Trump strategy in Afghanistan

[Hooahguy]

So last night Trump gave a speech on Afghanistan, saying that the US role in Afghanistan would have no end date, and an increase in US troops there. He also discussed that he wanted to focus on fighting the Taliban there, moving off of nation-building to focus on terrorist-killing.

This of course is something of a flip from his previous statements talking about leaving Afghanistan, but considering he also criticized the vacuum in Iraq that the US pullout caused, this decision wasnt out of the blue.

He also spent time criticizing Pakistan for harboring terrorism.

Im unsure how I feel about this. I would want a pullout as I see nothing ending well in that country, but at the same time, the lessons from Iraq shouldnt be forgotten either. The Afghan government and forces are not ready to be on their own (still) so leaving now would just enable Taliban takeover once again.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They are incapable, at present, of fashioning a relatively non-corrupt and vaguely stable government. They have, functionally, been ruled along tribalist lines since Megos Alexandros, and his "control" may have been pretty superficial.

If the US pulls out completely, the area will revert to tribalism, probably under the loose leadership of the Taliban, and will return to its previous status regarding terror training camps etc.

If the US commits an inordinate amount of resources engaged in full nation building, then in 30-40 years we may be able to draw down Afghanistan with some hope of leaving behind a stable state.

Trump's alternative, enhanced terrorist whack-a-mole efforts, will allow Afghanistan to remain as it is provided we never draw down our troop totals too far and keep up the low grade warfare. Oh brave new world....

[Strike For The South]

What does terrorist killing even mean? How many terrorists actually operate in Afghanistan at this point? Surely it's not the most hopping theatre right now? No end date? The US military as an extra judical killing force?

[Montmorency]

Afghanistan is our gym membership held just in case we decide we want to go to the gym, someday. But if we drop our membership the company in charge goes bankrupt and the building itself collapses to the foundation.

And we can never go to (this) gym again.

At this point, the best option is probably to "evacuate" all the gym employees and other patrons, and start working out at home. That New Year's resolution just isn't going to pan out, and it's hurting the people in our life.

[Montmorency]

So last night Trump gave a speech on Afghanistan, saying that the US role in Afghanistan would have no end date, and an increase in US troops there. He also discussed that he wanted to focus on fighting the Taliban there, moving off of nation-building to focus on terrorist-killing.

This of course is something of a flip from his previous statements talking about leaving Afghanistan, but considering he also criticized the vacuum in Iraq that the US pullout caused, this decision wasnt out of the blue.

He also spent time criticizing Pakistan for harboring terrorism.

Im unsure how I feel about this. I would want a pullout as I see nothing ending well in that country, but at the same time, the lessons from Iraq shouldnt be forgotten either. The Afghan government and forces are not ready to be on their own (still) so leaving now would just enable Taliban takeover once again.

Criticizing Pakistan, with no strategy to change their behavior, won't achieve anything.

The Taliban will indeed take over - or someone like them - and we will have to deal with it anyway. Best-case, we can reach an accommodation as follows, to put our relations at around Iran-tier, optimistically:

1. We will pull out in 1 year (or whatever short period).
2. We will cease hostilities so long as we and our protected populations are not attacked under agreed terms. (Maybe we can agree that IS Khorasan et al. are free game for all parties)
3. All Afghans collaborating as civilian or military personnel will be evaluated for asylum in America, as well as their close family. Any other individuals seeking asylum will be considered as well, but at a lower priority.
4. dot dot dot

The idea is to protect the people we have promised to protect (having put their lives on the line for the coalition effort), minimize bloodshed in the interim, and incentivize peaceful power transfers after the coalition leaves. If this puts the Taliban at a majority stake in government throughout the country , so be it. We can't afford to antagonize them over this inevitability. We will need a minimum level of diplomatic relations, as if we can't even have that then our failure is absolute. The best case is that, over time, we may encourage through external and internal change the moderation of the Taliban regime and the opening of Afghanistan.

Encourage Chinese buy-in to protect their resource extraction interests, and perhaps eventually the Taliban will come running to Western corporations to counterbalance Chinese domination.

Yes, that's optimistic. Better than we can hope for on the current course. No more indefinite investment.

[Husar]

Encourage Chinese buy-in to protect their resource extraction interests, and perhaps eventually the Taliban will come running to Western corporations to counterbalance Chinese domination.

Bonus points if you can get the Chinese addicted to the opium and control them that way.

[HopAlongBunny]

Trump just made it official:

The War on Terror is the "forever war".
Jobs Jobs Jobs for the U.S.A. and the export of endless terrorism...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump just made it official:

The War on Terror is the "forever war".
Jobs Jobs Jobs for the U.S.A. and the export of endless terrorism...

The War on Terror has been the forever war since the Camp David Accords. Only the intensity of the moment and specific location has varied.

[spmetla]

Having been there before and scheduled to go there again I'm biased toward a continued presence.

Overall I'm glad we're not doing a giant surge to 'kill terrorists' because the Afghan government just isn't capable yet of securing whatever ground we win. Not focusing on Troop numbers or time tables is good though, I saw firsthand the problems that happen when a major stake holder like the US suddenly and quickly leaves and area without a capable replacement force from the Afghan Police or Army. That being said, while a limited increase in Troops (probably mostly support with very limited ground combat forces of the SOF variety) is good too many would create more problems as well.

For the long term I hope we keep a commitment to Afghanistan, they're a poor country that can't afford the air force and communications equipment that they need to sustain the war they're in.

Their economy though slow is growing, especially as it's got a generation of kids that have mostly received some sort education (including significant numbers of girls) as opposed to nearly nationwide illiteracy that was there before 2001. Unfortunately the population is growing faster than the economy though...

Why bother keeping up this fight? I believe that so long as we give the ANA basic air support, limited training, and some supervision they won't be defeated. They might lose parts of the of the countryside but it's unlikely that they'd be kicked out of cities or along the ring road. Victory will be a long time coming, will probably take this current generation of Afghans that have grown up in the post-Taliban rule but under Taliban threat to change things. I doubt that they want to revert to no TV, internet, Bollywood, etc.. the indicator of that is the constant flow of refugees Westward.
On the point of refugees, it's better helping the Afghan government now than dealing with the millions more that would flee Afghanistan if the Taliban were taking major cities over. The current flow is but a trickle compared to if it were to go full on Syria.

Don't take the above as naivete about the situation. I am truly not optimistic about it but looking at Libya, Syria, Mali, Somalia, and Yemen I lean toward helping the current government with all its faults with at least control of the cities and nearby countryside than letting it collapse completely into regional warlords with cities of millions in between.
Giving up and pretending that we can leave without it causing larger problems is something the past 30 years of warfare in Asia/Africa should have taught the US. Try to address the problems there at great expense or try and ignore the problems and deal with them later at much more expense and possibly much closer to home or allied homes.

[Kagemusha]

Criticizing Pakistan, with no strategy to change their behavior, won't achieve anything.

The Taliban will indeed take over - or someone like them - and we will have to deal with it anyway. Best-case, we can reach an accommodation as follows, to put our relations at around Iran-tier, optimistically:

1. We will pull out in 1 year (or whatever short period).
2. We will cease hostilities so long as we and our protected populations are not attacked under agreed terms. (Maybe we can agree that IS Khorasan et al. are free game for all parties)
3. All Afghans collaborating as civilian or military personnel will be evaluated for asylum in America, as well as their close family. Any other individuals seeking asylum will be considered as well, but at a lower priority.
4. dot dot dot

The idea is to protect the people we have promised to protect (having put their lives on the line for the coalition effort), minimize bloodshed in the interim, and incentivize peaceful power transfers after the coalition leaves. If this puts the Taliban at a majority stake in government throughout the country , so be it. We can't afford to antagonize them over this inevitability. We will need a minimum level of diplomatic relations, as if we can't even have that then our failure is absolute. The best case is that, over time, we may encourage through external and internal change the moderation of the Taliban regime and the opening of Afghanistan.

Encourage Chinese buy-in to protect their resource extraction interests, and perhaps eventually the Taliban will come running to Western corporations to counterbalance Chinese domination.

Yes, that's optimistic. Better than we can hope for on the current course. No more indefinite investment.

Is it just me, or does this sound lot like exiting Vietnam?

[Montmorency]

Is it just me, or does this sound lot like exiting Vietnam?

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.

[Fragony]

Futility, if the West does succeeds, what did we do then

[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.