“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.” The quote’s origin is in dispute, but its content stands the test of time. Sixteen years on, after spilling so much blood and treasure, Uncle Sam is looking forward to throwing good money after bad in Afghanistan. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t – such is the no-win situation America’s Afghan mission presents to a third president running. 
A few things have changed, though, in how this US president will handle Afghanistan? A different approach – conditions-based, instead of timeline-based – is now bandied about, as evident from Trump’s Monday speech and later a follow-up by the Secretary of State. That open-ended commitment – which doesn’t specify additional troop numbers or mention CIA’s role – may keep the Taliban on their toes. But it hardly counts as a strategy to end the current stalemate that has seen Taliban expand their footprint.
In a break from the Obama administration, Trump has signaled he won’t micromanage the Afghan war. That way Trump gets to shrug off responsibility in the end. But it leaves the war effort solely to the generals. With little to no diplomatic and development components in early stages, pure military might is sure to kick up a lot of firestorms. But it cannot, on its own, deliver parties to the negotiating table.
The US-led Nato mission can help “clear” most of the areas under Taliban control. But to “hold” those areas and “build” civic infrastructure – the other two components of a counterinsurgency strategy applied elsewhere – requires political and development components, respectively. But a hollowed-out State Department in the Trump presidency will not be able to secure gains from a military escalation.
Also changed now is the US posture towards Pakistan. A decade of mutual mistrust on Afghanistan has finally culminated in an American President publicly putting Pakistan on notice. The carrots are gone; the stick looms large. But will Pakistan change its “behaviour”? Trump’s insistence on India taking a bigger role in Afghanistan may persuade Pakistan to play ball. But it may also backfire if the threatening tone persists.
America’s change of heart makes things precarious for Pakistan. Yes, American leverage with its non-Nato ally is on the decline, with the CSF funds held up and economic aid reduced. But US-Pak cooperation still has huge symbolic value. Not getting along with the US on Afghanistan, where many Western nations have spent and bled for the Nato’s Resolute Support Mission, might result in Pakistan gradually losing approval of a generally-sympathetic West.
Taken to the extreme, an antagonist Pakistan will have negative implications for the country’s non-debt-creating inflows (exports, remittances and FDI) as well as debt inflows from multilateral donors and financiers. Historically, Pakistan never put all eggs in one basket, balancing its relations with both US and China. But a breakdown in US-Pak relations will have Pakistan recede further into China’s orbit, thus jeopardizing the country’s economic security, which already has a question mark on it thanks to CPEC.
It happens to be in Pakistan’s interest to cooperate with the US on Afghanistan. Citizens and soldiers of Pakistan have paid a heavy price for the US invasion next door. Now is not the time to react and let slip the security gains achieved in recent years. Initial reaction from China, which also has its security concerns in the region, also suggests that they would like to see Pakistan cooperate with the US.
In all of this, the central question remains: at what point does America realise that its continued presence in a hostile neighbourhood isn’t worth the trouble? After all, recent terrorist incidents in Europe, America and Australia have demonstrated that this is an era where threats to national security are emanating more from radicalized, homegrown lone-wolves than terrorists plotting and training in faraway lands.
Seemingly unwilling to own the Afghan war, Trump, in his speech, may well have sowed the seeds of withdrawal for later when “conditions” become drastically untenable. And for that, Pakistan is being baited to take the fall. Meanwhile, Trump’s generals, who unlike the Obama years now have complete operational autonomy, will double down. They will bomb even more for an elusive peace in a country that is wracked by civil war. Now, it’s time for the final showdown. Because soon, it will be time to cut and run.
Comments
Comments are closed.