Share

‘The Taliban Can’t Win,’ Says Commander Of U.S. Forces In Afghanistan

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani (second right) stands with Gen. John W. Nicholson (right) during an Oct. 7 rite after receiving dual Black Hawk helicopters donated by a U.S. government, in Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan.

Massoud Hossaini/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Massoud Hossaini/AP

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani (second right) stands with Gen. John W. Nicholson (right) during an Oct. 7 rite after receiving dual Black Hawk helicopters donated by a U.S. government, in Kandahar Air Field, Afghanistan.

Massoud Hossaini/AP

Gen. John W. “Mick” Nicholson settles into his wood-paneled bureau inside a American-led infantry domicile in Kabul. It’s lined with plaques, cinema and rite swords.

He has spent some-more time in Afghanistan, in several jobs, than any other comparison American officer — a sum of 5 1/2 years. The commander of NATO’s Resolute Support idea and U.S. army in Afghanistan given Mar 2016, Nicholson is a warm West Point connoisseur with white-haired hair — and a renewed confidence.

That is given a White House has given him some-more management to dispute a Taliban, some-more warplanes and drones to mountain punishing airstrikes — and a few thousand some-more American infantry to advise a Afghans.

Just 8 months ago, Nicholson told Congress that a Afghan quarrel was during a stalemate.

Now, he tells NPR, “With a routine preference announced by President Trump, a Taliban can’t win. It sets a conditions to get to a pacific fortitude of this conflict.”

Thousands More Troops Needed To Break Afghanistan 'Stalemate,' General Warns

But is it still a stalemate?

Nicholson says, “It’s still a stand-off right now. we meant a authority, a troops, a atmosphere [power] are newly arrived. I’ve literally gotten these in a final 6 weeks. But with these, we can pierce now in a right direction.”

There has been tiny fact in Washington about a new Trump strategy. Even senators contend they’ve been kept in a dark. Just final week, Sen. John McCain, a Arizona Republican who chairs a Armed Services Committee, lashed out during Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford.

“In a 6 weeks given a boss done his announcement, this cabinet and a Congress, some-more broadly, still does not know many of a essential sum of this strategy,” McCain told a pair. “This is totally unacceptable. we repeat: This is totally unacceptable.”

In his talk with NPR progressing this month, Nicholson laid out some details.

The ubiquitous says pivotal tools of a devise include, over a subsequent several years, doubling a distance of a Afghan commando force — a Army’s best fighters, now numbering about 17,000 — and doubling a distance of a Afghan Air Force, providing a pilots with complicated American Black Hawk helicopters to reinstate a aging Russian ones.

Maybe some-more importantly, a integrate drawdowns and deadlines set by a Obama administration are no more. Conditions on a ground, success opposite a Taliban, will be a new metric as a U.S. enters a 17th year of a quarrel in Afghanistan.

Doing divided with deadlines, says Nicholson, “is positively critical” given a Taliban can no longer usually wait until a Americans leave.

Also vicious is what Nicholson calls a “Pakistan piece.”

That is shorthand for removing absolved of a Taliban protected havens in Pakistan, usually opposite a border. What is capricious is how this will happen, yet some officials in Washington advise probable U.S. infantry movement — approaching worker strikes — opposite these protected havens if Pakistan doesn’t pierce to discharge them.

Since a militant attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Pakistan has abandoned pleas, threats and a self-denial of support income from a U.S. to discharge these sanctuaries, that a Taliban uses to devise and regroup. Nicholson says his efforts can’t be successful as prolonged as those protected havens exist.

In fact, a U.S. Army’s possess counterinsurgency primer says: “The emanate of sanctuaries … can't be abandoned during planning. … Effective COIN [counterinsurgency] operations work to discharge all sanctuaries.”

“The boss pronounced no partnership can tarry when one of a partners is providing protected breakwater to terrorists who are aggressive a other,” says Nicholson.

But Pakistan has been providing protected breakwater for years, so what is opposite now?

U.S. Army Gen. John Nicholson told a Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb that a quarrel in Afghanistan was during a “stalemate.”

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Alex Wong/Getty Images

U.S. Army Gen. John Nicholson told a Senate Armed Services Committee in Feb that a quarrel in Afghanistan was during a “stalemate.”

Alex Wong/Getty Images

“Well, No. 1 that’s different,” Nicholson says, “is that those conversations are holding place during a top levels of government, and we don’t wish to insert myself into that.” Top-level officials from Washington already have met with Pakistani leaders, dire them to finish these sanctuaries. More talks are approaching in a entrance weeks.

Nicholson is assured that a twin outcome of going after Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan and putting infantry vigour on a Taliban inside Afghanistan will compensate off.

“With vigour on their sanctuaries outward a country, with infantry vigour inside a country,” says Nicholson, “we trust that poignant portions of a Taliban will afterwards select to react society.”

But some infantry officers and informal experts in Washington trust that is too optimistic. The Taliban have valid resilient, have copiousness of weapons and suffer open support in a southern partial of Afghanistan. In that region, a inhabitant supervision is not popular; infrequently seen as predatory, with Afghan infantry and other officials perfectionist income or badgering a inner population; and incompetent to yield simple services.

The Taliban possibly control or strive change in about 40 percent of Afghanistan, an area that is home to about a third of a race — 11 million people.

Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage recently told NPR that a U.S. should not supplement infantry though repel some and concentration usually on what is in a U.S. inhabitant interest: going after a ruins of al-Qaida and ISIS in Afghanistan.

Armitage says a U.S. has spent too most time and bid on training Afghan infantry who do not indispensably support their possess government, that has too mostly been hurtful and ineffectual. Afghanistan stays one of a lowest countries in a world.

“We can sight Afghan soldiers again. We can supply Afghan soldiers again,” Armitage says. “But what we can’t do is make a Afghan supervision estimable of their sacrifice. They’re not peaceful to die for that government.”

Andrew Wilder, an Afghanistan consultant during a U.S. Institute of Peace, has another concern: The new Trump devise places too most importance on infantry movement and not adequate on diplomacy, he says.

Nicholson prepared for a handover rite in Apr during Leatherneck Camp in Lashkar Gah, as U.S. Marines returned to Helmand Province.

Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images

Nicholson prepared for a handover rite in Apr during Leatherneck Camp in Lashkar Gah, as U.S. Marines returned to Helmand Province.

Wakil Kohsar/AFP/Getty Images

“Right now, we’re focusing on inflicting pain and not charity a talks piece,” says Wilder. “I’m disturbed that on one hand, we’re putting a vigour on, and on a other hand, well, let’s take a list away.”

Nicholson disagrees with Armitage’s comment and says a U.S. contingency concentration both on training Afghans and going after terrorism in Afghanistan. He also disagrees with Armitage about a Afghan government, observant President Ashraf Ghani is finally rebellious crime and appointing plain infantry commanders. What’s more, says Nicholson, inner polling by a U.S. shows that a Taliban is deserted by 87 percent of a population.

One long-standing problem is that Kabul has been away from inner areas, quite in a farming south. But Nicholson says that subsequent year, for a initial time, district member will be inaugurated — rather than allocated — and that will finally bond a panorama to a inhabitant government.

And as distant as negotiating with a Taliban is concerned, Nicholson says there has been overdo to a Taliban during a inner turn by encampment and genealogical elders, including mixed assent assemblies that drew thousands, including tribes with links to a Taliban. And he says Taliban fighters in Pakistan are indicating they are sleepy of fighting.

But he acknowledges a Taliban domestic bureau in Qatar — that rigourously non-stop in 2013 for assent talks, though Trump opposes — could close.

“That review is going on during a inhabitant turn between a supervision and a Afghan government,” a ubiquitous says. “There are pros and cons to that. I’ll usually leave it during that.”

Ghani, Nicholson points out, says a Taliban bureau is not being used for a assent process. “It’s being used for fundraising for a Taliban inside a Gulf, and again, they’ve not been advancing a assent process,” Nicholson says.

Nicholson listens to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani during a corner press discussion with then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter in Kabul in 2016.

Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images

Nicholson listens to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani during a corner press discussion with then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter in Kabul in 2016.

Shah Marai/AFP/Getty Images

The infantry vigour on a Taliban is now centered on Afghan army — with a new twist: punishing American airstrikes that have doubled over a past year. These embody a use of drones, B-52 and F-16 warrior jets.

And to support in a stream and destiny fight, a U.S. is promulgation another 4,000 infantry to Afghanistan. The series of American infantry subsequent year in Afghanistan will boost from 11,000 to roughly 15,000. Many of them will be hand-selected given of their prior Afghan experience, and they will get additional training during Fort Benning, Ga.

Nicholson pronounced tiny advisory teams will work with Afghan army during reduce levels, closer to front-line fighting. But he emphasizes that Americans are not there to fight.

“We’re there to advise,” says Nicholson, “not to rivet in combat.”

Still, he acknowledges that being closer to a conflict — even going out on missions — could meant some-more American casualties.

“There’s no revelation in a liquid battlefield. They could come in harm’s way,” he says.

At a tallness of a quarrel in 2010 and 2011, some 140,000 U.S. and NATO infantry were fighting, though they could still not sign a feat opposite a Taliban.

Nicholson has a prepared explanation.

“We usually had 140,000 infantry for a duration of about 18 months in a 16-year war,” he says. And — in a perspective common by a series of comparison officers who served in Afghanistan — a infantry left too soon.

“As a infantry commander, we drew down too far, too fast,” Nicholson says. “And that led to many hurdles we faced a final integrate of years. We pulled off a Afghan units too soon. And now we’re regulating that.”

Nicholson says a idea is to get Afghanistan to “a docile turn of violence.”

The key, he says, is not to discharge all violence, though to move it to a turn during that it can be finally tranquil by Afghan supervision forces.

When will that turn be achieved? Nicholson says it will take about 5 years.