A few days ago, Donald Trump broke another one of his election promises: not to send troops to faraway countries unless American interests directly are at risk (and, as Donald elaborated, in such case it helps when there is oil or other stuff to take back home to pay for troop deployment). Instead of pulling out completely, he announced his decision to send more soldiers to resource-poor Afghanistan, probably 4,000 or so as a start, to assist and train the local army to take control of the country. This time, there is no clear limit on size of troop numbers and duration of the exercise. Mr. Trump defended his turnabout by saying the surge was required to fight terrorism, specifically to ensure that Islamic State would not find a new home. He might as well have sent his Marines to the suburbs of Brussels and Paris for that matter. In any case, in our view, even though Islamic State has a base in Afghanistan (somewhat reduced after Trump allowed firing of a MOAB, nicknamed “mother of all bombs”, in April), it is unlikely that the Taliban will roll out the red carpet for a rival Islamic terrorist group, so its presence probably will be contained anyway. Reportedly, Mr. Trump became convinced that action was needed after he was shown a 1970s picture of three Afghan women in miniskirts parading the streets of Kabul, suggesting that the country used to be open to Western values (we sincerely hope this is fake news!).

Conquering hearts and minds in Afghanistan…

The U.S. got involved in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. George W. Bush showed his leadership and bombed large parts of the country where, according to infallible U.S. intelligence, al-Qaeda’s boss Osama bin Laden was hiding. Unfortunately, Osama moved next door to Pakistan, a so-called U.S. ally that has been supporting Islamic terrorists for many years (like Saudi Arabia, another “ally”, where most of the terrorists actually came from). After toppling the Taliban, George W., in an intent to build a new nation, went on to bring democracy to the medieval country by installing a corrupt and utterly incompetent president, Hamid Karzai. In order to restore the economy, America sent some Italian and Tajik goats to provide cashmere wool for a non-existing textiles industry to replace poppy growing. Unfortunately, most of the goats ended up on a barbecue (after a game of Buzkashi, perhaps) whereas the narcotics trade flourished with a new clientele of American soldiers nearby. As with Iraq (see our blog “I will be with you, whatever…”), Bush and friends did not have a workable and realistic plan and, therefore, failed to bring peace in Afghanistan. Bush’s successor, Barack Obama, realized this and declared defeat by bringing back most of the boys apart from some 8,500 who remained there to train local army and police and to provide security for the U.S. embassy in Kabul. Regrettably, he also left behind a failed state. Even though Trump called the involvement of his country in Afghanistan a “total disaster”, he himself now is at it again. He is adamant that nation building is not the goal (because, we guess, for that he could start in the U.S. itself), but that “killing the bad guys” is. New is that he (or his generals) correctly pointed to Pakistan as a rogue state that needs to be brought into the loop.

This goat is mine…

Of course, we agree that terrorism should be countered and that increasing resources to that end is useful and necessary but, in our view at least, this only will have lasting success if Afghans get a future. This means provision of basic needs (food, education, healthcare), security (but not in the form of “first shoot, then ask”) and jobs. Unemployment runs at 40% or so (exact numbers are hard to get by) and, to make matters worse, the country is experiencing a large influx of returning refugees from Pakistan and other places (probably 1 million in 2016), where they are not welcome anymore. Without offering Afghans an realistic opportunity to better their lives (average GDP per capita is below USD 600 per annum, according to IMF, although this probably is an understatement as income from the informal economy and narco trade most likely is not counted), the Taliban and other terrorist Islamic groups, possibly armed by Iran or Russia, will be able to retain or increase their grip on the country. Indeed, the Taliban already recovered ground and controls large parts of the south and east of the country. So, Trump’s surge hopefully improves much-needed security, although we question whether an increase of 4,000 is sufficient. Anyway, we believe a sustained UN peacekeeping mission would be more appropriate and successful than to send in the Marines. Establishing security should go hand in hand with building strong institutions (e.g. a legitimate and competent government and independent and non-corrupt judiciary), as a first step. Mr. Ashraf Ghani, Afghanistan’s president since 2014 and a respected scholar on state building, has made some progress but much more is needed. This is a painstaking process and will take many, many years and perseverance. Likelihood of success is low, given the tribal nature of Afghan society and the ubiquitous narco trade, fueling corruption and jeopardizing security. If The Donald does not understand this and deals with it appropriately (“grabbing the goat by the pussy”, to put it in his words), his fate is likely to be that of his predecessors: “total failure”.