Trump’s Afghan shift

CR Gharekhan

President Trump revealed his long-awaited strategy for Afghanistan in a prime time speech on national television on August 21. He called it "the path  forward in Afghanistan and South Asia", the first President to so describe it. The timing of the speech was selected, at least partly, to divert attention from the widespread criticism, including by senior leaders from his own party as well as from top business magnates, for his remarks on the Charlotsville happenings. He might have succeeded to some extent in this objective.

In outlining his approach, he took a 180-degree turn and departed from his long-held and oft-repeated position demanding immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan. He was conscious of that and had the political  courage to reverse his stand by not only not deciding to pull out but even announcing an increase in US troop strength. He was conscious of the American people's strong aversion to  sending more troops in harm's way in faraway Afghanistan. He ignored the advice of Steve Bannon, the ultra conservative and his chief strategic adviser until last week when Bannon was pushed out. He did not mention any figures, though the number 4,000 has been talked. He declared an open-ended commitment, regarding numbers and the time period for troops to remain in Afghanistan. 

He specifically criticised Barack Obama's unwise decision to announce the  withdrawal date and to reduce the request for additional troops by 25 per cent —30,000 instead of 40,000.  Trump has embraced the military's advice of making the continued stay of troops "conditions-based", instead of time-based. Before Obama’s speech at West Point, there was intense debate about "time  bound" versus "condtions based", but he made a grave error by taking the time-bound approach. Trump also criticised Obama for pulling out of Iraq in 2011, leaving a vacuum which was exploited by the Islamic State. However, Obama had very little choice in the matter since the Iraqi government and Parliament refused to sign the “Status of Forces Agreement” which was a must for the administration to station troops in a foreign country on a long-time basis. 

In addition to the "conditions-based" approach,  Trump assured the military that it will have the resources and operational freedom, including deciding on the rules of engagement, to make the new strategy "work, and work effectively, and work quickly". This is somewhat on the lines of the Modi government's carte blanche to the Army to use whatever force is deemed essential to deal with cross-border terrorist attacks. In both cases, time alone will tell if and to what extent the desired result will ensue. 

Trump made it abundantly clear that his strategy demanded identifiable and effective action by the Afghan government. The heaviest burden will be borne by the "good people" of Afghanistan and their armed forces. Categorically ruling out "democracy building" or "nation building", he  made it clear that "our commitment  is not unlimited and our support is not  a blank check.” He demanded that the Afghan government must carry its share of the military, political and economic burden. He made no mention of the other players — China, Russia and Iran. These three countries have their own strategic interests in Afghanistan, not coinciding with America's. But they have conflicting concerns. On the one hand, they would be quite happy if America remains bogged down in Afghanistan, bleeding resources. At the same time, they would like to see America pull out completely which would leave the field clear for them to meddle more effectively in Afghanistan. All the three are reportedly in touch with, and even  aiding, the Taliban. 

For us, Trump's remarks on Pakistan and India are of obvious importance. A strong pillar of the new strategy, he  declared, is to change the approach towards Pakistan. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens to terrorist organisations”. Pakistan “has much to gain  by partnering American efforts in Afghanistan” and much to lose by "continuing to harbour criminals and terrorists". He did not specify what he would do if Pakistan did not cooperate, but hinted at a  cut in economic aid when he stated: "We have been paying billions and billions of dollars at the same time they have been housing the very terrorists we have been fighting". This is an unmistaken reference to the earlier refuge to Osama bin Laden and sanctuary to the Haqqani terror network. “That will have to change and change immediately”, he said. "It is time for Pakistan to  demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order and peace". 

Strong words pleasing to Indian ears. One will have to wait and see how much, if at all, Trump's  warning will bring a change in Pakistan's Afghan policy. Trump's speech also brings out, unambiguously, that the success of his new strategy will depend to a large extent on Pakistan's cooperation. This will give considerable leverage to Pakistan that can always depend on the Pentagon which has consistently had a soft corner for the Pakistan army and decides US policy in Afghanistan, like its Pakistani counterpart.

Trump has made positive references to India, "the world's largest democracy and a key security and economic partner of United States". Developing a strategic partnership with India will be a 'critical' part of the new South Asia strategy. True to his style, he pointed out that India "makes billions of dollars in trade with United States", and must do more in Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development. Clearly hinting at China, the President spoke of "our shared objectives for peace and security in South Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific region". We need not get too flattered by Trump's remarks about India; he will demand a price for all that India seeks from the US in terms of technology transfers and that is as it should be. We will have to carefully  calculate how much money to spend in Afghanistan, in addition to the $2 billion  already invested.  In all fairness, our help has generated friendly feelings among the Afghan people for India. We have huge interest in ensuring that the Taliban does not come to power either by themselves or as a part of a coalition for which Pakistan has been working for long. We do not want hordes of Taliban descending on Kashmir. But it is highly doubtful if Trump's so-called new Afghanistan South Asia strategy — shades of Af-Pak-India of Holbrooke's original mandate? — will prevent, and for how long, the Taliban getting at least a share in power in Kabul. 

The writer is India's former Permanent Representative to the UN