Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

The long, long story: 'Principled Realism', Trump and Afghanistan

By Binoy Kampmark - posted Thursday, 24 August 2017

The story continues with dispiriting relentlessness. The remark by Samuel Beckett in The Unnamable comes to mind: "I can't go on. I'll go on." With the sense of incapacity about going on, yet doing so with a drone's dedicated commitment, President Donald Trump did what US Presidents have done since George W. Bush: commit. Commit, that is, to the mission; commit more promises; and commit more thoughts to blotted paper about the war that never ends in the graveyard of empires.

Addressing the nation from Fort Myer military base in Arlington, Virginia, Trump conceded to weariness – weary, that is, of not achieving victory in Afghanistan. "I share that American people's frustration."

Another frustration were those failed efforts at nation building: "too much time, energy, money – and most importantly lives – trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests about all other considerations."


Trump's none-too-intense scouring of the Afghan problem suggested three conclusions. The first was seeking to honour the US fallen. "The men and women who serve nation in combat deserve a plan for victory."

The second effectively hooked an indefinite US commitment to the region: "the consequences of a rapid exit are both predictable and unacceptable." More terrorist havens, he feared, would mushroom; more vacuums for instability, he warned, could result.

The third far from earth shattering conclusion: "the security threats we face in Afghanistan, and the broader region, are immense." The region had been positively fecund in producing and harbouring some 20 US-deemed terrorist groups. "The highest concentration in any region, anywhere in the world." (A big tut tut to Pakistan was uttered.)

These conclusions would entail a shift. Time as a measure of achievement would be ditched. Conditions would form the necessary criteria. Dates for commencing or ending "military options" would be abandoned. No timetables, no schedules, just ground conditions that "will guide our strategy from now on." Rather neatly, Trump was suggesting a timeless deployment of US forces – for where time has ceased as a measure, there can only be conditions to assess.

The president also gave us a sprinkling of hoary old chestnuts. The government in Kabul would continue to receive support to combat the Taliban, but the issue of Afghan governance remained one for Afghans. "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."

US nation building enterprises have generally floundered, and here was a president admitting to it. But that element of candour was followed by another ghoulish admission. Not only should the US shed such efforts at failed reconstruction, it should just admit to doing one thing: "We are killing terrorists."


To do so, Trump promised to untether the US war machine, lifting those encumbering restrictions placed upon the use of fighter aircraft in targeting various networks. "Micromanagement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles." Into the bin you go, international humanitarian law!

Other more idiosyncratic pointers were made, linked to a broadening of the South Asia strategy: India needed to muck in more to stabilise the situation, given its "billions of dollars in trade with the United States". Pakistan, historically closer to US interests, was irritatingly problematic, receiving "billions and billions of dollars" while "housing the very terrorists that we are fighting." That schizophrenic state of affairs would have to "change immediately."

A vital problem here is one of aims, as muddled as they seem to be. What, for instance, would ever elusive victory look like? Taken from its elementary point in 2001-2, US strategists were hoping to eliminate a base for al-Qaeda (a "haven" for terrorists) while ensconcing a half-representative government in Kabul. It has succeeded in neither, botching the latter while failing to eliminate the Taliban.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

4 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne and blogs at Oz Moses.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Binoy Kampmark

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 4 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy