Trump's Afghan Adios - WSJ Editorial
President Trump is expected to order another troop reduction in Afghanistan—with a deadline conveniently timed just before he is likely to leave office on Jan. 20. We wish there was some justification other than the looming end of his Presidency. There’s certainly no military rationale for reducing U.S. forces to 2,500. The current 4,500 level was recommended earlier this year by Army Gen. Scott Miller, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, when Mr. Trump demanded a reduction from 8,000. The 2,500 looks like a number pulled out of a Pentagon helmet as an arbitrary alternative to the disastrous total pullout Mr. Trump was contemplating last week.
The smaller force by Jan. 15 means something will have to give in the U.S. mission that includes support for Afghan forces, coordinating the use of air power, intelligence gathering, and counterterror operations against al Qaeda and Islamic State. At some point, low troop levels become a risk to U.S. soldiers because they can’t supply adequate force protection.
Mr. Trump says it’s time to go because we’ve been there 19 years, and that’s enough. But that’s a political notion put into his head by the loyalists he has placed in charge of the Pentagon in the last few days. The rushed reduction in forces will reinforce the Taliban’s view that they needn’t compromise in negotiations with the Afghan government because the Americans are desperate to depart.
A clear-eyed view of the stakes came Monday on the Senate floor from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. “A rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan now would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm. Violence affecting Afghans is still rampant. The Taliban is not abiding by the conditions of the so-called peace deal,” Mr. McConnell said. “The consequences of a premature American exit would likely be even worse than President Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011, which fueled the rise of ISIS and a new round of global terrorism. It would be reminiscent of the humiliating American departure from Saigon in 1975.”
The Republican leader added: “We’d be abandoning our partners in Afghanistan, the brave Afghans who are fighting the terrorists and destroying the government’s leverage in their talks with the Taliban to end the fighting. Our retreat would embolden the Taliban, especially the deadly Haqqani wing, and risk plunging Afghan women and girls back into what they experienced in the 1990s. It would hand a weakened and scattered al Qaeda a big propaganda victory and a renewed safe haven for plotting attacks against America. And it would be welcome news to Iran, which has long provided arms and support to the Taliban and explicitly seeks our retreat from the Middle East.”
Joe Biden’s advisers have said they favor keeping a residual force in Afghanistan, but they can’t know how many troops that requires until they consult with Gen. Miller and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley. Let’s hope the generals can follow Mr. Trump’s misguided orders in a way that offers Mr. Biden more options than retreat after he’s in the White House.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-afghan-sign-off-11605568596 (subscription)
= new reply since forum marked as read
