Generational Dynamics World View

[John J. Xenakis]

*** 23-Aug-17 World View -- Trump promises victory in Afghanistan by redefining 'victory'

This morning's key headlines from GenerationalDynamics.com

• Trump promises victory in Afghanistan by redefining 'victory'
  
• An Afghanistan policy guided by generational theory
  
• Pushing on to victory - as in WW II, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2007
  
• Rex Tillerson denies that 'battlefield victory' is possible
  
• America redefines its relationship with Pakistan and India
  

****
**** Trump promises victory in Afghanistan by redefining 'victory'
****


Trump giving speech on Monday evening (AP)

Most Americans are in denial about the fact that the US and China are
headed for a major world war, but the people in the Administration are
well aware of this. So any Afghanistan policy is going to be
formulated with the impending world war in mind, but without saying
so. This fact at least partially explains the confusion surrounding
the Afghanistan policy announced by President Donald Trump on Monday
evening. As I've written in the past, the Afghanistan war is a
problem with no solution. But the least bad solution is one which
prepares for the war with China.

Trump said in his speech:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"But we must also acknowledge the reality I am here to
> talk about tonight: that nearly 16 years after September 11th
> attacks, after the extraordinary sacrifice of blood and treasure,
> the American people are weary of war without victory. Nowhere is
> this more evident than with the war in Afghanistan, the longest
> war in American history -- 17 years. ...
>
> [O]ur nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of
> the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the
> sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in
> combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they
> need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to
> win."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

So, Trump is proposing a plan for victory. He describes what
"victory" means:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win.
> From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our
> enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda, preventing the
> Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror
> attacks against America before they emerge."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

He explains further:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Ultimately, it is up to the people of Afghanistan to
> take ownership of their future, to govern their society, and to
> achieve an everlasting peace. We are a partner and a friend, but
> we will not dictate to the Afghan people how to live, or how to
> govern their own complex society. We are not nation-building
> again. We are killing terrorists."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Is victory possible, with this redefinition of "victory"?

Well, there will certainly be a lot of terrorists to kill. The
terrorists al-Qaeda in Iraq were able to withdraw and go home. The
Taliban cannot withdraw and go home, because they're already at home.
Furthermore, the generation of young Pashtuns will get larger and
larger, and they will gain more territory and conduct more terrorist
acts in Kabul and elsewhere. So does that conform to Trump's
definition of "victory"? I report, you decide.

I believe it's also true that Trump and the generals have a larger
purpose in mind than just killing terrorists in Afghanistan, and I
heard one analyst provide such a purpose.

There are several American military bases in Afghanistan, including
two air bases in Bagram and Kandahar International Airport. These
bases will be valuable in any future war with China. So remaining in
Afghanistan allows us continued use of those bases, as the war with
China and Pakistan approaches.

If that's the case, then the Administration had better brace
itself for a lot of continued bad news, before those bases
become useful.

As I've said many times before,

the Afghanistan problem has no solution, and by that I mean not that
no one has been clever enough to find a solution, but rather that no
solution exists. One could argue that the plan Trump announced was a
bad plan because there was no good outcome, but it's possible that
it's still the best plan available, in that other plans have worse
outcomes. White House and Military Bases

****
**** An Afghanistan policy guided by generational theory
****

I've always felt that the country would be much better off if foreign
policy could be guided by Generational Dynamics analysis, rather than
by ideology. Barack Obama's policies were purely (left-wing)
ideologically driven and never made any sense at all, and led to one
disaster after another. My hope was that Steve Bannon, who is an
expert on Generational Dynamics, could guide the Trump administration
to a foreign policy that would be analytically driven, and would be
best for the country.

With Bannon now out of the White House, the question now arises
whether Donald Trump's foreign policies will be purely (right-wing)
ideologically driven and still make no sense at all. The
announcement of the Afghanistan plan provides a first look.

First, it was clear that Trump based his plan on the advice of
military leaders. In interviews last year, all three of Obama's former
secretaries of defense confirmed that the Obama administration ignored
military advice, and made military decisions based on ideology. Trump
did not do that, but instead worked with the military to develop a
plan. This is a good thing.

Second, it has been widely reported that the (right-wing) ideological
driven policy advocated by Rand Paul and others was to withdraw
completely all forces from Afghanistan. Trump himself has recommended
this in the past. As I wrote two weeks ago in my analysis of US Afghanistan policy,
complete withdrawal
would have potentially disastrous results, giving the Taliban total
victory, collapsing the government completely, and dealing a huge blow
to India. In his speech, Trump pointed out these same issues, and
repudiated his previous recommendation for a completely withdrawal of
all forces. This is also a good thing.

Third, there had been rumors that Trump would announce an increase of
20,000 troops, with the intention of defeating the Taliban. As one
conservative analyst put it, "Don't do what Obama did and micromanage
the troops. Let them do their thing and win." That attitude is
highly delusional, as I'll come back to below. At any rate, Trump did
not do that. That is also a good thing.

Trump did not announce the number of additional troops that will be
sent to Afghanistan, but sources have put the number at around 4,500,
in addition to the 8,400 already there. But these troops will not be
there for "nation-building," according to Trump. Their purpose will
be for "attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al Qaeda,
preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass
terror attacks against America before they emerge."

Related Articles

• Trump's review of the Afghanistan war seeks solution where none exists (08-Aug-2017)
  
  
• Massive Kabul bombing on Monday leaves US Afghan policy in tatters (25-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq (01-Apr-2007)

****
**** Pushing on to victory - as in WW II, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2007
****

I have previous written many times, victory in the Afghan war is
impossible. By that I meant victory in the sense of any of America's
previous victories -- WW II, Iraq 1991, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2007.
Instead, I pointed out that victory in Afghanistan now is impossible,
largely because of the relationship between the radicalized
ethnic Pashtuns (Taliban) in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However, Trump in his speech did promise victory in Afghanistan. So
let's look at those four examples of victory from the point of view of
Generational Dynamics, and see why they're irrelevant to Afghanistan
today:

• WW II was finally won by a series of explosive actions,
  including firebombing Dresden and Tokyo and nuking Hiroshima. These
  kinds of actions are literally impossible at any time except at the
  climax of a generational crisis war, like WW II. We are nowhere near
  the climax of a generational crisis war in Afghanistan today, and so
  these kinds of actions are literally impossible.
  
  
• The purpose of the 1991 Iraq war was to expel Saddam Hussein from
  Kuwait. Iraq was in a generational Recovery Era, just three years
  after the climax of the horrific Iran/Iraq war, so the Iraqis had
  little will to fight. So expelling Iraq from Kuwait could be done
  quickly.
  
  
• The 2001 Afghanistan war was also in a generational Recovery era,
  just five years after the climax of the horrific Afghan civil war.
  Like the Iraqis in 1991, the Pashtuns in 2001 had little will to
  fight, and so they could be defeated.
  
  
• The 2007 victory in Iraq that followed President Bush's troop
  "surge" was a victory, but it was only supported by the American
  troops. It was won by the Iraqi Sunnis who ejected al-Qaeda in Iraq,
  a foreign jihadist group whose objective was to foment a civil war
  between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq. The objective failed, as I
  described in my 2007 article, "Iraqi Sunnis are turning against al-Qaeda in Iraq".

None of these examples is in any way comparable to Afghanistan today.
In particular, Afghanistan is completely different today than it was
in 2001. The main thing that's changed in the 16 years since the 2001
Afghan war is that a whole new generation of Pashtuns have come of
age. They are not war-weary like these parents. Furthermore, there
are more of them every day. Even if, by some miracle, most of the
existing Taliban fighters could be wiped out, they would be replaced
quickly by other Pashtuns in the young generations. That would be
true even if it weren't for Pakistan, but Pakistan makes it worse,
because the ethnic Pashtun community stretches across borders into
both countries.

For similar reasons, the 2007 Iraq war is not comparable. Al-Qaeda in
Iraq was a foreign force that could be ejected, but the Taliban and
the Pashtuns are basically the same people, differing only in extent
of radicalization.

Related Articles

• Kabul bombing brings back memories of bloody 1990s Afghan civil war (03-Jun-2017)
  
  
• Brief recent generational history of Afghanistan (25-Jul-2017)
  
  
• Brookings Institution does a full reversal on Iraq war (01-Jul-2009)
  

****
**** Rex Tillerson denies that 'battlefield victory' is possible
****

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made a significant clarification on
Tuesday, saying that there is no way to win a "battlefield victory."
It's impossible to tell whether Tillerson wanted to directly
contradict Trump's statement that he was proposing "a plan for
victory," or if he used the phrase "battlefield victory" to
distinguish his use of the word "victory" from Trump's use.

Since a victory in Afghanistan is impossible, but it's important to
maintain bases in Afghanistan for the coming war with China, Tillerson
said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"This entire effort is intended to put pressure on the
> Taliban to have them understand: you will not win a battlefield
> victory. We may not win one, but neither will you. At some point,
> we have to come to the negotiating table and find a way to bring
> this to an end.
>
> There’s been an erosion in trust because we have witnessed
> terrorist organizations being given safe haven inside of Pakistan
> to plan and carry out attacks against U.S. servicemen,
> U.S. officials, disrupting peace efforts inside of Afghanistan.
> Pakistan in particular can play an important role here certainly
> in delivering the Taliban to the negotiating table."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

The last part of this statement is completely delusional (assuming
that anyone in the Administration actually believes it), though it's
probably necessary to satisfy critics. There is zero probability that
the Taliban would agree to a negotiated peace, or that Pakistan will
help. If they agree to negotiate at all, it would be only for the
same reason that North Korea and Iran negotiate -- to get financial
aid or some other benefit in exchange for promising some concession,
and then renege on the promise once the benefit is received.

****
**** America redefines its relationship with Pakistan and India
****

For years, American foreign policy generally gave the perception of
not choosing sides between Pakistan and India, but Trump's Afghanistan
speech made a significant change by giving the perception that the US
is choosing India. This makes sense because it's inevitable. As I've
been saying for years, the approaching Clash of Civilizations world
war will pit the United States + India + Russia + Iran versus China +
Pakistan + the Sunni Muslim countries.

Trump's discussion of India and Pakistan in his speech was
highly significant. He said:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"For its part, Pakistan often gives safe haven to
> agents of chaos, violence, and terror. The threat is worse
> because Pakistan and India are two nuclear-armed states whose
> tense relations threaten to spiral. ...
>
> The next pillar of our new strategy is to change the approach and
> 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 very 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.
>
> Another critical part of the South Asia strategy for America is to
> further develop its strategic partnership with India -- the
> world’s largest democracy and a key security and economic partner
> 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."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

In other words, Trump is threatening to punish Pakistan for providing
safe havens to terrorists attacking American forces in Afghanistan,
with two kinds of punishment:

• Stop providing American aid.
  
• Bring India into Afghanistan.

The heightened presence of India will be fairly alarming to Pakistan
officials. It's pretty obvious that Pakistan can't control militants
causing terrorist acts in Kabul, since they can't control militants
causing terrorist acts in Karachi.

But even if the Pakistanis could control the Afghan militants, it's
highly doubtful that they would want to, according to an editorial
written in Pakistan media in June:

> [indent]<QUOTE>"Missing in the policy matrix is the source of tension
> between Afghanistan and Pakistan that makes prospects for Afghan
> peace bleaker. Cross-border insurgent sanctuaries are a symptom
> and not the cause of the growing divide. Relations between the two
> countries have never been cordial since 2001, but they have hit a
> new low with the escalation in terrorist attacks that Kabul blames
> on the Haqqani network allegedly operating from Pakistan’s border
> areas. There has been a further breakdown of relations between the
> two countries with the recent measures taken by Pakistan to
> tighten border management.
>
> But the main reason for the increasing trust deficit is Pakistan’s
> concern at the growing Indian presence in Afghanistan. That is
> also the reason for Pakistan using the Afghan Taliban as a hedge
> against this development. The heightening tension between India
> and Pakistan has further intensified Islamabad’s apprehensions.
> Despite its own problem of violent militancy, Islamabad is not
> willing to take tougher action against the Afghan insurgent
> sanctuaries.
>
> It is apparent, that no matter how intense the US administration’s
> pressure, it cannot force Pakistan to change its
> position."<END QUOTE>[/indent]

Well, this has turned out to be a fairly lengthy analytical article,
but the conclusions are pretty clear:

• There will be no 'victory' in Afghanistan.
  
• The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan and the terrorist attacks
  will grow as more and more young Pashtuns growing up after the 1990's
  civil war come of age.
  
• Pakistan will continue to provide safe havens to Afghan
  Taliban.
  
• The US will continue to use its military bases in Afghanistan.
  
• At some point soon, the US and India will be at war with Pakistan
  and China.

In addition, if the US cuts aid to Pakistan, which is inevitable
anyway, then China will undoubtedly move to fill the gap, and has
already said they will do so. Dawn (Pakistan, 21-June) and Politico and Dawn (Pakistan)


KEYS: Generational Dynamics, Afghanistan, China, Pakistan,
Pashtuns, Taliban, Haqqani Network, Iraq, al-Qaeda in Iraq,
Rex Tillerson, India

Permanent web link to this article
Receive daily World View columns by e-mail
Contribute to Generational Dynamics via PayPal

John J. Xenakis
100 Memorial Drive Apt 8-13A
Cambridge, MA 02142
Phone: 617-864-0010
E-mail: john@GenerationalDynamics.com
Web site: http://www.GenerationalDynamics.com
Forum: http://www.gdxforum.com/forum
Subscribe to World View: http://generationaldynamics.com/subscribe