{"id":42189,"date":"2017-08-22T05:14:33","date_gmt":"2017-08-22T05:14:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/?p=42189"},"modified":"2017-08-22T05:14:33","modified_gmt":"2017-08-22T05:14:33","slug":"trump-announces-new-strategy-for-afghanistan-that-calls-for-a-troop-increase","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.biphoo.com\/bipnews\/news\/trump-announces-new-strategy-for-afghanistan-that-calls-for-a-troop-increase.html","title":{"rendered":"Trump announces new strategy for Afghanistan that calls for a troop increase"},"content":{"rendered":"

Trump announces new strategy for Afghanistan that calls for a troop increase<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/h2>\n

Trump announces new strategy for Afghanistan that calls for a troop increase:- President Trump outlined a revised vision for the U.S. war in Afghanistan on Monday, pledging to end a strategy of \u201cnation-building\u201d and instead institute a policy aimed more squarely at addressing the terrorist threat that emanates from the region.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI share the American people\u2019s frustration,\u201d he said. \u201cI also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money \u2014 and, most importantly, lives \u2014 trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But Trump provided few specifics about his policy and how much the U.S. military commitment in the region would increase as a result, insisting that conditions on the ground would determine troop levels and strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s decision to further commit to the nation\u2019s longest war, rather than withdraw, reflects a significant shift in his approach to Afghanistan since taking office and marks a new willingness to take greater ownership of a protracted conflict that he had long dismissed as a waste of time and resources. As a candidate, Trump denounced Afghanistan as a \u201ctotal disaster\u201d and railed that the costly conflict in Central Asia drained enormous resources at a time of more pressing needs at home for American taxpayers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cMy original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like to follow my instincts,\u201d Trump said in his first prime-time address, delivered from the Fort Myer military base in Arlington, Va. \u201cI heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk of the Oval Office.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s new approach to Afghanistan is the result of a long policy review within his administration that was finalized during a presidential retreat with top advisers at Camp David on Friday.<\/span><\/p>\n

His decision to endorse a Pentagon plan to boost troop levels reflects mounting concern among military leaders that battlefield setbacks for Afghan government forces against the Taliban and al-Qaeda have led to a rapidly deteriorating security situation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Although Trump did not specify how many more troops will be sent to Afghanistan, congressional officials said the administration has told them it will be about 4,000 more than the 8,500 U.S. service members currently in the region.<\/span><\/p>\n

In his speech Monday, Trump laid out a strategy that included pressuring Pakistan to do more to stop terrorists from finding safe haven within its borders. He also said that India would play a greater role in providing economic and developmental support.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump acknowledged that his approach is a departure from his campaign rhetoric, but he said he would prioritize American security over attempting to \u201cdictate\u201d to the Afghan people how to live.<\/span><\/p>\n

He called his approach \u201cprincipled realism\u201d and portrayed it as in keeping with the \u201cAmerica First\u201d approach of his administration. He pledged that U.S. troops would have a clear definition of victory in Afghanistan, but offered only a broad outline of what that would mean.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOur troops will fight to win,\u201d Trump said. \u201cFrom now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over the country, and stopping mass terror attacks against Americans before they emerge.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Hamdullah Mohib, Afghanistan\u2019s ambassador to Washington, said Trump\u2019s message was \u201cexactly what we wanted\u201d because it \u201ctakes into account our country\u2019s needs and constraints. We did not want it to be about troop numbers or time lines, but to conditions on the ground,\u201d he said while visiting Kabul. \u201cWe welcome this strategy that integrates American military power into achieving our shared goals.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Davood Moradian, executive director of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies, said the \u201ctone and narrative\u201d of Trump\u2019s speech was \u201creassuring and uplifting for many of us, because it projects the confidence and resolve which are necessary for our besieged population and exhausted security forces.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

He said Trump was \u201cright in being clear and resolute about Pakistan,\u201d but he also cautioned that having a \u201clegitimate, functioning\u201d government in Kabul, now facing serious internal divisions and external challenges, will be the \u201ckey to implementing\u201d a successful new Washington policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

After taking office, Trump announced that he would delegate authority to the Pentagon to set troop levels. That raised fears among some lawmakers and foreign policy analysts that even a modest initial increase could escalate rapidly and plunge the United States more deeply back into a conflict that has resulted in the deaths of 2,403 Americans.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cAfter the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure, the American people are weary of war without victory,\u201d Trump said. \u201cNowhere is this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Although President Barack Obama did not fulfill his campaign pledge to end the conflict, his administration vastly decreased troop levels from a high of more than 100,000, and shifted remaining forces to a less dangerous training and advisory role.<\/span><\/p>\n

Vice President Pence and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis have advocated for the Pentagon plan to add troops, along with broader diplomatic and economic pressure on regional players, especially Pakistan.<\/span><\/p>\n

Pence began briefing members of Congress about the strategy hours before Trump\u2019s speech.<\/span><\/p>\n

Republican leaders praised the strategy and the deliberate nature of Trump\u2019s thought process.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m actually pleased with the way he went about making this decision,\u201d House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said at a town hall meeting televised by CNN that began immediately after Trump\u2019s remarks. \u201cWe have had a convoluted approach to Afghanistan and I think it\u2019s high time we had a comprehensive approach.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has urged Trump to articulate a new strategy for the region, called the speech \u201clong overdue.\u201d But he praised Trump for shifting the nation away from the Obama administration\u2019s approach.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI believe the President is now moving us well beyond the prior administration\u2019s failed strategy of merely postponing defeat,\u201d McCain said in a statement. \u201cIt is especially important that the newly announced strategy gives no timeline for withdrawal, rather ensures that any decision to reduce our commitment in the future will be based on conditions on the ground.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Democrats criticized Trump for not offering more specifics in his speech.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTonight, the President said he knew what he was getting into and had a plan to go forward. Clearly, he did not,\u201d House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement. \u201cThe President\u2019s announcement is low on details but raises serious questions. When President Trump says there will be no ceiling on the number of troops and no timeline for withdrawal, he is declaring an open-ended commitment of American lives with no accountability to the American people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s task Monday night was magnified by his need to convince his core supporters, many of whom responded to his campaign calls to put \u201cAmerica first\u201d by reducing foreign interventionism in the Middle East and Central Asia. His speech came just days after the departure of chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, who had advocated for replacing U.S. troops with private security contractors.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a nod to concerns among his supporters that his decision marks a retrenchment in Afghanistan, Trump insisted that the United States would not provide \u201cunlimited\u201d support and resources.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOur commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check,\u201d Trump said. \u201cThe government of Afghanistan must carry their share of the military, political, and economic burden.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

But the strategy Trump described Monday night amounted to an open-ended approach, which is likely to worry voters who supported him, in part, because of his promise to scale back the United States\u2019 commitments abroad.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is not the first time Trump has shifted away from his campaign rhetoric about foreign entanglements in his actions as president.<\/span><\/p>\n

He has framed his decisions to use military force \u2014 including Tomahawk missile strikes on an air base in Syria in April after President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons \u2014 around his pledge to be tough on terrorism and direct threats to American security. But before serving as president, he criticized Obama for contemplating military action in Syria in response to Assad\u2019s chemical weapons use.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trump has been acutely aware of the limited options he faces and has blamed his predecessors \u2014 principally Obama \u2014 for leaving him what he described Monday as a \u201cbad and very complex hand.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Citing Obama\u2019s decision to withdraw from Iraq in 2011, Trump said he would not consider such a strategy in Afghanistan.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cA hasty withdrawal will create a vacuum that terrorists, including ISIS and al-Qaeda, would instantly fill,\u201d he said. \u201cWe cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Even before his campaign, Trump was skeptical about the war. \u201cWhen will we stop wasting our money on rebuilding Afghanistan?\u201d he tweeted in 2011. \u201cWe must rebuild our country first.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

As a candidate, he argued for a more isolationist approach to foreign policy. Recent foreign wars, he told his supporters, had drained the United States of blood and treasure at the expense of efforts such as education and infrastructure at home.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSo we\u2019re on track now to spend, listen to this, $6 trillion \u2014 could have rebuilt our country twice \u2014 altogether, on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East,\u201d Trump said during a speech in Cleveland during the campaign. \u201cMeanwhile, massive portions of our country are in a state of total disrepair.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

This argument was a departure from the Republican Party\u2019s hawkish stance on military engagement and the two post-Sept. 11 conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq that began under President George W. Bush. Trump\u2019s stance helped him appeal to some Democratic-leaning voters who were skeptical of the wars and perceived Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton as more hawkish than many in her party.<\/span><\/p>\n

As president, Trump has used bellicose rhetoric to describe his military objectives, even as he has resisted being specific about his plans and objectives. He repeated that pattern in laying out his vision for U.S. engagement in Afghanistan.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cConditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables will guide our actions from now on,\u201d he said. \u201cI will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Within the White House, Bannon\u2019s opposition to sending more troops to Afghanistan helped fuel strife with other Trump aides, including national security adviser H.R. McMaster, who supported the modest troop surge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Bannon had advocated for a proposal to replace U.S. troops with private security contractors, an idea floated by Erik Prince, the founder of the controversial contracting firm Blackwater USA and brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. Military leaders largely opposed the idea, and the White House ruled it out.<\/span><\/p>\n

But foreign policy analysts said Trump\u2019s decision on Afghanistan is tricky because his strategy does not represent a radical departure from the past.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cTo be honest, it\u2019s probably pretty close to what a Hillary Clinton would do,\u201d said Derek Chollet, an assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration who now serves as a defense analyst at the German Marshall Fund.<\/span><\/p>\n

Source:-\u00a0https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/politics\/trump-expected-to-announce-small-troop-increase-in-afghanistan-in-prime-time-address\/2017\/08\/21\/eb3a513e-868a-11e7-a94f-3139abce39f5_story.html?utm_term=.3c4fb3e3b960<\/span><\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t