Trump’s enigmatic Afghanistan stratagem

US President stood true to his reputation, as his new policy is vague, devoid of deadlines and other details

US President Donald Trump stood true to his reputation. His Afghanistan policy is vague, devoid of deadlines and other details. He was addressing his critics at home on Monday while spelling out American anguish to a complex problem, Washington’s toolbox has failed to fix in 16 years.

Prior to the Friday huddle at Camp David, with cabinet and generals, Trump had even mulled over firing General John Nicholson – US troops' commander in Afghanistan – without ever holding a one-on-one meeting during his seven months in the White House.

The other option on his table included handing over Afghanistan’s security to private security forces comprising military veterans. The intelligence lobby pleaded a broader role for CIA in counter-terror operations. The far-right anarchists like Steve Bannon had done their bit to make the case for complete withdrawal and abandoning the country, the original line Trump had taken for years including while on the campaign trail.

Nothing could have served Russia’s Putin and Iran’s expansionist agenda better than Washington bidding farewell to Kabul when its security forces are demoralised and the militants are on the rampage.

Trump’s near-orbit generals – Chief of Staff John Kelly, Defence Secretary James Mattis and National Security Adviser General HR McMaster – prevailed but not quite fully, considering opacities in Trump’s speech. They could get the embattled president’s nod for a military campaign to continue with replenishment and an open time frame (until the return of satisfactory conditions).

Besides, the White House has opted to make the military’s assessment process less stringent than it used to be.



He minced no words while pronouncing Pentagon’s sole objective to eliminate terrorists. A notion of state building involving institutional capacity building for efficient self-governance has been dropped. The same goes for the timeframe.

The trigger-happy Republican president has shelved the political option of dialogue while declaring "to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan". His spokesperson stated that the president has put Islamabad on notice. No words of warning for Iran and Russia though, both of which happen to most ambitious disruptors in the country.

The US president said, "Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbour criminals and terrorists."

Disregarding its gradually lessening leverage on Islamabad, Washington plans to end military aid in the future. It is already withholding $350 million due to reservations over Pakistan’s counter-terror actions. Though military hardware sale has gone through steep decline over the years, the Islamic republic is still among the so-called major non-Nato allies, making it eligible for the US aid and access to advanced US military hardware.

Trump’s references to India may seem out of place in his speech but sounded like music for New Delhi. They were aimed at invoking Pakistan’s concern of encirclement with explicit White House nod.

Islamabad and Rawalpindi did not tremble with shock waves. Despite US Central Command chief’s successful visit, that also included a briefing on Waziristan, the expectations were low. Like much of Trump’s decisions, the major powers will not be signing up on Afghanistan strategy without reservations. Financially weak it may be, yet the threat of 1990s era sanctions or end to American aid will not bring Pakistan to the knees. Neither the punitive curbs work before nor will they deliver in the days to come.



The elephant in the room is a resurgence of the Taliban and the ISIS in Afghanistan and multinational failure to help establish robust security apparatus to stem the tide. Notwithstanding en masse desertion of troops and policemen, green-on-blue attacks have surged again, resulting in casualties of the US troops.

Afghanistan’s future political stability may not be a concern for the Trump administration but it sure is an important factor.

The White House must have taken stock of deepening political fissures in the unity government. Infighting between Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and CEO Abdullah-Abdullah trickled down to the very end, with mostly governors and police chief at odds with each other.

Besides, rampant corruption has taken the toll on the institutional capacity building as well as service delivery. The Taliban and ISIS have benefitted from feuding bureaucratic elite to unabated poppy crop and demoralised deserting troops alike. Already, Afghanistan’s 90% of the national budget is financed by foreign aid. A World Bank report noted that the country would be incapable of surviving without foreign assistance until at least 2024. The steep southward slide continues.

Washington’s disarray will aggravate in the months to come. Trump’s attention span is limited even on the most pressing national and global issues. He will neither hold regular video conferences with Ashraf Ghani nor take stock of the on-ground situation from General Nicholson.

Thus, the US military will not endanger its working relationship with the Pakistani counterpart. Otherwise, it jeopardises the vital logistical corridor, intelligence sharing and other less discussed but crucial means of cooperation in place since the start of the Afghan war. The relations between White House and Pentagon may worsen with prospects of Kelly and McMaster either quitting at some or reactively digging in deeper to safeguard establishment’s interests.

Meanwhile, China and Pakistan may enhance effort for pushing the Taliban and the Afghan government to resume talks with the militants. Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s embrace of mainstream politics resulted from the negotiation instead of a military action. China has already rejected Trump’s speech, and will not wait for the neighbouring country fall victim to mindless hawkish policies of the US.

Pakistan, nonetheless, must continue its operations against extremists’ ‘safe havens’ as was witnessed during operation Khyber IV. The fencing of Durand Line will ensure relative security from back and forth infiltration. Resumption of drone operation and killing of any operatives of Haqqani group will be detrimental to Islamabad’s claims of ‘no safe havens on its soil’. Better intelligence cooperation and effective preparedness and action cannot be compromised due to a hawkish speech of an embattled leader.

Without Afghan security forces’ commitment and capability, military victory in Afghanistan is a distant dream. Similarly, without an active cooperation with Pakistan, America’s chances of stabilising the war torn country remain dim as well.

The writer is a Pakistani investigative journalist and academic with extensive reporting experience in the Middle East and North Africa. He is based in Doha and Istanbul and tweets @naveed360