There has also emerged since Trump assumed office a disjuncture over the end game in Afghanistan. Whereas Islamabad still harps on the theme of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned negotiated end to the war, Trump has decided after the recent horrible attacks to pursue a policy of fighting before talking, ie, defeating the Taliban on the battlefield before opening the door to talks with them. Despite the announcement by Trump of sending 4,000 more US troops to Afghanistan and the greater use of air power to achieve that elusive goal, the attacks in Kabul and one in Jalalabad show the limitations of this approach. In his rage and frustration at the shadowy nature of the war against the Taliban insurgency, Trump may well put the economic and financial squeeze on Pakistan through the multilateral lending agencies where the US enjoys enormous clout and take the war to Pakistani soil through drone attacks like the one recently in Kurram Agency. What should give us pause for thought is the fact that our government made no visible effort to revisit its Afghanistan policy despite knowing that Donald Trump was likely to prove a different kettle of fish than his predecessors George Bush or Barack Obama. Instead, we are still stuck in the groove of denying the presence of Afghan Taliban or Haqqani Network safe havens on our soil while beating the victim's drum of our human and material losses in the war on terror and our claimed clearance of the tribal areas of all militant presence. This is a narrative that convinces fewer and fewer in the world, let alone in the US. There is still time to utilise the softer messages received of late from US officials to revisit our strategic depth follies and cooperate in the elimination of Afghan terrorists' presence on our soil while nevertheless striving for a negotiated settlement of the long running Afghan conflict, in that country's, ours, the region's and the world's best interests.
There has also emerged since Trump assumed office a disjuncture over the end game in Afghanistan. Whereas Islamabad still harps on the theme of an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned negotiated end to the war, Trump has decided after the recent horrible attacks to pursue a policy of fighting before talking, ie, defeating the Taliban on the battlefield before opening the door to talks with them. Despite the announcement by Trump of sending 4,000 more US troops to Afghanistan and the greater use of air power to achieve that elusive goal, the attacks in Kabul and one in Jalalabad show the limitations of this approach. In his rage and frustration at the shadowy nature of the war against the Taliban insurgency, Trump may well put the economic and financial squeeze on Pakistan through the multilateral lending agencies where the US enjoys enormous clout and take the war to Pakistani soil through drone attacks like the one recently in Kurram Agency. What should give us pause for thought is the fact that our government made no visible effort to revisit its Afghanistan policy despite knowing that Donald Trump was likely to prove a different kettle of fish than his predecessors George Bush or Barack Obama. Instead, we are still stuck in the groove of denying the presence of Afghan Taliban or Haqqani Network safe havens on our soil while beating the victim's drum of our human and material losses in the war on terror and our claimed clearance of the tribal areas of all militant presence. This is a narrative that convinces fewer and fewer in the world, let alone in the US. There is still time to utilise the softer messages received of late from US officials to revisit our strategic depth follies and cooperate in the elimination of Afghan terrorists' presence on our soil while nevertheless striving for a negotiated settlement of the long running Afghan conflict, in that country's, ours, the region's and the world's best interests.