Afghanistan: Trump changed the big pic

It’s politically correct to trash whatever policy announcement US President Donald Trump makes. No surprises then that his latest Afghanistan strategy declaration evoked similar titters. It is assumed his new Afghan strategy, like everything else about him, will be a damp squib. Nothing could be further from the truth. President Trump’s policy view on the unending Afghan war is perhaps the sanest that has come from the White House in a long time. The details might take a little doing but the big targets are spot-on. His new Afghan policy is also good news for Asia.

There are two or three pivotal points of his Afghan policy that must be seen for what they are. The main thrust is that the US isn’t planning to quit Afghanistan militarily soon. 

The big question isn’t how many additional troops President Trump will send to Afghanistan or how much he is prepared to spend; it is about commitment. Will it continue or not? That has been answered. The second pivot is the unambiguous recognition that Pakistan is the key obstacle to a victory against the Taliban. Before this, while many Americans admitted Pakistan was helping Taliban, Islamabad was not targeted.

The US and allied troops kept getting hammered in Afghanistan by an enemy armed by Pakistan’s generals, but Washington felt it could do nothing. The assumption till now has been that the US has too much of a strategic stake in Pakistan for it to become hostage to the Afghan war.

Mr Trump‘s announcement failed to elicit a highly positive response in the US and India. Only Islamabad saw it for what it was: an outright assault on the age-old strategic relationship.

The Pakistani reaction was blunt. Pakistan PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi declared the US “military strategy in Afghanistan will not work”. The real solution, he felt, was “inclusive” dialogue and a “political settlement”, meaning if Washington wanted peace it should cut a deal with the Taliban.

Islamabad subsequently prepared a formal note to protest President Trump’s pronouncements and in a speech to Pakistan’s Senate, foreign minister Khawaja Mohammad Asif said his government rejected allegations of harbouring the Taliban. A few days later he said Islamabad had suspended talks and bilateral visits with Washington in protest over Mr Trump’s anti-Pakistan Afghan strategy.

The fury spilled over into Pakistani streets in anti-US demonstrations and furious op-ed pieces targeting President Trump. In Afghanistan, it was more serious business: Taliban terrorists set off an explosion at a Kabul bank, killing five innocent Afghans and shaking the windows of the US embassy. Clearly, President Trump’s strategy is changing equations. Islamabad senses it and is scurrying for help to Beijing, Moscow and Tehran. 

The third significant point in President Trump’s strategy is affirmation of India’s role in Afghanistan. So far, US politicians and diplomats have been derisive about India’s involvement in Afghanistan, including the construction of the strategic Dularam-Zaranj Highway at considerable cost in southwestern Afghanistan.

The Delaram–Zaranj Highway, known as Route 606, links Afghanistan’s ring road to Chabahar in Iran. This alternate economic route to the heart of Afghanistan, bypassing troubled Pakistan, has failed to take off due to several reasons, one being tacit US disapproval.

Indian commentators responding to President Trump’s Afghanistan strategy have cautioned New Delhi, claiming there is lack of clarity on what India’s role should be. But Mr Trump has been very clear on this, emphasising an economic role for India.

The bomb blasts near the US embassy were just a prelude to what US secretary of state Rex Tillerson says is a dramatic shift in US strategy towards Afghanistan. From now on the Pentagon, not the White House, will determine the level of US military deployment in Afghanistan. The danger is that Rawalpindi has too many friends in Washington. There will therefore be a concerted lobby in Washington against Mr Trump’s Afghan strategy. There will be every attempt to undermine and overturn it. That would indeed be an outright disaster.

The writer is an independent commentator on political and security issues