The Jury Talks Back


President Trump On Afghanistan: In The End We Will Win

Filed under: Uncategorized — Dana @ 5:50 am

[guest post by Dana]

We will not be pulling out of Afghanistan:

“My original instinct was to pull out — and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all my life I’ve heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office. In other words, when you’re President of the United States. So I studied Afghanistan in great detail and from every conceivable angle. After many meetings, over many months, we held our final meeting last Friday at Camp David, with my Cabinet and generals, to complete our strategy.”

A lasting and real “victory” seems to be elusive, or perhaps unachievable thus far. Perhaps we need a new definition of what that means, and what it would look like:

Trump Called For Victory. This is nothing new — and it’s the most controversial thing about Trump’s speech. That’s because Obama also called for victory as did George W. Bush, but none of them actually defined victory — and neither did Trump. Trump stated, “First, our nation must seek an honorable and enduring outcome worthy of the tremendous sacrifices that have been made, especially the sacrifices of lives. The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory. They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.” This last point is crucial: Trump wants to build up the military where Obama wanted to tear it down. But there’s still no point at which victory can be declared. Trump tried to define victory thusly: “From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.” But that’s exactly the same definition Obama and W. used, to little avail.



  1. I posted these questions at the other place.

    What SHOULD a successful Afghanistan look like, from the perspective of American interests?

    What might it take to get us there?

    In my case I would define as “success” a state of affairs in which we don’t have to worry about 9/11 attacks any more than we do, say Zimbabwe or Chad or any other marginally functional nation.

    Comment by Frederick — 8/22/2017 @ 12:46 pm

  2. This isn’t about Afghanistan. It is about Pakistan and the groups that support Pakistan. Success from America’s standpoint is for Pakistan to stop (or, more likely, limit) its support for terrorism and terrorist groups.

    Comment by DRJ — 8/22/2017 @ 3:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Live Preview

Powered by WordPress.