Trump Policy on Afghanistan and

South Asia
21 August, 2017
 Outline
• Introduction
• History of US Policy
• Issues and Challenges of new strategy
– US core interests
– Change in strategy
– Objectives of strategy
– Role of NATO and Global Partners
– Role of Afghanistan
– Pakistan response
– International response
• Analysis
• Conclusion
 Introduction

• Einstein said that doing the same thing repeatedly

and expecting a different result is insanity.
• US military action in Afghanistan was an act of
insanity from the outset as per the ground realities.
• After engaging in a protracted war of 16 years,
spending trillions of dollars, receiving hundreds of
body bags and killing thousands of Afghans, the US
has failed to achieve its objective.
 Introduction

• Former US president Obama did try to get the US

out of this fruitless and inconsequential adventure,
raising hopes for peace in Afghanistan.
• But the arrival of Trump has reversed the process.
• The new president, like previous US
administrations, has opted to rely on the military
strength of the country to beat the Taliban into
submission in complete disregard of the lessons
learnt over the last 16 years.
 Introduction

• It has long been the American strategy to look

for scapegoats for their misadventures to
justify their failures.
• In the case of Afghanistan, they find it
convenient to pin the blame on the threshold
of Pakistan – an ally that has suffered the most
in the war against terror.
 Introduction
• Pakistan has made relentless efforts to promote
peace in the war-ravaged country through
bilateral and multilateral channels.
• Even facilitated the first-ever interface
between the Afghan government and the
Taliban – which, unfortunately, could not
continue following Mullah Omar’s death.
 Introduction

• It is painful to note that instead of recognizing

the sacrifices rendered by Pakistan, the US has
chosen to target the country and neglect the
tremendous role played by it in fighting
militancy as a frontline state.
• President Donald Trump new policy for South
Asia is critical of Pakistan.
 Introduction
• Trump accused Pakistan of harboring “agents
of chaos” and providing safe havens to
militant groups.
• Pakistani officials responded by saying the
U.S. should not “scapegoat” Pakistan and
accused the American military of failing to
eliminate militant sanctuaries inside
Afghanistan.
 Introduction
• According to Trump, the American people are
weary of war without victory.
• Nowhere is this more evident than with the
war in Afghanistan, the longest war in
American history, 17 years.
 Introduction
• American people’s frustration over a foreign
policy that has spent too much time, energy,
money — and most importantly, lives —
trying to rebuild countries instead of pursuing
security interests above all other
considerations.
• Trump original instinct was to pull out.
 History of US Policy

• Since 2009, the US policy in Afghanistan has

changed every year.
• For instance, in 2009, the Obama
administration opted for troop surge arguing
there were not enough boots on the ground to
win the war.
• In 2010, the US focus shifted to poppy
eradication, which was deemed as the main
factor that fuelled the Taliban insurgency.
 History of US Policy

• Then in 2011, the US developed an obsession

with the rampant corruption in Kabul that
undermined the US nation-building efforts.
• Unable to break the deadlock of the Afghan
conflict militarily, in 2012, the US reached out
to Pakistan to pursue political reconciliation
with the Taliban.
• Pakistan presented a blue print for Afghan
reconciliation.
 History of US Policy

• In 2013, the US paradoxically adopted the policy of

fight-and-talk simultaneously.
• In 2014, the US and NATO forces started pulling
out from Afghanistan and handed over the security
responsibilities to the Afghan forces.
• However, in 2015 and 2016, as opposed to his
original plan of keeping 1,000 US troops in
Afghanistan, President Obama stationed 8,000 US
and 4,000 NATO troops under the Resolute Support
Mission.
 US core interests
• Three core interests of USA in Afghanistan
have been listed as under:
1. Deserve victory after making sacrifices.
2. Quick exit is not an option as this mistake has
been made in Iraq.
3. Threat from the region is immense as there
exist 20-designated terrorists organization
and there are two nuclear powers in the
region.
 US core interests
• Three fundamental conclusion about
America’s core interests in Afghanistan.
• Firstly, USA is seeking an honorable and
enduring outcome in the shape of a victory.
• Those who are fighting, deserve the tools they
need and the trust they have earned to fight
and to win.
 US core interests
• Secondly, the consequences of a rapid exit
from Afghanistan are both predictable and
unacceptable.
• 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in history, was
planned and directed from Afghanistan
because that country was ruled by a
government that gave comfort and shelter to
terrorists.
 US core interests
• As, in 2011, America hastily and mistakenly
withdrew from Iraq.
• As a result, hard-won gains slipped back into
the hands of terrorist enemies.
• US soldiers watched as cities they had fought
for and bled to liberate, and won, were
occupied by a terrorist group called ISIS.
 US core interests
• The vacuum created by leaving too soon gave
safe haven for ISIS to spread, to grow, recruit
and launch attacks.
• USA cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake
previous leaders made in Iraq.
 US core interests
• Thirdly, and finally, it has been concluded
that security threats USA face in Afghanistan
and the broader region are immense.
• 20 U.S.-designated foreign terrorist
organizations are active in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, the highest concentration in any
region anywhere in the world.
 US core interests
• Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of
chaos, violence and terror.
• The threat is worse because Pakistan and India
are two nuclear-armed states whose tense
relations threaten to spiral into conflict.
• Trump inherited a challenging and troubling
situation in Afghanistan and South Asia.
 US core interests
• In Afghanistan and Pakistan, America’s
interests are clear, which are;
• Stopping the resurgence of safe havens that
enable terrorists to threaten America.
• Preventing nuclear weapons and materials
from coming into the hands of terrorists and
being used against USA, or anywhere in the
world.
 Change in strategy
• US strategy will change as under:
1. A shift from a time-based approach to one based on
conditions.
2. The integration of all instruments of American power.
3. Change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan.
4. Further develop its strategic partnership with India,
5. Military have the necessary tools and rules of
engagement to make this strategy work.
 Change in strategy
• A core pillar of US new strategy is a shift
from a time-based approach to one based
on conditions.
• It is counterproductive for the United
States to announce in advance the dates it
intend to begin or end military options.
 Change in strategy
• USA will not talk about numbers of troops or
its plans for further military activities.
• Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary
timetables, will guide their strategy from now
on.
• America’s enemies must never know their
plans or believe they can wait them out.
 Change in strategy
• Another fundamental pillar of new strategy is
the integration of all instruments of American
power — diplomatic, economic, and military
— toward a successful outcome.
• After an effective military effort, perhaps it
will be possible to have a political settlement
that includes elements of the Taliban in
Afghanistan.
 Change in strategy
• America will continue its support for the
Afghan government and the Afghan military
as they confront the Taliban in the field.
• Ultimately, it is up to the people of
Afghanistan to take ownership of their future,
to govern their society and to achieve an
everlasting peace.
 Change in strategy
• USA is a partner and a friend, but will not
dictate to the Afghan people how to live or
how to govern their own complex society.
• US is not for nation-building again but for
killing terrorists.
 Change in strategy
• The next pillar of US new strategy is to change
the approach in how to deal with Pakistan.
• US can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s
safe havens for terrorist organizations, the
Taliban and other groups that pose a threat to
the region and beyond.
 Change in strategy
• Pakistan has much to gain from partnering
with US effort in Afghanistan.
• It has much to lose by continuing to harbor
criminals and terrorists.
• In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner.
• The militaries of two countries have worked
together against common enemies.
 Change in strategy
• The Pakistani people have suffered greatly
from terrorism and extremism.
• US recognize those contributions and those
sacrifices.
• But Pakistan has also sheltered the same
organizations that try every single day to kill
our people.
 Change in strategy
• USA has been paying Pakistan billions and
billions of dollars at the same time they are
housing the very terrorists that they are
fighting.
• But that will have to change and that will
change immediately.
 Change in strategy
• No partnership can survive a country’s
harboring of militants and terrorists who target
U.S. service members and officials.
• It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its
commitment to civilization, order and to
peace.
 Change in strategy
• Another critical part of the South Asia strategy
for America is to further develop its strategic
partnership with India, the world’s largest
democracy and a key security and economic
partner of the United States.
• USA appreciate India’s important
contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but
India makes billions of dollars in trade with
the United States.
 Change in strategy
• USA want India to help in Afghanistan,
especially in the area of economic assistance
and development.
• USA is committed to pursuing shared
objectives for peace and security in South Asia
and the broader Indo-Pacific region.
 Change in strategy
• Finally, US administration will ensure that
military have the necessary tools and rules of
engagement to make this strategy work, and
work effectively, and work quickly.
 Change in strategy
• Trump has lifted restrictions the previous
administration placed on war fighters that
prevented the secretary of defense and
commanders in the field from fully and swiftly
waging battle against the enemy.
• Micromanagement from Washington, D.C.,
does not win battles.
 Change in strategy
• They have won in the field, drawing upon the
judgment and expertise of wartime
commanders, and front-line soldiers, acting in
real time with real authority, and with a clear
mission to defeat the enemy.
 Objectives of new strategy
1. US troops will fight to win
2. Attacking US enemies,
3. Obliterating ISIS,
4. Crushing Al Qaeda,
5. Preventing the Taliban from taking over
Afghanistan and
6. Stopping mass terror attacks against America
before they emerge.
Role of NATO and Global Partners
• USA will ask NATO allies and global partners
to support new strategy, with additional troop
and funding increases in line with US. US is
confident they will.
• Since taking office, it has been made clear that
US allies and partners must contribute much
more money to collective defense and they
have done so.
 Role of Afghanistan
• Afghanistan is fighting to defend and secure
their country against the same enemies who
threaten USA.
• The stronger the Afghan security forces
become, the less US will have to do.
• Afghans will secure and build their own nation
and define their own future.
• US want them to succeed.
 Role of Afghanistan
• America will work with the Afghan
government as long as they see determination
and progress.
• However, their commitment is not unlimited,
and support is not a blank check.
• The government of Afghanistan must carry
their share of the military, political, and
economic burden.
 Pakistan Response
• PM Abbasi has stressed the need for a political
settlement in Afghanistan, saying Trump's
strategy for America's longest-running war in
that country will meet the same fate as the
plans of his predecessors: 'Failure'.
 Pakistan Response
• "From day one we have been saying very
clearly the military strategy in Afghanistan has
not worked and it will not work,"
• There has to be a "political settlement,“.
"That's the bottom-line," the prime minister
added.
 Pakistan Response
• Pakistan’s top civilian and military leadership
has already strongly rejected the US
allegations
• Foreign Office spokesperson, had stated that
differences between Pakistan and the US over
the new policy did not equate to a “rupture in
ties”.
 Pakistan Response
• In a firm and comprehensive response to
America’s new strategy, Pakistan has outright
rejected Trump’s allegations and insinuations
that ignore its sacrifices in the war against
terror and belittle its efforts for peace in
Afghanistan.
 Pakistan Response
• Recounting Pakistan efforts to fight terrorism,
promote peace in Afghanistan and endure the
blowback effects of the conflict in
Afghanistan,
• It rightly called for the elimination of safe
havens in Afghanistan where terrorist attacks
were being launched against Pakistan.
 Pakistan Response
• Pakistan did well by expressing its
commitment to support the elimination of
terrorism to the US and the global community
and simultaneously defending its sovereignty
and territorial integrity.
• Asserting its claim as a responsible nuclear
state also gave off the right vibe.
 Pakistan Response
• In addition, by rejecting India as a provider of
peace and reiterating support to the people of
Kashmir was also a timely reminder to the
world community of its obligations.
• Both houses parliament passed resolutions
against the Trump policy.
 International Response
• The bellicose posturing by Trump has invoked
a sharp reaction within Pakistan as well as by
the former allies of the US administration.
• Hamid Karzai has termed the new US
strategy on Afghanistan and South Asia as a
recipe to foment conflict and scuttle the
prospects of peace in the region.
 International Response
• China has also come out in support of
Pakistan with regard to its contribution to the
war on terror and contradicted the accusations
made by Trump.
• Russia also does not believe that America’s
new strategy on Afghanistan will lead to any
significant and positive changes in the country.
 International Response
• The Taliban have already rejected the new
initiative and vowed to fight the foreign
occupiers.
• So, it is all set for a renewed conflict in
Afghanistan, with a negative fallout for
neighboring countries.
 Analysis
1. A new republican President has revised the
policy of its predecessor by reversing Obama
policy of exit. Trump has revived the fight-fight
approach as the war in Afghanistan comes full
circle.
2. It is not hard to imagine that 15,000 foreign
troops would not be able to gain what 150,000
international troops failed to achieve. It will give
the Taliban all the more reasons to continue their
armed struggle.
 Analysis
3. It is over-simplistic to assume that the US lost the
war in Afghanistan because of Taliban sanctuaries
in Pakistan.
• The cross-border sanctuaries are not a game
changer for the Taliban’s battlefield victories in
Afghanistan.
• Today, more than more than 40 percent of Afghan
territory is under the Taliban’s control and they do
not need safe havens in Pakistan to continue the
war.
 Analysis
4. Taliban are not solely dependent on
Pakistan in the region. The Taliban have
diversified their regional links with Tehran,
Moscow, Beijing and Qatar to minimise their
sole reliance on Pakistan. Therefore holding
Pakistan only responsible for Afgan conflict
is counter productive.
 Analysis
5. Pakistan has suffered due to its double
policy. After 9/11, Pakistan has been running
with the hare and hunting with the hounds
much to the annoyance of the Americans as
well as the jihadists.
• Both have reacted. American drone attacks and
Islamist suicide bombings have crushed our
people.
 Analysis
6. Other regional countries ignored. During
the address, Trump failed to mention what
role Iran, China (Afghanistan’s two out of the
six immediate neighbours), and Russia might
play to help end the war.
• For the time being, it looks like the complexity
of the relationship between the US and the
aforementioned countries is negatively
affecting the course of the war in Afghanistan.
 Analysis
7. Pakistan cannot accept India’s role in Afghan
conflict. This is a red line for Pakistan. US
has clarified that India has been given an
economic role instead of political role.
8. After Pakistan response, USA has agreed to
modify its policy and address the concerns of
Pakistan. Recently this is one of the sour
point in Pakistan-US relations.
 Conclusion
• By re-opting for a military solution, the US
has made a serious mistake.
• It cannot resolve the conflict in Afghanistan
through bombs – just as it couldn’t in Vietnam
or Iraq.
• It needs to revisit its strategy and engage
regional countries, including Pakistan, to find
a negotiated solution if it wants peace.
 Conclusion
• It must understand that a solution to the
Afghan conundrum is not possible without the
unqualified support of Pakistan, as rightly
pointed out by the Russian foreign minister.