Before and after his election, President Donald Trump kept
reminding the public that presidents who occupied the White House before him
wasted 6 trillion dollars in the Middle East and got nothing in return for America or
anyone else for that matter. This was a wise thing for him to have said because
it was true.
During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump also promised
that if elected, he'll see to it that the terrorists are rendered ineffective,
thus free the world from their nefarious activities. And this was the honorable
thing for him to have said regardless as to its feasibility.
The trouble, however, is that both the reminder and the
promise have now clashed. It happened because the President is trying to be
truthful to both sayings at the same time. The news is that he is sending more
troops to Afghanistan
to finish off the terrorists, which is what other presidents did before him,
and wasted 6 trillion dollars, like he says, with nothing to show for their
effort. They got nothing in return for America , according him, and there
is no reason to believe he'll do better.
That situation, therefore, begs the question: When will
President Donald Trump realize that the war in Afghanistan is a lost cause? Will
it be after he spends another trillion dollars fighting it? Or will it be after
he spends 6 trillion more dollars?
Two authors took up that subject, and did an excellent job
parsing it for the readers who want to know the unbiased, unvarnished truth of
what's involved in the Afghan operation. They are A. Trevor Thrall and Erik
Goepner. They wrote: “Trump's massive Afghanistan mistake,” an article
that was published on June 18, 2017 in the New York Daily News.
The authors begin with the premise that the Trump
administration wants to terminate the existential threat that's menacing the
Afghan government. And so, they remind the readers that the United States
has been trying to do just that for 16 years, and made little or no progress.
Thus, they offer the opinion that this is a bad thing to try again. They go on
to say, it is even worse to contemplate sending more troops to do the same old
thing under the same old strategy.
Trevor and Goepner say that the people who advocate sending
more troops to Afghanistan
advance two arguments to make their point. They claim that fighting the
terrorists in Afghanistan
prevents the latter from committing terror in America . They also claim that
sending more troops to Afghanistan
will prevent the Taliban from ending the country's experiment with democracy.
And so, they set out to debunk both claims.
They say that Al Qaeda has been weakened so badly in Afghanistan ,
that country represents little threat of terrorism. In fact, Al Qaeda and its
offshoots have gone to other places around the globe, they assert, and if America wants
to continue fighting them, it should do so where it can find them.
As to the desire of shoring up the democratic experiment in Afghanistan , the writers inform the readers that
in the long run, America
will not be able to control that country's political outcomes; the effort will
come to naught. This is so true, in fact, it can be attested to by anyone that
tried to guarantee the outcome of an election.
At this point, the writers resurrect a bitter truism; one
that was learned during the Vietnam War. They adapted it to the current
situation like this: “Eventually, the U.S. will leave. The Taliban will
not.” And they lament that the Taliban now control more territory than they
ever did since 2001. All this, they say, despite the large number of deaths
that occurred during that period of time, including 3,500 civilians in 2016
alone.
They end their presentation by revealing something that's as
poignant as it is tragic. Here it is in their own words: “The honest reason for
America's enduring military commitment is that no President wants to be the one
who 'lost Afghanistan' … W. Bush and Obama maintained just enough of a military
and rhetorical commitment to avoid getting blamed for losing the war”.
And they conclude that President Trump inherited a war he
never liked; a conundrum that forces him to choose between keeping his promise
at the risk of losing the war, or going against his grain while expending more
lives and more treasure by emulating two predecessors he endlessly criticized.
How much worse can it get!
But why not reject the second choice out of hand, and put
the whole thing behind him?
Well, Trevor and Goepner have a theory about that. They hint
that President Trump finds himself in a no-win situation but has a third
alternative. This is why they believe he “gave Mattis the authority to handle
the Afghan strategy from the Pentagon. That way, when things go south, Trump
will have someone to blame.” Wow!