His first decision about the war in Afghanistan, the President trump has not announced neither on TV nor from the White house and even in his speech at the Academy of West point. Instead of the presidential fanfare, the Pentagon issued a news release (once a day) last week, which reaffirms that the President gave the right to the Minister of defense of Jim Mattis to send several thousand additional troops to the war for sixteen years. Now in Afghanistan 8800 American soldiers.
Donald trump, who tweeted quite extensively writes about war and peace in other parts of the world, nothing about it has not told. But the effect trunovskogo influence, of course, be determined quite accurately. The President gave the Pentagon the decision about how to do business in Afghanistan. At the same time trump criticized former President Obama, and his other predecessors who sent Americans to war.
The white house somewhat downplayed the significance of the announcement of the Pentagon, which in itself was very vague, writes The New York Times. It mentioned the establishment of “the level of troops”. This, according to local observers, is a recognition of the internal conflict in the administration of the tramp at the apparent deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.
Trump during his election campaign hardly a word was said about Afghanistan and his political advisers opposed to the deeper penetration of the United States. Team trump on national security was influenced by the generals, who feared the consequences of what the United States does not act and thus does not give the Tramp time to fully assess the situation in Afghanistan.
But former commanders and military experts said that by sending troops before designed strategy, the President trump put the cart before the horse. All this, according to many observers, led to a weakening of the existing tradition of civilian control over the military. Retired Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, who was the Supreme commander and the American Ambassador to Afghanistan, writes: “the Supreme commander controls limited war by explaining the missions, selecting the commanders and the troops levels. To delegate all these points to someone very dangerous.” On this basis, the decision to send additional troops represents a victory, albeit temporary, of the Minister of defense of Mattis and Lieutenant General McMaster, assistant to the President for homeland security over other trump aides, including his chief strategist Stephen Bannon, who warned that sending new units very slippery solution. It is not able to strengthen the national interests of Afghanistan, and is anathema to nationalists like him, who reject interventionists and the neoconservatives, President Bush and the conduct of limited war President Obama.
In official circles argue that the White house was shocked by the explosion of a huge bomb in Kabul, killing more than 150 people. The white house fears and militaristic gradients, which are at variance with the policy of the government of Afghanistan and its President, Ashraf Ghani, a former employee of the world Bank, configured in a friendly against the United States. The Ghani government is now on the edge of possible collapse.
General McMaster, who served in Afghanistan, the head of anti-corruption units and is very close to defense Minister Mattis, another General with Afghanistan experience, tried to convince President trump that military intervention in Afghanistan should be extended without delay. “What we see today is a confirmation of the recognition of the President of the importance of the Afghan mission, and we must do it properly,” says James Carafano, a specialist in national security, Heritage Foundation, who was an adviser to trump during the formation of his administration.
The official circles of the White house argue that they are still debating the US role in Afghanistan. Whether Afghanistan a strong Central government or be in the saddle “war lords” that have historically divided the power among themselves. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is promoting the plans to send a 3 to 5 thousand soldiers to “stabilize the situation in Afghanistan,” writes “new York times”.
However, it is unclear yet, what is the position of the trump and even how it is involved in the debate over sending new military units to Afghanistan. As reported, trump called for two meetings of the national security Council last week. At the first meeting discussed the question of sending troops to Afghanistan. At the second meeting wider policy in South Asia.
Since then, trump was elected US President, he almost never said anything about Afghanistan. However, his views, which were contained in tweets trump when he was a private person are almost completely hostile to American intervention in the war in Afghanistan. So, in 2012, trump wrote: “the time has Come to leave Afghanistan. We build building, roads and schools for the people who hate us. And it’s not in our national interest”.
Even the Minister of defence Mattis admits that the buildup of American troops in Afghanistan will not be able to play its role, without a wider strategy that the White house does not plan to complete until mid July. Among the most important strategic questions are these — how to act against the Taliban and other militant groups hiding in Pakistan? How to deal with deep-rooted in Afghanistan corruption? And how to achieve a political agreement with the Taliban (the activities of the group banned in Russia)?
“The premise of from three to five thousand new units in Afghanistan may delay the downward slide for some time, but it cannot be decisive in order to turn the tide of the war,” says Michelle Flournoy, which was under President Obama is one of the main Pentagon figures. He also notes: “the Administration needs a new political and economic strategy simultaneously with the sending of additional troops to Afghanistan to give his government more stability.
Some experts say that the reluctance of the trump engage in the debate about the number of new American troops for Afghanistan are in some way a repetition of the Republican tradition, denying the micromanagement of the military leadership, which involved President Obama.
Now, when the White house commands the impulsive President, and the administration is in a chaotic state, the Pentagon is trying to play an even greater role in the Afghan issue: “the President does not have the time and are not interested for making decisions, passing all this to Mattis,” says Richard Kohn, a military historian at the University of North Carolina, who was an adviser to General McMaster, who was preparing his doctoral thesis. According to Cohn, trump trusts Mattis because he has experience and “common sense.” Last Friday the Pentagon said that the defense Minister has not yet made a decision about increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan. Any decision will come after the Pentagon would consult with other government agencies, with the Afghan government and NATO allies, says spokeswoman Ms. white. However, she adds: “the Minister of defense will continue to hold the line of the President, implementing the General strategy.”
Throughout the testimony that I gave last week in Congress, the Minister of defence Mattis, he insisted on making Afghanistan a more solid contingent. He said that it will bring all sorts of benefits. He believes that American soldiers should not only be advisors of the highest military circles of Afghanistan, but also to monitor the Afghan forces. It will be more efficient, he says.
New American advisers should also be introduced in the air force and artillery of the Afghan armed forces. Their goal should be strengthening the firepower of Afghanistan. That is, in Afghanistan, offered what is happening now in Iraq and Syria, where the US is fighting against ISIS (banned in Russia and other countries a terrorist group).
We are talking about people specifically trained, organized and trained and equipped not only in the large strategic scale, but also in how to take a particular height as to support rocket’s vision of the war. About it specifically told the Minister of defence Mattis in the armed forces Committee of the U.S. house of representatives. All of this suggests that the addition to the advisors, the United States might send to Afghanistan artillery and missile units “earth-earth”, as well as Special operations forces.
The Obama administration initially limited the use of American air power against the Taliban, hoping that it would increase the dependence of the Afghan armed forces of the United States. But since Afghanistan has essentially no air force, such an approach Obama has only led to an increase in casualties among the Afghan armed forces. So Obama quickly modified its strategy. Since Obama has tried to accelerate the reduction of American forces in Afghanistan, what has not been agreed upon by many of the higher ranks, who commanded the American units, the effect of the presidential intervention was limited.
Last February, General John Nicholson, commander of the armed forces in Afghanistan, led by the Americans, said that he didn’t have “several thousand” soldiers. At the moment, 6700 American soldiers are in Afghanistan. He also act as coaches and advisers to the Afghan armed forces. 2100 American troops engaged in counter-terrorism organizations (NATO and other countries deployed in Afghanistan 6,500 troops). Retired General John Allen, who served as the commander in Afghanistan until 2011-2013, said in an interview that additional advisors and trainers in sizes from 3 thousand to 5 thousand is necessary. When the General Allen commanded the U.S. military in Afghanistan, he proposed the presence 136000 Americans and 6 thousand NATO soldiers, as the condition for the transformation of the Afghan armed forces into a real military force. That’s when it was created the national training center in Helmand province.
The white house specifically emphasizes that its strategy in South Asia is fundamentally different from the strategy of the Obama administration. Officials say that trump’s strategy includes diplomatic relations with Pakistan, India, even Iran. However, this strategy, making the supports on diplomacy, can fully turn around due to the fact that the current State Department is not staffed. That is why Washington considers that, in the end, the Afghan strategy trump will dominate military bone.