The generals rolled him, as they rolled Obama ...

 

Before an audience of troops ordered into attendance, DJT gave us his decision on policy in Afghanistan:

1.  "There will be no blank check."  Since the applicability of this statement was not made clear, I will take it to mean that there will be limits as to how many military resources will be "invested" in Afghanistan, how much US taxpayers' money is spent there for however long it (victory) takes.  Nevertheless, no numbers were provided for possible troop end strengths or expenditures.

2.  "Decisions about future policy will be based on events on the ground, not on schedules decided in Washington."  This means that there will be no oversight over the commander in Afghanistan except by Mattis and McMaster, the apparent authors of this policy.  This is an abandonment of the American policy of civilian control of the military.  The last time we did this was in WW2 in the European theater.  In the Pacific the rivalry betwee MacArthur and the Navy made oversight by FDR a possibility. 

3.  We will fight until victory is achieved, victory being defined as a secure position for the elected government and an absence of terrorist plots against the US being "hatched" in Afghanistan.

4.  We will not "nation build," but will maintain the aforesaid government in power.  This presumably will cost a lot more money.

5.   "As the prime minister of Afghanistan has promised, we are going to participate in economic development to help defray the cost of this war to us."  Text of Speech.   As is well known I am not sympathetic to economic explanations of history but this has a name, "colonialism."

6.  Pakistan is defined by Trump in this speech as a major haven and sponsor of terrorism in Afghanistan.  IMO this is correct.  DJT says that pressure will be applied to correct this.

7.  India is summoned in the speech to help us achieve "victory" in Afghanistan and in helping us control Pakistan's adverse behavior.  India and Pakistan are enemies and both are nuclear armed.  Pakistan, as I have written elsewhere, can range the eastern Mediterranean with its mobile ballistic missiles when positioned in western Baluchistan.

8. All restrictions will be removed from the actions of military commanders in the field.

9.  It was repeatedly said in the speech that we must struggle on to victory to justify the losses we have suffered thus far.  This is sentimental nonsense.  Such reasoning completely ignores the principle of necessary acceptance of "sunk costs" that should be obvious to a businessman.

-------------

IMO this speech was written in McMaster's national security policy shop.  It is filled with mutually conflicting and sentimental items the foolishness of which are compounded by very imperfect understandings of the peoples of the region.  The conditions for "victory" are unattainable.  There will always be insurgent movements in Afghanistan, movements that threaten the country's stability and there will alway be jihadis hatching plots in Afghanistan againt the US.  

Therefore, this is a recipe for unending colonial stye war waged by the US in South Asia.  

What would a wise policy be?  You tell me.  pl 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/08/21/president-trumps-primetime-address-on-afghanistan-annotated/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.2f0aaa25d71d

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2017/08/22/daily-202-a-dozen-key-lines-from-trump-s-afghanistan-speech/599b8cf930fb0435b8208f72/?utm_term=.1c4e42a7211d

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2017/08/httpswwwbingcomvideossearchq22americacannotandwillnotsucceedinafghanistan2fpakistanqpvt22amer.html 

http://nypost.com/2017/08/21/i-hope-trump-is-right-and-im-wrong-on-afghanistan/

Comments

[Babak Makkinejad]

Any organization that contains China, India, and Pakistan would be incapable of coming to a common agreement on anything; even the proverbial shape of the conference room.

[Babak Makkinejad]

They are all pederasts - a custom older than a millennia. US soldiers have reported hearing cries of young boys being raped in the next room at night - by US Afghan allies.

[Lurker]

Col, I have always been polite and appreciate your wealth of experience and insight. I must apologize for my outburst. Please forgive my foolishness.

[mike]

Babak -

https://www.stripes.com/news/green-beret-who-hit-admitted-afghan-child-rapist-will-stay-in-the-army-1.406959

[Keith Harbaugh]

Anybody have any comments on this?:
"The Man [Scott Guggenheim] Who Thought He Could Fix Afghanistan"
by May Jeong
Politico, 2017-10-27
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/27/kabul-afghanistan-us-fixer-scott-guggenheim-215742

Guggenheim is not a household name, but anyone who knows anything about international development, or Ghani, or the makings of the modern Afghan state will have heard of him, or have worked with him, and might be a little surprised that he didn’t have an Afghan passport already. His title is modest—senior adviser—but his imprimatur is on many major government policies that have come out of the Gul Khanna. If Ghani, a former academic whose lifelong passion has been studying how to fix broken countries, is Afghanistan’s development expert in chief, then Guggenheim is his American alter ego—Ghani’s Ghani.

[Keith Harbaugh]

"The generals rolled him, as they rolled Obama ..."

Colonel, I believe that radically misstates the reasons for Trump's decision.
To explain why, let me recall some facts which I believe are indisputable:

1. The MSM looks for any excuse to criticize Trump.
2. As an example from the past of how the MSM works,
   recall how the MSM (and the Dems) blamed GWB for the suffering resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
   It was all GWB's fault!
   And opinion polls showed such blaming had a significant effect on the public's opinion of GWB.
   (BTW, an interesting comparison is how the MSM
   let BHO off the hook for the Chinese hacking of the OPM, even though
   the line of culpability for that incident led more directly to BHO
   than the Katrina problems did to GWB.)
3. Let us also note how major parts of the MSM, certainly WaPo,
   have consistently claimed that our continued war in Afghanistan is necessary (so they say) to prevent further terrorist attacks on the U.S.
4. Let us also note that over the past few years,
   when terrorism has struck the U.S. (the Boston marathon, the Fort Hood shooting, the Santa Barbara shooting, the various knifing attacks accompanied by a shout of "Allahu Akbar", and so on),
   the MSM has not tried to link this to Afghanistan.

Now
let us suppose that DJT had made the decision to pull out of Afghanistan,
and to let forces other than the U.S. military
determine its future.
(Which is, BTW, my preferred Afghan policy.)
Thereafter, just as the MSM laid all the problems of Katrina at the doorstep of GWB,
they would blame all future incidents of terrorism on Trump, and his decision to pull out of Afghanistan.
You can easily imagine the words that would flow:
"Trump didn't do enough to protect the U.S."
And if, by some chance, a major attack was made on the U.S.,
how easy it would be for them to suggest that our pullout from Afghanistan was a significant factor.
And just how, Colonel, could Trump protect himself from such attacks?

Well, anyhow, that's how I read the current situation and what would happen if Trump had pulled out.
And I think all that is sufficiently obvious that Trump sees the same thing.
So he made his decision simply to forestall those problems.

If that was his reasoning, he could hardly come out and explain it publicly.
So he said all the things he did, essentially as a cover story.

And as to WaPo? They surely don't want to be blamed for all the negative consequences of our remaining in Afghanistan forever.
So they happily play the blame game, and blame the generals for the decision.
That's my theory, anyhow.

[turcopolier]

KH

Men like BHO and DJT are easy to recruit. All you have to do is appeal to their ego and act worshipful. If you do that they will jump into your arms. pl