• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Ashley J. Tellis",
    "Bharath Gopalaswamy",
    "James Cunningham",
    "David Petraeus",
    "Husain Haqqani",
    "Manish Tewari",
    "Anita McBride"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Review of President Trump’s South Asia Strategy: The Way Ahead, One Year In

The Trump administration’s strategy in Afghanistan is promising, but the United States must devote substantial resources and effort to ensure its success.

Link Copied
By Ashley J. Tellis, Bharath Gopalaswamy, James Cunningham, David Petraeus, Husain Haqqani, Manish Tewari, Anita McBride
Published on Dec 11, 2018

Source: Atlantic Council

Introduction

One year after President Donald Trump’s announcement of his strategy in South Asia and Afghanistan, the authors believe that the administration is on the right course, but that it can, and must, do better. Improved implementation offers the opportunity to end the Afghanistan conflict in a way that advances the core US interests of defeating terrorism and demonstrating that a moderate Islamic state, aligned with the international community, can succeed.

The Trump strategy is new in important respects: its focus is to bring the conflict to an end on terms acceptable to the Afghan people and their international partners; its aim is to preserve the achievements in Afghanistan that, first and foremost, contribute to American security; it is conditions-based; it properly views Afghanistan in a regional context, with a renewed focus on Pakistan; and it provides Secretary of Defense James Mattis and his commanders flexibility in shaping the deployment and use of US forces in support of Afghanistan and the counterterrorism mission. The strategy intends to enable Afghanistan to become a more stable state—one capable of protecting its people with limited outside support—as well as to lay the foundation for bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, and, ultimately, to end the conflict. 

Afghanistan is an Islamic partner committed to the international fight against terrorism. As long as it remains such a partner, and continues to pursue better governance, much-needed reforms, and democratic expression for its people, the United States will be able to advance the strategy through increasing military pressure on the Taliban, and through the concerted use of international efforts to shape the diplomatic environment, to affect the behavior and calculations of the Taliban and other actors, especially Pakistan.

The strategy is still developing after a year, but is beginning to produce results—even though it has not yet been adequately explained nor, on the political side, adequately resourced. Doubts remain as to its feasibility and ultimate success. However, the authors believe that it can succeed with a renewed and visible effort at comprehensive implementation, and improved alignment of the many lines of diplomatic and political effort required to produce results. Success will require demonstrating to all concerned—especially Afghanistan’s adversaries and neighbors—that the United States is committed to the strategy, and to fostering the crucial political process required to end the conflict. 

Achieving such a political process will take time, along with a multifaceted and multilateral diplomatic campaign of extraordinary complexity, even as the Afghan and coalition military effort shapes conditions on the ground. The Trump strategy corrects the most serious weaknesses of the Barack Obama administration’s efforts, the most counterproductive of which was the announced accelerated withdrawal of US forces based on an unrealistic timeline, rather than according to conditions on the ground. Commitment to a timeline encouraged US adversaries to wait out US forces, discouraged US partners, and encouraged continued hedging behaviors by the countries of the region. Among the counterproductive effects was the psychological impact on the Afghans as they strive to rebuild safe communities and a functioning economy. 

Read full report

This report was originally published by the Atlantic Council South Asia Center.

About the Authors

Ashley J. Tellis

Former Senior Fellow

Ashley J. Tellis was a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Bharath Gopalaswamy

James Cunningham

David Petraeus

David Petraeus is a partner and chairman of the KKR Global Institute, which he established in May 2013. Prior to founding KKR, Petraeus served over thirty-seven years in the U.S. military, culminating his career with six consecutive commands, five of which were in combat, and serving as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2011 to 2012.

Husain Haqqani

Manish Tewari

Anita McBride

Authors

Ashley J. Tellis
Former Senior Fellow
Bharath Gopalaswamy
James Cunningham
David Petraeus

David Petraeus is a partner and chairman of the KKR Global Institute, which he established in May 2013. Prior to founding KKR, Petraeus served over thirty-seven years in the U.S. military, culminating his career with six consecutive commands, five of which were in combat, and serving as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2011 to 2012.

David Petraeus
Husain Haqqani
Manish Tewari
Anita McBride
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade Routes

    This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.

      Galiya Ibragimova

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How to Ensure That Europe-Russia Talks Do Not Fail

    Reestablishing a dialogue with Moscow is not a goal in its own right. The goal is to guarantee the independence of Ukraine and the peace and security of Europe.

      Arkady Moshes

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Belarus Is a Test Case for Ukraine’s New Role in the Region

    Ukraine’s increasingly confrontational posture on Belarus reflects Kyiv’s effort to shape the emerging regional order in Eastern Europe. Kyiv wants to limit European normalization with Minsk—and any future rapprochement with Russia.

      Balázs Jarábik

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Who Does Azerbaijan Want to See Win Armenia’s Elections?

    By fueling the arguments of both supporters and opponents of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijan wants to ensure he is re-elected with a weaker mandate.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Elite Conflict Over Internet Restrictions Does Not Herald Regime Collapse

    A much-discussed disagreement over internet restrictions in Russia was never an existential threat for Putin: It was about elite groups protecting their interests.  

      Alexandra Prokopenko

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.