Trump strategy in Afghanistan

[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.

[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!!!