Brian M Downing
Hard on the heels of announcing a complete withdrawal of the 2,000 GIs in Syria, President Trump has ordered half the 14,000 US troops out of Afghanistan. The Syrian move led to dismay in many quarters. Secretary of Defense Mattis resigned because of it, at least in part, and Brett McGurk, head of the campaign against ISIL, followed suit.
Dismay continues as the president signals displeasure with the Federal Reserve Board chief he appointed only last February. Already shaky markets headed south again. Business leaders and foreign policy hands alike worry about the president’s next move. Concern should be joined with consideration of the advantages of leaving Afghanistan.
The decision
The reasoning behind the Afghan pullout is unclear and may well remain so forever. The president’s public statements and even his memoirs are unlikely to shed much light.
News sources call the Syrian and Afghan moves signs of growing “isolationism” but this stems from partisanship and misunderstanding of the term. The US is not leaving any bases in Europe, the Persian Gulf, or East Asia. Nor is the navy losing any carrier groups. With bases in over 80 countries, the US has a long way to go before even approaching isolationism.
Are the pullouts related to fiscal concerns? Deficits are soaring and the debt is nearing $20 trillion. But the administration has not shown concern with fiscal matters and in any event leaving Syria and Afghanistan will have little effect on the debt.
In August 2017 the president stated that his instinct was to pull out of Afghanistan but on deliberation with security experts, he opted to increase troop levels. The recent decision may reveal an erratic temperament and an emerging mistrust of the military. Since 2017, he’s dismissed three generals from his high council – McMaster, Kelly, and Mattis. The military, the president may now realize, will never admit the job in Afghanistan cannot be done. A businessman might be able to recognize a nonperforming asset – and liquidate it.
The asset
Next year the US may send young soldiers into Afghanistan who hadn’t been born when the 9/11 attacks took place and the first troops went in. Since then, generals and strategies have come and gone but the Taliban have slowly gained strength.
The initial move into Afghanistan was intended to destroy the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks – al Qaeda. But the war has changed into an insurgency against the Taliban. Engagements with al Qaeda troops are infrequent. Osama bin Laden is dead, but al Qaeda is still there.
The war is unwinnable and even continued stalemate is looking tenuous as outposts and districts continue to fall. Government, from the president in Kabul to administrators in most districts, is irremediably corrupt and incompetent. The army is plagued by ethnic tensions and an officer corps chosen by connections not achievements.
Taliban insurgents receive aid from Pakistan, Russia, and Iran. Pakistan sees the Taliban as allies against India. Russia and Iran see them as allies in bleeding the US. The Taliban play their roles in foreign strategies quite well.
The benefits
A sudden perhaps impulsive withdrawal from Afghanistan could bring the collapse of both army and state. The announced partial pullout is causing shudders throughout the country. It may also be causing shudders in Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan. The first three are adversaries, the fourth a duplicitous ally at best.
In the face of a gradual pullout the four countries will be forced to assume responsibilities. China has billions of dollars in investments. All four are gravely concerned with the spread of Islamist militancy. And all four will have to assume the burden of supporting a government in Kabul, countering Islamist militancy, bickering over each other’s contributions to the effort, and trying to come up with a strategy that won’t take another 17 years to bring results.
• • •
Adam Smith noted that the ambition of business people inadvertently brings benefit to the nation. And Hegel noted that the vanity of Napoleon broke down outdated institutions and advanced the march of reason. Perhaps something like that will work out in our foreign policy.
© 2018 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.