In his first detailed speech on U.S. policy in Afghanistan, Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants to send more troops to the Hindu Kush. Here you can read the five most important conclusions from his speech.
Reversal of his original position
The most important aspect first: The speech Donald trump to Afghanistan will mean a radical departure from his previous policy. Normally, Trump towards the end of his speech, he would rely on “his gut feeling”. In this case, this would mean: U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
As President, he had come now to a different conclusion. For Jennifer Mercieca turning calculus behind these returns. The lecturer in political rhetoric teaches at the A&M University in Texas: “Usually people trust someone, you believe that he is knowledgeable and good intentions. Donald Trump has tried in this speech, these two feelings.”
With its current decision the President has made it clear that he does not want to reduce the American troop presence in Afghanistan. On the contrary, He wants to increase even to a non-defined size. As a result, the US President, the 16-year-long US deployment in Afghanistan on its own personal stamp. Currently a little more than 8,000 U.S. soldiers are stationed in Afghanistan.
Trump is the third U.S. President, tries to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan with a troop surge
Harsh words, little content
“That this speech is one of the most important political Speeches of his previous term of office had been, she was content, very thin,” says Jason Lyall of Yale University in an interview with Deutsche Welle. Donald Trump had hardly any “solid” information to the American strategy or the objectives of the U.S. policy in Afghanistan: “We have no time, neither a Definition of what constitutes a successful mission in Afghanistan, actually, has made Donald Trump realize what is actually New on his plans. In this respect, the speech was just weak.”
Nevertheless, the political scientist draws a new conclusion from the statements of Trumps: Apparently, the President had, at least outwardly, and determined not to negotiate with the Taliban: “Follow the ideology of Trumps, you have to kill just enough enemy fighters to force them to Surrender.” Of roundtables or other negotiation tactics seem Trump does not hold much.
For now, Trump wants to give “no Details” to the American Afghanistan policy is known
The rhetoric Professor Jennifer Mercieca sees this as a clear distinction from previous US foreign policy. Donald Trump had clearly “declared the end of the Wilson doctrine”. The goal of the war was to “spread democracy and capitalism”, but killing only “terrorists”.
More responsibilities for Pakistan and India, Russia and Iran not mentioned
After Trumps opinion both India and Pakistan should be taken on more responsibilities. While he claimed in his speech of India, especially support, he went to Pakistan in sharp focus. Pakistan, so Trump is a Partner of the United States, on the other hand, he accused the country to be a refuge for terrorists. If Pakistan does not stop with this strategy, soon, would have to intervene, the United States military.
In addition to the lack of Details, Jason Lyall met with in this part of the speech, however, something completely different: “Donald Trump has not mentioned Russia and Iran. These two countries, however, play a greater role in this conflict. Both countries support the Taliban in an ever-increasing extent. This war has changed dramatically in recent years. I was under the impression that the speech has to reflect this new reality.”
The main task of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the local security forces to train
Good testimony for Trumps discipline
In spite of all this vagueness, Jennifer Mercieca is the President of a good testimony: “From my point of view, the speech ran well for him.” In contrast to performances in the past, which Trump is not participating in the predetermined speech manuscript held, had he stayed, this Time, very disciplined. Mercieca does not believe that this speech will bring the Americans to be supporters of the war in Afghanistan, however, she also believes that the Trumps had been the goal: “He has kept his face and explained why he has taken u-turn of his policy.”
What does this all mean?
Shortly before the speech of the US President, there had been speculation whether Trump would try to the Afghanistan conflict, “seize”, in order to make political points.
For the rhetoric-lecturer Mercieca this was from the very beginning the wrong approach. “As a US President you have to deal anyway with the conflict in Afghanistan, whether you like it or not.” This speech now certify only that Trump, with all the consequences of this responsibility.
The political scientist James Lyall comes to a somewhat different conclusion. “On the one hand, it is perfectly obvious that Trump follows the advice of his generals. As a result, he can speak to in the event of an emergency all responsibility if the bet goes wrong. On the other hand, he has positioned himself now so that he, in the unlikely event of a success in Afghanistan, can claim the success for themselves. Trump wants to take responsibility for the war, but only if he wins it,” says Lyall. “If not, you need to are his generals for the defeat.”