Is Trump's Agenda Being Eclipsed?

Townhall ^ | August 22, 2017 | Pat Buchanan

[Colonel Kangaroo]

I have not become the King's First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire," said Winston Churchill to cheers at the Lord Mayor's luncheon in London in November 1942.

True to his word, the great man did not begin the liquidation.

When his countrymen threw him out in July 1945, that role fell to Clement Attlee, who began the liquidation. Churchill, during his second premiership from 1951-1955, would continue the process, as would his successor, Harold Macmillan, until the greatest empire the world had ever seen had vanished.

While its demise was inevitable, the death of the empire was hastened and made more humiliating by the wars into which Churchill had helped to plunge Britain, wars that bled and bankrupted his nation.

At Yalta in 1945, Stalin and FDR treated the old imperialist with something approaching bemused contempt.

War is the health of the state, but the death of empires.

The German, Austro-Hungarian, Russian and Ottoman empires all fell in World War I. World War II ended the Japanese and Italian empires -- with the British and French following soon after. The Soviet Empire collapsed in 1989. Afghanistan delivered the coup de grace.

Is it now the turn of the Americans?

Persuaded by his generals -- Mattis at Defense, McMasters on the National Security Council, Kelly as chief of staff -- President Trump is sending some 4,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to augment the 8,500 already there.

Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent?

The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.

Yet what did the great general, whom Trump so admires, Douglas MacArthur, say of such a strategy?

"War's very object is victory, not prolonged indecision."

Is not "prolonged indecision" what the Trump strategy promises? Is not "prolonged indecision" what the war policies of Obama and Bush produced in the last 17 years?

Understandably, Americans feel they cannot walk away from this war. For there is the certainty as to what will follow when we leave.

When the British left Delhi in 1947, millions of former subjects died during the partition of the territory into Pakistan and India and the mutual slaughter of Muslims and Hindus.

When the French departed Algeria in 1962, the "Harkis" they left behind paid the price of being loyal to the Mother Country.

When we abandoned our allies in South Vietnam, the result was mass murder in the streets, concentration camps and hundreds of thousands of boat people in the South China Sea, a final resting place for many. In Cambodia, it was a holocaust.

Trump, however, was elected to end America's involvement in Middle East wars. And if he has been persuaded that he simply cannot liquidate these wars -- Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan -- he will likely end up sacrificing his presidency, trying to rescue the failures of those who worked hardest to keep him out of the White House.

Consider the wars, active and potential, Trump faces.

Writes Bob Merry in the fall issue of The National interest:

"War between Russia and the West seems nearly inevitable. No self-respecting nation facing inexorable encirclement by an alliance of hostile neighbors can allow such pressures and forces to continue indefinitely. Eventually (Russia) must protect its interests through military action."

If Pyongyang tests another atom bomb or ICBM, some national security aides to Trump are not ruling out preventive war.

Trump himself seems hell-bent on tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran. This would lead inexorably to a U.S. ultimatum, where Iran would be expected to back down or face a war that would set the Persian Gulf ablaze.

Yet the country did not vote for confrontation or war.

America voted for Trump's promise to improve ties with Russia, to make Europe shoulder more of the cost of its defense, to annihilate ISIS and extricate us from Mideast wars, to stay out of future wars.

America voted for economic nationalism and an end to the mammoth trade deficits with the NAFTA nations, EU, Japan and China.

America voted to halt the invasion across our Southern border and to reduce legal immigration to ease the downward pressure on American wages and the competition for working-class jobs.

Yet today we hear talk of upping and extending the U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, of confronting Iran, of sending anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons to Ukraine to battle pro-Russia rebels in the east.

Can the new custodians of Trump's populist-nationalist and America First agenda, the generals and the Goldman Sachs alumni association, be entrusted to carry it out?

[nikos1121]

Trump campaigned that he would stay in Afghanistan.

Buchanan is another luke warm supporter of the first president in my life time who is truly a leader.

[newfreep]

With the East Coast liberals running the White House, to paraphrase Meredith Willson...

“It’s beginning to look a like obama everywhere we go”

[BJ1]

It would have been nice if the author had an alternative plan for total victory instead of just complaining.

Personally I would have preferred to toss the country to the Northern Alliance back in the day. They fought while we provided air support and made the Taliban run to the caves. We could have just provided some support service, like air support and materials and let them figure out how to forge a lasting peace. Who cares if they are SOBs, they would be our SOB.

[LS]

Nope. Shinin’ bright, Patsy. Shinin’ bright.

[vette6387]

“Buchanan is another luke warm supporter of the first president in my life time who is truly a leader.”

Pat gets nuttier with age. He’s shorts are on too tight most of the time.

[LS]

“Like Presidents Obama and Bush, he does not intend to preside over a U.S. defeat in its longest war. Nor do his generals. Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent?”

Easy.

“An army of lambs led by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions led by a lamb.”

We now have an army of lions led by a lion.

[nikos1121]

I couldn’t have said it better if I tried to say it better.

[Alberta's Child]

The new troops are to train the Afghan army to take over the war, to continue eradicating the terrorist elements like ISIS, and to prevent Kabul and other cities from falling to a Taliban now dominant in 40 percent of the country.

I'm not sure anyone believes this nonsense anymore. The U.S. will have a permanent military presence in Afghanistan for decades. The only question right now is whether it's engaged in ongoing armed conflict, or if it is there to oversee a pacified region like we're doing in Japan and South Korea.

[wbarmy]

In fact, we were going to turn the country over to the Northern Alliance. Osama knew that, and made sure to kill Ahmad Shah Massoud before launching 9-11.

[Alberta's Child]

It would have been nice if the author had an alternative plan for total victory instead of just complaining.

"Total victory?" What exactly does that mean?

[Seruzawa]

No. Because we don’t have an actual political empire.

[Alberta's Child]

No. Because we don’t have an actual political empire.

But we do have an empire, nonetheless. Ten bucks says that every country where the U.S. has mounted a military campaign in the last 30 years is now using the U.S. dollar as its currency of trade.

[Qiviut]

Yet how can we defeat the Taliban with 13,000 troops when we failed to do so with the 100,000 Obama sent?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Key in that sentence: "Obama sent". I have read books by those who have fought in Afghanistan, one by a Navy Seal. Obama sent troops and then wouldn't let them kill anyone except under very narrow conditions. Observers were on patrol with the troops to make sure if they used their weapons that 'terrorists' had fired first or were seen with weapons. In one situation, two known terrorists were allowed to get away because no weapons were seen - they came back with a village of terrorists to engage the Americans. When you have to call a "WH General" (the likes of Rhodes, Jarrett, Rice, Omuslim) to get permission to kill the enemy, you won't "win" regardless of how many troops are in country.

[datricker]

I sure hope you're correct. Listening to folks who have served in Afghanistan I don't come away with the impression there is anything to win. It is like holding jello. Versus the Vietnam experience where it looks like we could have won that.

Its puzzling as we can't just let it be a safe haven and Pakistani play ground for all their duplicitous shenannigans.

The Romans probably would know what to do - destroy?

[Parley Baer]

I have listened to Pat Buchanan on Hannity’s show. I would say that Pat’s expiration date has expired.

[uncbob]

Until the MSM start in on civilian casualties etc etc

[Bratch]

President Trump Begins Familiar Strategic Process – Pakistan Assigned Ownership of Afghanistan Extremism…

Posted on August 22, 2017 by sundance

A very familiar pattern is emerging as President Trump turns his attention toward solving the ongoing issues within Afghanistan. A very uniquely Trumpian geopolitical strategy based on assigned ownership, economics and self-interest.

Last night as President Trump addressed the nation to discuss the ongoing conflict within Afghanistan he took the first step: Trump assigned strategic ownership to Pakistan:

[…] “The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach in how to deal with Pakistan. We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organizations, the Taliban, and other groups that pose a threat to the region and beyond.

“Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbor criminals and terrorists. In the past, Pakistan has been a valued partner. Our militaries have worked together against common enemies.

“The Pakistani people have suffered greatly from terrorism and extremism. We recognize those contributions and those sacrifices, but Pakistan has also sheltered the same organizations that try every single day to kill our people. We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change. And that will change immediately.

“No partnership can survive a country’s harboring of militants and terrorists who target U.S. service members and officials. It is time for Pakistan to demonstrate its commitment to civilization, order, and to peace. (transcript link)

If anything President Trump stated was not the brutal reality the placement of strategic ownership would not work.  However, the entire international community knows that Pakistan, including their intelligence service ISI, has a great deal of hidden sympathy toward Islamic extremists within Afghanistan.

Never was that reality more stark than when the international community realized that 9/11 terrorist Osama Bin Laden held refuge inside Pakistan for almost a decade.  Within the governing systems inside Pakistan there is a large contingent of Taliban sympathy.  This reality has been the 800lb gorilla amid public discussions of international national security for several years.

Last night President Trump called it out, publicly.

This is where those who follow Trump closely will note a familiar pattern emerging.

The Taliban in Afghanistan are to Pakistan, as the DPRK is to China.

Trump has made North Korea China's problem, and now he's made Afghanistan Pakistan's problem.

— Cari Kelemen  (@KelemenCari) August 22, 2017

Remember, the solution to the threat that is Kim Jong-un was to assign direct responsibility toward Beijing.  In a similar approach, the solution toward eliminating the threat of extremist violence from the Taliban is to assign direct responsibility toward Pakistan.  President Trump began that process last night.

However, those who have followed closely will note there’s additional references.

♦When the threat is Sunni Extremism, the problem was/is the Muslim Brotherhood and the enabling of Qatar.  Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council.   It is the GCC who are confronting Qatar, not the United States.

♦When the threat is Syria’s chemical weapon, the problem was/is the Assad regime and ISIS.  Trump assigned responsibility for solving that issue to Russia; Russia initially refused to solve it, so Trump bombed the shit out of Assad – Russia/Assad took ownership, the chemical weapon use stopped; further action was not needed by the United States.

♦When the threat is DPRK’s nuclear weapons, the problem was/is Kim Jong-un and the enabling China.  Trump assigned responsibility for solving that immediate threat to China.  It was Beijing who told Kim Jong-un to stand down.  Not the United States.

See the pattern?  In each example President Trump assigns responsibility.  However, the important element is the underlying ownership must be based entirely on truth.  In each of the examples the truth was/is that Gulf States/Qatar, Assad/Russia, and China/Beijing were manipulating and enabling the problem behavior.  By calling out that truth, each enabler was forced to take ownership and corrective action.

The same approach extends here with Afghanistan.  However, the solution is not Pakistan eliminating the Taliban per se’; the solution lies in leveraging Pakistan to force the Taliban into negotiations with the legitimate Afghan government.   Like the previous examples of Saudi Arabia and China, Trump has now assigned ownership of this objective to Pakistan.

The U.S. Military can/will engage the Taliban and Pakistan is on notice it better not act to enable the extremists.  Cliff Notes:

Additionally, this approach only works if there’s leverage to cajole Pakistan to act. Fortunately creating “leverage” is almost a uniquely Trumpian life-skill.  Throughout Trump’s business career he’s been a master at leverage.  Now with control of the largest economy and market in the world, he’s got massive economic leverage to generate beneficial national security outcomes.

Saudi Arabia was leveraged by U.S. economics and our commitments to their national security.  China was/is being leveraged by U.S. economics and their need to keep access to our markets.  So what approach will POTUS Trump use for Pakistan, yep – economics. It’s right there:

[…] “We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars, at the same time they are housing the same terrorists that we are fighting.”…

Who is Pakistan’s biggest regional adversary?  India.

[…] “Another critical part of the South Asia strategy or America is to further develop its strategic partnership with India, the world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic harbor of the United States.

“We appreciate India’s important contributions to stability in Afghanistan, but India makes billions of dollars in trade with the United States, and we want them to help us more with Afghanistan, especially in the area of economic assistance and development.” (transcript)

President Trump is smartly focusing on alliances with open democracies in regions where the greatest mutual economic benefits are possible.

♦For the North Korean problem, Japan, South-Korea and India are all economically leveraged against China by President Trump via favorable trade and market access opportunities.

[Note that “bilateral” trade deals are essential in these efforts.]

♦For the Afghanistan problem, India again becomes the economic leverage against Pakistan.  China has a great deal of investment in Pakistan, and China also views India as an economic threat to their one-road/one-belt plans.

For those who are worried about expansive military endeavors that will result in death and quagmire I would advise to put your mind at ease.  The military is needed as the visible alternative to economic leverage, see North Korea. It is a reference; but military engagement unto itself is not the central tenet or fulcrum upon which the economic leverage is dependent.

The U.S. military is not the leverage, the military helps creates leverage. The leverage itself is economic.  Financial interests are always the best leverage to use because inherent within the fundamental principles of economics is ‘self-interest’.  Actions taken generate financial benefits; those benefits are direct and immediate to the interests of those generating the results.

From the policy and outlook of trade and U.S. economic engagement, obviously India’s Prime Minister Modi is a much more preferred ally.  Both China and Pakistan fully understand the dynamics of this mutually beneficial Trump/Modi relationship and what it can mean for their own economic self-interests.

Finally Afghanistan’s government appears fully aware of the approach.

(LINK)

So what can we anticipate as next steps?  Well if the familiar pattern repeats:

• Look for Pakistan to attempt to avoid ownership.
• Look for President Trump and Secretary Tillerson to keep pulling Pakistan into each discussion point when referencing Afghanistan.
• Look for President Trump tweets aimed at creating and affirming the U.S. expectations of Pakistan.  Each time this happens the ownership gets stronger.
• Look for our diplomatic team to talk about Pakistan helping to solve the problem.
• Look for any affirming U.S. signals of warmth and friendship toward India.

These will all be indications of the ongoing strategy.  So far, this economic geopolitical approach has worked well with Syria/Russia, Qatar/Saudi Arabia and DPRK/China.  No reason not to be optimistic about Afghanistan (Taliban)/Pakistan.

Let’s get out of Afghanistan. Our troops are being killed by the Afghanis we train and we waste billions there. Nonsense! Rebuild the USA.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2013

[Mariner]

“Trump campaigned that he would stay in Afghanistan.”

Reference and citation?

[nikos1121]

It’s been brought up here the last two days.