President Trump’s Afghan Strategy: The ‘Forever War’ Will Continue

On Monday night, the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan – now approaching its 16th anniversary – became Donald Trump’s war.

In his first prime-time address to the nation, the president committed the United States to a sustained and, indeed, enhanced military presence in Afghanistan. The new strategy, developed over the course of several months, will likely involve an increase in U.S. ground forces, although the president conspicuously refused to provide numbers. (Rumor puts additional troops at about 4,000.)

The decision was driven in large part by the situation on the ground in Afghanistan. Our ally, the Afghan government, retains control of most major urban centers. But the Taliban – whom we toppled from power in late 2001 — remains a powerful and resilient force. Moreover, Afghanistan is home to al-Qaida, ISIS and other extremist groups. The Afghan government may not be on the precipice of disaster. But there are growing worries that the war has slipped into stalemate. Success is as elusive as ever.

The decision on Afghanistan was clearly a bitter pill for Trump to swallow. He had, before becoming president, called for a U.S. exit from the conflict. In his speech, the president forthrightly admitted that his new policy ran counter to his instincts but explained “decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.”  His volte-face was likely driven in large part by arguments, coming from Secretary of Defense James Mattis, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster and others, that a withdrawal at this point was simply too risky. Trump pointed to President Obama’s 2011 drawdown in Iraq – which some believe hastened the rise of ISIS – as an error he did not want to repeat.

The president’s speech was very short on details. In addition to a reaffirmation of Afghanistan as a key battleground in the war on terror, he signaled that the U.S. would exert additional pressure on Pakistan to stop providing a safe haven for militants and would ask India to provide more economic assistance to Afghanistan. These comments have already raised hackles in Pakistan, which sees India as its key geopolitical adversary. The president also promised to loosen rules of engagement for U.S. forces in Afghanistan, allowing them greater leeway in attacking the enemy but also increasing the likelihood of civilian casualties.

The address was sprinkled with by-now-familiar presidential rhetoric. Trump declared that “We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists. “ Left unsaid was how this repudiation of nation-building would affect the United States’ substantial assistance to the government of Afghanistan. The president also promised “victory,” though without providing any specifics about how, precisely, we would know if and when we achieved it. He stressed that “our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check.” Yet by refusing to set deadlines or provide metrics for victory, his strategy in Afghanistan —- barring the unlikely collapse of the Taliban and extinction of al-Qaida — appears open-ended in fact, if not in word.

Perhaps the president’s strategy will become clearer in the weeks and months ahead. Perhaps it will succeed. We can hope so. But it is hard to imagine how an additional few thousand U.S. troops – which will bring the United States’ force total in Afghanistan to something less than 15,000 – are going to accomplish what 100,000 could not at the peak of our military presence in 2010.

What is perhaps most remarkable about the president’s speech, except for its vociferous language, is how unremarkable it is. His policy is in many ways an extension of Obama’s at the end of the latter’s time in office; it embodies a recognition that the United States is trapped in Afghanistan, unable to secure decisive victory but fearful of the consequences of departure. When push came to shove, Trump opted for a compromise approach, refusing either to go “all in” or pull out. On Afghanistan, our most unconventional of presidents – whatever his instincts – went for the most conventional of policies.

The war in Afghanistan bedeviled President George W. Bush. It bedeviled his successor, Barack Obama. And it gives every sign of doing the same for Donald Trump. Our intervention there will likely cost a trillion dollars when the final reckoning is done. Worse, it has cost the lives of 2,400 U.S. military personnel (1,700 under Obama). The U.S. has women and men serving in Afghanistan who were just entering grade school when our war there began. After the president’s Monday night address, we are no closer to knowing when our country’s “forever war” will end.

Joe Barnes is the Bonner Means Baker Fellow at the Baker Institute. From 1979 to 1993, he was a career diplomat with the U.S. State Department, serving in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.