The Trump Doctrine Meets Afghanistan

 

“We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.” That line sums up the Trump Doctrine outlined in the President’s Monday night address on Afghanistan.

In Trump’s delivery, you could hear the frustration with the 17-year war now overseen by three presidents. Most Republicans long ago dropped the Bush dream of transforming the graveyard of empires into a modern democracy, while Democrats simply ignored the body counts stacking up under Obama.

Despite Trump’s campaign promises to end the project entirely, James Mattis, et al., convinced him to give them one more try.

After heaping praise on the US military, Trump outlined his three fundamental interests for Afghanistan: an honorable and enduring outcome, avoiding the disaster of an Obama-style rapid exit, and ensuring the region’s terror doesn’t follow us home.

In a long-overdue move, Trump called out Pakistan’s harboring of terrorists and demanded they join the fight. He praised India’s partnership (a move sure to annoy Islamabad) but asked for more assistance, especially financial.

He refused to list troop numbers or timetables, but is loosening the reins on the military to fight the enemy. “My administration will ensure that you, the brave defenders of the American people, will have the necessary tools and rules of engagement to make this strategy work, and work effectively, and work quickly,” he said.

Neocon critics Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio loved the speech while Trump’s anti-globalist fans loathed it. But Trump’s voting base will support the move. While the “bring our troops home” message inspired a lot of campaign think-pieces, there’s a strong Jacksonian hunger for his “bomb the [expletive] out of ’em” promise.

Deploying troops in the greater middle east isn’t as unpopular as tying the troops’ hands once they’re there. If our military is in theater, let them do their job.

With Gen. Mattis at the helm, there’s confidence we will do just that.

Published in Foreign Policy, Islamist Terrorism, Military, Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 104 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Jon,

    If we accept as a premise that withdrawing from the world won’t work either (Obama proved that), then this is the most realistic policy. No Nation building we accept political reality. No war zone politics we go in and win period. Stabilize the situation and work with what’s there not what we wish was there. If something good can happen down the road so be it but we have our own interests and our own people to be concerned about first.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #1
  2. Heather Champion Member
    Heather Champion
    @HeatherChampion

    Trump’s voting base will support the move  —

    • #2
  3. Anuschka Inactive
    Anuschka
    @Anuschka

    I approve of the strategy: no timelines, no announcements of troop numbers or actions (despite speculation), no letting them wait us out. No announcing our tactics to the media beforehand. Keep them guessing. Let the military commanders call the shots.

    • #3
  4. Kay of MT Inactive
    Kay of MT
    @KayofMT

    What a great speech, and I will stand behind President Trump’s words. He is actually going to let our military chamber a round in their guns to respond to the evilness.

    • #4
  5. Michael C. Lukehart Inactive
    Michael C. Lukehart
    @MichaelLukehart

    100%

    • #5
  6. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Good speech.

    For context:

    The legend didn’t make it – dark orange is Taliban controlled, beige is Taliban support and red is IS control/support.

    I would love to see a map of Taliban/IS presence across Afghanistan and Pakistan – how much of the NWFP/Tribal Areas it includes along the Afghanistan border?

    What I got from the speech:

    Message to Pakistan’s intelligence service wrt dialing back on using Afghanistan as strategic depth by allying with Taliban groups.  What impact will this have on Pakistan’s internal stability (assuming these groups turn their attention onto a Government that stops collaborating and starts fighting with) and, in turn, on Kashmir?

    Message to India: access to Afghanistan to do development work – and by the by get in behind enemy lines (or at least behind Pakistan, so I guess it’s a message to Pakistan as well) – but you’ll have to pay for this. (Fair.)  Looking at a map – how is India going to get there, if not through Pakistan?  Well here’s one option:

    So perhaps it is a messagette to Iran as well, or at least some foreshadowing?  Am I reading too much into this?

    Message to President Karzai – you’re on notice but we haven’t given up on you yet.

    Message to the Taliban – shape up and you could be part of Government one day. (Surprising. And possibly a paradigm shift moment in settling Afghanistan down.)

    Message to America – we no longer do nation building, so no more of that stuff in Afghanistan, but we still do security, so we will be sending more troops to Afghanstan.

    • #6
  7. Hammer, The Inactive
    Hammer, The
    @RyanM

    I didn’t hear the speech, but based on your recap in the OP, it sounds like he did a good job.

    more of this president, less of the twitter president, and we’ll be headed in about the best direction we can hope for right now.

    • #7
  8. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Immediately after the speech media types, even those on the right, were questioning it.

    Uh, Ben… What part of we ain’t telling you how many don’t you understand?

    And from the ever-reliable-union-thug-turned-journalist Philip Bump:

    See, unless we have a sufficient number of male troops in dresses this thing is going to be a disaster!

    This is what you highlight? This is your pull quote?

    Does anyone remember the press questioning FDR on troop strength for D-Day or the sexual identity of the guys in Higgins boats? “Oooooo, he called Hitler a mean name!”

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, boys and girls. What have we become?

    • #8
  9. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Jon,

    If we accept as a premise that withdrawing from the world won’t work either (Obama proved that), then this is the most realistic policy. No Nation building we accept political reality. No war zone politics we go in and win period. Stabilize the situation and work with what’s there not what we wish was there. If something good can happen down the road so be it but we have our own interests and our own people to be concerned about first.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Under what plausible metric did Obama “withdraw from the world”. Obama engaged in military action in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Lybia.

    Now you May not like how Obama engaged in those conflicts or his broader foreign policy goals, but it doesn’t help to make specious arguments.

    • #9
  10. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    EJHill (View Comment):
    Immediately after the speech media types, even those on the right, were questioning it.

    Uh, Ben… What part of we ain’t telling you how many don’t you understand?

    And from the ever-reliable-union-thug-turned-journalist Philip Bump:

    See, unless we have a sufficient number of male troops in dresses this thing is going to be a disaster!

    This is what you highlight? This is your pull quote?

    Does anyone remember the press questioning FDR on troop strength for D-Day or the sexual identity of the guys in Higgins boats? “Oooooo, he called Hitler a mean name!”

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, boys and girls. What have we become?

    We should probably wait until we see what the actual plan is before we critique it. Based on the speech it seems this amounts to an order of “Go win this thing”. Good, let the generals sort it out. We can see what the plan is when they come up with it.

    • #10
  11. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    I didn’t hear the speech, but based on your recap in the OP, it sounds like he did a good job.

    more of this president, less of the twitter president, and we’ll be headed in about the best direction we can hope for right now.

    I wouldn’t count on him getting any better. This is the usual Trump pattern. We are now on the “does something normal leg”. People will talk about pivots and new focus then in two weeks it will be back to crazy town.

     

    • #11
  12. Heather Champion Member
    Heather Champion
    @HeatherChampion

    “We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists.”

    Lets talk about LBJ, Viet Nam, and ignoring the generals.

     

    • #12
  13. Mike Rapkoch Member
    Mike Rapkoch
    @MikeRapkoch

    Here’s a novel idea: Could Trump, his generals, or anyone, anywhere explain what victory will look like? Or do we just have to guess again. Spend another trillion. Watch our troops die. And then, when we still haven’t gotten anywhere, come up with a new strategy to justify more of the same. If I had eligible sons I would strongly advise them to stay clear of the recruiter’s office. I am very happy my daughter decided against a career in the Navy. I don’t give a rip about Trumps generals, and am in fact not particularly happy to see career military men in positions of authority that are supposed to remain under civilian control, you know, cuz, you know, that whole Constitution thing.

    I have long believed that Vietnam was an honorable war, and that the decision to betray South Vietnam was among the darkest moments in American history. That was, as I say, a betrayal. The new Afghanistan plan seems to be pointless, just another justification without a rational goal.

    As for “killing terrorists,” since we can safely assume that terrorists will always be with us, there seems little point in sending more and more troops (and this isn’t going to be the end of it, just the first step towards something much biglier) in a far off land, when we could allocate the money and manpower to protecting our shores and national interests. Gee, I thought that was Trump’s plan all along. Now he’s thrown his penny in, next up a pound.

    Is this what Trump supporters voted for?

    • #13
  14. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    Although I know this is anathema to ‘reporters’ and commentators, those who would like to see and/or read the speech for themselves can find it here:

    with a transcript here.

    • #14
  15. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Mike Rapkoch (View Comment):
    The new Afghanistan plan seems to be pointless, just another justification without a rational goal.

    The point is to stop a terrorist supporting Taliban government. That is a hugely important point. But it still takes too much money and too many lives.

    • #15
  16. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    This is the key.  Serious policy.  He has excellent people around him.  They should just craft sound policy around his themes and write speeches outlining what it is.  He should do the same on every key element in his portfolio, health, taxes, deregulation and where necessary  which is most things other than military and foreign policy, legislative outlines built around key non negotiable principles.   If he does this he’ll have a successful presidency.  Conservatives and Trump supporters and eventually most Republicans will support him.  Democrats and dug in never Trumpers who can’t change will just become irrelevant which is appropriate as they are simply not serous people.

    • #16
  17. Aaron Miller Inactive
    Aaron Miller
    @AaronMiller

    Jon Gabriel, Ed.: If our military is in theater, let them do their job.

    In perpetuity, it seems. I share Mike’s want of goals. If Aghanistan isn’t the hub of terror, it will be somewhere else… especially as we continue to coddle the financiers of jihadist ideology.

    Yet again, Trump proves to be just another president despite the rampant hysteria.

    • #17
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (View Comment):
    I didn’t hear the speech, but based on your recap in the OP, it sounds like he did a good job.

    more of this president, less of the twitter president, and we’ll be headed in about the best direction we can hope for right now.

    I wouldn’t count on him getting any better. This is the usual Trump pattern. We are now on the “does something normal leg”. People will talk about pivots and new focus then in two weeks it will be back to crazy town.

    Ha! It’s the same President – speeches like this are for one constituency (and hopefully reflect real policy), the twitter binges are for another.  That’s politics – no point asking for consistency without providing the Republicans a consistent voter pool rather than the grossly diverse one they have now. imho.

    • #18
  19. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Imagine … if you will … what this speech might have been, if it had been given by …

    President Clinton II

    • #19
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Mike Rapkoch (View Comment):
    Here’s a novel idea: Could Trump, his generals, or anyone, anywhere explain what victory will look like?

    Victory in Afghanistan is an allied Afghan Government which is strong enough to stop the Taliban or IS using its territory as a launch pad against American interests.

    It isn’t spelled out because it may not look pretty.

    Iow – not a democracy, possibly a theocracy, stoning women for adultery every weekend and perhaps conducting pogroms against religious minories.

    Think a poor Saudi Arabia.  But without the oil Saudi would not be stable (ish), and this new dispensation certainly won’t be.  Perhaps it’s just a matter of managing expectations?

    (Btw, I don’t believe for one minute that the US is indifferent to the kind of Government people in Afghanistan acquiesce to.  The President has just set out the new parameters of what is acceptable.)

    • #20
  21. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Mike Rapkoch (View Comment):
    Here’s a novel idea: Could Trump, his generals, or anyone, anywhere explain what victory will look like?

    Victory in Afghanistan is an allied Afghan Government which is strong enough to stop the Taliban or IS using its territory as a launch pad against American interests.

    It isn’t spelled out because it may not look pretty.

    Iow – not a democracy, possibly a theocracy, stoning women for adultery every weekend and perhaps conducting pogroms against religious minories.

    Think a poor Saudi Arabia. But without the oil Saudi would not be stable (ish), and this new dispensation certainly won’t be. Perhaps it’s just a matter of managing expectations?

    (Btw, I don’t believe for one minute that the US is indifferent to the kind of Government people in Afghanistan acquiesce to. The President has just set out the new parameters of what is acceptable.)

    We could go old school, and install a military dictator.

    • #21
  22. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Too expensive.

    • #22
  23. Tom Meyer, Common Citizen Member
    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen
    @tommeyer

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    We should probably wait until we see what the actual plan is before we critique it. Based on the speech it seems this amounts to an order of “Go win this thing”. Good, let the generals sort it out. We can see what the plan is when they come up with it.

    You mean we should judge Trump more on what he does, rather than what he says? I thought that only applied when he says things his critics don’t like! ?

    • #23
  24. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Color me skeptical.

    What I’ve heard and read, is the deployment of a bunch of repurposed Vietnam tropes about military expertise, tied hands etc, as arguments for expanded involvement.

    My hope is the President will hold the military and diplomats (they better be in the fight too!) to specific measurable objectives within a defined schedule. A time where the President can say, “You committed to accomplishing X, Y, and Z by this date. You haven’t. Put down the shovel!”

     

    • #24
  25. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    This is an enormous mistake driven by the generals. How can Trump not see through this?

    Afghanistan is a tribal society. We are the enemy. The infidels. We have no business there stirring up the pot. There is no way we will ever win. Get out.

    • #25
  26. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Tom Meyer, Common Citizen (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    We should probably wait until we see what the actual plan is before we critique it. Based on the speech it seems this amounts to an order of “Go win this thing”. Good, let the generals sort it out. We can see what the plan is when they come up with it.

    You mean we should judge Trump more on what he does, rather than what he says? I thought that only applied when he says things his critics don’t like! ?

    Shhhhh stop ruining a perfectly good double standard.

    • #26
  27. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has spent months bashing President Trump for delaying a new Afghanistan strategy, on Monday night praised him for “taking a big step in the right direction” after his address on the path forward.

    “I commend President Trump for taking a big step in the right direction with the new strategy for Afghanistan,” the Senate Armed Services chairman said in a statement. “The unfortunate truth is that this strategy is long overdue, and in the interim, the Taliban have made dangerous inroads. Nevertheless, I believe the President is now moving us well beyond the prior administration’s failed strategy of merely postponing defeat.”” – The Hill

    Any more confirmation that this is a huge, huge mistake? When McCain praises it, you know it is total [expletive].

    • #27
  28. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    The MFM is whining that Trump’s plan is “short on details,” which is… by coincidence I’m sure… the DNC talking point.

    These same media, when Bill Clinton would say something like, “Here’s how we’re going to fix education. We’re going to raise teacher standards, we’re going to improve classrooms, we’re going to improve curriculums, we’re gonna improve the quality of instruction, and we’re gonna make kids smarter” would praise him for laying out a “detailed five-part strategy for education reform.”

    • #28
  29. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):
    The MFM is whining that Trump’s plan is “short on details,” which is… by coincidence I’m sure… the DNC talking point.

    These same media, when Bill Clinton would say something like, “Here’s how we’re going to fix education. We’re going to raise teacher standards, we’re going to improve classrooms, we’re going to improve curriculums, we’re gonna improve the quality of instruction, and we’re gonna make kids smarter” would praise him for laying out a “detailed five-part strategy for education reform.”

    That’s true though isn’t it? I’ve listened to and read the speech and there aren’t many details.

    • #29
  30. Columbo Inactive
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):
    The MFM is whining that Trump’s plan is “short on details,” which is… by coincidence I’m sure… the DNC talking point.

    These same media, when Bill Clinton would say something like, “Here’s how we’re going to fix education. We’re going to raise teacher standards, we’re going to improve classrooms, we’re going to improve curriculums, we’re gonna improve the quality of instruction, and we’re gonna make kids smarter” would praise him for laying out a “detailed five-part strategy for education reform.”

    That’s true though isn’t it? I’ve listened to and read the speech and there aren’t many details.

    It’s a war plan being executed by General Mattis. Of course it will be short on details. From the OP:

    Deploying troops in the greater middle east isn’t as unpopular as tying the troops’ hands once they’re there. If our military is in theater, let them do their job.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.