"We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America's enemies must never know our plans or believe they can wait us out. I will not say when we are going to attack, but attack we will."
--President Trump, Monday night
One of the dangers of electing a novice to the highest elected office in the land is that he or she may either rely too much on the professional staff or not enough. Experience and maturity may be required before a body starts to think that, perhaps, his instincts might be wrong on a particular matter. Or when to overrule the experts whispering in his ear--and be right for it. For proof, see Barack Obama circa 2009-2010.
The previous president--elected after a partial term as U.S. senator, with not a single noteworthy legislative achievement to his name--was maddening in the way he laid out his war plans before the enemy, giving timelines for troop increases and troop withdrawals. Any armchair general, or even armchair lieutenant, could have told him that such declarations only encouraged the enemy to go underground and wait it out. Can you imagine an FDR setting a public timeline for defeating the Axis?
This new(ish) president, however, seems to understand that the more confused the enemy, the better for this nation's interests. He's not about to lay out too many specifics in his war plans. If this is the only change in the War on Terror, it's a good one.
In his prime-time address Monday night, President Trump said he was going against his instincts on this one and following his generals' advice. He had campaigned and browbeated for years about pulling out of Afghanistan. But opinions sometimes change after sitting behind the big desk in the Oval Office. The president now says pulling out would create a vacuum in which ISIS or al-Qaida would fill.
The new strategy, the president said, "is a shift, from a time-based approach, to one based on conditions" on the ground. It should have always been thus.
A couple of political types who were heard from immediately after the speech deserve to have their thoughts repeated here.
First, there's the old vet John McCain, who praised the new strategy and said it was better than the failed Obama-era strategy of simply postponing defeat.
Second, there's the young vet Tom Cotton, who said the primary mission should be to deny terrorists a safe haven in Afghanistan. As if the senator from Arkansas knew that al-Qaida's base had been in that country as it planned the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Which would eventually send him to war.
Third, there's the spokesman for the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid, who decided to chime in, too. He dismissed the president's speech, in part, as "unclear."
Mr. Mujahid, you're damn right it was unclear. That's the whole point. You and yours, sir, should never see it coming.
Let it also be noted that this decision was made by the president, who the papers say listened to his generals. What a change from the last administration. And what a change for this new one, now that military advisers are given the floor to advise the president on military matters. (Word around the campfire is that Steve Bannon, happily late of this administration, is none too thrilled, and his website is taking it to his former boss.)
A panel reviewing the war included H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser, James Mattis, the defense secretary, and Gen. Joseph Dunford, the joint chiefs' chair. What do they have in common? Military experience in Afghanistan.
During his speech, the president said he and his people had arrived at several "fundamental conclusions" about America's interests in Afghanistan. One of which is to seek an "enduring" outcome worthy of the sacrifices already made. Or, as he put it: "The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory." Imagine that: An American president using the word victory again. It's been a while.
As for Pakistan, it feels like a reach to think that a President Rubio or President Kasich or President Bush III or Clinton II would have noted the obvious: that "Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror" and promise that that "will change immediately." Maybe it would take a President Trump to tell things with the bark off in this matter. If he's not afraid of offending the leadership in Germany, Mexico, Australia or England, why would he tip-toe around Pakistan? Answer: He wouldn't. And didn't.
There is an example in these matters. An example not to follow. It can be found in Iraq.
After the last president called a stand-down and pull-out from that country, it went to the Middle East in a handbasket. After the last American soldier left, after all that blood and treasure, the vaccum left allowed ISIS to gain control of much of the country. The Iraqis are only just now getting their country back. After many thousands of deaths.
There may be no good options when it comes to Afghanistan. But the worst option, as those in the know see it, is to allow it to fester into another pre-9/11 safe place for the crazies who'd like nothing more than to plan another attack on these shores. The president's first job is to keep this nation safe and secure. In this, he is proving educable.
Editorial on 08/27/2017