U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One prior to departing Morristown Municipal Airport en route Camp David, Maryland, where he'll meet with his national security team to discuss a U.S. security strategy for South Asia that includes sending more U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan, in Morristown, New Jersey, U.S., August 18, 2017. Kevin Lamarque, Reuters
Reuters: Trump makes no decision on Afghanistan strategy
HAGERSTOWN, Md./WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump reviewed an array of options for a strategy on Afghanistan with his top national security aides, but made no decision on whether he would commit more troops to America's longest war.
Friday's meeting was the latest in a series of high-level discussions on Afghanistan and a broader security strategy for the South Asia region that has been bogged down by internal differences.
Trump was briefed extensively "on a new strategy to protect America's interests in South Asia", White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters, after the meeting at the Camp David Maryland retreat.
"The president is studying and considering his options and will make an announcement to the American people, to our allies and partners, and to the world at the appropriate time," Sanders said.
Read more ....
Update #1: Trump Undecided On Committing More U.S. Troops To Afghanistan (RFE).
Update #2: Trump again puts off Afghanistan war decision (The Hill).
WNU Editor: Not committing to a U.S. military expansion in Afghanistan is a decision in my book .... and I can only hope that he sticks with it.
3 comments:
On Afghanistan, Trump is as bad as Obama was for making a decision.
For the top, top decision maker: "IS AFGHANISTAN a strategic country"?
The obvious answer is NO.
Stop spending money for that and use this money for fixing our air force.
Every country is strategic. It just matters by how much & by who (which isn't saying much).
I am sure that when or if the U.S. pulls out China, Russia, Pakistan & Iran will be jockeying for position more than they are now.
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar for example is supported by Pakistan. He was supported by Pakistan in the 197-s by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto & Zia-ul-Haq. Hekmatyar, 'The Butcher of Kabul', was supported by the ISI from 1979 to the 1990s. He continues to be supported by the ISI. Iran might have his hooks in him too. He spent time there.
As an aside, the left often claims that we supported Al Qaeda. That is not true. The money during the Afghan War went to this misanthrope at the insistence of Pakistan (Massoud saw very little although the Brits did what they could to support him.).
If the U.S. pulls out, China will build its road to Iran. They will anyway. It is just a matter of when and whether they can keep it and how much it will cost. Along the way china will set up mining operations in Afghanistan, which is okay depending on the relative shares.
Your editor comment is spot on. Committing to a military expansion for Afghanistan makes no sense for America's strategic interests nor does it make sense politically. This is one of the rare instances where strategic interests and political actually converge. Sticking to the commitment not to expand military operations has huge upside potential with no downside risks. As such, it seems a no brainer.
Post a Comment