Mediaboss Marketing

Two weeks ago, the New York Times published an article by retired U.S. Army colonel and Boston University professor Andrew J. Bacevich: The Never-Ending War in Afghanistan. It begins with a question that should make every American wince: Remember Afghanistan? The longest war in American history? Ever? Although the U.S. officially ended its combat mission in Afghanistan in December 2014, there are still about 8,400 American troops in the country. And earlier this month, the head of U.S. Central Command (Gen. Joseph Votel) said he would like to see that number increased.

According to the commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, Afghan National Defense and Security Forces are ensnarled in a bloody stalemate with the Taliban. When he testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee last month, Nicholson said more U.S. troops would be necessary to reinforce ANDSFs offensive capability: In my train, advise and assist mission we have a shortfall of a few thousand. On March 9, Votel publicly agreed with Nicholsons assessment and prescription.

U.S. forces have been fighting in Afghanistan for more than a decade and a half, but theres barely a flicker of interest back home. As Bacevich observed in his article, President Trump didnt even bother to mention Afghanistan in his Inaugural Address or his speech to a joint session of Congress last month: For the new commander in chief, the war there qualifies at best as an afterthought assuming, that is, he has thought about it all. Bacevich could have added Trumps Feb. 16 press conference, his address at Central Command last month, his speech at the Republican National Convention and practically every foreign policy speech he delivered during the campaign to the list of high-profile appearances that didnt include the word Afghanistan or a single reference to the American soldiers stationed there.

As commander in chief, Trump has a responsibility to acknowledge the servicemen and women who are fighting in the United States longest war. (Is this really something he needs to be told?) This isnt just a matter of decorum obvious disinterest from the White House sustains a general sense of lethargy about the conflict in the rest of the country. At a time when Congressional oversight has become pro forma and Washington has ceased to care about Afghanistan (this is how Bacevich described the situation), Americans need a leader to wrench them out of their torpor. Just dont expect Trump to be that leader. While he has plenty of time to pound out crotchety tweets about The Apprentice and disgorge alt-right conspiracy theories about illegal wiretapping, illegal voting, fake protesters and FAKE NEWS, he refuses to discuss one of the most difficult and consequential foreign policy challenges his administration faces.

Trump has proven that hes preternaturally adept at manipulating the news cycle with strategically combustible remarks and tweets, and he exercises this ability far more often and with much less care than any of his predecessors. This is why the words wiretapping allegations have been carved into our brains over the past few weeks. While this particular stunt hasnt done much for Trumps popularity (as I write, his approval rating is around 40 percent), it demonstrates how much power he has to set the agenda for journalists in the U.S. and around the world. Just think of the resources media organizations have dumped into the wiretapping story. Think of the hours reporters and columnists have invested in deconstructing, debunking and deriding tweets that Trump spent a few seconds typing. Think of Trump ambling up to the tee box after setting the whole thing in motion, indifferent to the international furor and political mayhem he caused only hours earlier.

As long as one man has such inordinate influence over what millions of people are condemned to ponder, protest, discuss and debate, wouldnt it be nice if he started a productive conversation for once? Couldnt he say a few words about the future of our involvement in Afghanistan instead of moaning about Alec Baldwins unwatchable SNL impersonation, Meryl Streeps speech at the Golden Globes and Arnold Schwarzeneggers pathetic ratings on The Apprentice?

Trumps lack of interest in Afghanistan isnt surprising. Nothing about the conflict is amenable to his bellowing populism or his practiced opportunism it moves too slowly, its gone on too long and his role as commander in chief cant be reconciled with his grim rhetoric: Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure; Lets get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA; We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. In case you need any more evidence that Trump is an inveterate liar, consider this: even with all of these comments on the record, he still claims that he never said we made a mistake going into Afghanistan.

Regardless of whether Trump is right or wrong about the failure of American policy in Afghanistan, he needs to determine what that policy will be going forward. But hes only interested in talking about the conflict thats currently filling the headlines (and happens to be going relatively well). Despite Trumps constant excretions about inheriting a disaster and a mess in the Middle East, the campaign against the Islamic State is actually making tenacious progress. As Hal Brands recently put it Foreign Policy Magazine, Barring some catastrophic U.S. policy misstep, the defeat of the Islamic State at least in Iraq and Syria is probably just a matter of time. All of eastern Mosul has been recaptured and coalition forces are making substantial gains in the west. While Raqqa will probably take longer to fall, the Islamic States territory is contracting every day.

Compared with recent successes against the Islamic State in Mosul and other parts of Iraq and Syria, progress in Afghanistan is glacial (and at the moment, static). We may even be going backward. While it only took the U.S. military two months to dislodge the Taliban from power in late 2001, well still be fighting the insurgency two decades later. When Votel and Nicholson used the word stalemate to describe whats happening in Afghanistan, they were being optimistic. More Afghan soldiers were killed in 2016 than in 2015 and the Taliban contests territory inhabited by one-third of the total population (around 10 million people). As of last November, only 57 percent of the countrys districts were controlled by the government a reduction from 72 percent a year earlier. A few days ago, the Taliban overran Sangin a fiercely contested district in Helmand province that took Coalition forces years to capture. More British troops and U.S. Marines have died in Sangin than in any other district, and its one of the most strategically important locations in Helmand.

How long is Trump going to ignore Afghanistan? Its clear that he views U.S. policy there as sclerotic and counterproductive, but does anyone have any idea what he plans to do about it? When he was asked about the war during the campaign, he said hed begrudgingly keep troops in the country. But everyone knows what he really thinks: that the war is a proven failure, a waste and a terrible mistake. When he promised to stay in Afghanistan, he added, I hate doing it. I hate doing it so much. These arent the words of a commander in chief whos eager to develop a new strategy theyre the words of a man who thinks defeat is inevitable.

Contact Matt Johnson at (785) 295-1282

or @mattjj89 on Twitter.

Visit link:
Matt Johnson: Trump can't ignore Afghanistan forever | The Topeka ... - Topeka Capital Journal