistan, with retired U.S. Army Col. Robert Kille- brew saying, “We’re never going to solve the puzzle until the Paks support us” by seal- ing their border with Afghan- istan and scaling back their support for Islamic insur- gents.
A 2015 report by the Congressional Research Service concluded “Pakistan’s security services are seen by many independent analysts to be too willing to make distinctions between what
they consider to be ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Islamist extremist groups, maintaining supportive relations with Afghan insurgent and anti-India militant groups operating from Pakistani territory.”
The United States is not without leverage. The U.S. is Pakistan’s largest trading partner. Between 2001 and 2015, the U.S. provided Pakistan with $20 billion in military and economic assistance while Pakistan spent $5.4 billion during the last decade on U.S. military equipment, including stateof-the-art F-16 jets.
President Barack Obama scaled back Pakistani assistance, but U.S. officials have feared pressure on Islamabad could push Pakistan closer to China or perhaps lead to Pakistan’s collapse.
“Honestly, I don’t think we’ve tested the proposition yet whether we can truly compel Pakistan to change its behavior,” Fuchs said.
Although analysts say Afghanistan cannot be compared to Vietnam where 55,000 Americans died,
they say the U.S. will need patience. Since 2001, more than 2,300 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan and taxpayers have spent $714 billion for combat operations and reconstruction efforts in the country. “It’s quite possible the sons
and daughters of the American advisers there now will be over there (years from now) advising the Afghans,” Killebrew said.