In Afghanistan, security interests outweigh ideology

On Monday, President Trump finally reaffirmed the commitment of the current United States administration to fight the Taliban, Al-Qaeda,  the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria-Khorasan(ISIS) and other extremist elements currently operating in Afghanistan. His “principled realism” approach rejects hard and fast timelines and troop levels and recognizes and adapts to the conditions on the ground. Trump’s strategy directly confronts the Taliban and terrorist organizations and calls on regional partners for enhanced cooperation.

An explicitly announced timeline for withdrawal without a concluded peace process would have catastrophic consequences, allowing the Taliban and other violent organizations to bide their time before unleashing yet another series of assaults on human rights and life; thus undermining the impressive gains Afghanistan has made towards democratic governance and an inclusive society.

{mosads}The administration’s decision to eschew such predetermined abandonment will ensure that counterproductive elements within Afghanistan will be forced to operate in climate of fear and uncertainty. In addition, the expanded upon rules of engagement of U.S. forces — above and beyond the existing train, advise and assist mission — will allow the U.S. to efficiently operate in a manner exponentially more challenging to its enemies, and one devoid of heavy-handed involvement of Washington politicians.

After decades of playing the spoiled spoiler, Pakistan will now face intensified pressure by the U.S. to end its support of the Haqqani Network and Taliban leadership — a decidedly welcome and necessary development. The signal that the U.S. would seek to engage India as a key economic development partner in Afghanistan, in tandem with the threat of withdrawal of billions of dollars of aid, will hopefully serve as the impetus for Islamabad to finally jettison the extremist elements that have, for far too long, sowed instability in its northwestern neighbor.

Trump rightly put the Afghan government on notice — if the U.S. is going to continue to expend lives and treasure on Afghan soil, then the leadership in Kabul must do its part to increase the capacity of its security forces, expand the reach of its territorial control, increase implementation of basic services, eradicate the culture of corruption and ensure that it creates an inclusive political process. However, he also affirmed that the U.S. would utilize every implement in its foreign policy toolbox to facilitate sustainable stability in Afghanistan — diplomatic, economic and military aid.

While the president asserted that the U.S. will not undertake further “nation-building,” American and international economic and capacity-building assistance has undeniably led to phenomenal strides in all facets of life, particularly for Afghan women and girls in their ability to overcome the gender inequality, discrimination and collective trauma systemic in Afghanistan after decades of conflict and Taliban rule. Girls have gone back to school. Women work as government ministers, judges, lawyers, soldiers, doctors and engineers. A new generation is being raised in a country that recognizes women’s rights as human rights.

The U.S. has worked closely with the Afghan government to make these achievements come to fruition. If it now decides to turn its back on the initiatives that have given rise to these dramatic changes — which address many of the social ills that have allowed radicalization to exist and expand in the first place — it will significantly handicap the military engagement America has vowed to undertake in this revamped strategy. If the U.S. is to achieve “victory” against “the terrorists,” it must address the root causes away from the battlefield that give rise to terrorism.

To make this approach truly effective, the administration must resist the president’s isolationist inclinations and pressure regional actors — including Pakistan, Russia, China, Iran and the Gulf states — to reject material, financial, technical and all forms of support to the Taliban and extremist entities operating within the national borders of Afghanistan.

In addition, the State Department must be populated with competent experts at its leadership posts in southeast Asia and funded enough to be able to effectively exercise its institutional expertise.

The Afghan government should be heartened that U.S. assistance will persist, despite the president’s former campaign pledges. However, more details must be enumerated to truly determine whether or not this is simply a repackaging of previous administrations’ policies, or an approach that has the power to turn the tide towards peace and stability.

After 16 years, outright “victory” and “defeat” have remained elusive. The U.S. must more clearly articulate what constitutes a “win,” and work closely with its NATO and regional allies, the Afghan government, and — most importantly — the Afghan people to ensure its definition aligns with their own.

Manizha Naderi is an Afghan American and executive director of Women for Afghan Women (WAW), the largest women’s non-governmental organization in Afghanistan. The organization operates 32 facilities in 14 provinces providing vital protection and services to victims of gender-based violence, including pro bono legal, vocational, educational, mediation, healthcare, childcare, counseling and housing assistance. WAW also works in New York and Washington to promote women’s rights to self-determination and representation in all areas of society, and to ensure that the hard-won social, political and economic gains of women and girls are preserved. Naderi was born in Kabul and currently lives in New York.