The Afghan government, along with the United States does not have what it takes to substantially win against the Taliban on the battlefield, but they do not want to lose either. So, the new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan that has come after much reviews and reassessment among Trump’s inner circle of advisers is designed to avoid losing, rather than winning in Afghanistan. From a presidential candidate who believed that the U.S. should pull out immediately from Afghanistan to a president who has now owned the war publicly, President Trump has come a long way in a short time. However, it is still unclear what the new troop surge in Afghanistan is meant for, and what it sets to do, what has not been tried and tested already

Tourangbam, Monish

English

SSOAR - Social Science Open Access Repository 

www.ssoar.infoU.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump'sBottleTourangbam, MonishVeröffentlichungsversion / Published VersionZeitschriftenartikel / journal articleEmpfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation:Tourangbam, M. (2017). U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump's Bottle. IndraStra Global, 1-3. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-53897-0Nutzungsbedingungen:Dieser Text wird unter einer CC BY-NC-SA Lizenz(Namensnennung-Nicht-kommerziell-Weitergebe unter gleichenBedingungen) zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu denCC-Lizenzen finden Sie hier:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.deTerms of use:This document is made available under a CC BY-NC-SA Licence(Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike). For more Informationsee:https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump’s Bottleindrastra.com /2017/09/US-Strategy-in-Afghanistan-Old-Wine-Trump-s-Bottle-003-09-2017-0016.htmlBy Dr. Monish TourangbamAssistant Professor, Department of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal University, IndiaABSTRACT:The Afghan government, along with the United States does not have what it takes to substantially win against the Taliban on thebattlefield, but they do not want to lose either. So, the new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan that has come after much reviews andreassessment among Trump’s inner circle of advisers is designed to avoid losing, rather than winning in Afghanistan. From apresidential candidate who believed that the U.S. should pull out immediately from Afghanistan to a president who has nowowned the war publicly, President Trump has come a long way in a short time. However, it is still unclear what the new troopsurge in Afghanistan is meant for, and what it sets to do, what has not been tried and tested already._______________________________________________________________________________The Afghan government, along with the United States (U.S.) does not have what it takes to substantially win against the Talibanon the battlefield, but they do not want to lose either. So, the new U.S. strategy in Afghanistan that has come after much reviewsand reassessment among President Donald Trump’s inner circle of advisers seem to be geared more towards not losing inAfghanistan, rather than winning it. Taliban’s resurgence and the rise of Daesh in Afghanistan has seen the security situationdeteriorated, and reconciliation talks with the Taliban have not gone anywhere substantial to bring a political solution. As notedin Trump’s speech, reconciliation talks with the Taliban have been pushed to a low priority in the American scheme of things.This might be reflective of the increasing traction that U.S. military generals have gained under the Trump administration-wherein, the role of the State Department has been diminishing. For instance, the office of the Special Representative forAfghanistan and Pakistan has been dismantled. In view of this, even if the diplomatic utility of this office were to be questioned,the Trump administration does not seem to be keen to allay the concerns that the U.S. diplomatic sinew is being severelydownplayed. So, Trump’s emphasis on using all elements of American power to win in Afghanistan at least, currently, cannot betaken too seriously.What does Trump’s policy statement suggest? At the foremost, nation building has become some sort of a pejorative term [1].1/3As the speech pointed that the U.S. was not interested in nation-building, and was rather going to kill terrorists. This newfoundattitude cannot escape the fact that the U.S. has a stake in making sure that the Afghan government does not slip further in itsability to hold territories and thereby, give better governance to the people of Afghanistan. However, it can be argued that thereis nothing really new in Trump’s strategy, except a realization of the limits of what the U.S. can do in Afghanistan as well as theextent to which it can impact the strategies of other regional players.In the backdrop of America’s South Asia policy, it is to note that the Trump administration’s approach towards Pakistan was inthe offing for some time now. Debates had been raging in the American beltway, as to how the U.S. should deal with Pakistan, anon-NATO ally in the war on terrorism, but one whose actions, particularly in counterterrorism has hardly aligned with that of theU.S. Any counter-insurgency or counter-terrorism effort is bound to face an uphill task, as long as the insurgent groups or theterrorist elements find shelters in other countries. Trump’s harsh words for Pakistan were echoed even during his NationalSecurity Advisor H R McMaster’s earlier visit to Pakistan [2]. In his speech on the new strategy, Trump emphaticallysaid:“Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been payingPakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting”[3].However, the operationalization and realization of this verbal pressure on Pakistan is likely to remain challenging. TheAmericans till now do not have much of an alternative to the Pakistani route for the logistics supply needed in Afghanistan.Moreover, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration handles the Pakistani military stronghold over Pakistan’sAfghanistan strategy which at least currently does not seem to be aligned with the U.S. vision or for that matter Kabul has forAfghanistan.From a presidential candidate who believed that the U.S. should pull out immediately from Afghanistan to a president who hasnow owned the war publicly, Trump has come a long way in a short time. Unveiling his Afghanistan strategy, he said that “theconsequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable” and that, as the troop surge is imminent, the Trumpadministration “will not talk about numbers of troops”[4]. Taking a gibe at Obama’s “surge and exit” policy, he said that thestrategy will be set based on ground conditions, and not timetables set in Washington. However, it is unclear what the troop surge is meant for, and what it sets to achieve. If the U.S. is interested mainly in itscounter-terrorism role, as the speech seems to suggest, then what is the troop increase meant to achieve? Trump stated, “Fromnow on, victory will have a clear definition. Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Talibanfrom taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge”[5].If the troop increase ismeant to assist the Afghan forces to fight the Taliban, to a point, where the latter is forced to come to the negotiating table, whatnew is it going to achieve that roughly 100, 000 forces could not achieve at one point of time?Moreover, the speech was totally oblivious to the conditions in Afghanistan, wherein, other actors such as China, Russia, andIran have been injecting their presence by engaging with the Taliban in one way or the other [6].  What led such forces to comeinto play was the vacuum that got created by the uncertainty of the U.S. strategy compounded by the ineffectiveness of theAfghan forces to stem the tide of the Taliban. This has been further added by the Daesh factor that has created conditions inwhich these countries have been hedging their bets to secure their respective interests given the rapidly shifting politico-securityscenario in Afghanistan.Another element of Trump’s speech was the potential for greater alignment with India. While applauding India as “the world’slargest democracy and a key security and economic partner of the United States,” and appreciating “India’s importantcontributions to stability in Afghanistan”[7], Trump also simultaneously framed the expectations from India in terms of a quid proquo of India’s trade turnover with the U.S. [8]. This is suggestive of the fact that in the coming days, Washington and New Delhineed to do a lot more transparent talking. This is in terms of India’s potential to contribute towards an economically viable,politically stable, socially inclusive Afghanistan supported by an enhanced security apparatus. In this pursuit, the trilateral talksbetween India, the U.S., and Afghanistan needs to be augmented in order to get a sense of what Kabul wants India to want to doin Afghanistan.Thereby, it is prudent to take into consideration Pakistan’s insecurity regarding India’s role in Afghanistan and it would be idealfor India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan in the longer term, to develop more transparency on what India or Pakistan should do/notdo in Afghanistan. However, in the current context, what India can/cannot do in Afghanistan should be determined by whatAfghanistan want India to do, and not by what Pakistan does not want India to do in Afghanistan.About the Author:Dr. Monish Tourangbam is Assistant Professor at the Department of Geopolitics and International Relations at ManipalUniversity, Karnataka, India. He also currently a South Asian Voices Visiting Fellow at the South Asia Program, Stimson Center,Washington D.C. He is the Features Editor (Foreign Policy) for the Science, Technology, and Security Forum (stsfor.org) . Inaddition to teaching, he conducts policy and academic research on strategic and international security issues. His research2/3interests include U.S. foreign policy and grand strategy, U.S. domestic politics, the United States in the emerging geopolitics ofthe Indo-Pacific region, U.S. policy towards South Asia, strategy and negotiations in international relations and India’s foreignpolicy orientation.Cite this Article:Tourangbam, M.,"U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump’s Bottle", IndraStra Global Vol. 3, Issue No: 09 (2017), 0016,http://www.indrastra.com/2017/09/US-Strategy-in-Afghanistan-Old-Wine-Trump-s-Bottle-003-09-2017-0016.html | ISSN2381-3652Cite the Dossier:Tourangbam, M., "U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump’s Bottle", The Dossier by IndraStra Vol. 1, Issue No: 1, Sep2017, Article No: 1, pg.5, http://www.indrastra.com/2017/09/Dossier-Vol-1-Issue-No-1-Sep-2017.html | ISSN 2381-3652References:[1] P.J. Crowley, “Nation-building is the only way out of Afghanistan,” Washington Post, August 25, 2017,https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/nation-building-is-the-only-way-out-of-afghanistan/2017/08/25/2f99a410-890b-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html?utm_term=.1aac04c6f1fc, accessed on August 26, 2017.[2] Imtiaz Ahmad and Rezaul H Laskar, “US NSA McMaster tells Pakistan leaders to confront ‘terror in all forms’,” HindustanTimes, April 18, 2017, http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-nsa-mcmaster-tells-pakistan-leaders-to-confront-terror-in-all-forms/story-63chcHOyh1gtgrR7JYpDbM.html, accessed on August 26, 2017.[3]The New York Times, “Full Transcript and Video: Trump’s Speech on Afghanistan,” August 21, 2017,https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/world/asia/trump-speech-afghanistan.html, accessed on August 25, 2017.[4] Ibid.[5] Ibid.[6] Ahmed Rashid, “The stakes are high for China in Pakistan and Afghanistan,” Financial Times, July 21, 2017,https://www.ft.com/content/3a779394-66e5-11e7-9a66-93fb352ba1fe, accessed on August 24, 2017 and Erin Cunningham,“While the U.S. wasn’t looking, Russia and Iran began carving out a bigger role in Afghanistan,” The Washington Post, April 13,2017, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/with-us-policy-in-flux-russia-and-iran-challenge-american-power-in-afghanistan/2017/04/12/f8c768bc-1eb8-11e7-bb59-a74ccaf1d02f_story.html?utm_term=.ddc0f59661a4, accessed on August24, 2017.[7] The New York Times, “Full Transcript and Video: Trump’s Speech on Afghanistan.”[8] Ankit Panda, “No Exit From Afghanistan: Major Takeaways From Trump's Big Speech on America's Longest War,” TheDiplomat, August 22, 2017, http://thediplomat.com/2017/08/no-exit-from-afghanistan-major-takeaways-from-trumps-big-speech-on-americas-longest-war/, accessed on August 25, 2017.3/3

U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump's Bottle

Name not available

The Afghan government, along with the United States does not have what it takes to substantially win against the Taliban on the battlefield, but they do not want to lose either. So, the new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan that has come after much reviews and reassessment among Trump\u27s inner circle of advisers is designed to avoid losing, rather than winning in Afghanistan. From a presidential candidate who believed that the U.S. should pull out immediately from Afghanistan to a president who has now owned the war publicly, President Trump has come a long way in a short time. However, it is still unclear what the new troop surge in Afghanistan is meant for, and what it sets to do, what has not been tried and tested already

IndraStra Global: E-Journals

February 4, 2019Decoding the Confrontational Streak in U.S.-China Relationsindrastra.com/2019/02/Decoding-Confrontational-Streak-in-US-China-Relations-005-02-2019-0006.htmlBy Radhey TambiDepartment of Geopolitics and International Relations, Manipal Academy of Higher EducationImage Attribute: Pixabay.comThe recently released Missile Defence Review report  by the Pentagon, is aimed ataddressing the challenges posed by the development of the advanced cruise and hypersonicmissiles by China. The development of the missile capability and technology as part ofChinese Military modernization is considered not only as offensive in nature, but also as ameans of denting U.S. primacy in the Indo-Pacific region. Few days back, Chinese PresidentXi Jinping urged the Chinese armed forces to be ready for a battle , which was viewed as aresponse to the U.S. President Donald Trump signing the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act.In addition to this, due to China’s assertive nature especially in the Western Pacific, U.S. hasannounced to conduct its first missile drill in Okinawa, which forms a part of the firstisland chain of China. The shape of things in US-China dynamics portends a relationshipwhich, despite economic interdependence, will be defined by increasing competition andconfrontation.1/3The United States views China as a strategic competitor, as reflected in major policydocuments like the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the National Defense Strategy(NDS). Moreover, Vice President Mike Pence speaking at the Hudson Institute last yearsingled out China as a revisionist power attempting to challenge America’s influence in theinternational system and heralding a new great power competition. China-US strategiccompetition has been most prominently seen in the Indo-Pacific, particularly in the WesternPacific, where China’s anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategies  are proving a challengeto sustaining U.S. forward presence in the region. Both the powers are also jostling andelbowing each other to acquire more space and influence.Despite the U.S. and China making efforts to resolve their trade war, the top two economiesof the world being at loggerheads with each other for so long shows inherent divergences.Both countries have been slapping tariffs on each other. Many opine that China has notbeen opening its market for the U.S. products and companies, while at the same time alsotaking away the jobs from the American hands. The other concern in the policy communityof U.S. is that China is not playing a fair game in the International trade, and is not obeyingthe rule-based order. Despite both, the countries being the largest trading partners ofeach other, the possibilities of a conflict brewing between the two is no less. Because historybears testimony where despite economic interdependence between the nations, politics,and nationalism have often overwhelmed economics.China’s assertive behavior, particularly in the South China Sea, has invited bipartisansupport in the United States towards putting more and more tariffs, along with the demandfor reciprocity. The concerns have also been raised regarding the Made in China 2025initiative, which will further enhance the economic muscles of China to challenge U.S. pre-eminence. This initiative is further shaping the hostile environment between U.S. and China,which is aimed at challenging the technological leadership of U.S. in areas such asrobotics, artificial intelligence, aviation, advanced information technology, and others. CanWashington accommodate the growing aspirations of Beijing, without compromising on itsown interests?U.S.-China tension has been further accentuated by the differences in the understanding offreedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) on both sides. China’s practice of buildingartificial islands, and using them as platforms to conduct military exercises have raisedconcerns across the region, despite repeated demands by the U.S. about halting themilitarization, which has often led to U.S.-China confrontation. China also mentions that itwill not allow the U.S. to cause a disturbance in its waters. Recently, the U.S. Destroyer USSDecatur came nearly 40 meters close to a Chinese ship in the disputed South China Sea.Another incident of confrontation between the two largest navies of the world took place lastmonth when the U.S. projected its right to move freely in the global commons by sailing theUSS Chancellorsville, near Paracel islands. China regarded this as a threat to its national2/3security and responded by sending its navy. On the other hand, U.S. considers such Chineseactivities a challenge to its dominance in the Pacific region and has witnessed more thansixteen unsafe incidents in air and sea between U.S. and China.Today, U.S.-China relationship is the most consequential one in the international system thefuture of which depends on the power symmetry and asymmetry in areas including thepolitical, economic and the strategic dimensions. Despite the two economies beingintertwined, incidents of increased competition and confrontation cannot be ignored.Various such incidents ranging from those affecting the freedom of navigation operations inthe global commons to developing of the offensive missile system is seen to be aimed atchallenging U.S. dominance in IndoPacific, thereby affecting its forces abroad and allies andpartners. It remains to be seen how Washington accept and accommodate the rise ofanother power in the international system without compromising and conceding its pre-eminence. About the Author:Radhey Tambi (ORCID:0000-0001-8189-5181) is a research scholar in the Department ofGeopolitics and International Relations, at Manipal Academy of Higher Education(MAHE) in Manipal, India. Her area of interest is U.S. foreign policy, including U.S. interests inthe Indo-Pacific region and South Asia, and India’s foreign policy orientation.Cite this Article:Tambi, R., "Decoding the Confrontational Streak in U.S.-China Relations", IndraStra Global Vol.05, Issue No:02 (2019) 0006, https://www.indrastra.com/2019/02/Decoding-Confrontational-Streak-in-US-China-Relations-005-02-2019-0006.html | ISSN 2381-3652DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this insight piece are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official policy or position of the IndraStra Global. 3/3

U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump\u27s Bottle

The Afghan government, along with the United States does not have what it takes to substantially win against the Taliban on the battlefield, but they do not want to lose either. So, the new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan that has come after much reviews and reassessment among Trump's inner circle of advisers is designed to avoid losing, rather than winning in Afghanistan. From a presidential candidate who believed that the U.S. should pull out immediately from Afghanistan to a president who has now owned the war publicly, President Trump has come a long way in a short time. However, it is still unclear what the new troop surge in Afghanistan is meant for, and what it sets to do, what has not been tried and tested already

Tourangbam, M. (Monish)

Neliti

https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/document/53897/1/ssoar-indrastraglobal-2017-tourangbam-US_Strategy_in_Afghanistan_Old.pdf

U.S. Strategy in Afghanistan: Old Wine in Trump's Bottle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

SSOAR - Social Science Open Access Repository

Name not available

IndraStra Global: E-Journals

Neliti