Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
U.S. to add troops to Afghan fight
General says reinforcements expected to arrive ‘quickly’
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s plan to end America’s longest war and eliminate Afghanistan’s rising extremist threat involves sending up to 3,900 additional U.S. troops, senior officials said Tuesday. The first deployments could take place within days, a U.S. general said.
In a national address Monday night, Trump reversed his past calls for a speedy exit and recommitted the United States to the 16-year-old conflict, saying U.S. troops must “fight to win.” He warned against repeating what he said were mistakes in Iraq, where an American military withdrawal led to a vacuum that the Islamic State extremist group quickly filled.
Trump would not confirm how many more service members he plans to send to Afghanistan. In interviews Tuesday, Vice President Mike Pence similarly wouldn’t give a clear answer, but he cited Pentagon plans from June calling for 3,900 more troops.
“The troop levels are significant, and we’ll listen to our military commanders about that,” Pence said.
Although the Pentagon’s plans are based on 3,900 additional troops, the exact number will vary as conditions change, senior U.S. officials said. Those officials weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the figures and demanded anonymity.
They said the Pentagon has told Trump that it needs the increase, on top of the roughly 8,400 American troops now in the country, to accomplish Trump’s objectives. Those goals, he said Monday night, include “obliterating [the Islamic State], crushing al-Qaida, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.”
Speaking to reporters in Iraq, Defense Secretary James Mattis declined to confirm a precise number Tuesday, saying he was waiting for more input from Gen. Joseph Dunford, the U.S.’ top military official. Mattis said he will “reorganize” some U.S. troops in Afghanistan to reflect the new strategy.
Meanwhile, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East said he expects the first reinforcements to arrive “pretty quickly,” within days or weeks.
“What’s most important for us now is to get some capabilities in to have an impact on the current fighting season,” Gen. Joseph Votel, who spent last weekend in Afghanistan, told reporters traveling with him Tuesday to Saudi Arabia.
The new forces will, among other things, train and advise Afghan forces to improve their combat abilities, Votel said. U.S. counterterrorism forces will make up a smaller portion, as will other support forces and medical personnel.
About 460 of the total troops will help the U.S. train more Afghan special commandos in more locations, said U.S. Maj. Gen. James Linder, commander of U.S. and NATO special operations forces in Afghanistan.
Before he was a presidential candidate, Trump argued for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan and called the war a huge waste of U.S. “blood and treasure.” On Monday, he suggested an open-ended commitment rather than a “time-based” approach.
“Conditions on the ground — not arbitrary timetables — will guide our strategy from now on,” Trump said.
At its peak involvement in 2010-11, the U.S. had roughly 100,000 troops in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama then started bringing them home, drawing criticism for the public timetables he provided for his planned drawdown and ultimate withdrawal of forces.
Trump was among those who argued that Obama was aiding the enemy by telegraphing U.S. intentions. On Monday, Trump said he wouldn’t discuss troop numbers, military tactics or timetables.
“America’s enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out,” he said.
The administration invariably will have to provide updates to Congress, which pays the military’s bills, and
to key U.S. allies, whose troop contributions it seeks.
At least one U.S. ally responded positively to Trump’s approach. Germany, which contributes 950 troops in northern Afghanistan, approved of the U.S. readiness for a “long-term commitment” and agreed that the military’s continued deployment should be “linked to the conditions on the ground.”
Obama, too, reversed himself on withdrawing from Afghanistan as security worsened. Taliban militants have made gains, and the fractious Afghan government currently controls about half the country.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Tuesday that after an effective military effort, a political settlement including some Taliban might be possible, echoing language of the Obama years. He said the U.S. would support peace talks with the Taliban “without preconditions.”
U.S. lawmakers reflected the division among Americans about whether to press on with the Afghan conflict or pull back.
Republican John McCain of Arizona, the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman who had criticized Trump for delays in presenting a plan, said Trump was “now moving us well beyond the prior administration’s failed strategy of merely postponing defeat.”
Maryland’s Ben Cardin, the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee’s top Democrat, said he failed to see how another “surge” of forces in Afghanistan would turn the tide on the insurgency. He expressed concern that Trump was ceding significant responsibility to his defense secretary.
Some lawmakers blasted Trump for not disclosing more information and said they will redouble attempts to adopt the first use-of-force resolution since the 2001 act that authorized military action against terrorist groups in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
“The majority of us weren’t in Congress in 2001,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Foreign Relations Committee who is leading a bipartisan push to approve a new Authorized Use of Military Force. “I hope the Senate will stop dodging its responsibility and finally pass an updated [authorization].”
Afghanistan’s U.S.-backed government, however, welcomed Trump’s strategy, with President Ashraf Ghani saying it will help stabilize the region.
Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s second-most-powerful official, said at a news conference Tuesday that the U.S. strategy marks a unique opportunity to achieve peaceful objectives in the region.
“The regional aspect of this strategy is very clear. It shows that the problem was very well identified,” he said.
ADDRESSING PAKISTAN
Trump said in his speech that the U.S. “can no longer be silent” about terrorist havens in Pakistan and that Pakistan often gives sanctuary to “agents of chaos, violence and terror.” But he also didn’t explain how the U.S. would get Pakistan to crack down on such sanctuaries — long a point of contention that has led Washington to restrict aid to the country.
Pakistan and the United States have long had a troubled relationship, increasingly strained by differences over Pakistan’s role in Afghanistan. Even before U.S. military and intelligence operatives tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011, U.S. officials chided the Pakistani military and intelligence agency as harboring or turning a blind eye to militants.
Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement late Tuesday saying it is committed to fighting terrorism, and it called allegations that it provides havens to militants “a false narrative.” It added that a military solution is not possible, saying that “only an
Afghan-led, Afghan-owned politically negotiated solution can lead to a sustainable peace in Afghanistan.”
Tillerson said Tuesday that the U.S. could consider sanctions or cutting off Pakistan’s status as a major non-NATO ally if it doesn’t crack down on the Taliban and other extremist groups.
But analysts warned Tuesday that isolating Pakistan could unsettle the U.S. relationship with Islamabad and push it closer to Russia, China and Iran, further complicating efforts to stabilize the region.
“The idea of U.S. leverage in Pakistan is deeply exaggerated,” Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the U.S.based Wilson Center’s Asia Program, said in an email. “No matter the punishment, policy, or inducement, there’s little reason to believe that Pakistan will change its ways.”
Separately, some in Pakistan were alarmed by Trump’s additional demand that India get more involved in Afghanistan, a scenario dreaded by Islamabad and the reason cited most often for Pakistan’s support of the Taliban as a bulwark against India’s influence.
“Upgrading the Indian role in Afghanistan basically means perpetuating the hostilities,” said Imtiaz Gul, executive director of the Islamabad-based Center for Research and Security Studies.
India, for its part, welcomed Trump’s call for Pakistan to stop offering havens to terror groups.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement that it welcomed Trump’s “determination to enhance efforts to overcome the challenges faced by Afghanistan and in confronting issues of safe havens and other forms of cross-border support enjoyed by terrorists.”
Without naming Pakistan, the ministry said, “India shares these concerns and objectives.”