Donald Trump’s War – Afghanistan

America’s longest war just got longer. Same players, same battleground that helped take down the Soviet Union in their 10 year war back in the 1980s. OK, we gave them a nudge by arming – through Pakistani intelligence – the Islamic radical jihadists (yup, Donald, them) with weapons of every description. They were the “mujahedeen,” who morphed and evolved into myriad terrorist groups, from al Qaeda to ISIS, over the years. They continued operate in Afghanistan with the full support of the new ultra-conservative rulers, the extreme Sunni practitioners, the Taliban.

After these “former allies” got through with the Soviets, after the Taliban were well installed as the new power in Afghanistan, these extremists turned their attention on the United States. Foreign fighters – including Saudis and Egyptian irregulars – trained on Afghan soil… plotted the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States. America retaliated, the Taliban collapsed, and the longest war in our history began.

We installed what George W Bush thought was a friendly regime, seemingly elected under a democratic system we imposed on them, but that leadership became, and continues to be, one of the most corrupt governments on earth. Even with US backing, that nascent government has never been able to take and hold much of any part of that rugged Central Asia nation except the capital city of Kabul and the immediately surrounding area. Opium poppies continue to flourish as a mainstay crop all over the country.

Traditional Afghan warlords still control specific regions despite the “elected” government in Kabul, but the Taliban slowly came back as the dominant force countering the US and its Kabul regime. Financial support from all over the fundamental Sunni Islamic world (including Saudi Arabian sources) combines with taxes and revenues from the drug trade to keep the Taliban going. Rumors of talks between Russian and Taliban leaders abound.

Neighboring Pakistan, a mostly Muslim nation born of partition from predominantly Hindu India, has been America’s purported ally in the region. But particularly since General Zia ul-Huq became Pakistan’s sixth president, immediately declaring martial law until his untimely and mysterious death in 1988, Islamic radicalism has grown inside Pakistan, particularly in the ungovernable Tribal Districts. Pakistan’s CIA/FBI equivalent – its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) – is pretty well known to have strong affiliations with regional and local radical Islamists (including the Afghan Taliban), making reliance on Pakistan as a regional stabilizing force questionable at best. You will recall how Osama bin-Laden was living comfortably in Pakistan when he was captured and killed by Navy Seals.

Donald Trump campaigned on getting us out of Afghanistan. But now in office, Mr. Trump followed in Barack Obama’s footsteps, buying into his generals telling him that if US forces completely pulled out, Afghanistan would be run by precisely the same level of terrorists we have been fighting all over the world. So on August 21^st, Trump explained to the nation that it was, in his opinion, necessary to step up our military forces in Afghanistan, particularly training and special opps, to prevent this from happening. While he didn’t name numbers, most believe that the increase – “not a blank check” – would be on the order of magnitude of 4,000 new US forces, not much when you think of the level of troops we have had there earlier… with no significant cutback in Taliban operations.

Can we actually win that never-ending war? Nobody expects that outcome – really – now matter what promises might be suggested. But here’s how one expert, pro-Trump policy General Jack Keane, the former Vice Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, sees it in an interview published in the August 22^nd The Cipher Brief: “What he’s trying to do is improve the effectiveness of our ground and air operations. He’s going to have advisors down at lower levels so they can assist the Afghans with their own performance and also facilitate the effective use of airpower. He’s easing up on the rules of engagement so that when we have a target we don’t have to ask permission to fire at that target – and get a bunch of lawyers involved. He’s relying on the judgment of the commanders to make those kinds of calls in a combat situation and not have to ask permission. That just makes for very responsive operations.

“[The Taliban] is very familiar with our rules of engagement. It takes too long for us to get permission to shoot at the target. The Taliban senses what’s going on and simply drives next to a building. We’re not going to hit the building because there could be people in those buildings. They know our rules of engagement. We’ve had our pilots almost run out of gas flying in circles, waiting for permission.”

Former CIA Acting Director, Michael Morell, (also in The Cipher Brief) was a tad less certain of the outcome, particularly given the necessity of Pakistan’s support: “On Afghanistan, the President made two things very clear. First, he outlined, with great clarity, the threat we face from the situation in Afghanistan and the consequences of a U.S. withdrawal.  On the threat, his analysis was exactly right.  The Taliban now controls more territory than at any time since just after 9/11, and al Qaeda and ISIS are the rise.  And, consequently, the terrorist threat posed to the U.S. is on the rise.

“On the potential consequences of a withdrawal, he was also right. I believe that the within a few months of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Taliban would be knocking on the doors of Kabul.  They would take over the country, and they would again give safe haven to jihadist groups intent on attacking us. He made the case for a U.S. military commitment to the country…

“With regard to the President’s approach to delivering on this objective, I did not hear a new strategy. Most of what I heard was exactly what the Bush and Obama Administrations did and/or tried – integrate all aspects of national power, pressure Pakistan to change its support to the Taliban, tighten the financial squeeze on terrorist groups, ask for more from NATO, train Afghan security forces, and encourage the Afghan government to get its act together. The President said these were changes. That is not accurate. This is more of the same. And, the President gave me no reason to be confident that these approaches would be any more successful under him than they were under his predecessors…

“I did hear three new pieces to the strategy. First, no timetable for departure, rather a conditions-based departure. That makes sense. Two, no micromanagement from Washington in the conduct of military operations. That makes sense as well. But, while these may make sense, they will not be determinative. They will not turn the tide. The third new piece is asking India to do more in Afghanistan. That, most definitely, does not make sense. In fact, it is just the wrong thing to do. Indian involvement in Afghanistan is one of the key reasons why the Pakistanis support the Taliban.  So, more Indian involvement as actually destabilizing.” Pakistan is likely to work further to sabotage our efforts if their archenemy, India, is asked to step in… and does… as Trump suggested.

In the end, there is little evidence that we can do much more than mitigate the damage that will continue in Afghanistan, perhaps finding a graceful way of pulling out… and giving up.  I do not believe that there is a sustainable long-term plan to stabilize Afghanistan and neutralize that threat with any level of commitment that the American people would ever tolerate. It’s Donald Trump’s war now, and Steve Bannon (now back at Breitbart) will never let him forget that.

I’m Peter Dekom, and wouldn’t it be refreshing if Donald Trump actually did a little reading about history… not just in Central Asia… but anywhere?