Trump is Poised to Re-Escalate a Hopeless War, In Afghanistan

Republicans are supposedly becoming more nationalistic, less willing to bear the burdens of global empire. Democrats are supposedly moving left, abandoning the “indispensable nation” hawkishness favored by the Clintons. American politics, we are told, is turning into a battle between Breitbart and Bernie Sanders.So how come America is reportedly considering escalating its war in Afghanistan?

Donald Trump, who as a candidate pledged that “If I become president, the era of nation-building will be ended,” may in the coming days decide to send several thousand more troops to take part in a war that has been going on since some of them were toddlers. Democrats, who denounce Trump multiple times before breakfast, will mostly look the other way. And the longest war in American history will grind on, despite the fact that almost no one believes America can win.

How is this possible? Because except for the families whose sons and daughters come back maimed, traumatized, or dead, barely anyone in the United States is paying attention.

It is hard to exaggerate how politically irrelevant the Afghan war has become. Donald Trump did not mention it in his convention acceptance speech. He did not mention it during his three debates with Hillary Clinton. It in his big foreign-policy speech last August in Youngstown. He did not mention it in his speech to a joint session of Congress. And it’s not just Trump.

Which is lucky for Trump. Because if more Americans were paying attention, they’d realize that the war he’s escalating is pretty close to hopeless. Since most U.S. troops left the country in 2014, the Taliban has been rapidly gaining ground. In November 2015, according to the federal government’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the Afghan government controlled 72 percent of the country’s districts.

The Taliban source of revenue

Corruption is deeply intertwined with this unwillingness to fight. The Taliban’s second-biggest source of revenue, after the opium trade, is the American taxpayer, who sends billions in arms and supplies to the Afghan military, much of which ends up in the Taliban’s hands. “We hear story after story of commanders who steal the fuel, sell it to the Taliban, who take the weapons we pay for and sell it to the Taliban,” explained John Sopko, America’s special inspector general for Afghanistan, earlier this year. “The irony of it is, the terrorists are at the end of our supply chain.”

Last month, in what’s believed to have been their largest attack on an Afghan military base since the war started, the Taliban stormed an army outpost in northern Afghanistan and killed 170 people. How did they pull it off? In part, because they were wearing Afghan army uniforms, traveling in Afghan army vehicles, and carrying Afghan army-issued M-16s.

The Taliban’s second major advantage is their support from Afghanistan’s neighbors. In a 2014 essay in the Small Wars Journal, Bruce Reider, assistant professor at the United States Army Command and General Staff College, noted that, “The evidence from historical analysis and scholarly research overwhelmingly demonstrates that external support is a decisive factor in determining the outcome of an insurgency.” U.S. military leaders concur.

In February, General John Nicholson, commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, acknowledged that, “It is very difficult to succeed on the battlefield when your enemy enjoys external support and safe haven.” The Taliban do, reportedly from three of Afghanistan’s neighbors: Pakistan, Russia, and Iran.

At best, maintaining America’s gains in Afghanistan requires war as far as the eye can see.

That’s unlikely to change. Russia and Iran are America’s adversaries. They don’t want a permanent American military presence—supported by a strong, stable, U.S. client—on their border. Pakistan’s leaders worried about Afghanistan becoming a client of the United States. Supporting the Taliban keeps New Delhi from consolidating its influence in Pakistan’s backyard.

Escalation doesn’t only mean more dead, injured, and psychologically scarred Americans. It also means a substantial financial expense. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, Afghan war has already cost three-quarters of a trillion dollars. And it will cost an additional $40-$50 billion more in fiscal year 2017.

That’s five or six times as much as the House of Representatives just added to pay for insurance for Americans with pre-existing conditions.And in perhaps the cruelest irony of all, it’s not just American failure that would erode the gains Afghan women have made. American success would erode them too. The U.S., after all, is not trying to vanquish the Taliban. It’s trying to convince them to lay down their arms and join the Afghan government. And if the Taliban agrees, Afghanistan’s government will grow less liberal and less supportive of women’s rights.