By Disguising Its Retreat in Afghanistan as an Advance, America Complicates the Situation in South Asia

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 24 August 2017
by Li Yan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Yuzhi Yang. Edited by Helaine Schweitzer.
When President Donald Trump announced the expansion of U.S. forces in Afghanistan on Aug. 21, it signaled a major change in America’s Afghan policies since 2014, when the U.S. announced it would end active fighting in the country. This strategy is also markedly different from Trump’s previous understanding of the Afghan War, and it is not an instinctive decision for him.

How do we interpret Trump’s Afghan policy? First, Trump takes counterterrorism extremely seriously, and increased involvement in Afghanistan is a focused reflection of his security concerns. It is obvious that he has elevated the fight against terrorism among America’s global strategies. He made defeating the Islamic State a priority as soon as he took office, unveiling the Muslim ban and other domestic measures. Now, as numerous violent forces have become active in Afghanistan, and the American military is playing a proactive role in both Iraq and Syria, it is inevitable that Trump would shift the focus of his overseas counterterrorism efforts to Afghanistan, a longstanding site for cultivation of terrorism, so as to prevent it from becoming a base camp for terrorism forces such as the Islamic State group.

In addition, the military has led the assessment of strategies in Afghanistan. When Trump ordered an evaluation of Afghanistan after becoming president, there was a great deal of internal dissent. The military advisers and the hard-liners believed that increased involvement was a must, while voices led by the Democrats advocated for staying the course or for even a total withdrawal. In the evaluation process, both Defense Secretary James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, who have had counterterrorism experience, played a pivotal role in influencing Trump.

Trump’s domestic situation is rather grim, with endless bickering within his administration, as well as “Russiagate” and the Charlottesville, Virginia riots further sinking him into a morass, so the declaration of a new strategy for Afghanistan helps to show a strength that could shift the focus away from his internal troubles and alleviate his quandary. Currently, the Republican mainstream agrees, overall, with Trump’s position, with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Sen. John McCain supporting him.

Looking forward, this new strategy could prevent the situation in Afghanistan from deteriorating, but it would not be able to reverse America’s fortune in the region. On the one hand, the core policies and tools in Trump’s new strategy do not differ from Obama’s for combining diplomatic, economic, and military measures. Playing up the India and Pakistan connections were key to the Obama administration’s playbook there as well, but they were shown to be ineffective in improving the Afghan situation.

On the other hand, Trump’s new strategy is essentially disguising a retreat as an advance. Trump said he would not publicize the scope of America’s military involvement or have a man-made timetable, but many internal groups in Afghanistan firmly believe in an American retreat from their country. In addition, the domestic sources of social and economic unrest in Afghanistan would not be solved in the short term, the Afghan government’s effectiveness needs improvement, and there’s also conflicting demands for regional and national interests, all of which will limit the effectiveness of Trump’s new Afghan strategy.

Trump’s strategy will undoubtedly add new variables to the situation in South Asia. Since 9/11, American strategy in Afghanistan has become a major factor in the region. This new strategy is obvious in its support of India and control of Pakistan, and not only in forcefully pressuring Pakistan to expand its antiterrorism efforts, praising the U.S.-India strategic partnership and advocating for a bigger role for India in Afghanistan and the Indo-Asia Pacific region. If anything, Trump’s new strategy is a continuation and elevation of Obama’s policy of valuing India and dismissing Pakistan.

It is foreseeable that as the situation in Afghanistan worsens, America will further pressure Pakistan. By fostering India in both the Indo-Asia Pacific region and the mid- to south-Asia region, America could make India more cocky than ever, and bring major changes to its geopolitical scene. Meanwhile, by using the Afghan situation as an excuse, with counterterrorism at the core and military security as a tool to build its South Asian strategy, Trump could bring subtle changes to the region and add more potential variables.

In Trump’s preliminary South Asia strategic planning, his conception of China is still not clear. In his speeches, Trump has not emphasized the role of other regions, countries or international society other than India and Pakistan, which is different from the Obama administration. It remains to be seen whether China and U.S. bilateral and multilateral collaboration on counterterrorism will work in Afghanistan, and in what way Trump will view China’s role.

Viewed on an even longer term basis, it will be worthwhile to closely watch the impact of Trump’s Afghan strategy on America’s global strategy. During Obama’s term, normalizing the Afghan War and America’s retreat was the foundation for restrategizing America’s global layout, making the U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific possible. The degree of Trump’s increased involvement in Afghanistan, the extent to which resources will be affected, and whether the focus on counterterrorism will lead to overall strategic changes all will have an impact with respect to creating a more meaningful foothold with which to observe America’s evolution in Afghanistan.

The author is the deputy director of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations.


美国总统特朗普21日推出旨在加大投入的阿富汗新战略,标志着2014年美国宣布结束在阿作战任务后对阿政策的重大变化。该战略与特朗普此前对阿富汗战争的认知也有明显区别,是他“并非出自内心直觉的决策”。

  那么,如何解读特朗普的对阿战略决策?首先,特朗普高度重视反恐,加大对阿投入是其安全理念的集中反映。特朗普明显提升了反恐问题在美国全球战略中的定位,上任伊始便将击败“伊斯兰国”等作为“首要优先重点”,推出“禁穆令”等国内举措也有筑牢反恐防线的考量。在阿富汗各种暴恐势力抬头,美军取得在伊拉克、叙利亚打恐主动态势的背景下,特朗普将海外反恐重点向阿富汗这一国际暴恐力量传统策源地转移,防止其成为IS等暴恐势力聚集地,有必然性。

  其次,军方声音主导了对阿战略评估。特朗普上任伊始下令评估对阿战略,但内部分歧较大。军方和共和党强硬派认为,增大投入是必须选项。但以民主党人为主的声音则主张维持现状甚至全面撤出,早日摆脱泥潭。在对阿战略评估过程中,马蒂斯、麦克马斯特等有反恐作战履历的军方力量,明显对特朗普决策产生了决定性影响。

  再者,特朗普目前国内执政形势黯淡,执政团队内部纷争不断,“通俄门”调查和弗吉尼亚州骚乱更使其陷入内外交困境地。通过宣示阿富汗新战略展示对外强硬,一定程度上有助于转移国内焦点,缓解执政困境。目前,共和党主流对特朗普的新战略总体认同,众议长瑞恩、参议员麦凯恩等大佬均已为其背书。

  就其前景而言,该战略或可防止阿富汗安全形势进一步恶化,但难以从根本上扭转美国的困境。一方面,新战略依仗的核心政策工具与前任奥巴马并无本质区别。综合利用外交、经济、军事手段以及促使印巴发挥作用,均是奥巴马政府“阿巴新战略”的要旨所在,但已被证明难以确保阿富汗形势持续好转。

  另一方面,特朗普的新战略本质上是要“以进为退”,尽管声称不公开军力投入规模、不人为设定时间表,但阿内部各派对其“退出”前景深信不疑。另外,阿内部滋生暴恐的社会和经济根源短期内难以解决,政府治理能力有待提升,地区国家利益诉求各异,这些固有因素也将对新战略成效形成制约。

  特朗普的新战略无疑将给南亚地缘形势注入新的变数。“9·11”以来,美国对阿战略走向成为牵动南亚局势的重大因素。阿富汗新战略“挺印抑巴”意味明显,不仅强硬施压巴基斯坦加大反恐力度,更褒赞美印“战略伙伴关系”,呼吁印度在阿富汗乃至“印太地区”发挥更大作用。这其实是对奥巴马时期“重印轻巴”政策的延续和升级。

  可以预见,阿富汗局势愈恶化,美国未来对巴施压力度将愈甚。而美国在印太和中南亚两个战略方向加大对印度的借重,可能导致印度做大,对南亚地缘态势发展产生重大影响。同时,特朗普似有以阿富汗问题为突破口、以反恐为核心、以军事安全为工具打造南亚战略的倾向,其对反恐和地缘布局两大战略目标的权衡或发生微妙变化,这将进一步加大地区形势的潜在变数。

  在特朗普初具轮廓的南亚战略布局下,其对中国角色的认知尚不清晰。在讲话中,特朗普并未过多强调印巴之外其他地区国家以及国际社会的作用,这与奥巴马政府有所不同。中美当前围绕阿富汗反恐和治理的双边、多边合作态势能否持续,特朗普如何看待中国的作用,这些问题仍有待观察。

  从更长期看,特朗普对阿战略对美国全球战略的潜在影响亦值得密切关注。奥巴马任内,正是以实现阿富汗战争“常态化”和美国逐步退出为基础,才得以重新谋划美国全球战略布局,腾出手来实施“亚太再平衡”等重大调整。特朗普对阿富汗战争的强化介入会发展到何种程度、牵扯多少资源,其对反恐问题的关注会否触发美国战略指向的调整,将是观察美国对阿战略演变更具意义的立足点。(作者是中国现代国际关系研究院美国所副所长)
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Canada: Minnesota School Shooting Is Just More Proof That America Is Crazed

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Turkey: Pay Up or Step Aside: Tariffs in America’s ‘Protection Money’ Diplomacy

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Thailand: Appeasing China Won’t Help Counter Trump

Topics

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Austria: The EU Must Recognize That a Tariff Deal with Trump Is Hardly Worth Anything

Mexico: The Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Venezuela and President Nicholás Maduro

Hong Kong: Cordial Cross-Strait Relations Will Spare Taiwan Trump’s Demands, Says Paul Kuoboug Chang

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade

Related Articles

Peru: Blockade ‘For Now’

Japan: US President and the Federal Reserve Board: Harmonious Dialogue To Support the Dollar

Germany: The Tariffs Have Side Effects — For the US Too*

Ireland: We Must Stand Up to Trump on Climate. The Alternative Is Too Bleak To Contemplate

Canada: Carney Takes Us Backward with Americans on Trade