Will Trump Dial Up America’s ‘Do More’ Policy for Afghanistan?

From focusing on Pakistan to now shifting attention to Afghanistan, will America under Trump dial up its ‘Do More’ policy, demanding the Afghan Taliban tackle terror and curb China’s reach? Will the Doha promises on counter-terrorism be held to account, or will history repeat itself?

Imagine this: a nation reels under inflation, with its citizens watching their paychecks erode, while its government funnels billions into a territory controlled by a regime once deemed its arch-enemy. If this doesn’t pique your interest, what will? The U.S. taxpayer funding the Taliban—a twist that reads like satire—is, in fact, today’s global reality.

Also See: Trump Returns: What it Means for Pakistan and Afghanistan

The Financial Maze: Facts and Figures

• SIGAR’s Alarming Reports: Since the U.S. withdrawal, $20.71 billion in aid has flowed into Afghanistan. Of this, $300 million remains unaccounted for. The $7.12 billion in military equipment left behind, including biometric devices and aircraft, has further equipped the Taliban.
• Aid With Questions: The allocation of $14.9 million to teach carpet weaving, $75 million to train farming, and $280 million for cash transfers via the UN raises serious doubts about the efficiency and intent of such programs.
• Military Leftovers: The Taliban claims to have seized 300,000+ light arms, 26,000 heavy weapons, and around 61,000 vehicles, in addition to the equipment reportedly “destroyed.” These figures suggest the emergence of a well-armed Taliban regime.
• Global Concerns: Reports from SIGAR and USIP highlight Afghanistan’s growing role as a breeding ground for terrorism, particularly ISIS-K, which now recruits disillusioned Taliban fighters and foreign nationals. The threat isn’t limited to the region but extends globally, impacting American interests.
• Burchett’s Battle: Rep. Tim Burchett’s legislative efforts to halt aid flow and hold the Taliban accountable reflect the growing frustration in Congress. However, Senate inaction under Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stalled these measures.

Aid Under Biden: A Political Powder Keg

The Biden administration’s Afghanistan policy is now a critical talking point. President-elect Donald Trump is preparing to assume office on January 20, 2025. The bulk of the $21 billion aid, along with military missteps, occurred during Biden’s tenure. This gives Republicans ample fodder to criticize his foreign policy failures. Trump’s campaign capitalized on this narrative, accusing Biden of prioritizing foreign agendas over American taxpayers and security.

With the 2024 election reshaping U.S. politics, the Afghanistan aid story has deeper implications:

1. Voter Sentiment: The frustration of middle-class Americans over rising inflation and perceived mismanagement of foreign aid aligns with Trump’s “America First” rhetoric.
2. Strategic Reevaluation: Trump’s return likely signals a shift in Afghanistan policy, prioritizing accountability and freezing funds unless the Taliban demonstrates transparency and counter-terrorism cooperation.

Afghanistan and Pakistan: U.S. Policy on Terrorism

U.S. relations with Pakistan remain entangled with its Afghanistan strategy. Pakistan, leveraging its proximity and intelligence networks, continues to play a dual role:

• Acting as an ally in curbing ISIS-K and al-Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.
• U.S. policymakers are monitoring Pakistan for strengthening ties with China, particularly through initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which they view as counter to American strategic interests in the region.

Under Biden, aid to Afghanistan was funneled through third parties like the UN, ostensibly to bypass Taliban control. However, the unaccounted $300 million and the militarization of Afghanistan reveal systemic flaws. Pakistan’s strategic alignment with China, exemplified by projects like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and its simultaneous engagement with the U.S. as a counter-terrorism partner, create a delicate balancing act. This dual approach highlights Pakistan’s attempt to deal with competing geopolitical interests, adding further complexity to the region’s dynamics.

Potential Scenarios Under Trump

Trump’s return signals a potential overhaul of U.S. policy:

1. Aid Freeze: Expect Trump to halt all funding to Afghanistan unless stringent oversight mechanisms are introduced, possibly involving regional players like the Gulf States.
2. Increased Pressure on Afghanistan: Trump could leverage financial and diplomatic tools to push Kabul for greater accountability on counter-terrorism, while counterbalancing China in the region.
3. Focus on American Interests: The funds previously allocated to Afghanistan might be redirected toward domestic priorities, especially in infrastructure and security, reinforcing Trump’s “America First” doctrine.

Aid as Strategy or Misstep?

The ongoing aid to Afghanistan raises profound questions about U.S. foreign policy objectives. Is this an investment in regional stability, or a costly strategic blunder? The evidence suggests a mix of both:

• China Containment: Aid ensures U.S. presence in a region critical to Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), subtly thwarting Chinese expansionism.
• Managing Instability: A weak Afghan state prevents total collapse, which could have devastating spillovers in Central Asia and Pakistan. Aid acts as a buffer against regional chaos, albeit with questionable effectiveness.
• Replication of “Do More” Policy: The U.S. appears poised to replicate its “do more” strategy, previously directed at Pakistan, now towards Afghanistan. Future aid disbursements may be conditional on Afghanistan’s cooperation in counter-terrorism efforts, particularly targeting ISIS-K, and countering China’s growing influence in the region. The expectation of compliance from the Taliban, however, raises skepticism, given their historical defiance and ties to extremist groups.
• Pakistan’s Role: Islamabad remains pivotal, but not as a reliable ally. It is a necessary actor in containing terrorism and managing Afghan dynamics. However, the U.S. may shift its focus directly to Afghanistan. This could involve bypassing reliance on Pakistan while maintaining pressure on Islamabad. The aim would be to prevent its territory from becoming a sanctuary for transnational militants.

Trump’s Potential Shift in Afghanistan Policy

Under Trump, the balance may shift toward conditional engagement—using aid as leverage for achieving tangible outcomes. Trump’s administration could demand stricter counter-terrorism measures from the Taliban, transparency in aid utilization, and a stance limiting China’s influence in Afghanistan. This approach echoes the “do more” narrative, with Afghanistan facing pressures similar to those once imposed on Pakistan.

In the end, the Afghanistan aid narrative underscores the fine line between geopolitics and governance. As U.S. taxpayers grapple with the implications of funding initiatives in a volatile region, questions remain about whether this strategy will enable genuine stability or perpetuate a cycle of dependence and chaos.

SAT Commentaries’ are social media threads by various authors, reproduced here for website use. Views are their own.

SAT Commentary

SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.

Related posts:

Russia’s Taliban Pivot: A Calculated Play or a Risky Gamble?

How United States Aid to Afghanistan Fuels Terrorism Risks

Al Mirsad Playbook: Afghanistan’s Media Strategy Against Pakistan