Trump’s Afghan Spin

Published in El País
(Spain) on 24 August 2017
by (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Isabel Álvarez. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
The U.S. announces an increase of its forces and operations in Afghanistan

Before coming to power, Donald Trump repeatedly and insistently maintained that the first thing he would do on becoming president would be to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Now, in another of those 180-degree turns to which we are accustomed, he has announced that, far from withdrawing the 8.400 soldiers deployed there, he will increase the number of troops and operations.

The reasons for this decision are easy to understand. After nearly 16 years of conflict – the longest conflict in which the U.S. Army has been involved – with 2,403 American soldiers killed in combat and billions of dollars spent, Trump's top military advisers, with the Pentagon's support, have convinced him that a U.S. withdrawal would leave Afghanistan in the same vulnerable situation as Iraq was in 2011, opening the way for a Taliban seizure of power and the eventual conversion of the country into a terrorist sanctuary from which, as happened on the fateful day of 9/11, the terrorists could attack the United States again.

As Barack Obama did during his administration and George W. Bush before him, another American president has opted for the lesser evil: to continue the war, knowing that on the horizon there is no glimmer of a military victory, or of an Afghan state capable of dealing with itself or a truly credible withdrawal date.

Afghanistan has been the tomb of all the powers that have sought to dominate it, whether the British Empire, the Soviet Union or the U.S. It has proved to be impossible to control without the support of the Pashtuns and the active collaboration of Pakistan, the two elements on which the Taliban rely. Consequently, Trump's claim that he does not intend to build a nation but only to "kill terrorists" is not only a bluster, but proof that the U.S. persists in making the same mistakes again and again.


El giro afgano de Trump
EE UU anuncia ahora que incrementará sus efectivos y sus operaciones en Afganistán

Antes de su llegada al poder, Donald Trump sostuvo de forma reiterada e insistente que lo primero que haría al llegar a la presidencia sería retirar a las tropas estadounidenses de Afganistán. Ahora, en otro de esos giros de 180 grados a los que nos tiene acostumbrados, ha anunciado que lejos de retirar los 8.400 soldados desplegados en ese país, incrementará sus efectivos y sus operaciones.
Los motivos de dicha decisión son fáciles de comprender. Después de casi 16 años de conflicto —el más largo en el que se ha visto involucrado el Ejército estadounidense—, 2.403 soldados americanos caídos en combate y miles de millones de dólares gastados, los principales asesores militares de Trump, con el concurso del Pentágono, le han convencido de que una retirada estadounidense dejaría a Afganistán en la misma situación de vulnerabilidad en la que quedó Irak en 2011, abriendo el paso a una toma del poder por parte de los talibanes y la eventual conversión del país en un santuario terrorista desde el que —como ocurrió en el fatídico 11-S— atentar nuevamente contra EE UU.
Como Obama en su momento y George W. Bush antes que él, otro presidente estadounidense ha optado por el mal menor: continuar con la guerra a sabiendas de que en el horizonte no hay atisbo de una victoria militar, un Estado afgano capaz de ocuparse de sí mismo o una fecha de retirada verdaderamente creíble.
Afganistán ha sido la tumba de todas las potencias que han intentado dominarlo, fueran el Imperio Británico, la Unión Soviética o EE UU. Ha demostrado con creces ser imposible de controlar sin el concurso de los pastunes y la colaboración activa de Pakistán, los dos elementos en los que se apoyan los talibanes. Por ello, la afirmación de Trump de que no pretende construir una nación sino solamente “matar terroristas” no solo es una bravuconería sino la prueba de que EE UU persiste en cometer los mismos errores una y otra vez.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Taiwan: From Maintaining Order to Coming Out on Top: The Changing US Strategic Discourse

Saudi Arabia: Could There Be a NATO Without the US?

Poland: Europe Hears ‘Enough’ from the US: Clever Poles Refuse To Believe It

Japan: New York State Legislature Bill Abolishing the Writing of Mother and Father Is Strange

Topics

Mexico: The End of the USMCA: A Turning Point for Emancipation

Japan: New York State Legislature Bill Abolishing the Writing of Mother and Father Is Strange

Saudi Arabia: Could There Be a NATO Without the US?

Saudi Arabia: NATO’s Photo-Op in Ankara

Poland: Europe Hears ‘Enough’ from the US: Clever Poles Refuse To Believe It

China: South Korea Must Reflect on America’s Untrustworthiness

Austria: Birthright Citizenship: They Won the Battle, but Not the War

United Arab Emirates: Were Trump’s Military Powers Revoked?

Related Articles

Luxembourg: Trump Doesn’t Care about the Rules, and Everyone Is Playing Along

Saudi Arabia: Could There Be a NATO Without the US?

Saudi Arabia: NATO’s Photo-Op in Ankara

United Arab Emirates: Were Trump’s Military Powers Revoked?

Venezuela: Strategic Errors