Jehangir Khattak
American democracy has always thrived more on ideas than ideology. Pragmatic and at times not-so-real roadmaps to shiny goalposts for a better future of Americans have given rise to leaders or have brought them down. American elections history tells it all. Ideas matched by scrutinized and workable blueprints have earned American leaders the Oval Office.
George W. Bush, for example, won the elections in 2000 largely because of his notion of keeping America’s social security system solvent past 2035 when it is projected to pay more baby boomers and receive less in contributions. Bush was re-elected in 2004 on the promise of keeping the US safe in a terrorism-infested post-9/11 world. Afghanistan had again emerged central to US national security after its invasion of the land-locked country. Bush returned to power largely because of a weak challenger and the promise of maintaining national security amidst wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Barack Obama won in 2008 on the slogan of “yes we can”, promising revival of the tanked American economy, facing its worst crisis since the Great Depression, besides pulling US troops out of Iraq and a victory in Afghanistan.
In 2012 re-election bid, Afghanistan again was high on Obama’s election promises – this time pledging to bring a “responsible” end to the war by 2014, amid growing realization in Washington that a military victory could be an unrealistic goal.
“By 2014, the war in Afghanistan will be over … I have set that timeline. I intend to keep it, because after a decade of war that’s cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, the nation we need to build is our own,” he promised the American voters at an event in Baltimore, Maryland. Obama won the re-election.
In 2016, Donald Trump’s nationalistic, protectionist and muscular worldview “Make America great again”, and supported by Democratic Party establishment’s insane preference to Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders, prevailed. The Democratic Party’s establishment and white nationalism had delivered Trump, a Washington outsider, as America’s new leader.
Like Obama, Trump also wanted to use military might to claim a final victory in Afghanistan. His muscular 2017 South Asia policy changed the dynamics of security environment in volatile South Asia. But the worsening situation on the ground soon changed Trump’s euphoric optimism on Afghanistan.
Like a good businessman, he opted to try to cut a deal with Taliban. With Pakistan’s help, the peace talks with Taliban matured into a draft agreement, which never saw the daylight. Just three days before a formal deal was supposed to be inked at Camp David, Trump unexpectedly scuttled the process on September 7, which he so painfully started and sustained for almost a year. Weeks of gloom later, now the ice seems to be breaking again. On November 19, Taliban released an American and an Australian national in exchange for three key Taliban leaders, including Anas Haqqani, the younger brother of Sirajuddin Haqqani, the leader of Haqqani Network.
Trump welcomed the release of American and Australian nationals. “We join families of Kevin King & Tim Weeks in celebrating their release from Taliban captivity. Thanks to President Ghani for his courageous support. Let’s hope this leads to more good things on the peace front like a ceasefire that will help end this long war. Proud of my team!” Trump said on Twitter.
Trump’s tweets have rekindled the hopes of a resumption of the peace talks in coming weeks. The promised exit from Afghanistan could help his sagging approval ratings ahead of a tough election and impeachment hearings. Will Afghanistan contribute to delivering the presidency to Trump or one of his opponents? It could but Afghanistan will not be the deciding factor in the election results since Trump and his challengers from the Democratic Party, one of whom will ultimately run against him, have pretty much identical views on Afghanistan.
America’s Afghan conundrum may not decide elections, but it comes up pretty much in every Democratic presidential debate held so far. It figured in the November 20th debate as well. The reason is obvious. American voters are looking for a way forward that brings their troops back home without compromising on the possible threat of another 9/11.
Like Trump, the Democratic presidential candidates may want a “responsible exit” but none have perfect solution for ensuring lasting peace. Here is a summary of the leading four candidates’ views on Afghanistan and what policy they are promising, if elected.
Joe Biden:
The former Vice President is not new to the Afghan conflict. He has dealt with it before during Barack Obama’s eight years.
Biden wants a “responsible” exit from Afghanistan And favors a more narrowly tailored mission in Afghanistan. he wants to ensure that terrorist organizations based in Afghanistan do not become strong enough to become a serious threat to the US again. He wants to continue counter-insurgency operations by stationing troops in Pakistan.
“We can prevent the United States from being the victim of terror coming out of Afghanistan by providing for bases — insist the Pakistanis provide bases for us to airlift from and to move against what we know,” Biden told a Democratic debate in September. “We don’t need those troops there. I would bring them home.”
But Biden’s program is being considered unreal by many Americans analysts who believe Pakistan would never agree to such an arrangement.
Bernie Sanders
Sanders’s foreign policy vision sounds a little like Trump’s. The Senator from Vermont, who voted on favor of US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, is promising an expeditious withdrawal. Unlike Biden, Sanders has not clarified if he will leave some troops in Afghanistan or in the region for counter-terrorism operations? Intra-Afghan dialogue and Post-US exit setup seems low on Sanders priority. He however wants engagement with Afghanistan and other countries in the region in the economic sphere.
“It’s time to end our intervention there and bring our troops home, in a planned and coordinated way combined with a serious diplomatic and political strategy which helps deliver desperately needed humanitarian aid. Withdrawing troops does not mean withdrawing all involvement, and my administration would stay politically engaged in these countries and do whatever we can to help them develop their economy and strengthen a government that is responsible to its people.”
Elizabeth warren
Like Senator Sanders, Senator Warren (D-Mass.) also largely agrees with President Trump on Afghanistan. “We’re not going to bomb our way to a solution in Afghanistan,” she said, urging American investment instead in economic and development programs that could help root out terrorism there and elsewhere, she said at democratic debate in September. Warren supports a political settlement of Afghan conflict.
“Expecting a military victory when a political settlement is required is unfair to our military, and unfair to the Afghan people. It’s long past time to bring our troops home, and I would begin to do so immediately,” Warren told Council on Foreign Relations.
Like Sanders, Warren supports investment in development rather than military campaigns. “Redirecting just a small fraction of what we currently spend on military operations toward economic development, education, and infrastructure projects would be a better, more sustainable investment in Afghanistan’s future than our current state of endless war.” She supports an international effort to encourage a political settlement between the Afghan government and the Taliban “that is sustainable and that protects U.S. interests.” The Senator from Massacheussetts wants more concerted efforts to promote the rule of law, combat corruption and the narcotics trade, and ensure the basic rights of all Afghans are protected.
Pete Buttigieg
The former US Navy officer and the current Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who served in Afghanistan, is pushing forward a more elaborate policy. Like his other Democratic colleagues, he is also in favor of ending the Afghan war.
Buttigieg, however, wants to draw down to the “minimum required residual force.” And to him, that means having a “highly limited” force with “special operations or intelligence capability like we might have in any number of places around the world.”
He also supports a negotiated peace agreement in which the US maintains a relevant special operations/intelligence presence but withdraw the ground troops. “Using our current presence to help lock in a peace agreement should be part of that strategy,” he recently said in a magazine interview.
Buttigieg said “we should welcome” the Taliban to be a part of the Afghan government provided they are “willing to lay down their arms and participate in a pluralistic democratic government.” But he cautioned that “we need to make sure they are serious.”
In the long run, Buttigieg thinks Afghanistan “can be” a U.S. ally because of similar desired outcomes and aligned interests. But if the Taliban are part of the government in Kabul, Buttigieg would not want the U.S. to continue sharing intelligence.
Buttigieg spent time in Afghanistan in 2009 as a civilian adviser helping with economic issues. Regardless of whether he wins the presidency, Buttigieg wants to retire in 2054, the year he would turn 72. And when he does, he insists that he’d like to go back to Afghanistan as a civilian.
“My hope is that by 2054 I will be able to visit Afghanistan as a tourist,” Buttigieg said. “It is a hauntingly beautiful country with extraordinary people and we all have an interest in there being peace and stability in that place.”
The writer is a New York based senior journalist and commentator. He tweets at @JehangirKhattak
