Donald Trump will own the war in Afghanistan that bedeviled predecessors
President Donald Trump is vowing to win what has seemed to be an unwinnable war. How he plans to do so is still murky despite the months of internal deliberations that ultimately persuaded Trump to stick with a conflict he has long opposed. In a 26-minute address to the nation Monday, Trump alluded to more American troops deploying to Afghanistan, but refused to say how many. He said victory would be well-defined, but outlined only vague benchmarks for success, like dismantling al-Qaida and preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan. He said the U.S. would not offer Afghanistan a “blank check,” but provided no specific timetable for the end of an American commitment that has already lasted 16 years. Instead, Trump projected an “I got this” bravado that has become a hallmark of his presidency. “In the end, we will win,” he declared of America’s longest war. Victory in Afghanistan has eluded Trump’s predecessors: President George W. Bush, who launched the war after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and President Barack Obama, who surged U.S. troop levels to 100,000, but ultimately failed in fulfilling his promise to bring the conflict to a close before leaving office. As Trump now takes his turn at the helm, he faces many of the same challenges that have bedeviled those previous presidents and left some U.S. officials deeply uncertain about whether victory is indeed possible. Afghanistan remains one of the world’s poorest countries and corruption is embedded in its politics. The Taliban is resurgent. And Afghan forces remain too weak to secure the country without American help. “When we had 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, we couldn’t secure the whole country,” said Ben Rhodes, who served as Obama’s deputy national security adviser. Trump offered up many of the same solutions tried by his predecessors. He vowed to get tough on neighboring Pakistan, to push for reforms in Afghanistan and to moderate ambitions. The U.S. will not be caught in the quagmire of democracy-building abroad, he said, promising a “principled realism” focused only on U.S. interests would guide his decisions. Obama promised much of the same. By simply sticking with the Afghan conflict, Trump’s plan amounts to a victory for the military men increasingly filling Trump’s inner circle and a stinging defeat for the nationalist supporters who saw in Trump a like-minded skeptic of U.S. intervention in long and costly overseas conflicts. Chief among them is ousted adviser Steve Bannon, whose website Breitbart News blared criticism Monday of the establishment’s approach to running he war. After Trump’s speech, one headline on the website read: “‘UNLIMITED WAR.” Another said: “What Does Victory in Afghanistan Look Like? Washington Doesn’t Know.” Now Trump leads Washington and that question falls for him to answer. As a candidate, he energized millions of war-weary voters with an “America First” mantra and now faces the challenges of explaining how that message translates to U.S. involvement in a war across the globe, likely for years to come. In a rare moment of public self-reflection, Trump acknowledged that his position on Afghanistan had changed since taking office and sought to sway his supporters who would normally oppose a continuation of the war. “My original instinct was to pull out,” Trump said. “But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office, in other words, when you’re president of the United States.” Trump pointed to “three fundamental conclusions” about U.S. interests in Afghanistan – all of which appeal to patriotism and nationalistic pride. The president said the nation needs to seek “an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices” made by U.S. soldiers – a line that harkened back to promises made by Richard Nixon during the 1968 campaign to bring “an honorable end” to the war in Vietnam. Trump also warned that a rapid exit would create a vacuum that terrorists like the Islamic State group and al-Qaida would fill, leading to conditions similar to before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And he noted that the security threats in Afghanistan are “immense,” and made the case that it is key to protecting the U.S. The U.S. currently has about 8,400 troops in Afghanistan. Pentagon officials proposed plans to send in nearly 4,000 more to boost training and advising of the Afghan forces and bolster counterterrorism operations against the Taliban and an Islamic State group affiliate trying to gain a foothold in the country. To those U.S. service members, Trump promised nothing short of success. “The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory,” he said. “They deserve the tools they need and the trust they have earned to fight and to win.” Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
America’s 16 years in Afghanistan: From triumph to stalemate
Sixteen years of U.S. warfare in Afghanistan have left the insurgents as strong as ever and the nation’s future precarious. Facing a quagmire, President Donald Trump on Monday outlined his strategy for “victory” in a country that has historically snared great powers and defied easy solutions. America’s longest-running war began well as U.S.-led forces quickly toppled the Taliban government and disrupted al-Qaida leaders who plotted the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks from Afghan soil. But the fighting never ended. In recent years, security has gradually worsened as Taliban insurgents, enjoying sanctuary in Pakistan, have gained a foothold across the country. Afghanistan’s rampant heroin trade, official corruption and infighting among the nation’s elite have only compounded problems. Trump is the third U.S. president to grapple with the Afghan challenge. A look at the phases of the U.S. involvement to date: — REGIME CHANGE Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, a massive U.S. air campaign targets al-Qaida fighters and Taliban troops, training camps and air defenses. Anti-Taliban forces of the Northern Alliance enter Kabul as the Taliban flee. By December 2001, Afghan groups agree on a deal in Bonn, Germany, for an interim government. With Afghanistan liberated from Taliban control, the U.S. military force grows to 2,500 as troops scour the mountainous Tora Bora region looking for al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. He eludes capture. Although President George W. Bush remains leery of supporting nation-building efforts in Afghanistan, the U.S. expands its counterterrorism operations. By the end of 2002, there are 9,700 U.S. troops in the country. — DEMOCRACY AND DISTRACTION In November 2004, Hamid Karzai, who had served two years as interim leader, is the clear winner in Afghanistan’s first direct election for president. The Bush administration hails the vote as a key step in the nation’s transformation. Millions of girls return to school after being barred under the Taliban. As the country opens up, Western aid helps the economy grow, at least in urban areas. But the Taliban, enjoying sanctuary in Pakistan, show signs of re-emergence, launching sporadic attacks on government forces in eastern Afghanistan. Although Karzai is an ethnic Pashtun, which comprise the bulk of Taliban recruits, his government alienates what is Afghanistan’s main ethnic group. Karzai’s administration is dominated by former commanders of the Northern Alliance. U.S. troop numbers swell to 20,000, but Washington’s attention increasingly turns to Iraq. The U.S. invades in March 2003, toppling Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. It struggles with the aftermath. Soon Iraq is gripped by an explosion of sectarian violence that preoccupies Bush until he leaves office. — MORE WESTERN TROOPS, MORE VIOLENCE In 2006, NATO assumes responsibility for security across the whole of Afghanistan, pumping troops into Taliban heartlands in the south of the country. The U.S. ups its forces in the country to 30,000. Britain, Canada and others boost their contributions. But the violence and lawlessness worsens. Production of opium, the raw material of heroin, soars to a record high, funding the insurgency and fueling official corruption. Tensions grow between Afghanistan and Pakistan over cross-border Taliban attacks. In the fall of 2008, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Adm. Mike Mullen concedes, “I’m not sure we’re winning.” — SURGE President Barack Obama, vowing to refocus U.S. efforts in Afghanistan, enters office in 2009 endorsing shifts to a counterinsurgency strategy designed to protect Afghan civilians rather than hunt down Taliban. He quickly sends in 21,000 more forces. After a prolonged policy review, Obama orders an additional surge, bringing troop levels to a high of 100,000 by August 2010. He says the U.S. will begin withdrawing forces by 2011. Critics say the drawdown date diminishes the incentive for the Taliban to negotiate for peace. Bin Laden is killed in a U.S. special operations raid in Pakistan in March 2011. Obama then presses ahead with plans to hand over security responsibilities to Afghanistan by 2014. By the end of that year, NATO ends its combat mission in the country. U.S. relations with Karzai, however, deteriorate. A contested election to replace Karzai introduces a more pro-U.S. leader in Ashraf Ghani, but his government is bitterly divided. — NO WITHDRAWAL With violence reaching post-2001 highs and Afghan security forces taking heavy casualties, Obama backtracks on plans to virtually withdraw all U.S. forces by the end of 2016. He leaves office with 8,400 troops still in the country. The U.S. kills new Taliban leader Mullah Mansour in a drone attack in Pakistan in May 2016, derailing peace talks. But on the battlefield, the Taliban are in the ascendant and threaten provincial capitals in both the north and south. The Islamic State group gains a foothold in eastern Afghanistan. — ENTER TRUMP Trump says little about Afghanistan during his first seven months in office, while the military grows antsy. The Pentagon proposes sending in nearly 4,000 more U.S. troops to increase training of Afghan forces and counterterrorism operations, but the administration is divided on strategy. Nearly everyone considers the fight a stalemate, and some in Trump’s administration even propose withdrawing or handing over the entire American effort to private security contractors. Among Afghans, anti-Western sentiment grows over deteriorating security, even in the capital, Kabul. The economy also suffers, partly as a result of a drawdown in foreign forces. As Trump is poised to announce his plan, Afghanistan’s government controls only about half of the country. After months of debate, Trump finally unveils his strategy in a prime-time television address. He says the U.S. will win “in the end,” defeating al-Qaida and IS fighters, and ensuring the government doesn’t fall to the Taliban. He refuses to provide troop increase numbers or timelines, saying military assistance would be determined by results and the cooperation of Afghanistan’s beleaguered government. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump will address path forward on Afghanistan
Signaling that the U.S. military expects its mission to continue, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan on Sunday hailed the launch of the Afghan Army’s new special operations corps, declaring that “we are with you and we will stay with you.” Gen. John Nicholson‘s exhortation of continued support for the Afghans suggested the Pentagon may have won its argument that America’s military must stay engaged in the conflict in order to insure terrorists don’t once again threaten the U.S. from safe havens in Afghanistan. The White House announced that President Donald Trump would address the nation’s troops and the American people Monday night to update the path forward in Afghanistan and South Asia. Nicholson, speaking prior to the White House announcement, said the commandos and a plan to double the size of the Afghan’s special operations forces are critical to winning the war. “I assure you we are with you in this fight. We are with you and we will stay with you,” he said during a ceremony at Camp Morehead, a training base for Afghan commandos southeast of Kabul. The Pentagon was awaiting a final announcement by Trump on a proposal to send nearly 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. The added forces would increase training and advising of the Afghan forces and bolster counterterrorism operations against the Taliban and an Islamic State group affiliate trying to gain a foothold in the country. The administration has been at odds for months over how to craft a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan amid frustrations that 16 years after 9/11 the conflict is stalemated. The Afghan government only controls half of the country and is beset by endemic corruption and infighting. The Islamic State group has been hit hard but continues to attempt major attacks, insurgents still find safe harbor in Pakistan, and Russia, Iran and others are increasingly trying to shape the outcome. At this point, everything the U.S. military has proposed points to keeping the Afghan government in place and struggling to turn a dismal quagmire around. U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he is satisfied with how the administration formulated its new Afghanistan war strategy. But he refused to talk about the new policy until it was disclosed by Trump. He said the deliberations, including talks at the Camp David presidential retreat on Friday, were done properly. “I am very comfortable that the strategic process was sufficiently rigorous,” Mattis said, speaking aboard a military aircraft on an overnight flight from Washington to Amman, Jordan. Months ago, Trump gave Mattis authority to set U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan, but Mattis said he has not yet sent significant additional forces to the fight. He has said he would wait for Trump to set the strategic direction first. Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday that he had made decisions at Camp David, “including on Afghanistan,” but he did not say more about it. The expectation had been that he would agree to a modest boost in the U.S. war effort, while also addressing broader political, economic and regional issues. Mattis said Trump had been presented with multiple options. He did not name them, but others have said one option was to pull out of Afghanistan entirely. Another, which Mattis had mentioned recently in Washington, was to hire private contractors to perform some of the U.S. military’s duties. At Camp Morehead, lines of Afghan commandos stood at attention as Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani and a host of proud dignitaries sat under flag-draped canopies and welcomed the advancement in their nation’s long-struggling military. In short remarks to the force, Nicholson said a defeat in Afghanistan would erode safety in the U.S. and “embolden jihadists around the world.” That’s why, he said, the U.S. is helping to double the size of the Afghan commando force, adding that the ceremony “marks the beginning of the end of the Taliban.” Maj. Gen. James Linder, the head of U.S. and NATO special operations forces in Afghanistan, said the nearly 4,000 troops requested by the Pentagon for Afghanistan includes about 460 trainers for his staff to help increase the size of the special operations forces. He said he’d be able expand training locations and insure they have advisers at all the right levels, including on the new Afghan special operations corps staff. According to a senior U.S. military officer in Kabul, increasing the number of American troops would allow the military to quickly send additional advisers or airstrike support to two simultaneous operations. Right now, the official said, they can only do so for one. The officer said it would allow the U.S. to send fighter aircraft, refueling aircraft and surveillance aircraft to multiple locations for missions. The officer was not authorized to discuss the details publicly so spoke on condition of anonymity. Afghan military commanders have been clear that they want and expect continued U.S. military help. Pulling out American forces “would be a total failure,” Col. Abdul Mahfuz, the Afghan intelligence agency chief for Qarahbagh, north of Kabul, said Saturday. And he said that substituting paid contractors for U.S. troops would be a formula for continuing the war, rather than completing it. Mahfuz and other Afghan commanders spoke at a shura council meeting at Bagram air base attended also by U.S. military officers and Afghan intelligence officials. Col. Abdul Mobin, who commands an Afghan mechanized battalion in the 111th Division, said any reduction in the U.S. military presence “leads to total failure.” Speaking through an interpreter, he added that operations by Afghan and U.S. special operations forces have been very effective, and that “the presence of U.S. military personnel is felt and considered a positive step for peace.” He said he’d like to see an additional 10,000 American troops in the country. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump hedges as military presents new Afghanistan strategy
Frustrated by his options, President Donald Trump is withholding approval of a long-delayed Afghanistan war strategy and even mulling a radical shakeup in his national security team as he searches for a “game changer” after 16 years of indecisive conflict. In a recent Situation Room meeting that turned explosive, Trump raised the idea of firing Army Gen. John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussion. And he suggested installing his national security adviser, Gen. H.R. McMaster, to oversee the mission, said the officials, who weren’t authorized to talk publicly and requested anonymity. The drastic suggestions point to the desperation shared by many in Washington as military and other leaders look for a blueprint for “winning” the Afghan conflict. Trump has been frustrated by what he views as a stalemate. He wants a plan that will allow American forces to pull out once and for all. At a White House lunch with military brass last week, Trump publicly aired his misgivings, saying, “I want to find out why we’ve been there for 17 years.” The Pentagon wants to send almost 4,000 more American forces to expand training of Afghan military forces and beef up U.S. counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida, a growing Islamic State affiliate and other extremist groups. But the troop deployment, which would augment an already existing U.S. force of at least 8,400 troops, has been held up amid broader strategy questions, including how to engage regional powers in an effort to stabilize the fractured nation. These powers include U.S. friends and foes, from Pakistan and India to China, Russia and Iran. Pentagon plans aren’t calling for a radical departure from the limited approach endorsed by former President Barack Obama, and several officials have credited Trump with rightly asking tough questions, such as how the prescribed approach might lead to success. Trump hasn’t welcomed the military’s recommendations with “high-five enthusiasm,” a senior White House official said. Several meetings involving Trump’s National Security Council have been tense as the president demanded answers from top advisers about why American forces needed to be in Afghanistan. Another U.S. official with knowledge of the conversation reported Trump being less interested in hearing about how to restore Afghanistan to long-term stability, and more concerned about dealing a swift and definitive blow to militant groups in the country. The White House has even offered its own, outside-the-box thinking. Officials said Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, and his son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner, have been pushing a plan to have contractors fight the war in Afghanistan instead of U.S. troops. Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince, the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, was approached by Trump’s top advisers to develop proposals to gradually swap out U.S. troops and put military contractors in their place, a military official said. The military has frowned on such proposals. It believes boosting troop levels will accelerate progress in training Afghan troops and its air force, and help counterterrorism teams pursue targets even more aggressively. They point to improvements among Afghan forces and in anti-corruption efforts. Military leaders — including McMaster, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, are all said to be on the same page, as is Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Military officials also have defended Nicholson, saying any punishment of him would be unfair because he hasn’t been given the forces he says he needs. His possible firing was first reported by NBC News. The White House, which declined multiple requests to comment, may shift itself on Afghanistan now that retired Marine Gen. John Kelly is Trump’s new chief of staff. Kelly hasn’t spoken about Afghanistan, however, since his appointment this week. Lawmakers are growing weary. In June, Mattis faced tough questions from Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who told him, “It makes it hard for us to support you when we don’t have a strategy.” Mattis conceded, “We are not winning in Afghanistan right now” and vowed to “correct this as soon as possible.” Doing so requires the president on board. While Trump has been keen to give military officials carte blanche on troop levels and other military affairs, his approach to Afghanistan has grown increasingly assertive. In some ways, his scrutiny of military plans has evoked that of Obama, whom Trump derided as a candidate for not heeding his generals’ advice. Republican lawmakers Thursday urged Trump to listen to his national security advisers on Afghanistan. “Every soldier over there is an insurance policy against our homeland being attacked,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, a leading hawk, told reporters. “My biggest fear is that if you don’t listen to the generals and you try to make this up as you go like Obama and Biden did, you’re going to wind up losing Afghanistan like you did Iraq and the consequences to America are worse.” U.S. indecision is causing Afghanistan’s neighbors to hedge their bets, Sen. Bob Corker, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, said. As long as they believe Washington is “six months away from stepping out, six months away from giving up,” they will continue to do so, Corker said. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Taliban tell Donald Trump: ‘it’s time to leave Afghanistan’
In a long rambling letter, the spokesman for the Taliban is telling U.S. President Donald Trump that it’s time to leave Afghanistan. The letter, emailed to journalists Wednesday, was written on behalf of the so-called Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban’s spokesman, warns Trump that peace will be elusive as long as foreign troops are on Afghan soil. He adds that independence from foreign dominance is “the only asset” that an impoverished nation like Afghanistan truly has. Written in English, as well as Afghanistan’s two prominent languages Dari and Pashto, the four-page letter waxed on about Afghanistan’s history, its numerous defeats of invading armies and the reported corruption widespread in Afghanistan today. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
World jittery about Donald Trump’s ‘America first’ inaugural speech
President Donald Trump‘s inaugural speech promised “America first” policy led by a forceful executive, in contrast to the coalition building and international conferences which have featured strongly in past administrations. The billionaire businessman and reality television star — the first president who had never held political office or high military rank — promised to stir a “new national pride” and protect America from the “ravages” of countries he says have stolen U.S. jobs. “This American carnage stops right here,” Trump declared. In a warning to the world, he said, “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it’s going to be America first.” A look at some reactions from around the world: ___ AFGHANS DISAPPOINTED BUT HOPEFUL Like many in the Afghan capital of Kabul, restaurant owner Mohammad Nahim watched the presidential inauguration ceremonies but was disappointed to not hear any mention of Afghanistan. “Trump did not mention a word about Afghanistan in his speech and the salaries of the Afghan army and police are paid by the U.S.,” he said. He added that if the U.S. stops helping Afghanistan, “our country will again become a sanctuary to terrorists. I hope Trump will not forget Afghanistan.” Mohammed Kasim Zazi, a shopkeeper whose home is in eastern Afghanistan’s Khost province, where the feared Haqqani network is prominent, said he expected Trump to stay focused on Afghanistan. “Trump said he will finish the terrorists in the world and that has to mean that Afghanistan will remain in the sights of the U.S.” said Zazi. Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah said he was encouraged by Trump’s speech to soldiers in Bagram. “There he announced his support to the troops and the continuation of support for their troops here and strengthening their troops, which is a good and elegant step and I am sure that our cooperation in other areas will continue as well.” ___ SPEECH RESONATES IN MEXICO Perhaps no country was watching the speech more closely than Mexico. Trump has made disparaging remarks about immigrants who come to the United States illegally and sought to pressure companies not to set up shop in Mexico by threatening a border tariff on goods manufactured there and exported to the United States. So Trump’s talk of “protect(ing) our borders,” ”America first” and “buy American and hire American” had particular resonance in America’s southern neighbor. Ricardo Anaya Cortes, president of the conservative opposition National Action Party, called for “the unity of all Mexicans, unity in the face of this protectionist, demagogic and protectionist speech we just heard. Unity against that useless wall, against deportations, against the blockade of investment.” “The challenge is enormous. … We demand the federal government leave aside tepidity, that it tackle with absolute firmness and dignity the new relationship with the United States,” Anaya said. The United States is by far Mexico’s largest commercial partner, buying some 80 percent of its $532 billion in exports in 2015. Mexico is the second-largest market for U.S. exports. “At least the word ‘Mexico’ was not heard in the speech. Nevertheless one can expect the United States to launch a hyper-protectionist project,” said Ilan Semo Groman, a researcher at Iberoamericana University. If Trump truly moves to block or drive away U.S. investment in Mexico, Semo said Mexico should focus its commercial efforts on other countries. “There are very clear possibilities,” Semo said. Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto sent three tweets after Trump’s inaugural speech Friday: — “I congratulate @realDonaldTrump on his inauguration. We will work to strengthen our relationship with shared responsibility.” — “We will establish a respectful dialogue with the government of President @realDonaldTrump, to Mexico’s benefit.” — “Sovereignty, national interest and the protection of Mexicans will guide the relationship with the new government of the United States.” ___ PAKISTAN WORRIES ABOUT MUSLIM COMMENTS A group of retired government officials gathered after morning prayers for a walk in a sprawling park in the heart of the federal capital of Islamabad and the topic of their conversation was President Trump’s inaugural speech. They expressed concern that Trump would target the Islamic world, particularly Pakistan, because of his campaign rhetoric about Muslims as well as his inaugural speech in which he promised to eradicate Islamic terrorism worldwide. Pakistan has often been accused of harboring militant insurgents and declared terrorist groups that have targeted neighboring India, against whom Pakistan has fought three wars, as well as Afghanistan. Pakistan denies the charges. “Likely there is more trouble in store for the Islamic world and our country will take the most brunt of the harsh treatment from President Trump administration,” said Mohammad Afzal. His sentiments were echoed by Shafiq Khan, who said “the one main thing that the new president mentioned about the world outside America is to tackle Islamic radicalism and that should be the matter of concern for all of us.” Amanaullah, a school teacher in Islamabad, feared Trump’s reference to eliminating radical Islamic terrorism. “I think under this name he wants to malign and eliminate Islam,” he said. Umair Khan, an engineer, said of Trump: “Let him taste the burden of government and get settled, I am sure he will calm.” ___ CONCERN IN TOKYO Some Tokyo residents are worried that Trump’s “America first” policy will usher in an era of populism and protectionism at the expense of the rest of the world. Tadashi Gomibuchi, who works in the manufacturing industry, recorded Trump’s inauguration speech overnight as he was keen to hear what the new president had to say. “Trump is trying to make big changes to the way things are. Changes are good sometimes, but when America, the most powerful, loses stability … it’s a grave concern,” he said. “If you take his words literally, it may destabilize the world going forward and I’m really worried. I hope things will lead to a soft landing.” Retiree Kuninobu Inoue, who lived in the U.S. during the 1990s, is concerned about trade frictions between Japan and the U.S, citing Trump’s decision
Afghanistan: The war Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have ignored
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have said next to nothing about how they would handle the war in Afghanistan. That’s remarkable, given the enormous U.S. investment in blood and treasure over the past 15 years – including two American deaths on Thursday – the resilience of the Taliban insurgency and the risk of an Afghan government collapse that would risk empowering extremists and could force the next president’s hands. In addition to the two service members killed on Thursday, four others were wounded while assisting Afghan forces in the northern city of Kunduz. President Barack Obama escalated the war shortly after he took office, but he fell short of his goal of compelling a political settlement between the Taliban and the Afghan government. The next president will face a new set of tough choices on Afghanistan early in his or her term, including whether to increase or reduce U.S. troop levels and, more broadly, whether to continue what might be called Obama’s minimalist military strategy. The difficulty of these choices may explain, at least in part, why Trump and Clinton have been largely silent on Afghanistan. They ignore it while campaigning; it came up only in passing during the first Trump-Clinton debate and was not mentioned at all during second and third debates. OBAMA’S FAILED MISSION If Obama’s eight-year struggle is a guide, his successor will not have an easy time disentangling the U.S. military from Afghanistan. Nor is there an obvious way in which a bigger U.S. military role could end the war. Neither Trump nor Clinton has offered more than broad clues about their intentions toward Afghanistan. Trump has called for an end to U.S. “nation-building” efforts. Clinton has said she would “deal with” the Islamic State affiliate in Afghanistan and “stem the flow of jihadists” to and from Afghanistan. Neither of the candidates’ websites, which usually go into detail on policy matters, have a mention of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan or what to do about it. Shortly after entering the White House in 2009, Obama undertook a lengthy review of U.S. policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan with the eye toward fixing what he saw as U.S. failures there. He pushed U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to 100,000, but the surge did not force the Taliban to the negotiating table. The war dragged on. Obama ended the U.S. combat role in December 2014 and said that by January 2017 the military would be reduced to only a “normal embassy presence.” But in October 2015 he put the skids on a full withdrawal, saying 5,500 troops would stay to support Afghan forces and to continue counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida. In July, with about 10,000 U.S. troops still there, he scrapped the 5,500 target. He pledged to keep 8,400 troops through the end of his term to continue training and advising Afghan forces and to maintain a counterterrorism mission. — AFGHANISTAN ‘AT RISK’ Washington has praised Afghan President Ashraf Ghani as a more effective U.S. partner than his predecessor, Hamid Karzai. But the political dimensions of Afghanistan’s problems are in some ways as worrisome as those on the military and security side. The so-called unity government set up in 2014 is led by Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, who have been bickering since they took office. The rift has threatened to send the country further into chaos. Afghans are increasingly convinced the double-headed government cannot endure. National Intelligence Director James Clapper earlier this year told Congress that Afghanistan is “at serious risk of a political breakdown in 2016.” On the other hand, Afghan officials say the country’s progress since 2001 is often overlooked or underestimated. Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to Washington, in September ticked off several examples: More women are serving in government positions than at any time in Afghan history, anti-corruption measures have produced a 22 percent increase in national revenue and more rural families have access to electricity. — NO END IN SIGHT One measure of the intractable nature of the war is the language American officials have used to describe it. As far back as February 2009 the top American commander in Afghanistan said the U.S. and its Afghan partners were “at best, stalemated” against the Taliban. Seven years later, in September 2016, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a congressional committee the war was “roughly a stalemate.” Just a few days after Dunford’s comments, the current commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, said the government and the Taliban had “reached some sort of equilibrium” on the battlefield. “This is a positive,” Nicholson said, in the sense that the government controls nearly 70 percent of the population. One might also say it’s a negative in the sense that nearly one-third of the population is NOT under government control, even after years of fighting a Taliban group that in December 2001 was seemingly defeated. There is no consensus view on how much longer the U.S. would need to keep troops there to help Afghan forces avoid defeat. The inattention to Afghanistan during the presidential campaign is seen by Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard university, as symptomatic of Americans’ “war amnesia.” Writing for the Foreign Policy website, Walt called Afghanistan a conflict “we seem readier to forget than to end.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Barack Obama announces decision to leave 8,400 troops in Afghanistan aids allies
President Barack Obama‘s decision to slow the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan will be welcomed at the NATO summit this weekend, providing aid for allied forces in the country and bolstering U.S. efforts to get more pledges of support for the war from U.S. allies. Obama’s move quells lingering questions within NATO about America’s commitment to the ongoing conflict. And it will allow the U.S. military to expand its work with Afghan forces as they face a resurgent Taliban and a troubling presence of Islamic State fighters in the country. The president announced Wednesday that he will leave 8,400 U.S. troops in Afghanistan into 2017, rather than cut the force to 5,500 at the end of the year as initially planned. Military commanders, members of Congress and allied leaders had pressured the administration to maintain the current 9,800 troops in Afghanistan. The issue will be discussed at the NATO summit in Warsaw, including U.S. plans to encourage allies to strengthen their commitments to Afghanistan, with more funding, troops, or other support. Last month, NATO allies agreed to extend their Afghanistan training mission and keep troops in all four sections of the country in 2017. Those decisions shelved earlier plans to consolidate forces in and around Kabul next year, ending the current hub-and-spoke system. The NATO decision, however, relied on the U.S. remaining in Afghanistan to provide security, logistics and other support for the allies, particularly German troops working with Afghan forces in the north and Italian troops doing the same in the west. Defense Secretary Ash Carter told NATO allies last month that the U.S. would continue that support. But U.S. officials quietly acknowledged that maintaining that support would be difficult with only 5,500 U.S. troops, as Obama planned. Obama announced last month that he was authorizing U.S. forces to once again conduct airstrikes against the Taliban when needed in critical operations, and that American troops would accompany and advise Afghan conventional forces on the ground, much as they have with Afghan commandos. Doing all of that with 5,500 troops would be risky, officials said. “It just thins you out enormously, and so you just end up with a multiple higher level of risk,” said retired Adm. James Stavridis, the former NATO commander. “If you go down to 5,500 troops, your risk goes up vertically because your allies don’t stay with you and because you have half the capacity.” Stavridis, now dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, added that it would be hard to maintain the hub-and-spoke allied presence in the north and west without keeping at least 8,000 U.S. troops in the country. Obama acknowledged the “precarious” security situation in Afghanistan during his troop announcement at the White House on Wednesday, saying he would not allow any group to use Afghanistan “as a safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again.” “It is in our national security interest – especially after all the blood and treasure we’ve invested in Afghanistan over the years – that we give our Afghan partners the very best opportunity to succeed,” Obama said. Obama came into office promising to end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but this decision ensures that he’ll leave with the U.S. still enmeshed in conflicts in both of those countries while wrestling with new ones in Syria and Libya. The president said the U.S. mission would remain narrowly focused on “training and advising” Afghan forces and supporting counterterrorism operations against the remnants of al-Qaida, the group that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11. Republican leaders in Congress who favor a larger force said Obama’s new plan was preferable to the old one, but they criticized him for not keeping the full 9,800. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the partial drawdown would increase the dangers for the remaining troops, calling it “more a political decision by President Obama than a military one.” Though Obama touted progress in Afghanistan, including better-trained security forces, the situation remains perilous, with Afghan battlefield deaths rising and civilian casualties hitting a record high. Progress in stabilizing Afghanistan has been undermined by the resurgence of the Taliban, which were removed from power in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion but have lately stepped up their deadly attacks. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Tom O’Hara: Don’t thank me for my service, just send my disability check
It’s Veterans Day on Wednesday and I’m even more excited than usual. In researching this column, I learned that as a Vietnam veteran I may be eligible to collect VA disability benefits because I have diabetes – even though I’m sure my tedious year at Phu Cat Air Force Base has nothing to do with my blood-sugar levels today. It’s a great time to be a veteran. Gov. Rick Scott and his team are doing everything they can to lure more veterans to Florida. We already have 1.6 million of them here and I doubt they need much coaxing to flee Ohio and New Jersey. Nonetheless, the state has waived out-of-state college fees for vets and offered a buffet of other perks. The college fee waiver is a nifty ruse because few current vets have any interest in getting a college degree. The state has a Department of Veterans Affairs that spends $111 million each year to help more and more vets feed at the government trough. This is very good politics because veterans are overwhelmingly old, white and male. In other words, they vote Republican. And they vote in droves. About 70 percent of America’s 22 million veterans voted in the 2012 presidential election, compared with 56.5 percent of all Americans. Among the vets 65 and older, more than 75 percent cast a ballot. In the 2014 midterm elections, vets voted for Republicans by a 20-percentage-point margin over Democrats in House races, according to The Washington Post. But politicians of every stripe pander to veterans. Even if they don’t vote for you, you sound patriotic and sensitive if you praise them and approve billions of dollars in benefits for them. Veterans account for only 9 percent of the adult population. (I wonder how many people even know a veteran.) Nonetheless, they have extraordinary sway with politicians. Even as the percent of congressmen who served in the military plummets (less than 20 percent today compared with 73 percent in 1971), their urge to throw money at vets escalates. “More than 1.3 million veterans of the Vietnam era received $21 billion in disability pay last year. From Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost was $9.3 billion – but it is growing fast,” the Los Angles Times reported last year. In 1991, the total cost for VA disability payments was $16.6 billion; it’s $50 billion today, the Times reported. Even the Heritage Foundation – a very conservative think tank – is amazed at the exploding veterans largesse. “Nearly 60,000 disabled veterans received cash benefits from three different federal programs simultaneously. More than 2,300 veterans received $100,000 or more in annual benefits each, and the highest annual benefit amounted to more than $200,000,” according to a 2014 foundation article. OK. Where do I sign up? Some guy is getting more than $200,000 by triple dipping into VA disability, military retirement and Social Security disability. And my guess is that he’s a white guy who votes Republican because he’s so disgusted by government waste. I assume this veteran was unperturbed if he had to exaggerate a bit for his benefits. It’s not hard to game the system, however, because it appears VA staff are encouraging the fraud. “A 2014 paper in Psychological Injury and Law identified ‘collusive lying’ between disability-benefits applicants and VA staff as one possible problem” for the soaring costs, according to the Heritage Foundation. Frankly, I’m just jealous. I have not been paying attention. I only recently discovered that you could get a “V” for veteran put on your driver license and get discounts at Home Depot and movie theaters. However, I’m going for the big time now: the diabetes claim. In 2001, the VA added Type 2 diabetes to the list of disabilities. The disease has not been definitely linked to Agent Orange, but veterans groups lobbied to include it, according to the LA Times. “Through 2013, the number of veterans receiving compensation for diabetes climbed from 46,395 to 398,480,” the Times reported. So if you see me on Veterans Day, don’t thank me for my service. Just give me directions to the Veterans Affairs disability claims office so I can get started on my paperwork. Tom O’Hara is a veteran newspaperman. He is the former managing editor of The Palm Beach Post and the Plain Dealer in Ohio.
