Trump is showing leadership on Afghanistan

Britain must increase its military budget to show its commitment to the defence of Western values

At first glance, given Donald Trump’s fiercely critical rhetoric during the presidential campaign about America’s involvement in Afghanistan, his change of policy announced this week looks like another knee-jerk reaction from a disturbingly impulsive leader of the western world – indeed Trump acknowledged that his first instinct was to pull US forces out.

But in this case, analysis and logic have led him beyond instinct to a different, and correct, policy: to step up America’s engagement. US General John Allen commented that during his speech to a largely military audience, the President had stayed on-message and not deviated from the script on the teleprompter – a script undoubtedly written by his foreign affairs team.

For those who worry about President Trump on the world stage, it is the excellent membership of that team – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis and National Security Adviser HR Mcmaster – that provides the reassurance that the rest of us in the West need.

The new US policy on Afghanistan could in fact show that the Trump presidency is beginning to come of age in terms of international diplomacy. Time, of course, and future policies towards North Korea, China and Russia will validate this hope, or not. Whatever happens elsewhere, however, President Trump’s commitment to Afghanistan is to be welcomed for a variety of reasons.

He has acknowledged that the precipitate withdrawal by the US from Iraq in 2010 was a mistake, and contributed to the chain of events that produced the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil). He wants to avoid repeating that mistake in Afghanistan, which is the correct decision in the wider context of the struggle against jihadist fundamentalism, epitomised by Isil.

At the Afghan level, it is very much in the interests of the majority of the country’s people that the current government in Kabul is supported, social and economic development is encouraged and the fight against the Taliban is conducted vigorously. Overall defeat on the battlefield may not be possible, but containment of their influence, leading to eventual irrelevance within Afghan national life, would constitute significant success.

In this regard, the UK government is justified in its commitment of around 500 troops to run the Afghan National Army officer training academy in Kabul. The decision to increase this contribution by 85 soldiers is very much in line with the new American policy.

Within the subcontinent more widely, Trump is also right to speak bluntly to Pakistan. The harbouring of Taliban and al-qaeda fighters in the tribal areas adjacent to Afghanistan is an absurdity that Pakistan has allowed for too long. Pressure on the government in Islamabad to bear down on this – or face diplomatic and economic consequences – is completely correct.

Furthermore, it will not be sufficient for Pakistan to agree this as a matter of national policy – they also need to bring the activities of the ISI (its intelligence agency, almost a state within a state) to heel. India has a role to play in this, too, to ease tensions in the subcontinent by not playing one side off against another.

Perhaps the most significant element of President Trump’s new policy, however, is the recognition that what happens in Afghanistan has a major bearing on the broader struggle against jihadist fundamentalism.

Isil has organised itself into many provinces – it may be losing control of its territories in Iraq, with the loss of Mosul and shortly Tal Afar, and in Syria, but it has others in Yemen, Libya, Algeria, West Africa, the North Caucasus, south-east Asia, Sinai and Gaza. It will not wish to lose control of its Khorasan province, comprising Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Trump’s new policy on Afghanistan should be seen squarely in its full context as an important component of the wider war on Isil.

Previously, Trump has worried publicly about the threats to Western values and way of life. Whether he realises it or not, his new policy on Afghanistan is in part responding to his own concerns.

And there is an opportunity for the United Kingdom here, too, given Brexit. Our European partners may be worrying that we might be in the process of withdrawing from our collective security responsibilities. But if the UK were to increase its defence spending by a quarter or a half of 1 per cent, it would send a very strong message, in the context of collective defence through Nato, that on the contrary the UK is a strong and engaged player on the world stage.

Such a stance is consistent with our permanent membership of the UN Security Council and would be significant not just for Europe, but also in our ability to play a useful supporting role to the US in Afghanistan and more widely in the defence of Western values.

Lord Dannatt is a former Chief of the General Staff. His book ‘Boots on the Ground: Britain and Her Army Since 1945’ is now available in paperback