Trump had it right when he was calling for US armed forces to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Trump had it right the first time. In his 2016 presidential campaign he repeatedly argued that 16 years of failed warfare in Afghanistan are enough.
Indeed, years that cost us more than 23,000 killed or wounded and $685.6 billion in Afghanistan (on top of more than 36,000 American casualties and $814.6 billion in Iraq) argue against more investment in that dubious conflict. As in the Vietnam and Iraq civil wars, foreign intervention is a losing proposition.
In his TV address to the nation on August 21, Trump reversed his campaign pledge to exit Afghanistan. Without specifying troop limits, time frame or exit strategy, the President announced a commitment of new U.S. military support and a “plan for victory” (without either describing the “plan” or defining “victory”).
He argued that a rapid exit would create a vacuum for terrorists, and thus present a security threat for Americans. Yet in describing the enemy, he wavered between the Taliban on the one hand and Al Qaeda/ISIS on the other. Nor did he explain why either group presents an existential danger to the United States.
The Taliban is not an international terrorist organization. It has not attacked or threated countries outside of Afghanistan. Rather it is engaged in an intensifying civil war against a corrupt
Government in Kabul. And it’s winning that war. The Taliban now controls between 35 and 50 percent of the country. As demonstrated in Vietnam and Iraq, local liberation armies have more staying power than outside forces.
While Al Queda and ISIS may gain ground in Afghanistan, the greater dangers posed by those (and other) jihadist groups would seem to lie with ISIS fighters who return to their home countries and with young Muslims who become radicalized through the Internet and extremist mosques. Wouldn’t it be smarter to focus on those risks than the distant and more costly targets?
Moreover, we have seen that when our military eliminates terrorist leaders, new ones quickly emerge to take their places. Violence inevitably fails to stem violence.
Trump’s proposed re-escalation of U.S. military intervention shows a non-understanding of the regional dynamics. With Afghanistan as a pawn in the India-Pakistan proxy war, the latter’s fear of Indian encirclement makes it unlikely that the Pak military will stop giving safe haven to the Taliban, even if the U.S. withholds aid. Furthermore, the Pakistanis have come to rely more heavily on China as a strategic partner.
More troops at whatever level would send a huge new bill to U.S. taxpayers. The Congressional Research Service estimates that the annual cost of keeping a single American soldier in Afghanistan is $3.9 million. As the troop numbers increase, U.S. taxpayers may start to complain, especially when they realize that the true measure of the war cost includes “long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families”—bringing the true cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to date to at least $4 trillion.
Trump failed to disclose any plan specifics that would allow us to anticipate costs. He was non-transparent on both aims (beyond “we will win”) and commitments. Don’t Americans have a right to know what the Commander-in-Chief has in mind regarding troop numbers and time horizon? Shouldn’t Congress exercise its right under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) “to declare war”?
Even beyond military expenditures are the ongoing costs of stabilizing the Kabul government. The Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction regularly highlights the lack of reconstruction progress, despite the $117 billion spent by the Pentagon and USAID to date—more money in real terms than the sums spent on the Marshall Plan for post-WW2 Europe. Yet rampant corruption and drug dealing continue to plague the Afghan government.
Since the Taliban was able to make substantial gains when the U.S. had 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, can we really believe that the addition of a few thousand soldiers to the roughly 8,000 now in place will turn the tide?
A longer term concern: with North Korea and Venezuela posing new foreign policy challenges, will Trump continue to rely mostly on his inner circle of generals for advice? If so, military options, as in this case, will likely drown out the diplomatic ones.
From 1979 to 1989, the USSR occupied Afghanistan, with military forces that peaked at some 600,000. The USSR failed totally and completely to control Afghanistan and left totally and completely humiliated.
The USA provided support to the “Mujahideen” who have since morphed into the Taliban (putting it simply).
Without USA support it is unlikely that al Qaeda would have been created (Something else may well have, we just don`t know).
From 2001 the USA invaded Afghanistan, with military forces that peaked at some 100,000, to-day they number around 8.000, and have failed totally and completely to control Afghanistan.
Donald is proposing to increase USA military numbers by some 4,000 to around 12,000, To kill terrorists, as Donald said.
Presumably those “Terrorists” are the same sort of people that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan regarded as “Freedom Fighters”?
It seems to me that the USA is somewhat inconsistent, particularly when you consider that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian who resented USA bases in Saudi Arabia, bases that the USA promised would be removed after Iraq was driven from Kuwait in 1990.
I can not hit like or dislike. The USSR failed totally and completely to control Afghanistan because the USA provided support to the “Mujahideen”. It is true we created the mad dog [Taliban], or more precisely Pakistan created the mad dog on our behalf, [sure Pakistan had there reasons to] so that kinda makes it our tar baby.
We all know Jimmy Carter and Ronald Regan called them “Freedom Fighters” in order to politically sell what most knew was a very ugly dog.
USA is somewhat inconsistent, That’s American Politics.
If we are putting troops in then I suggest we untie there hands get CNN out of the way and let them SHOOT THE DAMN DOG.
I`m not sure that “extermination” of the Taliban is the right approach, James, or if it is possible!
Currently they control 30% of Afghanistan territory, and with a population of some 37 million, that would mean “eliminating” some 30% of the population (forum maths logic!).
I`m British, and fascinated by history, it seems to me that the USA is repeating the same mistakes made by the British when we “ruled the world”, the British Empire was created and sustained by military superiority. America, Canada and Australia were huge under occupied areas of land, but the rest had large populations who never accepted British Colonisation.
Those heavily populated “Colonies” all had resistance fighters who never gave up their struggles to rid their countries of foreign dominance, it was the same for France, Italy, Germany, even Belgium.
All those European Colonial powers were convinced they were bringing enlightenment to the native populations, reinforced by military might colonial standards and puppet Governments were imposed.
America was the first of the British Colonies to successfully use force to rid themselves of foreign rule and occupation.
The Mujahideen and Taliban are responding to the USA (and the USSR before), pretty much the same as Americans responded to Britain in the 1770`s.
It`s a funny old world James!
I hear you on “extermination” of the Taliban may not even be possible. I think it is. The Soviets were defeated by the CIA and ISI, The Soviet collapse would surly have lead to more internal fighting in Afghanistan.
I know we can never go back to better times in Afghanistan https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/07/afghanistan-in-the-1950s-and-60s/100544/
Were not nation building [I hope not, but we would be a lot better off in Iraq if our troops were left there at least a little longer] and were not a Colonial power, [ok sort of].
We could discuss European Colonial powers , Liberalism ended it, while the SIN’s may be obvious they were not at the time, For the most part they were dealing with stone aged tribal societies in a constant state of war with each other. Also where would they be today if it was not for Colonialism, My favorite example Kenya.
I may also point out that in 1900 Britain was at the peak of it’s power it “ruled the world” . At that time, if I am correct, every man and women in England ether had a weapon [gun] or easy access to one. England was the world leader in every field of science, Medical, Industrial, Geographical, you name it they lead the world. Today England is not even a shadow of what it once was. What happened, I blame Liberalism. They took there eye of the ball. They looked at the people they were hurting not all the people they were helping. And it’s coming to America.
Now there’s a new song for England https://youtu.be/gvBci9LU7Ek
I studied a slightly different history, America was doomed in 1781 no way they would ever achieve independence, then something happened, the French Navy to be exact and every thing changed.
-The Taliban is not an international terrorist organization- And the American army has failed so miserably to contain even a local outfit of not that much magnitude!!