An Expert Told Us What Trump's Afghan Endgame Might Look Like

In the United States, making war can be a popular political move. According to a speech he gave on Monday night, Donald Trump, the most unpopular new president in modern times, is about to expand US involvement in Afghanistan. For cynics, there might be nothing to see here outside that simple calculus: Trump wants to be loved and could be willing to jeopardize American lives to realize that goal.

But there's potential negative fallout for Trump here, too. He campaigned as an isolationist who routinely questioned the value of staying in Afghanistan, a flip-flop he fully acknowledged in his speech. "My original instinct was to pull out, and historically, I like following my instincts," he said, before adding his favorite refrain that "decisions are much different when you sit behind a desk in the Oval Office." But this is a case where one of the Teflon Don's decisions may actually dent his political support. Breitbart—the media company now once again helmed by Trump's freshly fired strategist Steve Bannon—is having a field day attacking Trump on this very inconsistency, an onslaught that could influence diehards in his base.

To make matters worse, Afghanistan is generally regarded as an un-winnable quagmire. For almost 16 years now—ever since just weeks after the 9/11 attacks—the US has been battling it out in the rugged, unconquerable wilderness of this landlocked chunk of Central Asia. The US and NATO mission to prevent the mountainous country from again being the safe haven for terrorists it once was always seems out of reach. Despite the massive US effort, the indefatigable Taliban ideology that once provided refuge for al Qaeda leaders flourishes in the region, never seeming to run out of Pashtun tribespeople willing to fight and die for it. As of February, the Afghan government appeared to lack control over some 40 percent of its own territory.

That bleak outlook could help explain why Trump wants to avoid talking about the number of new troops he's sending to Afghanistan. (Anonymous Pentagon officials told the AP after the president's speech that it's going to be up to about 3,900 of them.) His stated logic is that he's keeping the US strategy a secret from the enemy, unlike the predecessor with whom he remains obsessed, Barack Obama. "We are not nation-building again; we are killing terrorists," Trump explained. But aside from ever-popular explanation that is hurting bad guys, what's to be gained here? And since, as usual, Trump didn't provide any specifics, is there any way to read between the lines and figure out what's about to happen?

To find out, I talked to South Asia analyst Faisel Pervaiz at the geopolitical intelligence firm Stratfor. Pervaiz helped me see this horrible disaster in Afghanistan for what it really is: a regional horrible mess that spans Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even India. But he also said he sees a potential endpoint, and this troop buildup could be a sign that Trump and his generals have their eye on the same possibility.

Here's what we talked about.

VICE: Are you surprised that Trump didn't say how many troops he was sending?
Faisel Pervaiz: No, I'm not surprised by that just because it seems to fit into Trump's general perspective in how he differs from Obama in terms of how to prosecute military strategy. Trump previously also said, Why are we revealing our cards to the enemy? At the very least, one thing I'll be watching for is, what will be the impact on the battlefield itself? We're going to be getting—as we already have been—consistent reports on the War in Afghanistan. Meaning what's happening, what are the attacks, and from the US standpoint, how are we doing in the fight?

If we set aside domestic politics, and assume Trump really wants this to work, what might Trump's strategy be in sending these troops over there?
Currently in Afghanistan, the Afghans who are fighting the war, and being supported by the United States and NATO, are in a losing and unsustainable stalemate against the Taliban. So it's almost like saying the conflict right now is tipped in the Taliban's favor, say, 51–49 percent. It's pretty close. It's not as if the Taliban are just crushing the Afghans. The Taliban certainly have scored their victories, but then the Afghans come back, and usually are able to fend off the Taliban, and regain territory. So it's been a back and forth. Now, where the generals are concerned, back in January you had the NATO commander, General Nicholson, during congressional testimony, say the US will need a few thousand more troops to try to break that ceiling. That's all you're seeing right now.

Is defeating the Taliban off the table?
I think that's farfetched. And I think Trump himself kind of alluded to this in the speech. He said it's possible that someday the Taliban may be part of a power-sharing agreement, and that very much is my expectation. Now, what that looks like is very much open to interpretation. There's going to be a very big debate about how that's going to shake out, but the Taliban will have some role in a post-conflict Afghanistan.

So what's the point of sending more people to fight them?
The goal [is] that the US can inflict a high enough cost on the Taliban to make negotiations a more attractive option than fighting. And then on the other hand, you have the [fight against the] Islamic State and al Qaeda, and these are what you would call transnational jihadists. The Afghan Taliban is actually a localized jihadist group. There's a Pakistani Taliban, and they're a bit different, but the Afghan Taliban's main focus isn't in conquering other countries or spreading a caliphate. Their interest is to reconquer Kabul the way they had it from 1996–2001, when the US invasion kicked them out. Al Qaeda, and the Islamic State's Khorasan chapter—they're transnational groups. They like to run across boundaries. They have a bigger, broader, more global mission.

Trump had talking points—for instance, about how he's going to take a hard line on Pakistan now. Is this any different from Obama's policies?
It's kind of hard to parse any real shift in US strategy based on the speech. Now, that being said, I'm not sure if I see the US changing its tack on Pakistan anymore than we're seeing already. And that last part is the crucial part, because already, the United States strategy has been to pinch Pakistan. Recently General Mattis said, I'm going to withhold a $50 million reimbursement from Pakistan because they haven't been taking sufficient action against the safe havens they provide for militants in their territory. So that's already taking place.

Could you remind me how it serves Pakistan's interests to keep providing a safe haven to militants when they know how much the US hates that?
If you're the United States, and you're looking at Afghanistan, you see a country used as a base by al Qaeda to launch an attack on your shores that was devastating. Therefore, you, since 2001, have been on this mission to say, We cannot allow Afghanistan once again to become a base for transnational extremists who are going to attack the United States and its allies. That's the US view when they see Afghanistan.

OK, but what about when Pakistan looks at Afghanistan? What does it see?
India. [Because] when it finds a vulnerability, India may step in to hurt Pakistan. So, Pakistan's goal is, We absolutely cannot have India establish a strong relationship with Afghanistan. Because then India's on both sides of Pakistan. So since 1994, [when] warlords were fighting one another, and the country was unstable, Pakistan said, How can we stabilize the country? Who can we throw our money behind?

Pakistan saw the Taliban, and said: We're gonna throw our money behind them. It's not a perfect relationship, and there's been a lot of friction between Pakistan and the Taliban, so I don't want people to think Pakistan gives orders, and the Taliban follows. But for Pakistan, hosting Taliban leadership on its soil is a way to maintain leverage over the Taliban so that when this war some day draws down, Pakistan is party to the negotiations, and the expectation is Pakistan is telling the Taliban: Look, when you enter a power-sharing agreement, you have to fulfill our interests. And that means you have to always maintain India at arm's length.

Trump actually mentioned India. What was that all about?
When Trump was talking about India's role, he limited it to economic assistance [to Afghanistan], and that's actually what India has already been doing for the past several years.

So is anything truly new here?
I would say in general, the broader takeaway is that the United States recognizes that the Afghans are in a losing stalemate. That's an unsustainable situation, so the United States is providing a modest troop increase to try to change that, fully recognizing that this step is not going to resolve the larger issues which explain why the conflict has been going on for almost 16 years now. We'll be watching for more details as they emerge in the weeks to come.

This conversation was edited for length and clarity.

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.