Key points from Trump's Afghan War speech

In a recent speech Trump outlined his Administration's approach to Afghanistan. It departs from Obama's approach in several key ways which will be detailed in this article.


1) President Trump fights in Afghanistan to win. Obama's approach was to not lose the war in Afghanistan. His desire was for a withdrawal and a pullout, but signalling this to the American public also signaled this to the Afghan government and, crucially, to the Taliban. The Afghan government was unwilling to fight hard for their country so long as US support was not guaranteed, and the Taliban was able to wait out until the end of Obama's timeline before increasing their own insurgency.

Trump does not deal in such notions. His desire is for no timelines to be published and no strategies to be made known to the American people, except for the eradication of Al-Qaeda and ISIS from the region. Such a task, though daunting, is not impossible with a US apparatus willing to fight for victory.

2) US stance on Pakistan and India has changed. President Trump's change in approach to Pakistan is long overdue. They have long played a double game with the US - on the one hand, supporting the Afghan government and US initiative in the region; on the other hand, supporting the Taliban and giving them and other terrorist groups safe havens. Trump's strategy is to isolate Pakistan and hold their feet to the fire, through economic sanctions and gaining more support from India.

India has strategic objectives in Afghanistan. Stability in the region greatly eases the burden on India, but also it is a chance to defeat Pakistan by proxy. India, like the United States, benefits from the strengthening of the Afghan government and defeating the Taliban. An increased role for India is more likely to result in peace for Afghanistan.

3) Nation-building in Afghanistan is over. President Trump has long maintained that his foreign policy objectives are not focused on recreating the US in other countries. This is certainly a breath of fresh air given Obama's unyielding support for the Arab Spring and for democracy in Afghanistan. It means that President Trump will be less worried about corruption, democracy and "human rights" in Afghanistan, on the condition that counter-terrorism objectives continue to be reached.

In this is the realization that strengthening democracy in a country like Afghanistan may result in losing the war against terrorism, but letting democracy fail and turning a blind eye to some forms of corruption while strengthening counter-terrorism services and military may provide a more lasting peace. The US military will not be responsible for building democracy in Afghanistan; in Trump's words, they are in Afghanistan to kill terrorists.

4) The US military has been unleashed. Gone are restraints and micromanagement from the White House during the Obama years. President Trump is going to unleash the US military to let them achieve peace in Afghanistan as they are able. They will be unhindered in targeting Taliban, ISIS and Al-Qaeda members and will serve in a largely advisory role to the Afghan forces, while likely to up the air campaign against the Taliban.


Whether or not President Trump's strategy will produce victory in Afghanistan is unclear. What is clear, however, is that at the very least, the Taliban are about to receive a thrashing long overdue.

As Iraq, Syria defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda looms large

Mosul has been recaptured by the Iraqi Army from ISIS. ISIS-held Raqqa is currently besieged from all sides by the Syrian Kurds. And the Syrian Arab Army, bolstered by de-escalation zones in the west of the country, has massed its troops in the east, scoring victory after victory against ISIS in Syria.

While things are currently looking up for Syria and Iraq, Al-Qaeda still maintains its presence in Afghanistan. A resurgent Taliban is winning the war against the government led by Ashraf Ghani and, contrary to popular belief, the Taliban maintains its close relationship with Al-Qaeda, as the leader of Al-Qaeda still pledges allegiance to the leader of the Taliban:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/06/ayman-al-zawahiri-swears-allegiance-to-the-talibans-new-leader.php

This exposes fatal flaws in the previous President Obama's strategy: killing Bin Laden did not stop Al-Qaeda from growing. Announcing troop surges and troop withdrawals in Afghanistan did not work. Negotiating with the Taliban was as impractical as negotiating with Al-Qaeda. And, finally, focusing on degrading, defeating and destroying ISIS has not stopped a resurgent Al-Qaeda from taking the limelight back.

Though ISIS is a long-term threat which is highly likely to return, Al-Qaeda is the more immediate threat, and the threat has grown. Not only has the Taliban filled the vacuum left by Obama in Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has become a potent threat taking advantage of the Saudi war on Yemen. Al-Qaeda also has a strong presence in Libya and, finally, those "moderate rebels" in Syria are all allied with Al-Qaeda.

While President Trump can be blamed for Al-Qaeda's presence in Yemen, President Obama is to blame for the Al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Libyan President Moammar Al-Qaddafi was overthrown in 2011, creating a vacuum in Libya, and Syrian rebels were supported by the US government from 2013 until this year. Ironically, it has been Russia who has been moving to quell the Al-Qaeda threat in Syria and Libya and, unlike President Obama, has had more success in rooting them out.

Afghanistan however falls to US President Donald Trump. Over the past 8 months there has been much debating in the White House about the way forward in Afghanistan, and President Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with US generals suggesting the way forward is to continue the same as before. President Trump has been exploring a wide range of options, including withdrawal and handing Afghanistan to private contractors, but the most enticing idea yet has been giving the US and Afghan troops a new goal: minerals.

Afghanistan's minerals make up a large revenue for the Taliban, and depriving the Taliban of this revenue would weaken their influence in the country considerably. Minerals in the government's hands would help Afghanistan stand on its own two feet and help win rogue Afghan tribes back to the government. It would also win him support back home for continuing the war.

But Afghanistan is not the only country from which Trump will face his counter-terrorism test: Yemen is the other. Trump has strengthened US support in the Saudi war against Yemen and this has resulted in an increase in Al-Qaeda's presence there. The rise of Al-Qaeda in Yemen (commonly known as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) is not dependent on territory controlled, as ISIS is; rather it is dependent on tribes which are loyal to and grateful for Al-Qaeda's presence in the region. And there are many such tribes in Yemen.

Even should Trump create a cohesive strategy to root out the Taliban from Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda will become even more powerful and resurgent in Yemen. This will likely strain US-Saudi relations and allow Russia a hand in solving yet another US-created quagmire.

The Al-Qaeda threat looms large, too large for the US public to bear any longer.