简体中文
By APD Commentator Hu Xiaodao
(Translated by Ye Shan)
The long-running debate in the United States over the Afghanistan issue has recently gathered more steam. Blackwater Worldwide founder Eric Prince revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump is considering sending more than 5,000 mercenaries to Afghanistan in a bid to cut military cost, a move described as “desperate and foolish” by Russian special envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kablov.
Moreover, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in a report that in the past 25 years the United States has provided the Afghan security forces with 76 billion U.S. dollars’ worth of aid. However, Afghanistan’s military capability remains low now.
Since October 2001, U.S. military action in Afghanistan has last 16 years. The Trump administration has not come up with a new Afghanistan strategy after more than six months in power, which has sparked a lot of speculation. According to the Washington Post, Trump has asked National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster repeatedly why America cannot win the Afghan war and why America is not able to get rid of the problem.
Trump is reportedly greatly discontented about the fact that the U.S. military has not gained any breakthroughs after his inauguration, and also dissatisfied with the performance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the Afghan battlefield. On the one hand, he wants to win the war to show a tough stance on anti-terrorist actions. On the other hand, he hopes to get away from the trouble to avoid heavy financial burdens. Based on U.S. officials’ remarks and the current circumstances in Afghanistan, Trump has three major options in the future:
Option One: peace talks after victory.
The strategy has gained the support of the U.S. military and McMaster. It includes reserving an anti-terrorist army on a certain scale in Afghanistan to assist the security forces to gain substantial victories, improve credibility of the Afghan government and contain Pakistan’s support to the Taliban, so as to facilitate peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.
The U.S. military will need to increase thousands of troops in Afghanistan, give guidance in military actions and reform leadership system in the Afghan security forces to counter corruption. McMaster and some others think that within Trump’s first administration the U.S. army will gain an absolute advantage in battlefield.
However, the Afghan security forces cannot hold the territory even if they retake it from the Taliban. The United States’ tough stance against Pakistan may draw retaliation from the Taliban. What’s more, Iran, Russia and some other countries may increase support to the Taliban, adding complication to the anti-terrorist situation in the future.
Option Two: immediate peace talks.
According to this strategy, the United States needs to improve relations with the Taliban to facilitate peace talks with the Afghan government, urge the Afghan government to build a united government with the Taliban, and invite China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and some other countries to solve the problem together in a peaceful way. The U.S. military will also need to maintain its deterrence over the Taliban to preserve the overall situation.
However, this action may highly likely be treated as fear by the Taliban, which may continue battling the U.S. army. The United States and the Afghan government will remain at a disadvantage, and Afghanistan will likely continue to breed terrorism even if peace talks are held. The strategy will also decrease the U.S. influence in Afghanistan and even in Central Asia.
Option Three: a protracted war.
The United States needs to advance its Afghan strategy to assist the country’s government in fighting the Taliban until the terrorist threat is destroyed. But the United States may suffer a great loss of personnel and property in a prolonged war. The strategy will also likely meet with broad opposition at home and add danger to the U.S. army. Its long-term military existence in Afghanistan may escalate tension among major powers in Central Asia.
Given the current circumstances, military interference is not a fundamental approach to terrorism in Afghanistan due to the complication of its geographic environment, people and society. The United States needs to innovate in its tactics, gain support from the Afghan and Pakistani governments, and try to resolve the conflicts between Western democracy and Islamic civilization as well as between its military actions and nationalism. It is fair to say that Trump’s strategy with the Afghanistan issue will be a pivotal factor in the United States’ global anti-terrorist cause.
Hu Xiaodao is a military commentator specializing in foreign military movements and counter-terrorism. He has published hundreds of articles on military periodicals in China.
(ASIA PACIFIC DAILY)
