Trump strategy in Afghanistan

[Seamus Fermanagh]

At least we evacuated our supporters when we left and - ffs.

But yes, it's similar. The most obvious parallel is to American drawdown and increased delegation to local government forces alongside constant enemy gains in territory.

IIRC Nixon infamously entered office prepared to intensify and prolong the war such that the ultimate outcome to the Paris peace talks would be negotiated from a position of American strength (they would not be). On the other hand, I doubt the leadership, military or civilian, has any particular strategic goals or exit conditions for Afghanistan. A few thousand men, politically speaking, could be maintained there indefinitely unless the entire national orientation with respect to Middle East, and probably global, policy is radically transformed.

Sadly, while we withdrew with many who had supported US efforts in Vietnam and were therefore targeted, many others remained to await their fates.


And, whether you deem it 'infamous' or not, Nixon's strategy of ramping up the war to put pressure on the NK so as to get a better exit deal was a strategy with quite a lot of support in government and the general population.

[Montmorency]

Sadly, while we withdrew with many who had supported US efforts in Vietnam and were therefore targeted, many others remained to await their fates.

It's hard to envision even something like this today (though noting I'm not sure how many Vietnamese refugees there were overall during the war or between 1975-9):

The Orderly Departure Program (ODP) was a program to permit immigration of Vietnamese to the United States and to other countries. It was created in 1979 under the auspices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The objective of the ODP was to provide a mechanism for Vietnamese to leave their homeland safely and in an orderly manner to be resettled abroad. Prior to the ODP, tens of thousands of "boat people" were fleeing Vietnam monthly by boat and turning up on the shores of neighboring countries. Under the ODP, from 1980 until 1997, 623,509 Vietnamese were resettled abroad of whom 458,367 went to the United States.

And, whether you deem it 'infamous' or not, Nixon's strategy of ramping up the war to put pressure on the NK so as to get a better exit deal was a strategy with quite a lot of support in government and the general population.

Hubris is the applicable term for good reason. At least the French people (AFAIK) overwhelmingly rejected the war by the time of the French analogue 'sprint to the finish' in 1953-4.

[Furunculus]

i have some sympathy for trump here.

i am at heart a westphalian: where the compact of nations deems a state's territory and internal affairs to be inviolable, except whereby complicity or incompetence one permits attack upon other states from your own territory.

afghanistan is a failed state, which through a combination of both complicity and incompetence it allowed attacks on another state.
there are two options here:
1. intervene - to help build a real state capable of upholding its westphalian obligations to its neighbours. we have done this with some vigour, and at great cost in blood and treasure!
2. contain - after assessment that no escape from failed state tatus is possible, simple wall the place in and use stand-off munitions and special forces to smash anything that looks like a tall poppy.

the US has china to contend with and limited resources with which to do so, so I won't blame them if they decide that option 2 looks like the cheaper one for what is a sideshow and distraction from 'important' matters.

[Kagemusha]

i have some sympathy for trump here.

i am at heart a westphalian: where the compact of nations deems a state's territory and internal affairs to be inviolable, except whereby complicity or incompetence one permits attack upon other states from your own territory.

afghanistan is a failed state, which through a combination of both complicity and incompetence it allowed attacks on another state.
there are two options here:
1. intervene - to help build a real state capable of upholding its westphalian obligations to its neighbours. we have done this with some vigour, and at great cost in blood and treasure!
2. contain - after assessment that no escape from failed state is possible, simple wall the place in and use stand off munitions and special forces to smash anything that looks like a tall poppy.

the US has china to contend with and limited resources with which to do so, so I won't blame them if they decide that option 2 looks like the cheaper one for what is a sideshow and distraction from 'important' matters.

Im confused.Isnt Westphalia state in Germany?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Staying in Afghanistan is not to rebuild Afghanistan but to make sure we have troops that can rapidly deploy into Pakistan.

What a short sighted decision, forget about China we need to start getting on India's good side and have the second most dangerous state in the world contained.

[Furunculus]

Im confused.Isnt Westphalia state in Germany?

yes, why yes it is. why do you ask?

[Husar]

Im confused.Isnt Westphalia state in Germany?

I assume he is referring to something something philosophy about states and attacking as found in the treaty of Westphalia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

If not, then he is appropriating my culture!!!

[Crandar]

To be fair, foreign intervention contributed greatly to Afghanistan being a failed state. Anyway, the current war is unwinnable, unless America increases exponentially its budget on the rebuilding of Afghanistan. From the perspective of the American tax-payer, the withdrawal from the Middle East is totally beneficial.

[Montmorency]

To be fair, foreign intervention contributed greatly to Afghanistan being a failed state. Anyway, the current war is unwinnable, unless America increases exponentially its budget on the rebuilding of Afghanistan. From the perspective of the American tax-payer, the withdrawal from the Middle East is totally beneficial.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on any of this: in late 2017, Trump ordered a surge of troops. By early 2018 the number had increased from 11K to 16K. Trump's recent call for a drawdown of 7K would bring the number to about where it was when he took office.

Can't find it, but even Mattis acknowledged in 2017 we're in there to preserve stalemate, because status quo is all we've got left to live for I guess. I wonder if Russia, China, and Pakistan don't mind the NATO presence as long as someone is paying to contain extremist spillover into South and Central Asia to some extent. At this point anyway, there are no good options so even a anti-imperialist has to acknowledge that bad shit's going to happen no matter what America chooses.

For Afghanistan specifically, if someone told Trump there's a trillion dollars worth of mineral and metal deposits underneath Afghanistan, he'd probably be calling for a surge tomorrow. If even wonks, to say nothing of us here, can hardly begin to grapple with the consequences of Afghanistan, Trump is surely exhausted by any attempt to make a complex, abstract, and theoretical case for staying in what looks like a lost and uneconomical commitment. His Youtube vlogs were deleted after the election and I don't know if they exist elsewhere on the Internet, but here's a 2011 presidential campaign interview (he's bruited running in every election for the past generation) that has much of the same content as his Youtube video I'm referring to, if less funny in context:

...

Interviewer: What I'm saying is, would you intervene in [Libya] or not, if you were President Obama?

Trump: I'd have to find out who the rebels were, but I'm only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I have no interest in Libya.

I: So your Middle East policy is basically guided by our interest in oil?

T: MLxlrjwts. I always heard that - I always heard that when we went into Iraq, we went in for the oil. I said, 'Ahh, that sounds smart.' Except we never did. So we're into Iraq for $1.5 trillion, thousands of lives, and wounded, thousands and thousands of lives and wounded, and here's what's going to happen, as sure as you're sitting there: As soon as we leave Iraq, as soon as we leave Iraq, Iran is going to go in, going to go in to Iraq, and take over those huge oil fields (second largest to Saudi Arabia). And that wouldn't happen - believe me - if it were up to me.

I: So you would keep troops in Iraq after this year?

T: I would take the oil.

I: I don't understand how you would take the oi- -- does that mean keeping troops there or-or, staying involved in Iraq?

T: You heard me, I would take the oil. I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take over the oil. Because, you know what? We have thousands of people that died, our great soldiers, they died. Men and women, lots of people. We have thousands of people all over this country that are wounded, horribly wounded, with legs, and arms, and lots -

I: I think hfwre6hiaf no -

T: lots of - Excuse me.

I: I'm sorry.

T: And I would not want to be the one to tell their parents that your son, your daughter, has died, in vain, been wounded, in vain. But I would not want to be the one who goes up to somebody that had a son or a daughter that died in Iraq and tell them, "By the way, Iran is taking over Iraq because we have so weakened that nation that they essentially don't have an army that could fight back as they have for hundreds of years [sic]."

[I stopped watching here, halfway through]

lululemon

Here's a comedy video portraying Trump's vlogs (between 2011-2014) though, I recommend all of you watch it. It's lovely.