/

Why Trump’s Pakistan policy dooms Afghan peace

by Touqir Hussain

The Diplomat

For a 16-year-long war in Afghanistan, whose failure lies in an endless list of complex causes — including flawed strategy, incoherent war aims, return of the warlords, rise of fiefdoms and ungoverned spaces, corruption, power struggles and a competitive and conflict-prone regional environment — U.S. President Donald Trump has one simple solution: get rid of the Haqqani Network and Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan. And if Pakistan does not oblige, cut off aid.

Like the Afghanistan war, the equally complicated U.S.-Pakistan relationship is also being narrowly defined, thereby obscuring the many different ways it can serve or hurt the very American interests that the Trump administration is trying to serve.

It is certainly true that Pakistan has a lot to answer for, especially for its illicit relationship with the Taliban. But sanctuaries did not play a defining role in the war’s failure, nor will their eradication, if they still exist, play a salient part in its success.

Sixteen years into the war, Washington has shown no better understanding of the complexities of Afghanistan and the region than when it invaded the country in 2001. Some understanding of what has gone wrong might help us find the way forward.

What went wrong

It has been an unwinnable war in the way it has been conducted, especially given the realities of a strife-torn country wracked by multiple conflicts since the overthrow of the monarchy in 1973. The 1980s war against the Soviets and the subsequent civil war had raised the profile of the mullah and jihad, and changed not only Afghanistan but also the adjoining tribal territories in Pakistan. Home to millions of Afghan refugees and base to mujahedeen, these territories almost became like one country along with the areas across the Afghan border.

Pakistan’s heartland too was affected by the religious infrastructure spawned by the 1980s war and by Islamabad’s own follies, to which Washington made no small contribution, first through the ISI- and CIA-sponsored jihad in Afghanistan, and then by sanctioning Pakistan in 1990 and leaving it to its own devices. The Taliban were an extension of this slow unraveling of Afghanistan, and strategic overreach of the Pakistan Army and societal changes in the country.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush made grievous mistakes upon America’s return to Afghanistan. It was a strategic mistake to try to defeat al-Qaida by defeating the Taliban, who were not going to fight but instead run away to Pakistan. The focus should have been on al-Qaida. The context of dealing with the Taliban was fixing the fractured Afghanistan through its reconstruction and stabilization with a new ethno-regional balance acceptable to all the Afghans. That is what you call nation-building. But Washington, of course, would have none of that.

Instead, Bush outsourced much of the war to warlords and rushed to institute democracy, guided by the need to get domestic support for the war and by a flawed view that democracy is nation-building.

In Afghanistan, democracy did not help. It made Hamid Karzai dependent on the political support of warlords and regional power brokers, the very people who had brought Afghanistan to grief in the ’90s. This led to corruption, power struggles and bad governance, facilitating the return of the Taliban which led a resistance that was part insurgency, part jihad and part civil war. And by creating a dual authority — their own and Kabul — Americans set up a perfect scenario for a clash of personalities, policies and interests, making for a poor war strategy.

For Bush’s successor, it was a story of dealing with his conflicted approach to the war where policy and legacy collided. Indeed the policymaking itself was not without its own conflicts, strife-torn by turf wars, interagency rivalries and bureaucratic tensions.

The Trump strategy

Now Trump is seeking a military solution for the conflict. There is a talk of a political solution, but that seems to be just a Plan B in case the military option fails. The suspension of aid to Pakistan is aimed at pressuring Islamabad to help Washington defeat the Taliban. But Pakistan is finding it hard to oblige without relinquishing its national interests in favor of U.S. aid, and in the face of public humiliation by Trump. It will not do so in this election year, and not in an atmosphere where Pakistan sees the Indian threat having doubled with India’s increased presence in Afghanistan from where it is allegedly helping orchestrate terrorist attacks on Pakistan. If anything, this should enhance Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban.

The Taliban is the biggest card Pakistan has to secure its interests in Afghanistan, and it won’t give it up easily unless it knows what comes next. Pakistan also feels the U.S. strategy will not succeed and may in fact backfire. A disinherited Taliban retreating from Afghanistan would be a much greater threat to Pakistan and to the U.S., especially if the Taliban joins forces with other jihadi and Islamist groups.

The Washington-Islamabad standoff thus continues. Pakistan feels it can take the heat, and that if Washington dials up the pressure, it will fall back on China. Washington thus has to consider the geostrategic implications carefully in this respect.

The China factor

A Pakistan closely aligned with China could conceivably take a harder line against India. If the U.S. continues to see China as a threat and India as a balancer, what would serve U.S. interests better: An India whose resources are divided by a two-front deployment, or one that has friendly relations with Pakistan? For that, Washington should not burn its bridges with Islamabad.

A relationship with Pakistan would also give the U.S. leverage against India. Furthermore, it will be useful to have Pakistan on its side in a region that is increasingly coming under the strategic shadow of Russia and the creeping influence of Iran. Most importantly, Pakistan’s role remains critical in stabilizing Afghanistan, and in helping Washington’s counterterrorism efforts.

A political solution?

After considering all other options, the discussion always reverts to the talk of a political solution. But the irony is such a solution remains as elusive as the military one. How do you have power-sharing or coexistence when the Kabul government and the Taliban subscribe to two different political systems? And if instead of sharing it, you divide power by relinquishing the governance of some areas to the Taliban rule, are you not consigning the population to the Middle Ages?

Pakistan has limited influence to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, and has little incentive to do so when there is lack of clarity about U.S. policy and Pakistan’s ties with Washington are strained. The upshot is that the Taliban themselves are divided. Some are irreconcilable, but those who want peace worry they might be shortchanged if they lay down their arms and accept a deal while the American forces are still there.

The Taliban trust China and its guarantees that they would not be betrayed. But the Chinese need support from Washington and Kabul. The Quadrilateral Consultative Group process offered the prospect of such support. But the Trump administration prefers the military option and going it alone, and that also suits Kabul: This way, at least the Americans will likely stay for the long haul.

What is needed is a new relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Only together can they deal with the Taliban, politically if possible, and militarily if necessary. Counterinsurgencies are essentially a governance issue. Afghanistan needs to conciliate the areas under the Taliban control, and Pakistan should help by making its lands inhospitable to them. And both must work on joint border management and resolution of the refugee problem. This is a long-term plan, but it is doable. U.S. engagement with them would be essential to their success, as would be China’s involvement.

But the U.S. is not thinking in these terms. Instead, Trump has defined the Afghanistan war very narrowly and in immediate terms as a terrorism problem. American soldiers under attack from sanctuaries in Pakistan, rather than the war itself, preoccupies the Trump base. As for the military, it is only thinking of the military solution, and that also highlights the sanctuaries issue. So, right now, U.S.-Pakistan relations are stuck, which makes the prospects of any political solution in Afghanistan quite dim.

Touqir Hussain, a former ambassador of Pakistan and diplomatic adviser to the prime minister, is adjunct faculty at Georgetown University and Syracuse University. © 2018, The Diplomat; distributed by Tribune Content Agency