Given the fate of a much bigger surge back in 2009 by President Obama,
analysts believe that the exercise would amount
to nothing more than the old strategy of ‘don’t lose’.
President Trump has finally announced the long awaited new policy on Afghanistan. In fact, he has declared permanent war in Afghanistan. Yielding to his generals and disregarding his campaign promises, he has contemptuously rejected suggestions, and his own words, for not setting a timeline for bringing the Afghan conflict to an end. It is unfathomable why Trump delayed this announcement for so long. There is not the slightest imprint of President’s many refrains during the course of the policy review. The speech is the same that was written by generals, which was ready as early as in May 2017 at the time of the NATO Summit.
The new strategy has four elements, namely: (a) shift away from time-based approach to conditions-based; (b) integration of military, diplomatic and economic instruments of power; (c) a shift in approach toward Pakistan to deal with terrorist sanctuaries; (d) further develop strategic partnership with India; and, (e) more flexible rules to fight as per the needs of the battle.
While abandoning timelines, doing away with specifying troop’s level, deployment timings and appealing to conditions-based withdrawal or talks, the new policy has given an open check to generals, although White House clarified that President has previously authorised increase to a maximum of 3900. Given the fate of a much bigger surge back in 2009 by President Obama, analysts believe that the exercise would amount to nothing more than the old strategy of ‘don’t lose’.
The worrying part is the open threat an American President has flung on an ostensible ally, Pakistan, from a high podium of Fort Myer military base that symbolically testifies to the long history of partnership between the two countries through the cold war, soviet invasion and war on terror. In fact, he questioned Pakistan’s credentials: ‘It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order and to peace’. There is some commotion in Pakistan on the tone and tenor of this threat. It is incumbent on the Prime Minister of Pakistan to respond to this comment, most appropriately through a statement in the Parliament so that it can then be debated by the members. The Parliament must assert that Pakistan is a sovereign state and a responsible member of United Nations. Before calling upon Pakistan to show its commitment, the US should study Article 2(4) of the UN Charter that expressly prohibits issuance of threat and use of force in international relation and respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States.
The unusual lambasting on Pakistan was not lost on China, as it quickly came to support Pakistan and recognised its role as a ‘frontline state’ and appreciated the invaluable sacrifices it has rendered in fighting the war on terror.
Trump has also stated that – like some Pakistan-bashers in Washington –Pakistan received billions of dollars and yet it has been harbouring agents of chaos. In a previous article we had noted that the amount of $30 billion in aid is unfortunately exaggerated. But whatever is that amount, it was partly to share the cost of war, and pales in comparison to more than $100 billion losses Pakistan has suffered. A large part was in the form of reimbursement of agreed expenditures, each of which was minutely audited and certified at different layers of Defence Department bureaucracy before approval by the Defence Secretary. Yet Pakistan has looked at no outside help to bear nearly $3 billion of costs to reclaim nearly 50,000 sq.km of land that was occupied by insurgents since 2001; and to bear the cost of displacement, hosting and subsequent relocation of displaced population, their rehabilitation and reconstruction of destroyed and damaged infrastructure of roads, markets, housing, schools and hospitals.”
On the other hand, in line with Modi-Trump Joint Statement in Washington, India is singled out for praise for its role in Afghanistan and also for further development of strategic partnership. However, it has been asked to foot the bill for Afghan development. This punctuated with an additional incentive: We are committed to pursuing our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. Clearly, this is a reference to Indian influence projecting past China into the Pacific Ocean. He has completely ignored the fact that India is using Afghanistan to destabilise Pakistan and many terrorists flushed out during several major operations are being harboured in Afghanistan and a constant source of carrying out acts of terrorism in Pakistan. Even Kashmir, where Indian human rights violations are a deep scar on civilisation, finds no mention.
While some analysts in India are rejoicing the harsh words used against Pakistan, other saner elements are worried that Trump has cranked a rivalry between the two nuclear giants. Some have seen that Trump has turned Af-Pak into Af-Pak-India, thus bringing India in the equation that it vehemently resisted when Af-Pak was coined in 2009 at Ambassador Holbrook tried it desperately. There is a clear encouragement to India that may prompt some irresponsible adventure. But Pakistan would not tolerate any such moves and thus one cannot rule out some spiralling of tensions between the two neighbours.
There is some advice for Afghan Government also.
‘In this struggle, the heaviest burden will continue to be borne by the good people of Afghanistan and their courageous armed forces. As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us … America will work with the Afghan government as long as we see determination and progress. However, our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check. The government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden.’
First, yes, it is true, the President said he spoke to Afghan Prime Minister, even though Afghanistan has a presidential system and there is no PM. Second, yes, he asked and Afghans have agreed to defray the cost of war (by mining their mineral wealth, whereby some secret deals may be in the offing). Finally, there is a warning that if Afghan would not be able to bear the cost, we are not writing a blank check. In this backdrop, if readers’ jaws are dropped in wondering ‘what’s going on’ then they are not alone.
Even though in reality the entire military effort is directed against Taliban, there are occasional mention of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, but all were marked together as posing regional and international threats. This is a fundamental break from the past, when Taliban were not considered terrorist or harbouring ambitions beyond Afghanistan. Furthermore, a corollary of shunning time-based deployment is a near absence of any notion of peace talks or negotiated end to the conflict. There is no delineation of the conditions that may determine when a conciliation process would start.
Curiously, from the outset, Trump has claimed that he has crafted a winning strategy: ‘The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.’ Experts doubt there would be any material change on the ground from the proposed strategy. Indeed, some have termed the speech an attempt to distract attention from myriad of domestic issues that have surrounded Trump presidency.
Many Americans and world citizens are also wondering whether they should believe the Trump of 22 August 2017 or the Trump of 3 February 2012, when he had following to say while endorsing the nomination of Mitt Romney:
‘Afghanistan is a total and complete disaster, what are we doing, we have all of those horrible events taking place over there, we can’t even run our own country, we don’t build our schools, our highways, we don’t build anything anymore. What’s wrong with us? What’s wrong with our leadership? Now we have Afghanistan where a man loses his mind and goes around on a killing spree and the world hates us for that. What’s going on? Money should be spent in our country, to rebuild our country that would also reduce, by the way, our debt of $16 trillion. Let’s get with it, get out of Afghanistan. We have wasted billions and billions of dollars and most importantly thousands of lives, not to mention those young men and women who come home and they really have problems. Let’s go, let’s get with it, we need to have leaders that know what they are doing”.
There is also a great deal of scepticism in the Pentagon on the new strategy despite its authorship by generals. Robert Perry, in American Conservative has following to say about the direction of the war in Afghanistan even under the new strategy:
“This Trump plan, at least so far as I understand it, sounds a lot like the kind of plan we’ve come up with again and again since the end of World War Two,” a senior Pentagon officer says. “We’re going to surge troops, reform the government we support and put pressure on our allies. In this building [the Pentagon] there’s a hell of a lot of scepticism. And that’s because we all know what this new strategy really means – and what it means that the only way we can get out of Afghanistan is to get further in. You know, it seems to me that if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that that doesn’t work.”
