Process and rashness in our Afghan policy 

Brian M Downing

After a week of speculation, President Trump has ordered significant troop reductions in Afghanistan and Iraq. No word on Syria yet. Orders and rumors of orders have been with us since Candidate Trump called for an end to unwinnable wars. Afghanistan fits the bill.  

However, at least two strikes on Iran and a complete pullout from Syria have been rescinded upon the counsel of generals and advisers. What of our foreign policy machinery’s ability or willingness to face facts in Afghanistan (and elsewhere)? Some cans shouldn’t be kicked down the road any longer.

The decision-making process

Trump took office in January of 2017 and has intermittently ordered important military moves. Few came after going through the foreign-policy machinery in State, Defense, the intelligence community, and the NSC. That isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Those institutions gave their imprimaturs to development programs, escalation, counterinsurgency programs, and reliance on drones in Afghanistan. They also approved invading Iraq because it had WMDs and then thought a pro-western democracy could be built there in short order. Even when the machinery is allowed to work, it often makes lousy goods.

Making important foreign-policy decisions right after an electoral defeat and so close to leaving office invites concern. Saying Trump simply wants to live up to campaign promises would be charitable but promise-keeping might not figure highly in his calculations. He might have acted rashly, in part to worsen the situation for Biden in January. 

Inside Afghanistan 

Whatever process the pullouts went through, what will happen in Afghanistan? The Kabul government is irremediably corrupt, its army is wanting, and the Taliban are consolidating in some areas and expanding in others. 

Trump’s order couldn’t have come as a surprise to Afghan leaders or to our remaining allies there. Nor can our regional adversaries have been taken aback. China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan have been operating in the country for decades, often to the detriment of American and allied troops.

China has been buying up Afghan resources and paying off the government along the way. Russia and Iran have been working with regional chieftains and warlords who mistrust their government, and surreptitiously supporting the Taliban. And of course Pakistan has been aiding the Taliban since the group formed in the mid-1990s. The US security machinery knows this. 

A US pullout would force China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan to assume responsibility for Afghanistan. It’s too close to their territory. They would have to fund the Kabul government, train and advise the army. and fight radical Islam. 

A US exit will be sad and embarrassing. However, it will not pose any real security risk. Indeed, by saddling our adversaries with a costly, unsolvable problem in their backyards, the US will gain appreciable  strategic benefits and US troops, weary of continuous deployments, will have a breather. 

* * *

The foreign-policy machinery knows what China, Russia, Iran, and Pakistan have been doing but continues to plod along, as if something good will one day come. The machinery further knows that continuing our efforts there will not succeed. That’s been clear for years. The next president is unlikely to have the courage or rashness to do what needs to be done – withdraw.

An ill-conceived, poorly thought out, and rash decision to pull out might be the only way to end the nineteen-year war that has cost us almost three thousand lives and a trillion dollars. May our regional adversaries meet with the same can-kicking process. 

© 2020 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.