The end result in Afghanistan, if all goes well, will be a nominal national government that controls the capital region and reigns but does not rule local tribes and which actually helps the locals a bit rather than sucking resources from the locals, who in turn do not make trouble for the central government or allow their areas to be used by jihadis to plan attacks on the West. We press for reasonable economic opportunities, with bribes all around (I mean, foreign aid), to keep a fragile peace.
And we stick around this time, unlike after the Soviets left Afghanistan when we ignored the place, for a generation or two to see if we can move Afghanistan into the 19th century (hey, let's not get ahead of ourselves).
Hopefully our military surge recedes by the end of 2011 and we can get down to a single combat brigade plus air power that function as a fire brigade and a hammer for the central government should a local difficulty exceed Afghan military capabilities.
But my caveat was that the Pakistan problem had to be solved:
Remember, at this point our real "Afghanistan problem" lies in Pakistan. Even a successful surge in Afghanistan means a post-surge Afghanistan will face the Pakistan problem once again. Like I've argued, in these circumstances I think we can do well enough in Afghanistan without a surge. Which doesn't mean that a surge can't accomplish our minimal objectives a bit faster or even achieve more. But it also means that we risk more--lives, treasure, and national prestige--by trying to achieve more results with more effort.
We'll see if we can pressure Pakistan to deal with the real Afghanistan problem and whether the threat of pivoting to India at Pakistan's expense and supporting Indian efforts in Afghanistan will scare Pakistan enough to finally behave in regard to thinking they can support "good" jihadis.
And in what should be an encouraging sign for liberals, Trump passed that all-important global test:
"France recognizes the importance of this undertaking and remains resolutely engaged in the struggle against terrorism," a foreign ministry statement said.
So we've got that going for us.
UPDATE: Bringing India into the Afghanistan problem is the really interesting part:
From Islamabad's viewpoint, India represents an existential threat vastly superseding any danger posed by al Qaeda, or any other jihadist outfit that targets the Pakistani state, including the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and the Islamic State's Khorasan chapter. Islamabad's goal in Afghanistan, then, is to deny India a foothold by supporting the Taliban to extend its strategic depth as a means of hedging against a potential Indian military thrust.
By inviting Pakistan to turn against the jihadis that Pakistan supports in Afghanistan out of a fear that India will make gains in Afghanistan that threaten Pakistan, but holding open the alternative of using India to help pacify the Taliban, Trump has told Pakistan their worst fear will come true if Pakistan does not help in Afghanistan at long last by turning against the jihadis that kill Pakistanis as happily as they kill Afghans and coalition military forces in Afghanistan.
Does Pakistan really want to push America to more fully and more rapidly embrace India as our ally at the expense of Pakistan? Seriously?
Really, if India ever wanted to conquer Pakistan (and I doubt it), India has a bigger problem on their northern border--China--that makes it unlikely that India could scrape up the forces to conquer Pakistan now.
UPDATE: Really?
Trump's call for India to play a greater role in Afghanistan, in particular, will ring alarm bells for Pakistan's generals, analysts said.
"Trump's policy of engaging India and threatening action may actually constrain Pakistan and lead to the opposite of what he wants," said Zahid Hussain, a Pakistani security analyst.
So Pakistan will reject the call by Trump to work with America and Afghanistan because of the so-called threat from India, and will therefore get more of the India threat in Afghanistan?
Well, that's stupid. Perhaps the Pakistanis think that way. But it is self-defeating. And stupid.
UPDATE: Twelve ways the president's strategy is different from Obama's.
UPDATE: Thoughts on the war. If jihadis in Afghanistan aren't tired of trying to kill us at home, the fact that we are tired of fighting in Afghanistan is rather irrelevant, no?
