• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trumps Afghanistan Policy Statement

Lord Tammerlain

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
30,743
Reaction score
15,055
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Overall a fairly good speech, and many good points and ideas.

However, I see some serious issues with some of the main changes to the Afghanistan policy he has laid out

1. Pushing Pakistan on changes, not likely to happen. Pakistan uses Afghanistan for strategic depth. It is a safe area that Pakistan does not need to worry about. The US really needs to have Pakistan's support in order to supply US soldiers in Afghanistan, to allow the use of Pakistani airspace for US planes. The only other access the US would have to Afghan territory is through central Asia over Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan a very costly, unstable and long route. Push Pakistan to much, ignore Pakistan's strategic interests, and watch US access to Afghanistan shut down. Economically and militarily China is becoming more important to Pakistan than the US is. So US influence on Pakistan is growing less and less as time goes by

2. The president wants India to play a bigger part in Afghanistan. Issue being India has no land border with Afghanistan or with a friendly country that borders Afghanistan. That would make any Indian investments very expensive and very unprofitable. Second, that would place Pakistan's main enemy on two sides of Pakistan, not just one. Pakistan will do what it can to prevent that from occurring as it would place it at a serious strategic disadvantage.


Those are the two main issues that I see with the presidents plan as stated in the speech. The false pretense of nation building has also been dropped
 
Last edited:
Other probable issues with Trump's plan


It is open ended, and is lacking in details. It also drops 'nation building as one of the goals of US policy. Both of these are going to be hard sells to US allies (ie Nato) to increase support for the policy. I am sure that most European countries and Canada are getting tired just as Americans are of the long long war in Afghanistan, with no clear end date or end "state". Meaning a clear and concise "win" condition. Meaning that this war which has been going on now for 16 years or so, has no foreseeable time of completion. If the goal is not to create a free and democratic Afghanistan, I expect the willingness of other countries to expend the lives of their citizens and their "treasure" to be significantly lower.

Overall, expect the US will be in Afghanistan for another 4 years at least if not 16
 
The idea that the corrupt government and military of Afghanistan will suddenly snap to and become our partner, and fully fund their own defense costs (much less any of our $1T assistance to date) is pure BS. We still pay Pakistan to "make nice" even after they harbored UBL and imprisoned the doctor that blew the whistle on his location.

Trump has been had by the idea that "just a bit more US military force" or "international cooperation" will do the trick. He ran on a promise to stop playing nation building games and yet now considers training (and funding?) another nation's military (and local police?) for 15 years not to be nation building. Trump's plan is simply more of the same "hope that Afghanistan's corrupt government and military will change" and is only made "new" because The Donald is now (pretending to be?) in charge.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, 45. We will never win.
 
it's pretty sad when the head of the snake takes the word of the generals & has absolutely no idea WTF is really going on, particularly so, when Trump previously stated that the US should GTF out of Afghannyville

just one more BS politico full of more bull**** than The Hudson is full of ditched aircraft ...............
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea that the corrupt government and military of Afghanistan will suddenly snap to and become our partner, and fully fund their own defense costs (much less any of our $1T assistance to date) is pure BS. We still pay Pakistan to "make nice" even after they harbored UBL and imprisoned the doctor that blew the whistle on his location.

Trump has been had by the idea that "just a bit more US military force" or "international cooperation" will do the trick. He ran on a promise to stop playing nation building games and yet now considers training (and funding?) another nation's military (and local police?) for 15 years not to be nation building. Trump's plan is simply more of the same "hope that Afghanistan's corrupt government and military will change" and is only made "new" because The Donald is now (pretending to be?) in charge.
Click to expand...

I expect the change in nation building is more along the lines of dropping the pretense of trying to create a western style democracy in the country. But it still leaves the US in Afghanistan for years to come, with no "moral authority" as to why they are there

My plan to get out would have been to find a Pashtun warlord who is acceptable to the US and to Pakistan. Who will prevent ISIS or AQ from forming a base in there area of operation. Provide equipment and intel to said warlord and unless he screws up (ie allows AQ or ISIS to operate in territory he controls, leave him alone. Then for areas out of his control send airstrikes against terror targets and help said warlord expand
 
Essentially, Trump has committed to an endless war in Afghanistan. No timelines and no limit to the number of troops. We learned nothing from Vietnam. This is the opposite of what he promised when he ran for office.
 
Trump announces that no information about deployment to Afghanistan will be publicized, but he'll get on Twitter and tell everything everybody wants to know, but's afraid to ask. I bet one can with little effort find a twitter with Trump posting his underwear size.

What a joke.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect the change in nation building is more along the lines of dropping the pretense of trying to create a western style democracy in the country. But it still leaves the US in Afghanistan for years to come, with no "moral authority" as to why they are there

My plan to get out would have been to find a Pashtun warlord who is acceptable to the US and to Pakistan. Who will prevent ISIS or AQ from forming a base in there area of operation. Provide equipment and intel to said warlord and unless he screws up (ie allows AQ or ISIS to operate in territory he controls, leave him alone. Then for areas out of his control send airstrikes against terror targets and help said warlord expand
Click to expand...

Arguably the best hope for uniting Afghanistan was Ahmad Shah Massoud, and he was assasinated 16 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Shah_Massoud
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I expect the change in nation building is more along the lines of dropping the pretense of trying to create a western style democracy in the country. But it still leaves the US in Afghanistan for years to come, with no "moral authority" as to why they are there

My plan to get out would have been to find a Pashtun warlord who is acceptable to the US and to Pakistan. Who will prevent ISIS or AQ from forming a base in there area of operation. Provide equipment and intel to said warlord and unless he screws up (ie allows AQ or ISIS to operate in territory he controls, leave him alone. Then for areas out of his control send airstrikes against terror targets and help said warlord expand
Click to expand...

I have no idea how many "warlords" that your plan would amount to, even initially, but the temptation of a "warlord" to expand their territory (thus their US "assistance" income) would be tremendous. That is the problem with "tribal" arraignments and the use of US funds to support "warlords".
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I have no idea how many "warlords" that your plan would amount to, even initially, but the temptation of a "warlord" to expand their territory (thus their US "assistance" income) would be tremendous. That is the problem with "tribal" arraignments and the use of US funds to support "warlords".
Click to expand...

If the end goal was one Afghanistan, then it would have to be one warlord, who would expand to have overall control of the entire country. Of course such control in Afghanistan was done like a feudal system of delegating control to certain areas to those "loyal" to the top warlord. As a means to have Tajiks part of the government as well. I believe between the Tajiks and Pashtuns you have a majority of the population
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
If the end goal was one Afghanistan, then it would have to be one warlord, who would expand to have overall control of the entire country. Of course such control in Afghanistan was done like a feudal system of delegating control to certain areas to those "loyal" to the top warlord. As a means to have Tajiks part of the government as well. I believe between the Tajiks and Pashtuns you have a majority of the population
Click to expand...

If that is the end goal then it is definitely a nation building plan. Trump's latest stated end goal was two-fold - eliminate (20?) terrorist groups and not let international boundaries (parts of Pakistan?) stop the US military from entering to do so. Unlike Trump's campaign "plans" he now seems to want to further expand the areas involved in the global war on terror - clearly adding Syria and Pakistan to Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
The populist demagogue who promised to get out of Afghanistan has capitulated to the US deep-establishment and the military/security-industrial-complex. Now he will cooperate to continue and expand the Forever War, further endangering US forces and further pauperising US taxpayers. So Trump voters get the worst of what they voted for combined with the worst of what they voted against. The US is no longer a democracy in anything but name, it is a corporatist-controlled oligarchy which lives like a parasite off the peoples' coins and spreads war and ruin for profit and influence. What have you become, America?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Nice speech, he's a good actor, like Reagan, this is why we hired him.

This is what a President should be, a good figurehead, able to give good speeches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom