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

A Foot Forward for Peace in Afghanistan?

A Foot Forward for Peace in Afghanistan?

Thursday, July 11, 2019

By: Scott Smith

Taliban and Afghan representatives agreed early this week to a basic, albeit non-binding, roadmap for intra-Afghan negotiations aimed at ending the 18-year war. Since the U.S. resumed direct talks with the Taliban last September, the two sides have focused on the withdrawal of foreign forces and the steps the Taliban will take against terrorists on Afghan soil. Meanwhile, intra-Afghan talks on a political roadmap have yet to get off the ground. After months of seeming stasis, this week’s Doha meeting has injected renewed hope. USIP’s Scott Smith looks at what happened this week, what it means for Afghan women, and the next steps in the peace process.

Mediation, Negotiation & Dialogue; Peace Processes

Amid a Spike in Violence, Have Afghan Peace Talks Lost Momentum?

Amid a Spike in Violence, Have Afghan Peace Talks Lost Momentum?

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

By: Johnny Walsh

After rapid progress in early 2019, the Afghan peace process has seemingly slowed. The U.S. chief negotiator, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, said in May that his negotiations with the Taliban were making slow but steady progress, but there has been little headway in starting talks among the various Afghan parties. Meanwhile, violence has ratcheted up, as typically occurs in the spring and summer in Afghanistan. The country’s overdue presidential polls are scheduled for late September, further complicating efforts to achieve peace. Can talks succeed amid the violence and political discord? Will the elections drain momentum from the peace process? USIP’s Johnny Walsh looks at the Afghan peace process ahead of the next round of talks in late June.

Peace Processes

Women in Conflict: Advancing Women’s Role in Peace and Security

Women in Conflict: Advancing Women’s Role in Peace and Security

Thursday, June 13, 2019

By: Palwasha L. Kakar

Palwasha Kakar, senior program officer for religion and inclusive societies, testified on June 13 at the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights, and Global Women’s Issues' hearing on "Women in Conflict: Advancing Women's Role in Peace and Security.” Her expert testimony as prepared is presented below.

Gender; Peace Processes

Perspectives on Peace from Taliban Areas of Afghanistan

Perspectives on Peace from Taliban Areas of Afghanistan

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

By: Ashley Jackson

Notably absent from the debate around peace in Afghanistan are the voices of those living in parts of the country that have borne the brunt of the fighting since 2001—particularly those living in areas under Taliban control or influence. This report provides insight into how Afghan men and women in Taliban-influenced areas view the prospects for peace, what requirements would have to be met for local Taliban fighters to lay down their arms, and how views on a political settlement and a future government differ between Taliban fighters and civilians.

Reconciliation

View All Publications