Back to Afghanistan

By Jeralyn, Section Afghanistan 2009
Posted on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 03:15:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: I doubt I will watch Trump. I'd rather take a spin class on my Peloton. Please use this thread to comment on his speech.

From the Washington Post: Derek Chollet, an assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration, says:

“This is Trump’s war now,” Chollet said. “Putting 50 percent more troops in Afghanistan — that’s ownership. And it’s not something he can blame on his predecessor.”

Donald Trump will interrupt our TV schedules tonight to give a speech to the American public about his decision on how the U.S. should move forward on Afghanistan and South Asia.He's going to announce an increase in U.S. troops in this unwinnable war. [More...]

My view: He's way too late. The Taliban is very strong now and ISIS's Khorasan Wilayat in Afghanistan and Pakistan also has a toehold.

Is Trump going to announce using private contractors instead of U.S. Troops? (I wouldn't be surprised, he loves making the rich richer, and this would be a huge boon to the military contractors like Blackwater.)

What about the cost?

....hidden costs from PMCs unable to fulfill their obligations have provided massive cost overruns in the past.

Also,

Using embedded PMC personnel would hinder the development of cohesive Afghan security forces, which can both deter terrorists and sensitively respond to peaceful gatherings. Also, it would undermine and spoil peace efforts to end war through a negotiated political settlement by introducing a new player, the PMC commander, whose corporate interests would dictate a continued presence rather than conflict resolution. ...Broad policy goals, like actually winning the war, cannot be contracted.

We should get out of Afghanistan entirely. Donald Trump always makes the wrong turn. I expect nothing different tonight.

< Secret Service to Run Out of Money to Protect Trump | Wednesday Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Back to Afghanistan | 21 comments (21 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

And . . . (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by Chuck0 on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 11:36:50 PM EST

he said absolutely nothing. More word salad.

"he said absolutely nothing." (none / 0) (#10)
by NYShooter on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 09:08:50 AM EST

May I suggest you read: KeysDan #8 below.

While I don't agree with everything K D said, nor some of his interpretations, I do appreciate the time he must have taken pondering his response and the obviously thoughtful input he provided us.

Just a thought, Chuck0, Re.."he said absolutely nothing. More word salad."

Hearing and listening are not the same thing. "Hearing" is simply the act of perceiving sound, "Listening," however, is something you consciously choose to do. "Listening" requires concentration so that your brain can process the meaning of what you hear.


: Two offerings for your consideration: (none / 0) (#13)
by Anne on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 10:38:46 AM EST

Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

When Donald Trump took office, he asked his generals for a new plan in Afghanistan. Here is how I imagine things have gone since then:
March
GENERALS: Not much more we can do. Maybe a few additional troops. Push harder on Pakistan. Stop worrying so much about civilian casualties.
TRUMP: Try again.
April
GENERALS: Not much more we can do. Maybe a few additional troops. Push harder on Pakistan. Stop worrying so much about civilian casualties.
TRUMP: Not good enough.
May
GENERALS: Not much more we can do. Maybe a few additional troops. Push harder on Pakistan. Stop worrying so much about civilian casualties.
TRUMP: You have to do better.
June
GENERALS: Not much more we can do. Maybe a few additional troops. Push harder on Pakistan. Stop worrying so much about civilian casualties.
TRUMP: Goddamit, I want to kick some ass!
July
GENERALS: Not much more we can do. Maybe a few additional troops. Push harder on Pakistan. Stop worrying so much about civilian casualties.
TRUMP: Fine. Where's my speechwriter?
August
TRUMP: Today I am announcing a bold, new plan for total victory in Afghanistan. We will stop talking about troop levels. We will stop coddling Pakistan. We will unleash our military. And we will win.
The WaPo:

President Trump was frustrated and fuming. Again and again, in the windowless Situation Room at the White House, he lashed out at his national security team over the Afghanistan war, and the paucity of appealing options gnawed at him.
....Trump's private deliberations -- detailed in interviews with more than a dozen senior administration officials and outside allies -- revealed a president unattached to any particular foreign-policy doctrine, but willing to be persuaded as long as he could be seen as a strong and decisive leader.
In other words, as Drum concludes:

As long as it makes him look good, Trump doesn't really care what we do in Afghanistan.
One more:

We will shift from a time-based strategy to one based on conditions. In other words, we may just stay in Afghanistan forever.
We will no longer talk about numbers of troops. This is most likely because the increase in troops he approved was so minuscule as to be pointless.
Trump will bring to bear all elements of American power: diplomatic, economic, military. We've been doing this for the past decade, but whatevs.
There will be no more coddling of Pakistan. How? By threatening to cut off money, it sounds like.
There will be no more micromanagement from Washington. The subtext here is that if we don't make progress, we should blame Mattis, not Trump.
The rules of engagement will be loosened, though it's unclear how.
There will be no more nation building. We're killing bad guys, and that's all.
But we'll keep giving lots of money to Afghanistan for, um, bation nuilding.
"Victory will have a clear definition," Trump said, though he didn't really say what that is. However, it appears to mean that ISIS and al-Qaeda are wiped out, the Taliban is transformed into a bunch of moderates, and there is no possibility of new terrorist groups emerging. That sounds good, but it's just hot air. It will never happen.
And this is why Chuck correctly states that Trump had nothing new to say.
Although, Trump does seem to get pretty excited about more killing, but I'm not sure that's new, as much as it is a rallying cry for his base.

But enlisted and commissioned (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 03:42:22 PM EST

Military HATE contractors. Whatever they destroy our military always has to attempt to contain, repair, heal. If Republicans don't like US soldiers having to kiss Quarans don't send mercs to do what you are too cowardly to do yourself!

There is a big LinkedIn discussion about this among the military willing to be known by name among those connected to them, exactly why using contractors is an American abomination.

The Biggest Mistake (none / 0) (#2)
by RickyJim on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 04:36:28 PM EST

was in 2001 when we didn't offer Mullah Omar billions in return for Osama bin Laden. Now apparently China has the deals to develop the country's mineral resources. Whoever convinced Trump to kiss off Syria should have tried too convince him to do the same for Afghanistan.

As bad as Steve Bannon was/is (none / 0) (#3)
by NYShooter on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 05:02:36 PM EST

in many areas, he was against taking the military option everyplace in the world. He was against Trump's North Korean brinksmanship. He was against the "regime change" policies (Democrat & Republican)of the past several decades. And, yes, he was for better relations with countries we were not known as being allied with.

He is a populist which means he hates banks, corporations, and, the military.

Bottom line: They got Bannon thrown out; Now, Trump only has Generals advising him. And, with a completely empty vessel as President, a clinically narcissistic, criminally incapable, tragically uneducated in the skills required, The Generals have their perfect puppet. Diplomacy is not their game. War is.

Dangerous, dangerous times.

: I would agree with (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 05:40:00 PM EST

most you are saying except Bannon is a right wing populist and they have no problem with banks and corporations. They never usually blame "the other" for the lack of any jobs never the businesses that don't hire people. The only slightly anti-business stance right wing populists have is when some businesses fall into "globalism".

: Trump only needs (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by KeysDan on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 06:15:32 PM EST

to listen to Trump. During the campaign he said it was a mess, and, of course, took every opportunity to lambast the Obama policies. No one knew war could be so hard.
I agree with you that Bannon offered a look at Afghanistan that did not necessarily involve more and more troops, on the ground, anywhere and everywhere else. But, Bannon came at too high a price for the country, and there are similar thinkers who are not, uh...Bannon.
Trump should formulate his policy on the basis of his instinct, which is all he has to offer, and then let others flesh it out with military and political expertise. But, his presidency is limping along so badly as to have become almost irrelevant to policy; he has lost his degrees of freedom. He is, as you say, just Charlie McCarthy to the generals' Edgar Bergen. We can only hope that the generals exercise their authority responsibly.

: P.S. (none / 0) (#4)
by NYShooter on Mon Aug 21, 2017 at 05:05:05 PM EST

Oh, Bannon was also against increased troops for Afghanistan.

In search of a strategy. (none / 0) (#8)
by KeysDan on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 08:13:02 AM EST

If the Trump strategy is a high level plan to achieve success in reaching stated goals, it seemed to have gone missing in Trump's presentation. Trump did tell us what the strategy isn't: not a blank check, and what he did tell us was just gruel warmed over after sitting on the stove for 16 years: push back the Taliban, fight terrorism, and reverse the steady deterioration of security.

But, lurking in the presentation of non-disclosure and unfixed schedules, there were attempts at new packaging...the ineffective marketing strategy he deployed matched his attempt to sell the military one.

Much effort was expended in justifying Trump's flip flop of opposition to continuing the war in Afghanistan---please understand, Trump pleads, that things are different when in the Oval Office. The job is hard, who knew? All this followed by his Monday morning quarterbacking of Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and stating timetables.

But, there is something new: no longer time-based; now, conditioned-based. Although we are not informed of what the conditions are and if the conditions involve any timelines. Or, more troops, or how many... although that is assumed (no statement on the mercenary troop usage in a definitive manner).

As if the region is not volatile enough, Trump publicly criticized Pakistan (not undeserved, but maybe a less incendiary way to deal with it) and introduced notions of involvement by Pakistan's archenemy, India.

And, Pakistan's $ billions in aid was left hanging...that will stop now. What will stop, the money or conditions? Probably not a real problem, because Pakistan is likely to realize that this is part of Trump bluster to assuage his base, deploying the mandatory tough talk.

Trump does have some new conditions to address; the Russian intervention with the Taliban and their provision of material support. With Russians involved, American interests need to be nailed down. And, the new rush for Afghan minerals is on.

Trump now owns the American involvement in Afghanistan. He is trying to hedge his bets...whatever happens, will be what he wanted to happen. But, Afghanistan is likely a place where we will continue to be tired of losing, not winning. Not losing may be the win, whatever, not losing may mean.

Whatever sense he made as (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Anne on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 08:48:58 AM EST

Teleprompter Trump will likely go up in an explosion of ego in Phoenix tonight; it is Unscripted Trump who reveals what's really going on underneath his helmet of hair that seems to undergo almost-daily changes of color.

That man, he is a veritable rainbow - oops, best not use rainbow references, if you know what I means...

From the speech:

The men and women of our military operate as one team, with one shared mission and one shared sense of purpose.
They transcend every line of race, ethnicity, creed and color to serve together and sacrifice together in absolutely perfect cohesion. That is because all service members are brothers and sisters. They are all part of the same family. It's called the American family. They take the same oath, fight for the same flag and live according to the same law.
They are bound together by common purpose, mutual trust and selfless devotion to our nation and to each other. The soldier understands what we as a nation too often forget, that a wound inflicted upon on a single member of our community is a wound inflicted upon us all. When one part of America hurts, we all hurt.
And when one citizen suffers an injustice, we all suffer together. Loyalty to our nation demands loyalty to one another. Love for America requires love for all of its people. When we open our hearts to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice, no place for bigotry and no tolerance for hate. The young men and women we send to fight our wars abroad deserve to return to a country that is not at war with itself at home. We cannot remain a force for peace in the world if we are not at peace with each other.

Still trying to figure out how banning the transgendered from military service fits into this lofty picture of inclusiveness.

I am also getting an uncomfortable feeling of nationalism in that last paragraph. While patriotism certainly has its place in our hearts and minds, it isn't the key to ending hate, prejudice and bigotry.

As for the rest of the speech, it was Trump's version of boilerplate - but one phrase was remarkably absent: "radical Islamic terrorism" is nowhere to be found. Kind of interesting from someone who always seemed to bring this up against both Obama and Hillary.

Many words were used, but they didn't answer many of the questions.

I'm sure Bannon is seething, so we'll see where that goes.


: Some very fine people, (none / 0) (#11)
by KeysDan on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 09:55:17 AM EST

must be before Labor Day, since many very fine people were wearing white.

To me it sounds (none / 0) (#12)
by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 10:33:46 AM EST

like warmed over George W. Bush where we let the Taliban determine how long we stay in Afghanistan.


An unsolvable problem (none / 0) (#14)
by FreakyBeaky on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 11:09:26 AM EST

Pakistan views maintaining influence in Afghanistan via the Taliban as a matter of survival. They will never cooperate enough to let the Taliban lose.

The only possible solution is to take a pro-Pak anti-India position: a solution worse than the problem. (If it worked.)

This is not enough of a troop increase to matter (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 12:48:25 PM EST

Period

It's meaningless. I can't even believe this has been sold as some heated discussion give away to the Generals. If they wanted troops for Afghanistan they got the shaft.

But Trump hopes for that good Ole American knee jerk response of a President deploying troops and then we all rally round the family.

I suppose he didn't talk strategy because there is no strategy for such an increase.

The only other reason that makes sense other than he's trying to change the subject is they fear Bagram can be easily overrun. Fighting season will be drawing to a close soon though.

This is not enough of a troop increase to matter (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 12:48:37 PM EST

my 'wonk' analysis (none / 0) (#17)
by linea on Tue Aug 22, 2017 at 08:19:14 PM EST

the timing is good. i imagine this war-mobilization speech makes 'not anti-nazi enough' old news for middle-america.

i think (politically) his definition of victory is too expansive:

From now on, victory will have a clear definition. Attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.

a simple, '[killing bad guys and] stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge' would have been an easier goal as it simply requires the 'bad guy' body count to be updated regularly.

: - nevermind - (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by linea on Wed Aug 23, 2017 at 08:15:01 PM EST

duh!
i thought trump was escalating a war to 'wag the dog' and distract from his cringe-worthy nazi comments. but then he again brings it up the nazi issue at his arizona rally. it doesn't make any sense!

I'm still processing that obviously (none / 0) (#19)
by jondee on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 01:22:38 PM EST

strategically placed and intelligence insulting lone black guy with the big sign just behind Trump's right elbow.

At least I think it was a black guy, though there's a chance it could've been James O'Keefe done up like Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder.

: The guy goes (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by KeysDan on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 03:21:01 PM EST

by the name of "Mike Black Man." He, apparently, is a fixture at Trump rallies and hold a few "unconventional" views such as Barack Obama is satan, Hillary belongs to the KKKK, and Oprah is the devel (not sure what the demonic competition is between Oprah and Obama). And, the villainous Cherokee Indians are out to get us all. Perfect backdrop for Trump.

: I think (none / 0) (#20)
by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 24, 2017 at 02:40:18 PM EST

he's a member of the Yehweh cult or something.