Why Trump will not leave Afghanistan

There has been talk in the White House about leaving Afghanistan altogether. But Trump will not leave Afghanistan.

This ploy by Trump - suggesting to leave Afghanistan - is to get his cabinet to think seriously about how to win the war there. Threatening to pull out puts their toes to the fire and forces them to come up with a different solution.

Some progress has been made in Afghan War policy. Trump has escalated strikes on the Taliban and the Islamic State of Afghanistan; policy reviews have included criticism of Pakistan's double game, making sure Afghanistan does not become another client state of Iran or Russia and, crucially, given the United States an economic reason to stay in Afghanistan: minerals, which the Taliban make part of their living off.

What should be undeniable - but currently is not - is that the Taliban can be beaten so long as their economic supply is strangled and border control between Afghanistan and Pakistan is strengthened. Most of the money the Taliban makes is from narcotics, secondly from minerals - if both of these fell into the hands of the government, this would make the difference needed to push tribes away from supporting the Taliban and back to the government.

In fact, narcotics in the hands of the Afghan and US forces could go some way to destabilizing Iran if they were sold to Iranians on the black market.

Trump will not leave Afghanistan because to leave would be to do exactly what Obama did with Iraq in 2011, something Trump campaigned against. Winning a Bush-era war where Obama could not would be icing on the cake for Trump's Presidency.

In any case, the US staying in Afghanistan is good for the Middle-East. It keeps the US military industrial complex churning, allows Russia more influence in countries like Syria, Libya and, in the future, Yemen, and deprives Iran, Al-Qaeda and ISIS a safe haven in another country.

But, as Trump well knows, the Afghan war must be won, or else Afghanistan will become the US' next Vietnam. And Trump will do everything he can to make sure that doesn't happen, for veterans and for America First.

Why Pakistan is an enemy of the US

The Pakistani government has been an enemy of the United States.

Nuclear armed, the Pakistani government gives regular funding and sanctuary to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants. Osama Bin Laden himself was found in Pakistan.

Pakistan is the reason why the Afghan War has dragged on for so long. Terrified of an independent Afghanistan, Pakistan has been continually funding the Taliban, because so long as Afghanistan is a weak nation, Pakistan is strong and India can be held at bay.

Indian dominance terrifies Pakistan more than anything else. But the US is getting tired of Pakistan playing a double-game and, under Trump, expect US-Indian-Afghani relations to improve.

So long as the Pakistan problem is not dealt with, the Afghan war will never end. The only way to end the Afghan War is to step up Afghani-Pakistani border control between to prevent any members of the Taliban from getting into or out of either country.

Immense pressure needs to be applied on Pakistan to force it to sever ties with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda-linked militants.

Russia, for example, already showed how to do this with Turkey: in Syria, Russian air power dominated the Turkish-backed rebels and forced them to retreat on almost every front. Turkey then shot down a Russian jet and in response Russia escalated its campaign against the rebels and severed all ties with Turkey. Turkey then repaired ties with both Russia and the Assad Government when it realised its previous foreign policy had completely failed and it was at risk at losing even more outright with the Kurds on its border.

Pakistan needs America much more than America needs Pakistan. Should America move to annihilate the Taliban, increase Afghani-Pakistani border security and increase US-Indian-Afghani ties, Pakistan will come to the negotiating table and even sever ties with the Taliban. But it will only do so if the US shows military might and crushes Pakistani proxies completely.

This is why it seems Trump's regional approach to Afghanistan may succeed where Obama's and Bush's did not. Trump may win the Afghan war by forcing Pakistan to stop acting as an enemy of the US.

Trump reaffirms support to Afghanistan

For more information, see the link below:

http://www.khaama.com/trump-speaks-with-president-ghani-after-deadly-kabul-explosion-02839



In the wake of the ISIS terror attack on Kabul which left 80 people dead, Trump has rung Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and reaffirmed US support of the government and the commitment to ending terrorism there.

Trump ran an historic Presidential campaign, in which his slogan was often "America First." There are those who are wondering how getting tangled back in the Afghan quagmire benefits the US and whether Trump should just withdraw from the country altogether.

I say no. I would be glad for Trump to stay in Afghanistan, the reason being that military resources tied up in both Afghanistan and Iraq are less spared for other military temptations, such as in Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya or North Korea. Trump starting new wars while withdrawing from old ones, as Obama did, would be a very dark and foolish idea.

Better would be for Trump to pass up on newer military opportunities (such as temptations in Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya or North Korea) in favour of winning the old ones. One of the things Trump spoke of on the campaign trail was "winning" and "winning big." It would, therefore, stick with Trump's campaign rhetoric if he stayed in Afghanistan to win the war by rapidly changing the conditions upon which said war is played on.

The Trump Administration has been all too willing to do that. In the last 6 months, the Afghan question has been carefully studied and pondered in the hope of finding a way to win the war there. While rapidly defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Trump has taken his time regarding Afghanistan to make sure nothing rash is done there.

Not only has there been careful and deliberate thinking about the Afghan question - Pakistan has been sharply slapped on the wrist for supporting the Taliban. They have lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the US - more recently, in his historic counter-terrorism speech in Saudi Arabia, Trump did not even mention Pakistan as a partner. The Trump Administration has been clearly sending signals to Pakistan that, should they remain in implicit support of the Taliban, they would lose the US as a close ally.

This reaffirmation of support for the Afghan government does not suggest a neo-con change in Trump - rather, it represents an entirely different policy to Obama: seeking to win old wars, not start new ones.

Macron signals openness to Haftar Al-Khalifa

Macron's French Administration has signaled that Haftar Al-Khalifa and the Libyan National Army are part of the solution:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-libya-idUSKCN18E2UU

With all the sabre-rattling going on over Ukraine and Syria between Russia and Europe, it is interesting that some European countries are willing to work with Russian goals for stability, such as in Libya. This willingness would likely benefit Europe enormously, as a stable Libya means less economic migrants from North Africa.

This shows that, in many ways, Emmanuel Macron parallels Obama, in being unwilling to play the Establishment handbook at every step of the way. Macron willing to cede power to Russia in Libya is reminiscent of Obama refusing to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

This is terrific news for Libya. The Libyan National Army and Haftar Al-Khalifa are certainly stabilizing forces in the Arab country, and France is finally willing to embrace pragmatism to see Arab countries like Libya reach stability.

No planned NATO surge in Afghanistan

In his meeting with NATO partners in Brussels, Trump did not call for a surge of NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Trump did scold allies for not spending their 2% of the nations' budgets on defense and, as a result, did not enunciate support for article 5, which states that the US would come to the aid of any NATO ally attacked. Both NATO allies and Trump stayed quiet on Russia, and only reached agreement on disapproval for Russian action in Ukraine. This likely means that Trump still does not support the ousting of Bashar Al-Assad, though other members of his Administration wish it were so.

They did however reach consensus on NATO putting its resources into the fight against the Islamic State, which suggests Trump's priority is still the utter destruction of ISIS over and above defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Trump's Afghanistan policy is taking longer and longer to get finalized, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying it would likely take a couple more weeks. This is good news, as a fleshed-out Afghanistan policy is more likely to bring the war to a necessary conclusion.

However, dangerous parallels are emerging between the Afghan War and the Vietnam War. Unless Trump does something to bring the war to its conclusion, the Afghan War may be lost as shamefully as the Vietnam War was.

Russia and Yemen

I have bad news for Saudi Arabia: Russia is interested in Yemen.

Russia is propagating the awful carnage going on in Yemen, and doing so from a pro-Houthi stance. As America is withdrawing from the Middle-East and being sick of being involved in an endless cycle of wars, Russia seeks to fill the void in strategic countries.

Syria has been Russia's most obvious target, with Russia shoring up Bashar Al-Assad's forces. Russia now has a complete monopoly on Syria, ranging from military bases to even business investments in the country.

Less well known has been the Russian-Egyptian alliance in Libya in support of Haftar Al-Khalifa. They are supporting Al-Khalifa to make him the next Arab strongman and to deny terrorists a safe haven there.

In its telling of the news, Russia has shown support for the Houthis and Ali Abdullah Saleh and want to make sure that Yemen does not fall into the same chaos as Iraq did. Limited by Iraq and Afghanistan, should Russia move to act decisively in Yemen, America will be forced to watch from the sidelines. For America, Yemen - and even Saudi Arabia - is just not worth it.

But Russia is unlikely to act in Yemen for now. More likely is that Russia will play the long game and only intervene after Syria and Libya are stabilized and after Saudi options for Yemen are exhausted.

Such a defeat by Russia for the Saudis would be utterly humiliating, and crush Saudi dreams that Mohammed Bin Salman is anything other than the most foolish leader to have ever ruled the kingdom. Should Russia stabilize Syria, Libya and Yemen and should America stay out of Yemen, Saudi relations with other countries will be irrevocably severed, and instability will creep ever closer to the Arabian Gulf.

Trump's support for Saudi War on Yemen

How much does the Trump Administration support the Saudi War on Yemen?

The Trump Administration says Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is priority number 1, but clearly a Houthi-controlled Yemen (which would be the fastest way to crush AQAP) is also antithetical to Saudi interest, and therefore antithetical to "American interest."

It looks as if Jim Mattis, Trump's Secretary of Defense, has been given the lead regarding Saudi-American relations and Yemen. He maintains that the Houthis are Iran-backed. He also maintains that military pressure on the Houthis could bring them to the negotiating table.

However, their thinking is flawed for a few reasons. First, Al-Qaeda will always exist in Yemen without a strong government, and the only government strong enough to defeat Al-Qaeda is the government controlled by Saleh and the Houthis. Second, Iran only gave weapons to the Houthis after Saudi Arabia started bombing them, so Saudi has brought this dilemma largely on themselves.

Third, it is very unlikely the Saudi campaign will bring the Houthis to the negotiating table - more likely is that Saudi Arabia will be forced to prolong the Yemen conflict to the bankruptcy of their own country, leading Saudi Arabia into the instability its neighbours share.

Trump's support of the Saudi war on Yemen is limited to shared intelligence and assisting Saudi in their airstrikes. However, the Administration is clearly giving more help to Saudi Arabia than Obama did, which is worrying.

Ultimately, it looks as if terrorism will shrink in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Afghanistan due to Trump policy, but will increase in Yemen and, subsequently, in Saudi Arabia. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula will likely become a monster as large as ISIS was in 2014 and will likely enter Saudi Arabia from the south. Should Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula arrive on Saudi's southern doorstep, it will trigger a wider war in Saudi Arabia. ISIS will come back to life, but instead of in Syria and Iraq, in Saudi's northern, eastern and central regions.

Trump's not perfect. And, so far, Trump's willingness to let Saudi do what it wants in Yemen is more disappointing than anything he has done - except strike Assad's airport in Syria.