Trump to present vision for U.S. strategy
in Afghanistan war
Send a link to a friend
[August 21, 2017]
By Steve Holland and John Walcott
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It will be President
Donald Trump's turn on Monday to address a problem that vexed his two
predecessors when he details his strategy for the war in Afghanistan,
America's longest military conflict.
In a prime-time speech to the nation, Trump may announce a modest
increase in U.S. troops, as recommended by his senior advisers.
Trump has long been skeptical of the U.S. approach in the region, where
the Afghan war is in its 16th year.
He announced a strategic review soon after taking office in January and
has privately questioned whether sending more troops was wise, U.S.
"We're not winning," he told advisers in a mid-July meeting, questioning
whether Army General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in
Afghanistan, should be fired, an official said.
Trump, who on Sunday ended a two-week working vacation at his
Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, reached his decision on Afghanistan
after lengthy talks with his top military and national security aides at
Camp David, Maryland, on Friday.
A White House statement on Sunday said Trump would "provide an update on
the path forward for America's engagement in Afghanistan and South
A senior administration official said the likeliest outcome was that
Trump would agree to a modest increase in U.S. troops. Current U.S.
troop numbers are about 8,400.
The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 after the Sept. 11
attacks on New York and Washington, and overthrew the Islamist Taliban
government. But U.S. forces have remained bogged down there through the
presidencies of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Trump.
"I took over a mess, and we're going to make it a lot less messy," Trump
said when asked about Afghanistan earlier this month.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has argued that a U.S. military presence is
needed to protect against the ongoing threat from Islamist militants.
Afghan security forces have struggled to prevent advances by Taliban
insurgents. The war stymied the Obama administration, which committed an
increase of tens of thousands of U.S. troops to reverse Taliban gains,
then committed to a troop drawdown, which ultimately had to be halted.
Earlier this year, Trump gave Mattis the authority to set troop levels
in Afghanistan, opening the door for future troop increases requested by
Nicholson. The general, who leads U.S. and international forces in
Afghanistan, said in February he needed "a few thousand" additional
forces, some potentially drawn from U.S. allies.
[to top of second column]
U.S. troops walk outside their base in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan
July 7, 2017. REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/File Photo
U.S. military and intelligence officials are concerned that a
Taliban victory would allow al Qaeda and Islamic State’s regional
affiliate to establish bases in Afghanistan from which to plot
attacks against the United States and its allies.
One reason the White House decision has taken so long, two officials
who participated in the discussions said on Sunday, is that it was
difficult to get Trump to accept the need for a broader regional
strategy that included U.S. policy toward Pakistan before making a
decision on whether to send additional forces to Afghanistan.
Both officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, declined to
disclose Trump's decisions on troop levels and Pakistan policy
before he does.
The difficulty in reaching a decision was compounded, the two
officials said, by the wide range of conflicting options Trump
White House national security adviser H.R. McMaster and other
advisers favored accepting Nicholson's request for some 4,000
additional U.S. forces.
But recently ousted White House strategic adviser Steve Bannon had
argued for the withdrawal of all U.S. forces, saying that after 16
years, the war was still not winnable, U.S. officials said. Bannon,
fired on Friday by Trump, was not at the Camp David meeting.
The officials said that another option examined was shrinking the
U.S. force by some 3,000 troops and leaving a smaller
counterterrorism and intelligence-gathering contingent to carry out
special operations and direct drone strikes against the Taliban.
Proponents argued that option was less costly in lives and money and
would add less to the damage already inflicted on U.S. special
operations forces by the long-running battles in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Somalia and Syria.
(Additional reporting by Idrees Ali traveling with Mattis in Amman;
Writing by James Oliphant; Editing Peter Cooney.)
[© 2017 Thomson Reuters. All rights
Copyright 2017 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.