Why the Afghanistan strategy and speech are disasters - Barnett Rubin, NYU

[sharedvalues]

A devastating critique of the Afghanistan speech, and of the policy behind it.

@POTUS speech on Afghanistan: an incoherent wish list unmoored in political reality or principle.

Repeated his oath is to American “people,” not to the constitution. Held up military discipline as a model for citizenship. He said the goal is “victory,” but definition of victory is not an end state but a process: killing terrorists, coercing Taliban to deal. Heralded “regional strategy?” Support India against Pakistan. At a time of rising India-China tensions, Trump supports India, ignores China.

In the guise of not giving away our moves, Trump signals commitment to permanent troop presence, while saying it is “conditions based.” I.e. they can’t outwit us, but we will withdraw troops the moment U.S. determines the Afghan government is not performing adequately.

Message to Taliban: US will leave Afghanistan if you prevent Afghan government from performing, or we say your are terrorists or whatever

To region: US will keep troops in Afghanistan indefinitely without consulting China, Russia, Iran (all unmentioned), will not revel goals.

To Afghans: US will not support democracy or human rights or try to prevent civilian casualties (relaxed rules of engagement).

While not supporting democracy or human rights, U.S. demands “reform” as a condition for its assistance. What reforms? Not specified.

No political strategy at all. Instead, a reference to the “prime minister” of Afghanistan. a person/position that does not exist. Reference to “PM” disproves claim to have studied Afghanistan. Shows no understanding of the basis of the National Unity Government. No mention of upcoming Afghan elections. What is the legitimacy of the government supposed to be based on? Do reforms include better elections, or does opposition to nation building or democracy support mean the US no longer supports elections?

Trump gave a speech that lamented (and blamed Obama for) 16 years of war without victory. He then proposed a set of incoherent slogans in which nationalism with interventionism are side by side but never reconciled.

Rhetoric against Pakistan will please Afghans and Indians, and Pakistan deserves it. But it will not be effective.

This is a formula for decades more war w/o victory until a crisis forces withdrawal, or the US leaves, blaming Afghans for not meeting “conditions.”

Reposted from Twitter, starts here:

Link to tweet

--------------------

Not that there are any good strategies in Afghanistan, but this is not a good plan, and will get more Americans killed. It deserves to be taken more seriously.