Trump commits US to fight on in Afghanistan; no speedy exit
https://apnews.com/b4a7beeb3ffc4bfcab384108e1f041db/Trump-commits-US-to-fight-on-in-Afghanistan;-no-speedy-exit?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=%2AMorning%20Brief
WASHINGTON (AP) — Reversing his past
calls for a speedy exit, President Donald Trump recommitted the United States
to the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan Monday night, declaring U.S. troops must
“fight to win.” He pointedly declined to disclose how many more troops will be
dispatched to wage America’s longest war.
In a prime-time address to unveil
his new Afghanistan strategy, Trump said the U.S. would shift away from a
“time-based” approach, instead linking its assistance to results and to
cooperation from the beleaguered Afghan government, Pakistan and others. He
insisted it would be a “regional” strategy that addressed the roles played by
other South Asian nations — especially Pakistan’s harboring of elements of the
Taliban.
“America will work with the Afghan
government as long as we see determination and progress,” Trump said. “However,
our commitment is not unlimited, and our support is not a blank check.”
Still, Trump offered few details
about how progress would be measured. Nor did he explain how his approach would
differ substantively from what two presidents before him tried unsuccessfully
over the past 16 years.
Although Trump insisted he would
“not talk about numbers of troops” or telegraph military moves in advance, he
hinted that he’d embraced the Pentagon’s proposal to boost troop numbers by
nearly 4,000, augmenting the roughly 8,400 Americans there now.
President Donald Trump says U.S.
troops “will fight to win” in Afghanistan. And he’s using his prime-time
address to the nation on Monday to offer a “clear definition” of victory. (Aug.
21)
Before becoming a candidate, Trump
had ardently argued for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, calling the war a
massive waste of U.S. “blood and treasure” and declaring on Twitter, “Let’s get
out!” Seven months into his presidency, he said Monday night that though his
“original instinct was to pull out,” he’d since determined that approach could
create a vacuum that terrorists including al-Qaida and the Islamic State would
“instantly fill.”
“We will ask our NATO allies and
global partners to support our new strategy, with additional troop and funding
increases in line with our own. We are confident they will,” Trump said in
comments echoed by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis.
Earlier this year, Trump announced
he was entrusting Mattis and the military with the decision about how many
troops would be needed. In talking points sent Monday to congressional
Republicans and supportive groups, the White House affirmed that the troop
numbers were up to Mattis and added that the administration wasn’t seeking more
money from Congress for the strategy in the current fiscal year, which
concludes at the end of next month.
While Trump stressed his strategy
was about more than just the military, he was vague on other “instruments of
American power” he said would be deployed in full force to lead Afghanistan
toward peace, such as economic development or new engagement with Pakistan and
India. Absent military specifics, it was difficult to assess how his plan might
dissolve the stalemate between the Taliban and the Afghan government.
On one point — the definition of
victory — Trump was unequivocal. He said American troops would “fight to win”
by attacking enemies, “crushing” al-Qaida, preventing terror attacks against
Americans and “obliterating” the Islamic State group, whose affiliate has
gained a foothold in Afghanistan as the U.S. squeezes the extremists in Syria
and Iraq.
Trump’s definition of a win notably
did not include defeating the Taliban, the group whose harboring of al-Qaida
led the U.S. to war in Afghanistan in the days after the 9/11 attacks. Like
President Barack Obama before him, Trump conceded that any solution that brings
peace to Afghanistan may well involve the Taliban’s participation.
“Someday, after an effective
military effort, perhaps it will be possible to have a political settlement
that includes elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan,” Trump said. Secretary of
State Rex Tillerson, in a statement after the speech, said the U.S. was ready
to support peace talks with the Taliban “without preconditions.”
Talk of future Taliban
reconciliation was one of several echoes of Obama woven into Trump’s plan. Like
Trump, Obama insisted near the start of his presidency that the “days of
providing a blank check are over,” urged a regional approach and said U.S.
assistance would be based on performance.
Still, Trump was intent on
differentiating his approach from his predecessors — at least in rhetoric. He
emphasized there would be no timelines, no hamstringing of the military and no
divorcing of Afghanistan from the region’s broader problems.
One step being considered to further
squeeze Pakistan is to cut foreign aid programs unless Islamabad clamps down on
the Taliban and an associated group known as the Haqqani network, senior
administration officials told reporters ahead of Trump’s speech. Using civilian
and military aid as a pressure lever with the Pakistanis has been tried for
years.
Trump’s speech concluded a
months-long internal debate within his administration over whether to pull back
from the Afghanistan conflict, as he and a few advisers were inclined to do, or
to embroil the U.S. further in a war that has eluded American solutions for the
past 16 years. Several times, officials predicted he was nearing a decision to
adopt his commanders’ recommendations, only to see the final judgment delayed.
And while Trump has pledged to put
“America First,” keeping U.S. interests above any others, his national security
advisers have warned that the Afghan forces are still far too weak to succeed
without help. Even now, Afghan’s government controls just half the country.
In Kabul, Taliban spokesman
Zabiullah Mujahid dismissed Trump’s speech as “old” and his policy as
“unclear.” But the plan was cheered by Afghanistan’s government. Ambassador
Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan envoy to Washington, called it a “10 out of 10.”
“We heard exactly what we needed
to,” Mohib said in a phone interview. “The focus on the numbers has taken away
the real focus on what should have been: what conditions are required and what
kind of support is necessary.”
Among U.S. elected officials, the
reception was equally mixed, reflecting the deep divisions among Americans
about whether to lean into the conflict or pull back.
John McCain, the Senate Armed
Services Committee chairman who’d criticized Trump for delays in presenting a plan,
said the president was “now moving us well beyond the prior administration’s
failed strategy of merely postponing defeat.” House Democratic leader Nancy
Pelosi said the speech was “low on details but raises serious questions.”
“Tonight, the president said he knew
what he was getting into and had a plan to go forward. Clearly, he did not,”
said Pelosi, D-Calif.
At its peak, the U.S. had roughly
100,000 in Afghanistan, under the Obama administration in 2010-2011. The
residual forces have been focused on advising and training Afghan forces and on
counterterror operations — missions that aren’t expected to dramatically change
under Trump’s plan.
“I share the America people’s
frustration,” Trump said. But he insisted, “In the end, we will win.”
___
Burns reported from Amman, Jordan.
Associated Press writers Kathy Gannon in Islamabad and Jill Colvin and Ken
Thomas in Washington contributed.
Comment:
IT IS TO REMEMBER THAT AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ARTICLE VERY MINUTELY , WRITTEN IN SIMPLE ENGLISH FOR THE CONSUMPTION OF ALL CONCERNED LOYAL PEOPLE OF US TO UNDERSTAND AND TAKE IMMEDIATE NECESSARY ACTION TO STOP THIS BILLIONAIRE SIPHONING THE GOVERNMENT TREASURY IN THE NAME OF WAR EXPENDITURE.
AND ENSURE IF ANY PERSON
LINKED IN SANCTIONING ALLOCATION OF MONEY IN THE NAME OF WAR EXPENDITURE DURING
THE TERM OF THIS CORRUPT TRAITOR’S REGIME IN THE BUDGET PROVISION SHOULD BE WITHOUT ANY MERCY BE
PUNISHED AND THE ENTIRE MONEY SHOULD BE RECOVERED FROM HIM.
AND CASES BE
INSTITUTED AGAINST THEM FOR HELPING LOOT THE TREASURY MONEY BY A TRAITOR OF THE
COUNTRY.
THIS TRAITOR
DECLARED WAR IN AFGHANISTAN AFRESH WITH A COVERT PLAN TO USURP GOVERNMENT
TREASURY SIMILAR WAY G W BUSH AND DICK CHENEY THE REPUBLICAN TRAITORS OF
THE COUNTRY DID DURING G W BUSH'S REGIME.
IT IS THE SAME THING G W BUSH AND PARTY DID BUT WAS NOT PROSECUTED, HE THE TRAITOR A SPY OF RUSSIA THE WHITE SUPREMACIST
BUSINESSMAN NOW PRESIDENT WOULD BE SAFE TO FOLLOW THE SAME TECHNIQUE TO SIPHONED TREASURY MONEY AND WOULD LET TO GO SCOTT FREE.
THERE IS NO NEED TO
GO TO WAR AFRESH IN WITH AFGHANISTAN TO SET A RECORD WHERE UPON RUSSIA COULD LABEL
THE US AS A FAILURE AS WAS THE RUSSIAN BECAUSE OF US INTERFERENCE AGAINST RUSSIA
FIGHTING TO ANNEX AFGHANISTAN FAILED
MISERABLY AND HAD TO BACK OUT WITH SHAME.
THIS PRESIDENT IS A
BUSINESSMAN AND HE HAS NO LOVE FOR ANY LAND OR SPECIFICALLY ANY MOTHERLAND BUT
THE LUST FOR MONEY IS UNLIMITED .
HE WOULD USE HIS TONGUE TO SEARCH MONEY IN THE HEAP OF STOOLS AND USE
HIS MOUTH AND TEETH WOULD PICK MONEY
FROM THAT HEAP OF FILTHY STOOL.
RUSSIA THOUGHT WHY NOT HUMILIATE US THROUGH THE IDIOT. SO THE IDIOT HAS SPOKEN OF WAR AFRESH IN AFGHANISTAN .
ANY CONGRESS
LAWMAKER OF ANY PARTY, REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC SHOULD BE TREATED AS A TRAITOR
COMMITTING TREACHERY WITH THE COUNTRY IF HELPS TO SANCTION OF ANY MONEY FOR THE
WAR AS ENVISAGED BY THE PRESIDENT.
No comments:
Post a Comment