India-US relations: News and Discussions IV

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 21 Aug 2017 18:19

errr..I did not know this Ayyadurai has such pull to be a candidate. maybe he is a 'hopeful'? candidate means he went past the primary stage and is the sole candidate for the party. is that the case here?

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 21 Aug 2017 18:44

komal wrote:^^^^
The Hayleys, Jindals, and now this Ayyadurai chap routinely tout the GOP as the party of opportunity and how the Democrats are the true racists.

Yet, it is the GOP (including its Leader) that wants to repeal the 1967 Immigration law.

If the GOP had its druthers, Hayley, Jindal, and Ayyadurai wouldn't even be in the USA.

These guys are politicians not the masses like you and me. They see the GOP as offering more opportunity for 'privileged minorities' like Indians and Cubans. The Dems have long taken minorities for granted ("You'll never vote for the GOP anyway"). Hailey, Jindal and Ayyadurai wouldn't get anywhere in the democratic party where African Americans take the urban legislatures and wealthy Jews get preference for the US. Senate because they are 'bankable'.

The Haileys et al convince themselves that they can 'change the GOP from within'

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 21 Aug 2017 19:03

Oh! V r back 2 this fine debate? What about the immigration law are they opposing? I was hoping for a change that goes to merit-based immigration vs. the present nonsense imposed by the Donkeycrats. No hope I guess.

komal · Post by **komal** » 21 Aug 2017 19:25

Cosmo_R wrote: These guys are politicians not the masses like you and me. They see the GOP as offering more opportunity for 'privileged minorities' like Indians and Cubans. The Dems have long taken minorities for granted ("You'll never vote for the GOP anyway"). Hailey, Jindal and Ayyadurai wouldn't get anywhere in the democratic party where African Americans take the urban legislatures and wealthy Jews get preference for the US. Senate because they are 'bankable'.

The Haileys et al convince themselves that they can 'change the GOP from within'

It is interesting to note that that Indian Americans at the technocrat level hold much influence in both parties. Indian Americans were big in the Obama Treasury. And Indian Americans play major roles in health care and regulatory reform in the Trump Admin.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Aug 2017 03:27

http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-new ... ACHKI.html

The US government in a report to the Congress said it is creating new positions in the department of defence (DoD) to strengthen its military ties with India.Two new under secretary level posts will come up by February 2018 to steer the defence technology and trade initiative (DTTI) that seeks to overcome bureaucratic obstacles to cooperation and identify opportunities for sharing of defence technologies, said the July report.The report was submitted jointly by DoD and the department of state, underlining different aspects of the ties, including military exercises, cyber security, technology security and India being designated a major defence partner of the United States.Established in 2012, the DTTI seeks to identify opportunities for co-development and co-production of military hardware, collaborate on science and technology projects and jointly explore policy changes needed to further the military relationship.The report on enhancing defence and security cooperation with India is a follow up to the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) passed in December 2016.The NDAA had set a six-month deadline for the secretaries of the two departments to give their report on issues dealing with transfer of advanced technology, strengthening of the DTTI and resolving all pending issues impeding India-US defence trade.“The NDAA for FY 2017 also directs the department to reorganise the office of the USD (AT&L) into two new under secretary positions - one for research and engineering (USD-R&E) and one for acquisition and sustainment (USD-A&S). This change will take effect no later than February 2018,” the report said.The NDAA outlined that the DTTI leadership would consist of an individual with experience in acquisition and technology to ensure the success of the US-India defence relationship. The DoD had established an exclusive India Rapid Reaction Cell in 2015 to support the DTTI.Since 2008, India has bought or ordered military equipment worth $15 billion from the US, including C-130J special operations planes, C-17 transport aircraft, P-8I submarine hunter planes, Harpoon missiles, Apache and Chinook helicopters and M777 lightweight howitzers.
Last week, India gave nod to a $650-million proposal to buy six Apache AH-64E attack helicopters for the Indian Army from the US.India has spent more than $100 billion on buying new weapons and systems during 2008-17, with imports accounting for around 60-65% of the country’s military requirements.“These proposals (for F-16 Block 70 fighters and F/A-18 jets) will help create and maintain jobs in both countries and demonstrate the depth of our commitment to defence cooperation,” the report said.The US government’s decision to supply Guardian unmanned aerial vehicles, manufactured by General Atomics, to the Indian Navy is one of the major developments that has taken place after the NDAA was passed.
The deal for 22 such UAVs is expected to be worth $2 billion.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 22 Aug 2017 04:15

komal wrote:
Cosmo_R wrote: These guys are politicians not the masses like you and me. They see the GOP as offering more opportunity for 'privileged minorities' like Indians and Cubans. The Dems have long taken minorities for granted ("You'll never vote for the GOP anyway"). Hailey, Jindal and Ayyadurai wouldn't get anywhere in the democratic party where African Americans take the urban legislatures and wealthy Jews get preference for the US. Senate because they are 'bankable'.

The Haileys et al convince themselves that they can 'change the GOP from within'
It is interesting to note that that Indian Americans at the technocrat level hold much influence in both parties. Indian Americans were big in the Obama Treasury. And Indian Americans play major roles in health care and regulatory reform in the Trump Admin.

At the technocratic level, yes. At the political/elected office level--no.

komal · Post by **komal** » 22 Aug 2017 05:06

^^^
Agreed. Indian Americans are good at implementing policy but they do not make or formulate policy in the USA.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 22 Aug 2017 05:59

Cosmo_R wrote:
At the technocratic level, yes. At the political/elected office level--no.

2016 wasn't bad, including Kamala Harris, who is 1/2 Indian origin, a total of 5 Indian Americans won Congress/Senate seats (Pramila Jayapal, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ami Bera, Ro Khanna) .

All Democrats.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 06:54

What do you know. India has gone beyond PACOM!!!!!

AoA.

Impressive.

Trump has delivered.

Pakistan is sliding. India is going up. China needs to withdraw from IOR.

ManishC · Post by **ManishC** » 22 Aug 2017 06:56

Orange One has given the green shit to our west a blunt ultimatum.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 06:59

India has a role from Afghanistan to "Indo-Pacific" region.

Time to take the bull by the horn.

China need not apply.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Aug 2017 07:01

I posted transcript as fast as I could type under Terrorists State of Pakistan.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 22 Aug 2017 07:33

All in all a good speech. I am still concerned about putting putting more young men and women in afghanistan but at least the battlefield decisions will not be taken in DC.

ManishC · Post by **ManishC** » 22 Aug 2017 07:42

Subtext is that terrorists will be killed where ever they hide. Durand line is not going to save the Jihadi Army.

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Aug 2017 07:50

I get the feeling that its back to the happy dins of Body Counts. Military commanders are going to be evaluated on kill ratios rather than order-following and form-filling? Unlikely in the US armed forces, but POTUS is just crazy enough to fire top generals on the spot if they don't follow his direction.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 07:52

anupmisra wrote:All in all a good speech. I am still concerned about putting putting more young men and women in afghanistan but at least the battlefield decisions will not be taken in DC.

I see this as an open canvas for India.

The US *knows* the dynamics. For starters, the expectations is India invest economically - Trump stated that India makes billions via the US. I just do not see India needing to takes sides - exception being Pakistan!!!!

Secondly, from an Indian PoV, there were two items: Afghanistan (economic involvement) and the larger aspect (bone) Indo-Pacific. Trump emphasized those two hyphanated words. To me he seemed to say, help us in A'sthan and we will help you with China.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 07:59

This is a *great* time to revive Baluchistan.

What I heard in that speach is: "we will win". "We need some help". And, the only one that can help is India. And "If India can help, we will help India".

UlanBatori · Post by **UlanBatori** » 22 Aug 2017 08:01

To me he seemed to say, help us in A'sthan and we will help you with China.

Interesting. Yes, that "Indo-Pacific" was injected gratuitously, it had nothing to do with A'stan. So that must be the message. Or, "help us take on the chinese".

IOW, the nation-building is being left to India, which means growing Indian influence on Afghanistan. This will enrage the pakis. And the chinese.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 08:03

UlanBatori wrote:
To me he seemed to say, help us in A'sthan and we will help you with China.
Interesting. Yes, that "Indo-Pacific" was injected gratuitously, it had nothing to do with A'stan. So that must be the message. Or, "help us take on the chinese".

Internet timing.

Please see my above post.

Anoop.G · Post by **Anoop.G** » 22 Aug 2017 08:03

Sometime back on other BRF sections, there was talk on US request for Indian troops deployment in Afghanistan. In view of Trump's comments of NOT mentioning specific US troops increase and praise for India, does that mean Indian forces could be in play in Afghanistan? Coupled with the denunciation of TSP, could this be on the cards?

Just wondering!!!

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 22 Aug 2017 08:04

NRao wrote:
anupmisra wrote:All in all a good speech. I am still concerned about putting putting more young men and women in afghanistan but at least the battlefield decisions will not be taken in DC.
I see this as an open canvas for India.

The US *knows* the dynamics. For starters, the expectations is India invest economically - Trump stated that India makes billions via the US. I just do not see India needing to takes sides - exception being Pakistan!!!!

Secondly, from an Indian PoV, there were two items: Afghanistan (economic involvement) and the larger aspect (bone) Indo-Pacific. Trump emphasized those two hyphanated words. To me he seemed to say, help us in A'sthan and we will help you with China.

I agree. There is an opening here as the US military doesn't want human or material losses, and the Zee wants to wrap up Af-Pak and say he won when 2020 rolls around.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 08:06

UlanBatori wrote:
IOW, the nation-building is being left to India, which means growing Indian influence on Afghanistan. This will enrage the pakis. And the chinese.

It does not matter.

The focus is what role does India want to play. Answer that question.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 08:08

Mort,

Forget "US". What role does India *needs* to play in a'Stan?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 08:12

Folks,

I do not see Trump willing to send US troops to A'sthan. I do not think he mentioned any numbwrs either.

He stated Indian role to be an economic one. The problem is that India is really in no position to pump $ into A'sthan. But, that is his expectations.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 22 Aug 2017 08:19

Principle realism. No national building. If really implemented there will be a lot of peace in the world as HC and neocons did a lot of damage through their nation building. India was kept out of any role in Afghan affairs not so long ago by the west. Now we are being called in when it suits them.

It is not the amount of money but how you use it that count.

We have been quite effective with whatever we did with small amounts. Now if a greater role is taken then we can spend a bit more and do a good job of it.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 22 Aug 2017 08:20

NRao wrote:Mort,

Forget "US". What role does India *needs* to play in a'Stan?

India is continuing with Afghan economic assistance and India is willing to do more, but will not risk letting TSP terrorists bombing and killing Indian personnel and property. IF the US stops TSP, then India will step up assistance to Afghanistan. India has already provided over $1 billion in aid and will help even more. There is nothing really objectionable in the Zee's speech from India's PoV.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 22 Aug 2017 08:28

Mort Walker wrote:
NRao wrote:Mort,

Forget "US". What role does India *needs* to play in a'Stan?
India is continuing with Afghan economic assistance and India is willing to do more, but will not risk letting TSP terrorists bombing and killing Indian personnel and property. IF the US stops TSP, then India will step up assistance to Afghanistan. India has already provided over $1 billion in aid and will help even more. There is nothing really objectionable in the Zee's speech from India's PoV.

Exactly.

I cannot say that TSP has been stopped, but the word is out for sure. Trump said so.

BUT, that is not my point. I think the calibration is up to Indians.

Out of stoudt. See ya tomorrow.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 22 Aug 2017 08:30

NRao wrote:Folks,

I do not see Trump willing to send US troops to A'sthan. I do not think he mentioned any numbwrs either.

He stated Indian role to be an economic one. The problem is that India is really in no position to pump $ into A'sthan. But, that is his expectations.

He committed to sending in 3900 more troops. DoD just confirmed it to Fox News. Paul Ryan also mentioned it. Secondly, India has been investing heavily in Afghanistan. These investments have been specific and not open ended.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 22 Aug 2017 08:33

NRao wrote:

BUT, that is not my point. I think the calibration is up to Indians.

Correct. Now, will the Zee give US military commanders the authority to pursue and kill the terrorists if they cross over into TSP? That part needs to be clear or the US will not achieve results and India's economic assistance to Afghanistan will be a wasted effort.

dharamsala · Post by **dharamsala** » 22 Aug 2017 08:47

Hello fellow Lions of Panjshir, I am plissed to be back after 10+ years.

The thought of Northern Dharamsala coming to fruition has stirred me from my slumber...

The Donald has reversed 70 years of missed opportunity. This is within our reach in the next 5 years....An Akhand Bharat from Afghanistan through Balhochistan then northern India and Northern Dharamsala...having coffee with our friends in Ulaanbaatar

The Donald's team informed Bharat, Afganistan, and Porkistan before his speech

https://twitter.com/statedeptspox/statu ... 8907058183

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 22 Aug 2017 09:19

Trump's speech is great news to us.

We can't do squat without land access to Afghanistan. So let us unveil a plan as part of the "package", starting with a port in Charbahar, broad gauge line up towards Afghanistan and across Afghanistan, supported by a 4 lane highway.

We will tell the Iranians that Charbahar port will fly Indian flag, and in return it will never be embargoed or bombed by US & allies including Israel (and in turn will have to convey that Charbahar + highway is "Indian territory" for all practical purposes).

We will allocate $5b in the union budget towards this project. Most likely the money won't get spent.

In other words, we will make brisk motions of supporting Trump, but actually do close to nothing. With Trump cutting out Pakistan from the AfPak picture, our strategic goals are met. We all know how investments into Afghanistan will turn out, so it's best to stay minimally involved.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 22 Aug 2017 09:22

Mort Walker wrote:
NRao wrote:Mort,

Forget "US". What role does India *needs* to play in a'Stan?
India is continuing with Afghan economic assistance and India is willing to do more, but will not risk letting TSP terrorists bombing and killing Indian personnel and property. IF the US stops TSP, then India will step up assistance to Afghanistan. India has already provided over $1 billion in aid and will help even more. There is nothing really objectionable in the Zee's speech from India's PoV.

Why on earth would we want to do that? What do we have to gain from Afghanistan? Goodwill? We have plenty but it doesn't add up to much.

As they say, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". With Pak being deeply involved, Afghanistan was the squeaky wheel. If Pak is effectively cut out, we don't need to outbid anybody, so we can scale back our "investments" to the level where it makes business sense, devoid of all strategic compulsions.

dharamsala · Post by **dharamsala** » 22 Aug 2017 09:27

It should be clear this is an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone:
1) POK -> back to India's fold
2) CPEC is dead

Taking back PoK via an Afgan investment "agreement" with Trump will be less costly from men and material than a war.

The strategic leverage on getting PoK against China / Tibet should not be underestimated. This will be beneficial for the US in containing China's influence.

Am I missing something?

dharamsala · Post by **dharamsala** » 22 Aug 2017 09:32

yensoy wrote:Trump's speech is great news to us.

...
In other words, we will make brisk motions of supporting Trump, but actually do close to nothing. With Trump cutting out Pakistan from the AfPak picture, our strategic goals are met. We all know how investments into Afghanistan will turn out, so it's best to stay minimally involved.

Trump might be interested in optics, but it is not sustainable unless India ponies up real $$ and men for Afghanistan. We should jump at this opportunity. This is the cheapest alternative vs a war solution if the US tells India it will support action in PoK. This solves so many issues for both the US and India while neutering the Chinese/Pak threats.

Remember Bush excluded India from Afghanistan after 9/11 on Pak's instistence, even though India was one of the first countries to call Bush to extend support - and Pakis were in bed with the Talibs.

I didn't think he would do this, but Trump really pulled through on this!!

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 22 Aug 2017 09:45

dharamsala wrote:
yensoy wrote:Trump's speech is great news to us.

...
In other words, we will make brisk motions of supporting Trump, but actually do close to nothing. With Trump cutting out Pakistan from the AfPak picture, our strategic goals are met. We all know how investments into Afghanistan will turn out, so it's best to stay minimally involved.
Trump might be interested in optics, but it is not sustainable unless India ponies up real $$ and men for Afghanistan. We should jump at this opportunity. This is the cheapest alternative vs a war solution if the US tells India it will support action in PoK. This solves so many issues for both the US and India while neutering the Chinese/Pak threats.

Remember Bush excluded India from Afghanistan after 9/11 on Pak's instistence, even though India was one of the first countries to call Bush to extend support - and Pakis were in bed with the Talibs.

I didn't think he would do this, but Trump really pulled through on this!!

This is definitely a great opportunity but we have to be extremely careful and strategic about what we are getting from it.

1. Nowhere in Trump's speech does he say he wants men from us. No point putting our boots on the ground in the clusterfsck that is Afghanistan, that was Afghanistan and that will be Afghanistan. We can send medical teams, and look great on paper.
2. Yes, if US were to support PoK reverting to India, we can talk about supporting them on the ground. But we all know that is not going to happen. US will continue to depend on Pakistan, maybe to a lesser extent, and PoK would be non-negotiable. Even if magically we talk about PoK returning to India, we will have to deal with a brainwashed jihadi populace with a huge influx of pakjabi transplants.
3. Easier would be to get assurance from Pak for overland route, but again with threat of action against Pakistan it's very unlikely they will relent.
4. I think a US indemnification of the Charbahar route would be the best way forward - it gives us huge leverage in Iran and gives us the access we terribly need. Maybe even the Americans can use this route, avoiding Pakistan or at least giving them a run for the money.
5. Charbahar route will cost a lot of $$, and that should very much be counted as part of Indian investment into Afghanistan.

We would have never agreed to send troops, even after 9/11, especially under US/NATO command. It is one thing sitting in Colorado piloting a drone remotely, and a very different thing when you are doing house to house search - which is what they would have used us for.

It is America's age-old strategy which has brought them into this situation. We should gesticulate wildly trying to help, but honestly they are drowning with no way out. Not unless they patch up with the Iranians and break up Pakistan, neither of which they are willing to do.

dharamsala · Post by **dharamsala** » 22 Aug 2017 09:57

yensoy wrote:
dharamsala wrote:
2. Yes, if US were to support PoK reverting to India, we can talk about supporting them on the ground. But we all know that is not going to happen. US will continue to depend on Pakistan, maybe to a lesser extent, and PoK would be non-negotiable. Even if magically we talk about PoK returning to India, we will have to deal with a brainwashed jihadi populace with a huge influx of pakjabi transplants.

It is America's age-old strategy which has brought them into this situation. We should gesticulate wildly trying to help, but honestly they are drowning with no way out. Not unless they patch up with the Iranians and break up Pakistan, neither of which they are willing to do.

We won't know until we ask- that should be part of the strategy and our initial position. India has a lot to offer and PoK solves quite a bit for India (with respect to Pak/China) and the US with respect to Afghanistan.

The old strategy has not served US interests in the past decade, which is why they are in this quagmire. In addition, Inida's chupchap approach under MMS/UPA was a lost opportunity. We can correct this if the US is serious this time,

I have a feeling Trump and his generals are willing to be more flexible than Ombaba and the neocons under Cheney.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 22 Aug 2017 09:58

Mort Walker wrote:
NRao wrote:
I see this as an open canvas for India.

The US *knows* the dynamics. For starters, the expectations is India invest economically - Trump stated that India makes billions via the US. I just do not see India needing to takes sides - exception being Pakistan!!!!

Secondly, from an Indian PoV, there were two items: Afghanistan (economic involvement) and the larger aspect (bone) Indo-Pacific. Trump emphasized those two hyphanated words. To me he seemed to say, help us in A'sthan and we will help you with China.
I agree. There is an opening here as the US military doesn't want human or material losses, and the Zee wants to wrap up Af-Pak and say he won when 2020 rolls around.

Question is - is india willing to take military and human losses in af-pak? This could be the pivotal decision that will determine the future role of a United Bharat. My guess is that boots on the ground is a given, just when.

dharamsala · Post by **dharamsala** » 22 Aug 2017 10:02

Cain Marko wrote:
Mort Walker wrote:
I agree. There is an opening here as the US military doesn't want human or material losses, and the Zee wants to wrap up Af-Pak and say he won when 2020 rolls around.
Question is - is india willing to take military and human losses in af-pak? This could be the pivotal decision that will determine the future role of a United Bharat. My guess is that boots on the ground is a given, just when.

That is not the full equation... You should be asking will India's military costs in Afganistan be less than India taking back PoK / Aksai Chin in a military conflict.

If the US backs India in PoK, you can bet their rabid pet dogs in the Paki army will stand down.

yensoy · Post by **yensoy** » 22 Aug 2017 10:02

dharamsala wrote: We won't know until we ask- that should be part of the strategy and our initial position. India has a lot to offer and PoK solves quite a bit for India (with respect to Pak/China) and the US with respect to Afghanistan.

We should certainly ask, in fact lay out the plans and options. Bring them to grips with the fact that they need to compromise on Iran or the integrity of Pakistan.

Cain Marko wrote: Question is - is india willing to take military and human losses in af-pak? This could be the pivotal decision that will determine the future role of a United Bharat. My guess is that boots on the ground is a given, just when.

Indian boots on the ground only to protect Indian economic interests, which will happen only after overland route to Afghanistan established.

There is already a huge CISF/CRPF/ITBP type contingent in Kabul so support current level of engagement.

BTW even if PoK magically merged with India overnight, it wouldn't immediately give us overland access to Afghanistan. Wakhan corridor isn't usable in its current state.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 22 Aug 2017 10:29

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".Afghanistan perhaps the world's prime example of such folly.How many Afghan wars did the British fight?,even unto the 21st century!

Indian boots on the ground is not a given.We already have a "2.5 front war" scenario to deal with.Opening a "turd" front would be suicidal and extremely bleeding economically. Trump is committing just afew thousand US troops.No skin off his back,but the use of US airpower,increased drone strikes and perhaps even pursuit into Pak,may be on the cards.Paki entities supporting the Taliban will now be fair game.While we will certainly have our "specialists" on the ground in Afghanistan,ultimately the fighting has to be done by the Afghan forces themselves,just as the Iraqis are increasingly doing in that country.

What India can do is to support the Afghan army to the hilt with training,some basic eqpt. (Indian) and more sophisticated arms like attack helos,paid for by us (friendship prices) and delivered by the Russians as has happened in the recent past.What is going to anger the Pakis tremendously is the Trump directive that India be part of the solution to Afghan's woes,unlike the duplicitous Pakis.This change in policy is clearly pressure from the US military,who now have their generals in the driving seat in the Trump "omnibus" ,not sh*tty little State Dept. Paki lovers like chirpy "Robins"(pun intended)! Sanctions against Paki entities and individuals supporting the Taliban,including Paki men in uniform,must be the next step from Trump.

Game changing mil eqpt. like Predator drones,etc.,need to proliferate apart from devastating PGM and B-52 strikes at key Taliban centres. B-52 strikes were the only air strikes feared by the Viet Cong and the AL Q cadre/afghan rebels,apart from Ru attack helos when the Sovs. were in the country.Now that Trump has decisively unveiled the new US doctrine,let's build upon it asap.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 05821.html

Trump says US troops will remain in Afghanistan as rapid exit would leave 'vacuum' for terrorists
'We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq,' President Trump says

Jeremy B White San Francisco

Donald Trump announces his strategy for the war in Afghanistan during an address to the nation from Fort Myer, Virginia Reuters
Donald Trump vowed to maintain America's military commitment in Afghanistan, sustaining America's longest war and reversing his previously staunch resistance to the US engagement there.

In his first first nationally-televised prime-time address since January, the President laid out a vision short on concrete details, but strong on rhetoric - saying that US troops "will fight to win" in Afghanistan, as well as putting pressure on Pakistan to crack down on terrorist sanctuaries near its borders and calling for further help from India.

While multiple reports earlier in the day that Mr Trump was ready to commit as many as 4,000 more troops to the country, the President pointedly declined to state specific details about troop totals. But he made it clear that he planned to keep troops in Afghanistan as a bulwark against violence, even as he said "the American people are weary of war without victory".

"Terror groups will stop at nothing to commit the mass murder of innocent men, women and children," Mr Trump said.

READ MORE
Trump expected to send 4,000 extra troops to Afghanistan

Saying America’s “strategy will change dramatically” in Afghanistan, Mr Trump vowed to delegate more authority to military commanders, saying “micromanagement from Washington, DC does not win battles.” He also sought to define the limits of America’s involvement approach, saying its future in Afghanistan would shift to a “time-based approach to one based on conditions”.

“Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on”, Mr Trump said, before underscoring his wariness of a prolonged intervention.

“We are not nation building again,” Mr Trump said, invoking a term he has consistently rejected as a basis for American foreign policy. “We are killing terrorists”.

Before he entered the political arena Mr Trump frequently blasted the conflict as a lost cause and a drain on America, and he has built his foreign policy on resistance to overextending American forces abroad. But in past weeks military officials have warned that the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan imperils American gains, setting off a debate within the administration over how to proceed.

Mr Trump referenced that hesitation in his speech, saying “my original instinct was to pull out” but that he was dissuaded by the risk of terrorist groups rushing into a security vacuum, saying Afghanistan and Pakistan have “the highest concentration” of terror groups of “any region of the world.”

"We cannot repeat in Afghanistan the mistake our leaders made in Iraq," Mr Trump said, referencing the rise of Isis after the departure of American troops from that country.

READ MORE
Donald Trump eyes Afghanistan's $1 trillion mineral reserves *(MUsn't let the Chinkos get it!)
US commander in Afghanistan tells troops 'we are with you'
Isis and Taliban join forces in deadly attack in Afghanistan

The decision also hinted at the dynamics of a White House without Steve Bannon. The former top strategist, who departed last week, was a leading non-interventionist voice opposing an Afghanistan escalation.

Some in the Trump administration, such as Vice President Mike Pence and Defence Secretary James Mattis have pushed for an escalation in troops and a push to put more diplomatic pressure on regional powers such as Pakistan and India.

Mr Trump laid out a tougher approach to US policy toward Pakistan and senior U.S. officials warned he could reduce security assistance for Pakistan unless the nuclear-armed nation cooperates more in preventing militants from using safe havens on its soil.

“We can no longer be silent about Pakistan's safe havens,” Trump said. “Pakistan has much to gain from partnering with our effort in Afghanistan. It has much to lose by continuing to harbour terrorists.”

Related video: US drops 'Mother Of All Bombs' on Isis cave system in Afghanistan
Mr Trump also said the United States wanted India to help more with Afghanistan, especially in the areas of economic assistance and development. He also made clear his patience had limits in support of the Afghanistan government, saying Kabul needed to increase its cooperation in order to justify a continued American commitment. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said that the US stands ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban "without pre-conditions" and that India would become an "important partner" in ensuring regional stability.

The seemingly staunch shift from Pakistan to India within Mr Trump's speech could test an already strained relationship with Pakistan, with its ally status being called into question a number of times in recent years. Diplomacy could also be difficult, with Mr Trump's administration still without key officials in their embassy in Kabul, the Afghan capital and and with Washington having scrapped the office of the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Afghanistan scarcely figured in Mr Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Without specifically articulating a vision for America’s role in the war-convulsed country, Mr Trump’s foreign policy emphasised scaling back involvement in conflicts abroad and curbing the spread of Islamic extremism. His first major speech on the subject rejected “nation-building”, and in accepting the Republican nomination he warned that “the situation [in the Middle East] is worse than it has ever been before” despite years of costly American intervention.

“We don't want to have a depleted military, because we're all over the place fighting in areas that just we shouldn't be fighting in,” Mr Trump said in a December speech after winning the election. “We have spent, at last count, $6 trillion in the Middle East, and our roads have potholes all over. Our highways are falling apart. Our bridges are falling.”

But Mr Trump and his advisers have said in recent weeks that the turbulent situation in Afghanistan requires a response. Mr Mattis flatly told Congress in June “we are not winning in Afghanistan,” echoing the concerns of military officials who had told legislators they needed more troops, and Mr Trump told reporters earlier this month that “I took over a mess and we’re going to make it a lot less messy.”

In the years leading up to his presidential run, Mr Trump frequently assailed America’s presence in Afghanistan for squandering lives and money. He repeatedly said on Twitter that America should “get out” of Afghanistan, writing in early 2013 that the departure should happen “immediately.”

Once he became a contender for the 2016 nomination, Mr Trump moderated that stance. While he called the decision to invade Afghanistan “a terrible mistake” in 2015 - a criticism he disavowed late that month - he supported keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a “collapse”.

“I think it's important, number one, that we keep a presence there and ideally a presence of pretty much what they're talking about - 5,000 soldiers,” Mr Trump said at the time. During his national address he said that U.S. enemies in Afghanistan “need to know they have nowhere to hide - that no place is beyond the reach of American arms.”

Multiple presidents have struggled with America’s protracted entanglement with Afghanistan. After first committing tens of thousands of additional service members in an effort to stabilise the country, Barack Obama pledged to slim America’s commitment there to 5,500 troops by the end of his term. But he backed off that pledge and retained 8,400 service members there to try and ensure the Taliban and other groups could not make gains.