The Cipher Brief sat down with former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald Neumann to discuss some of the challenges that the incoming Trump Administration will face in Afghanistan and the steps the U.S. government can take to reaffirm its commitment to stability in Afghanistan.
The Cipher Brief: What are some of the biggest challenges the next U.S. administration will face in Afghanistan?
Ronald Neumann: The overarching challenge for the incoming Trump Administration is to make clear its policy and to keep to it. One of the biggest problems in the Obama Administration has been the constant, almost yearly policy reviews and policy changes, which lead people to think we are leaving or to not understand what’s going on. That undercuts the support we have given and encourages the enemies, and the Taliban in particular, to keep fighting. If the Trump Administration is going to stay in Afghanistan as I think they should, they need to settle in for the long haul.
TCB: What steps can the next administration take to repel recent Taliban advances across Afghanistan?
RN: One of the things they need to do is maintain the current rules of engagement that allow the U.S. to use its airpower. Remember, the Obama Administration stopped that for nearly two years.
We do not need big combat forces. Some of the problem is in the Afghan Security Forces, some of who are fighting very well, like the commandos, and some of who are not. They need to improve senior command at the level of the ministries and a couple of their core commanders.
The U.S. needs to make sure it’s advising at every core – right now we don’t even reach every core with our advisors.
We also need to keep working with them on cleaning up the police. The army itself is still fairly good, the most respected institution in Afghanistan. We need a slight expansion of our advisory support. We should not be taking over the war from them as they have not asked us to do that.
TCB: Should the next administration increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan back to where they were before President Barack Obama’s most recent drawdowns? Do you think there are sufficient intelligence resources?
RN: The current U.S. troop levels are about right. If you look at the NATO assessment of required troops, it would be 2,000-3,000 more.
But we should not get caught up too much in a numbers game. There are a few clear shortages. We don’t have enough advisors to have an advisory team at every core; we probably should have a few more advisors at the brigade level. That’s not big numbers, so it’s close to right.
TCB: How can the next U.S. administration put pressure on Pakistan to push the Taliban toward participating in negotiations with the Afghan government?
RN: The new administration must understand that Pakistan is potentially a friend and certainly not a state we want to see collapse, but that the Pakistanis have given shelter to the Taliban and continue to do so. You’re going to need to put gradual pressure on Pakistan – perhaps with more attacks in Pakistani territory, such as the U.S. drone strike that killed Taliban leader Mullah Mansour. At the same time, we ought to be prepared to increase our assistance and support for Pakistan if they were to cooperate.
TCB: What are we to make of Pakistan’s new army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa? Will he continue former army Chief General Raheel Sharif’s policies?
RN: The good news is that General Sharif is stepping down at the end of his term without an extension – the first time in probably ten years that a Pakistani commander has done so. Not much is known about his successor. The Pakistanis have begun a very active campaign against some of the extremists in Pakistan. They need to broaden that campaign out to take on the Afghan Taliban. I hope they do it, but we don’t know yet.
TCB: What advice would you give to the next U.S. administration with regard to Afghanistan? How important of a security issue is it for the U.S.?
RN: Afghanistan is an important security issue. It’s lost press focus, which isn’t the same as losing importance. First of all, of the six wars the U.S. is currently involved in, which I think is a bit much, Afghanistan is the one where our people are really welcome. That is different from Iraq and Syria, where we may find ourselves less welcome.
Secondly, Afghanistan is where the fight with Islamic extremism began. I believe that it is still a fight worth winning. In fact, if we lose that fight, I think we will give the sense that god is on the other side, as Osama bin Laden said, they can bring the Americans in, wear them out, and push them away. That would be a very bad message for us to reinforce.
Also, Afghanistan provides the U.S. its only ally in all of eastern-central Asia, from Pakistan north, so it’s a very important place to stay.
TCB: What is the level of friction between the Taliban and ISIS in Afghanistan?
RN: The two groups are competitors, although remember that the Taliban was giving support and locations to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. So we shouldn’t be looking at the Taliban as a benign force. But the two are competitors. They are fighting for position.
It’s a dangerous situation because ISIS provides the natural rallying point for the most radical people in the Taliban. In fact, many of the current ISIS supporters fought in the Taliban. I don’t think the numbers we know about the groups are hugely significant, but we don’t really have a good handle. At one point last year I believe, we discovered a very large al Qaeda base that had been in place for six months before we found it. We should be very careful about assuming that the numbers of people we are talking about have any great reality.
TCB: Is there any message the next administration could send to demonstrate that it is not walking away from Afghanistan?
RN: Yes, but first of all, the new administration has to make that decision. Then they have to make it clear that that decision is good for a while. The Obama Administration made that kind of decision, but because they kept putting timelines on it and reexamining it, they kept it in doubt.
If the Trump Administration does decide that Afghanistan is worth fighting for and we should remain, then they should make that decision without putting a timeline on it, because the enemy gets a vote.
TCB: What can the U.S. do to help improve the state of Afghan governance?
RN: Afghanistan has a big problem in dealing with corruption and improving governance. Part of that is it has come out of more than 30 years of war, and people function in a survival mentality. We have to keep pressure on for better governance. The Afghan government needs to continue moving against corrupt officials. They have begun this, but they need to go after more senior figures. The Afghan people need more proof that their government is working for them. But we should not expect that this could be done quickly.
