President Trump’s announcement of the new U.S. strategy for Afghanistan gives badly needed clarity to the Afghan government, the South Asia region and the American people that the U.S. will continue to provide enduring support as a means to prosecute the war on international terrorism. The speech was understandably heavy on military strategy. But it managed to slip in an important recognition of the fundamental role of regional politics, which will be key to eventually ending the war.

U.S. Army Capt. Aaron Daniele sits next to elders from the village of Tieranon in Pashmul, Afghanistan, in an effort to establish an Afghan Local Police unit in their village
U.S. Army Capt. Aaron Daniele sits next to elders from the village of Tieranon in Pashmul, Afghanistan, in an effort to establish an Afghan Local Police unit in their village. Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/Bryan Denton

The speech aimed for a rhetorical shift— away from promoting democracy and ‘nation building,’ toward a strategy of “principled realism.”  In fact, building democracy and governance has never been a core goal of U.S. policy but rather a necessary means to achieving the desired end state of a stable and terrorism-free Afghanistan. Fundamentally, the Trump strategy for Afghanistan continues the prior two administrations’ efforts, with three useful tweaks that build on lessons from the past 16 years.  

First, there will be no calendar deadline for U.S. troops and engagement. Unlike the Obama surge, which was slated to end in 2014, Trump said the new U.S. strategy would be based on conditions on the ground and would aim to eliminate ISIS and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, prevent the Taliban from taking over the Afghan government and prevent terrorist attacks on the U.S. from Afghan soil.

Another departure was to more directly threaten Pakistan with (unspecified) consequences for failing to end safe havens for terrorism. Trump singled out Pakistan’s support to the Taliban and the Haqqani network, which kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.  At the same time, Trump tempered his criticism by offering to forgo U.S. punishment if Pakistan’s leaders “do more” to fight terrorism.  This will require more clear articulation to spur action by Pakistan.

Trump also explicitly included India as part of the regional strategy to stabilize Afghanistan. Unfortunately, his focus was on urging India to step up economic and development support to Afghanistan, rather than the far more important issue of reducing tensions between India and Pakistan.  Improved India-Pakistan relations are needed to make Pakistan feel secure enough to drop support for the Taliban, which Pakistan maintains as a hedge against Indian influence in Afghanistan.

It is too early to say whether this new Afghanistan strategy is really new because the details where the devils lie—specific troop numbers or potential penalties on Pakistan if it fails to deliver, for example—were left for the State Department and the Department of Defense to fill in.

Just after the speech, Secretary of State Tillerson released a statement that took one line of Trump’s speech and announced a significant new policy: “The Taliban has a path to peace and political legitimacy through a negotiated political settlement to end the war. We stand ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without preconditions.”

Such clear openness to negotiations with the Taliban could be a significant breakthrough. Simultaneously applying pressure with more troops on the battlefield and eliminating sanctuaries in Pakistan, while offering a viable alternative to fighting—a political settlement with the Afghan government that severs ties with al-Qaida and ISIS—the U.S. could move the conflict toward the “honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the enormous price that so many have paid.”

Related Publications

The State of Play in U.S.-Taliban Talks and the Afghan Peace Process

The State of Play in U.S.-Taliban Talks and the Afghan Peace Process

Thursday, April 11, 2019

By: Johnny Walsh

The latest round of U.S.-Taliban talks concluded on March 12, with both sides noting progress but conceding that no breakthroughs had been made. After two weeks of discussions in Doha, Qatar, American officials said they were close to reaching a final agreement on a potential U.S. troop withdrawal and a Taliban pledge to no longer allow terrorist attacks from Afghanistan. But how far can these talks go without the Afghan government involved? Is Afghanistan’s post-2001 progress in jeopardy? And what do regional actors think about the talks? USIP’s Johnny Walsh examines the state of play in the Afghan peace process.

Peace Processes

Reaching a Durable Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq: Learning from Investments in Women’s Programming

Reaching a Durable Peace in Afghanistan and Iraq: Learning from Investments in Women’s Programming

Friday, March 29, 2019

By: Danielle Robertson; Steven E. Steiner

USIP recently partnered with New America to convene roundtable discussions with government, civil society, and humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding organizations to learn from the past decade of women’s programming in fragile states such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Based on these discussions, this report provides guidance for improving future programming to not only integrate the needs of women but also recognize the role women play in transforming violent conflict and sustaining a durable peace.

Gender

Can Afghanistan Reap a Peace Dividend if Taliban Talks Succeed?

Can Afghanistan Reap a Peace Dividend if Taliban Talks Succeed?

Thursday, March 28, 2019

By: William Byrd

In recent months there has been a flurry of movement in the Afghan peace process, leading to talk of a “peace dividend” that would boost the country’s economy and incentivize and sustain peace. For example, the November 2018 Geneva international conference on Afghanistan called for donors and development and regional partners to develop a post-settlement economic action plan. But what would a peace dividend look like in war-torn Afghanistan? In the short run, could it help incentivize the insurgency and state actors to agree and adhere to a peace agreement? And in the longer term, could it help sustain peace and lead to a more prosperous and stable Afghanistan?

Economics & Environment; Peace Processes

How Peace Was Made: An Inside Account of Talks between the Afghan Government and Hezb-e Islami

How Peace Was Made: An Inside Account of Talks between the Afghan Government and Hezb-e Islami

Wednesday, March 27, 2019

By: Qaseem Ludin

The September 2016 peace accord between the Afghan government and the Hezb-e Islami militant group has been regarded as a first major step toward restoring Afghanistan to a state of peace. This Special Report provides a firsthand account of the protracted negotiations that led to the agreement—and offers important insights for how similar talks might proceed with the Taliban.

Peace Processes

View All Publications