by utahbob » Mon Aug 28, 2017 11:57 am
John,
Sorry for being late with the analysis. I give President Trump’s revised Afghanistan strategy 50 to 60 per cent chance to fully succeed. This is given due to events and conditions beyond his or the US sphere of influence. First, it is telling that there were no “tweets” before it was unveiled and it has the finger prints of a staff officer’s authorship with the use of Diplomacy, Information, Military and Economics (DIME) terminology.
Trump used a vague end-state or commonly known as “winning or victory” with metrics to rationalize to the American public or world public opinion. His first task of “honorable and enduring outcome” states that Trump and his advisors realize there is a slim to no chance of Nixon-like “Vietnamization” with the Taliban since they are fighting for “Allah” for a negotiated settlement. Taliban may “negotiate” with the Afghan government to get the US/Coalition forces out of Afghanistan as an operational tactic to increase their odds of capturing Kabul, Kandahar or other urban area. Officially the US is out of the nation building business for domestic consumption, but opposite signals for “clarification” is being aired:
https://www.usip.org/publications/2017/ ... istan-plan
https://www.usip.org/index.php/publicat ... fghan-plan
His second task of “rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable” signifies to the Taliban/HIG/Other anti-Afghan government forces now know they will be under heavy pressure for the remainder of Trump’s term due to the relaxing of the rules of engagement. He was very clear with “We are in the business of killing terrorists” line in the eyes of the Taliban. Short term will means more “night time” or “raid-a-thons” as my soldiers called them, more “cross border operations/CBO” in to Taliban and HIG safe havens in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and a stand up of TF ODIN on steroids with Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A) and other governmental agencies (OGA). This was in contrast to Obama’s time schedule that telegraph his intentions. With no ”Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos and violence and terror” there will be more black (CIA/OGA) and white (CJCOFA) CBOs. Trump is switching to a “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy” in contrast to Obama.
The carrot and stick of “Pakistan has much to gain from partnering” and past Pakistan actions “will have to change” has been refined but has limits as all parties involved know. If the US cuts it aid to Pakistan some of the slack will be taken up with the Chinese and Russians, but they have limits to on their aid/investments. The Chinese will not deploy ground troops.
Interesting was the mentioning of India that could pressure Pakistan with “develop its strategic partnership with India." That is a big stick to use on Pakistan. 90% Afghans that I met despise or hate the Pakistanis due their violation of the Duran Line, harboring the HIG and Taliban in FATA and interfering in their domestic affairs (Pakistan’s ISI). This line of effort will part of the DE of DIME. India can stick a finger in Pakistan’s eye in Afghanistan in retaliation of the Kashmir mess when increasing its Afghanistan effort with little risk or cost.
I foresee a modified Operation Inherent Resolve for Afghanistan spooling up as Iraq/Syria wind down with increased UN and aid effort for the next 3.5 years.
John,
Sorry for being late with the analysis. I give President Trump’s revised Afghanistan strategy 50 to 60 per cent chance to fully succeed. This is given due to events and conditions beyond his or the US sphere of influence. First, it is telling that there were no “tweets” before it was unveiled and it has the finger prints of a staff officer’s authorship with the use of Diplomacy, Information, Military and Economics (DIME) terminology.
Trump used a vague end-state or commonly known as “winning or victory” with metrics to rationalize to the American public or world public opinion. His first task of “honorable and enduring outcome” states that Trump and his advisors realize there is a slim to no chance of Nixon-like “Vietnamization” with the Taliban since they are fighting for “Allah” for a negotiated settlement. Taliban may “negotiate” with the Afghan government to get the US/Coalition forces out of Afghanistan as an operational tactic to increase their odds of capturing Kabul, Kandahar or other urban area. Officially the US is out of the nation building business for domestic consumption, but opposite signals for “clarification” is being aired: https://www.usip.org/publications/2017/08/troops-reforms-regional-role-define-afghanistan-plan
https://www.usip.org/index.php/publications/2017/08/how-build-out-president-trumps-afghan-plan
His second task of “rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable” signifies to the Taliban/HIG/Other anti-Afghan government forces now know they will be under heavy pressure for the remainder of Trump’s term due to the relaxing of the rules of engagement. He was very clear with “We are in the business of killing terrorists” line in the eyes of the Taliban. Short term will means more “night time” or “raid-a-thons” as my soldiers called them, more “cross border operations/CBO” in to Taliban and HIG safe havens in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and a stand up of TF ODIN on steroids with Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force - Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A) and other governmental agencies (OGA). This was in contrast to Obama’s time schedule that telegraph his intentions. With no ”Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos and violence and terror” there will be more black (CIA/OGA) and white (CJCOFA) CBOs. Trump is switching to a “Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy” in contrast to Obama.
The carrot and stick of “Pakistan has much to gain from partnering” and past Pakistan actions “will have to change” has been refined but has limits as all parties involved know. If the US cuts it aid to Pakistan some of the slack will be taken up with the Chinese and Russians, but they have limits to on their aid/investments. The Chinese will not deploy ground troops.
Interesting was the mentioning of India that could pressure Pakistan with “develop its strategic partnership with India." That is a big stick to use on Pakistan. 90% Afghans that I met despise or hate the Pakistanis due their violation of the Duran Line, harboring the HIG and Taliban in FATA and interfering in their domestic affairs (Pakistan’s ISI). This line of effort will part of the DE of DIME. India can stick a finger in Pakistan’s eye in Afghanistan in retaliation of the Kashmir mess when increasing its Afghanistan effort with little risk or cost.
I foresee a modified Operation Inherent Resolve for Afghanistan spooling up as Iraq/Syria wind down with increased UN and aid effort for the next 3.5 years.