Stay away Canada

For Donald Trump it’s now what to do in Afghanistan. Citizen Trump used to tweet such pithy gems as “Afghanistan is a complete waste. Time to come home!” But seven months into his presidency, he’s woken up to the glaringly obvious fact that “decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”

So he listened to his generals and thought about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, a war that is already the longest in U.S. history, with no end in sight. Then he announced that he’s decided to do pretty much the same as his predecessors — keep fighting the Taliban, prop up the rickety Afghan government, and hope some kind of deal can be worked out down the road. This is a formula for, if not failure, at least non-success.

Trump pointedly refused to say on Monday how many more troops he’s prepared to send in, but that was already leaked in mid-June. About 4,000 will go to join the 8,400 American soldiers already there, and Trump repeated his insistence that Washington’s allies must commit more money and military support to the cause.

That puts pressure on Canada to re-up for service in Afghanistan, pressure the Trudeau government should politely but firmly resist.

When the subject first came up at a NATO meeting in June, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau turned aside Trump’s request by saying Canada remains focused on its modest but significant mission in Iraq, where it’s helping to defeat Daesh. That’s the right answer. Aside from everything else, Canada has done its full share of the heavy lifting in Afghanistan. Our soldiers were there for 12 years; 158 lost their lives and hundreds more were injured. We’ve done our bit — and more.

There’s suspicion in some circles that the government might be tempted to go back into Afghanistan, perhaps with just a small training team, in order to make nice with the Trump administration as trade talks with Washington enter their crunch phase.

That would be a mistake. Canada is no beggar at the NAFTA negotiating table, and shouldn’t use our troops as a bargaining chip to make a deal. In any case, it wouldn’t work; trade issues have to be worked out on their own terms and too many other parties are involved — the U.S. Congress, to name just one.

After 16 years of hard fighting in Afghanistan, with as many as 100,000 U.S. troops involved at one point, outright military victory is an illusion. No matter how heavy its losses the Taliban has shown it can endure and will come back stronger whenever the Afghan government and coalition troops pull back.

That leaves only the possibility of a negotiated political settlement with at least some elements of the Taliban. Trump touched on that but made it sound like a faint hope at best, something that might be reached “some day” once the Taliban has been soundly beaten and learned that it can’t drive the Americans out.

The new element he introduced into the equation is tougher action against Pakistan, which is Washington’s ostensible ally but also provides safe havens for Taliban forces along its border with Afghanistan. Pakistan’s government has been playing a double game — taking billions in U.S. aid while also helping its enemies. Trump now says he will force them to choose sides.

That could help — if Pakistan actually chooses to side with the U.S. But antiAmerican feeling there is so strong that the ramped-up pressure from Washington could drive Pakistan even further away. And that risks making an eventual political deal with the Taliban even harder to achieve.

However difficult, the only scenario that holds long-term promise is a diplomatic effort involving such countries as Pakistan and even Russia to work out a political settlement among Afghanistan’s warring factions.

The alternative is war without end. Unfortunately, that appears to be the option Trump has chosen — despite his insistence that he would be a different kind of president and take a different path.