Americans could take some comfort Monday night when President Trump said that he listened, consulted and weighed the advice of military advisors in his decision to up the ante in Afghanistan.
For once, the president wasn’t shooting from the hip.
Mr. Trump laid the groundwork for mounting a large-scale military approach for what he considers will be the stake into the heart of terrorism.
In typical fashion, the president stopped short of specifics including how many additional troops to expect or exactly what “victory” will look like — information Americans deserve.
Nor did his plan for shoring up the Afghan government against rival factions and terrorist groups significantly vary from that of his predecessors, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. They, too, employed diplomatic, economic and military means.
So what will be the difference in drawing this 16-year war to an end?
Perhaps now, after years of increasing random acts of terrorism, will be the will to confront terrorism on a global scale. But to that end Mr. Trump will need the cooperation of allies — something he’s run short of in his seven months in office.
To Trump — who lacks a solid ideology in anything — everything is a battleground. So putting concrete things like more boots on the ground and planes is in his playbook.
And while the Register is loath to condone increased warfare, it stands behind the effort to show terrorists that their days are numbered. That the United States will not stand idly by as increasing numbers of the world’s youth align with a misguided cause. Less than 20 years ago al Qaeda commanded an army of 400. Today it and its off-shoot the Islamic State have mobilized more than 40,000 from all across the world, including Western nations.
But hand in hand with physical war must be a dogged determination at diplomacy with Afghanistan’s warring factions and the demonstration to would-be terrorists that freedom is an even more delectable reward than that promised by jihadists.
Changing hearts and minds won’t happen quickly, which has been why setting timetables and ultimatums have worked against previous efforts. We’re good at war, but lousy at building lasting institutions, in other words nation building.
Hopefully in Trump’s zeal to score a “win” are the necessary ingredients.
— Susan Lynn
