Why winning in Afghanistan is an elusive goal

President Trump on Monday outlined a simple strategy for “winning” in Afghanistan that was long on promises and short on details. The path from here to there is both unclear and littered with land mines.

In general, the 180-degree shift in the president’s thinking is welcome.

The complete withdrawal of U.S. forces that candidate Trump advocated would establish a strong Taliban presence in Afghanistan that would promote terrorism.

While that approach and the lack of a promised pullout deadline are good ideas, the situation in southeast Asia is far more complex than the speech implied:

• Trump announced “we will win” in Afghanistan without saying what would constitute victory.

• Trump made clear that the United States would not engage in “nation-building” without saying how he expects Afghanistan to ever survive as an independent nation — which clearly is in U.S. interests — without some outside investments in strengthening its infrastructure, economy and security forces in the wake of 16 years of war.

• Trump vowed to get tough with Pakistan, a supposed ally that plays both sides, and to push India to invest more and otherwise help the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

Both are reasonable aims, but Trump failed to acknowledge the great danger of altering the balance between these two long-time adversaries — and nuclear powers.

Diplomacy is the only way to make this work, but the Trump state department has been eviscerated of expertise in this part of the world.

Trump made clear he would give the military more autonomy to make decisions on how to fight the Taliban.

Without political oversight, the result could be far more civilian casualties in Afghanistan, turning the area further against the U.S. presence and incurring greater financial costs.

All this would be less worrisome if the president had demonstrated an ability to navigate complex issues in his first 200 days in office.

He has been unable to deliver on any major initiative that required building consensus, even within his own party.

But it’s hard for even the most optimistic foreign policy experts to see anything but a no-win situation in the region.

The 16-year war in Afghanistan already stands as the longest in U.S. history.

At one point, President Obama had 100,000 U.S. troops there but couldn’t eliminate the Taliban.

It’s hard to see how adding 4,000 additional troops to the current force of 8,400 will substantially change the prospects for victory — whatever victory means.

The best we may be able to do is maintain a continued presence in Afghanistan to weaken the Taliban and other terrorists’ hold on the nation and region.

That could create an opening for diplomatic efforts to further stabilize the region.

It’s not the kind of “win” Trump is promising.

But as his three predecessors learned the hard way, it’s likely the best he can do.

It’s hard for even the most optimistic foreign policy experts to see anything but a no-win situation in the region. The 16year war in Afghanistan already stands as the longest in U.S. history.