For those of us known as “national security conservatives” in the American political thesaurus, the remarks of President Trump about a new Afghanistan strategy earlier this week were a welcome relief.
Candidate Trump -- and even citizen Trump before that -- had been roundly critical of any involvement in Afghanistan and alluded often to the necessity of pulling back; given his strong support amongst the isolationist white nationalists, such was to be expected.
Now that the president has listened, apparently, to wiser counsel than his recently departed chief strategist and grand visionary of ethno-nationalism Stephen Bannon, he has decided to manage the Afghan engagement better, even if marginally.
The sad truth is that Afghanistan has not been stable at any point in its history, save perhaps during the last few years of King Zahir Shah’s rule; rather, its stability has had to be imposed by different bigger powers over various points in history, even as the well-armed and bickering locals kept total subjugation at bay.
Imposed stability being a finicky cousin of the real thing, unsavoury elements, from drug lords to human traffickers to terror kingpins, have often found refuge in the scraggly mountains and valleys of the country, to the grief of the rest of the world.
Former President Obama did nobody any favours when, in his last two years in office, he pretty much abandoned Afghanistan to the back-pocket of his portfolio by having no strategy beyond eventual withdrawal and a passive tactic of military détente.
This led to an increasing admixture of global terrorists finding havens anew in Afghanistan.
The first six months of the Trump presidency continued that non-policy.
Now, wisely, the president has made clear that there will be no hard timetables for withdrawal, and US military commanders on the ground will have maximum operational freedom to execute a proactive strategy of stabilisation on the security front.
He is backing up that change of policy with a commitment of more personnel and material.
So far, so good.
But the president’s speech still evinced a certain naiveté that often comes with a lack of policy depth.
By inviting India to openly meddle in Afghanistan’s affairs, Trump inadvertently opened the door wider for Iran -- India’s close partner in issues relating to Afghanistan -- to become an even bigger player in the country, a possibility that simply cannot be in the interest of the US or her allies.
It benefits neither the US nor the West to find the Sunni militants of global jihadi networks replaced by the Shia militants of the Revolutionary Guard.
The harsh fact on the ground is that given the realities of the world today, leaving Afghanistan to its fate is not an option for the foreseeable future
More troublesome was the president’s implicit dismissal of the need for a comprehensive, long-term stabilisation in Afghanistan, which simply cannot be pulled off without investment in diplomacy, tactical partnerships with neighbours like Pakistan and China, and continuing through incremental push towards small-scale social changes in Afghan society.
Not only is a military-only solution impossible in Afghanistan, but the US just doesn’t have the wherewithal to pull it off in terms of material and emotional resources: The American people will give a little bit of leeway to a new president, but in a war that is already America’s longest lasting, too many more body-bags and too many more young men and women spending Christmas away from home will dry up that reservoir of reborn patience pretty quickly.
The harsh fact on the ground is that given the realities of the world today, leaving Afghanistan to its fate is not an option for the foreseeable future.
Short of a perpetual occupation or continuous conventional warfare, the next best course for the US and her allies is to keep it stable by a prudent mix of a flexible, short-term military presence that augments local security, a robust partnership with neighbours and NATO to keep them invested in the stabilisation, and a longer term strategy to incrementally bring Afghan society into the 21st century, so that the proud country can reclaim its place as a valued member of the international community.
The president of the US has taken the first step in the right direction in tandem with the wisdom of his advisers like Defense Secretary General Mattis and National Security Adviser General McMaster.
Now he should go further and listen more closely to these generals and take the next steps to go the distance.
And one of the first moves in that regard would be to fill the vacant residence of the US ambassador in Kabul: America needs her man (or woman) in Afghanistan without further ado.
Esam Sohail is a college administrator and lecturer of social sciences. He writes from Kansas, USA.
