Trump, Afghanistan, and Defense Spending

With China, Russia, Iran, and ISIS on his plate, President-Elect Trump -- and the media -- seem to have forgotten about Afghanistan, the one war that President Obama has not ended. • • • AFGHANISTAN. TheHill's Rebecca Kheel is the exception, recently reminding us that Trump’s pledges to end nation-building missions of the military will be tested in Afghanistan, where "President Obama repeatedly came up against the reality of a country unready for US forces to leave." Obama has drawn the US military presence in Afghanistan to 8,400 troops, well above the 1,000 he originally wanted to leave at just the US embassy in Kabul. Obama formally ended the combat mission in 2014, but US troops remain on a dual mission : conducting counterterrorism strikes against groups such as al Qaida and ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and training, advising and assisting Afghan forces in their fight against the Taliban, a mission critics call nation-building. Faced with a resilient Taliban and recommendations from his military advisors not to withdraw, Obama was twice forced to increase the number of troops he planned to leave in Afghanistan, first to 5,500 then to 8,400. Nine US soldiers were killed in action in Afghanistan in 2016, including three soldiers killed in the first suicide bombing inside the walls of the heavily guarded Bagram Airfield since US troops arrived.Trump will face the same issue. • • • Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told TheHill : “Afghanistan is inherently and profoundly mixed as a mission. I think in the end, his view, given that it provides a counterterrorism platform, will probably be that it’s worth keeping that level of investment.” In its latest biannual report on the security situation in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said the Taliban is in control of or has influence over 10% of the country and is contesting the government for another 20%. US officials have said the Taliban holds more ground than at any point since it was ousted from power in 2001. The Pentagon report, released in December, also said the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) continue to need the help of US and NATO forces. It states : “Although the ANDSF denied the insurgency any strategic successes, the ANDSF have also demonstrated the need for continued US and coalition support to address persistent capability gaps and deficiencies." • • • Trump spoke with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani via telephone on December 2. They discussed the “grave terrorism threats facing both countries and pledged to work more closely together in order to meet these growing threats,” according to a brief statement from Trump’s transition team. The Afghan embassy in Washington said Ghani also reportedly signaled his desire for the US to keep a strong presence in Afghanistan, stressing “that the joint war against terrorism has made America a foundational partner to the people of Afghanistan.” He said US investments in his country "are bearing fruit." Although Afghanistan was not a major issue in the presidential campaign, in an October, 2015, interview with CNN, Trump called it a mistake to go into Afghanistan in the first place, but said the President would have little choice but to keep troops there : “At some point, are they going to be there for the next 200 years? We made a terrible mistake getting involved there in the first place. We had real brilliant thinkers that didn't know what the hell they were doing. And it's a mess. It's a mess. And at this point, you probably have to [stay] because that thing will collapse about two seconds after they leave.” More often, Trump has spoken broadly about the need to end nation-building. Last August he said : “Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure. If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of radical Islam.” That statement seems to leave the door open to "nqtion building " that is called something else. • • • Any attempts to curtail the mission in Afghanistan could be met by opposition from Trump's choice for Defense Secretary, retired General James Mattis. Mattis rose to national prominence in 2001 as the then-one-star general who led an amphibious task force of Marines that carried out the raid on Kandahar province in Afghanistan. As commander of Central Command, Mattis recommended Obama keep 13,600 troops in the country after the end of the combat mission, thousands more than the 9,800 troops Obama eventually settled on. In August, Mattis spoke about the need to stay engaged in the Middle East beyond the battlefield, just as the United States did in Europe after World War II : “We created the Marshall Plan, three years after Nazis were burning Jews. We offered them locomotives, rail lines, anything to help get their economies going again. That's the greatest generation. The point is it's more than just fighting battles." O’Hanlon, the Brookings fellow, said he wouldn’t classify Afghanistan as nation-building, particularly since it’s a term “full of baggage,” but that Trump could press the issue if he so desires. “If President Trump wanted to make it into an issue, he could. It still costs $15 billion a year and there are still several Americans killed. But it’s a central location where you can attack al Qaeda and ISIL, operate drones, conduct surveillance, conduct commando raids if need be. That’s pretty useful.” Sean McFate, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said that based on Trump’s derision of nation-building, he could foresee Trump abandoning the mission of training, advising and assisting conventional Afghan forces, though he could envision Trump trying to build small, elite Afghan counterterrorism forces. But, he added, Trump “sent mix messages during his campaign.” McFate also said he thinks the public would back any Trump decision to curtail the Afghanistan mission : “I think the American people are tired with perpetual boots on the ground with nothing to show. Fifteen years have yielded precious little results. The U.S. needs to get out. What we’re all worried about is, is there a way to do that to minimize risk to the US, and can you do that without it being a propaganda coup to the Taliban.” • • • THE F-35. The two largest US defense contractors said recently that they would seek to control their costs after President-elect Donald Trump summoned them and a bevy of top Pentagon officials to his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida to discuss military spending. 6(ump told reporters : “We’re trying to get costs down, costs. Primarily the F-35. That program is very, very expensive.” Trump has employed his Twitter account and its nearly 18 million followers as a weapon against defense contractors, using it to criticize the expense of Boeing Co.’s planned update of Air Force One and Lockheed Martin Corp.’s $379 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the most expensive US weapon system ever. Boeing Chief Executive Officer Dennis Muilenburg said he told Trump the planemaker can build a new version of the presidential aircraft for less than $4 billion : “We’re going to get it done for less than that, and we’re committed to working together to make sure that happens.” Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson didn’t announce any new commitments to Trump, while signaling the company has been making progress in lowering costs : “I appreciated the opportunity to discuss the importance of the F-35 program and the progress we’ve made in bringing the costs down. The F-35 is a critical program to our national security and I conveyed our continued commitment to delivering an affordable aircraft to our US military and our allies.” Despite its early stumbles, costs for the stealth fighter have fallen steadily in recent years as it approaches full production. Lockheed expects to lower manufacturing costs to $85 million a plane by the end of the decade, in line with the expense for current-generation fighters. • Apparently, Lockheed's Hewson didn' understand the message, but the stock market did -- Boeing shares ended 0.7% higher at $157.48 on Wednesday in New York, while Lockheed shares slipped 0.5% to $252.52. Defense companies stand to benefit from a resurgence in military spending promised by Trump and already underway in Western Europe and Asia as global tensions rise. Trump’s Twitter outbursts toward the two contractors may be an attempt to harmonize two competing objectives: higher spending on the military and “reform and discipline,” said Richard Aboulafia, a defense analyst with Teal Group, said in a report this month. “Those goals are tough to reconcile.” Muilenburg said he gave Trump his “personal commitment on behalf of the Boeing Company,” that Boeing will build the new 747 jets and outfit them to the Pentagon’s specifications, which include secure communications and anti-missile defenses. Boeing is just beginning work on the systems that will go into the new aircraft and hasn’t yet been awarded a contract for construction of the planes. Trump added : “We’re looking to cut a tremendous amount of money off the price....It’s a dance, you know. It’s a little bit of a dance. We’re going to get the costs down and we’re going to do it beautifully.” • • • DEAR READERS, the Pentagon will be gearing up for major increases in defense spending in order to meet Trump's goal of reinforcing the US military's position as the largest and best in the world -- a position it still holds but that Obama has consistently chiseled away at. With China and Russia on major military upgrade programs of their own, Trump will not be left in the dust technically or in troop strength. And, it seems highly unlikely that Trump will leave Afghanistan, thus opening the door for Iran and Russia to fill the void with anti-western aid. That would undo much of the as yet unannounced plans Trump has for "hitting" ISIS hard. And, it would feel a lot like the Obama withdrawal from Iraq. Stay tuned. This will heat up soon after January 20.