If President Trump’s new Afghanistan strategy succeeds, it may be due more to U.S. bombs from the air than boots on the ground.
While much of the focus had been on the increase in U.S. and NATO military trainers, far more significant is the additional strike aircraft that can give Afghan government forces battling the Taliban the same decisive edge that has helped Iraqi and Syrian forces prevail over determined fighters.
“In the coming months … we will increase our air support to Afghan security forces,” said Gen. John Nicholson, the commander of U.S. Forces Afghanistan Thursday in Kabul. Nicholson hailed the president’s decision to lift restrictions imposed by the Obama administration that tied his hands in targeting the Taliban.
When former President Barack Obama declared an end to combat operations in Afghanistan at the end of 2014, he left the unseasoned Afghan military to battle the Taliban with virtually no air support, except for a fledgling Afghan Air Force that could barely get off the ground.
“The reduction in the amount of air power that was originally used in Afghanistan was a horrendous mistake,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, who planned air campaigns from the first Gulf War to Afghanistan. “Air power is the asymmetric advantage in any fight for those who have it against those who don’t.”
Restrictions on offensive strikes against the Taliban were loosened in 2016 after complaints by U.S. commanders, and now Trump is giving Nicholson full authority to call the shots.
The result has been a dramatic increase in the number of bombs dropped by the U.S. warplanes in Afghanistan: 1,245 as of July 31, compared to 705 for the first seven months of 2016.
But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 27,736 munitions expended by the U.S.-led coalition so far this year in support of ground forces in Iraq and Syria.
“You may have heard me say this before,” said Deptula, who retired in 2010, “but for air power to be most effective it needs to be applied like a thunderstorm, not like a drizzle.”
It is generally accepted military doctrine that wars are not won by air power alone; that a determined enemy cannot be bombed into submission. (The 1999 NATO Kosovo campaign may be a notable exception.)
But air power can be the decisive factor when ground forces are otherwise evenly matched, as the experience in Iraq and Syria has demonstrated.
In a White House call with reporters Thursday, a senior administration official indicated that Trump wants U.S. commanders to be able “to better support their Afghan partners” with the “same authorities they have in Iraq and Syria.”
There is a clear difference though, between the counter-Islamic State strategy and the counter-Taliban strategy.
In the case of ISIS, the U.S. wants to annihilate the group, in the words of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. But in Afghanistan, getting the Taliban to the negotiating table is considered the key to peace.
To do that, the U.S. and Afghanistan have to sap their will to fight, and that’s where air power can play a crucial role, whether it’s U.S. aircraft, or Afghanistan’s small fleet of A-29 prop planes.
“We know the enemy fears air power, and they have good reason to as the Afghan Air Forces get stronger,” Nicholson said.
In addition, with no timetable for withdrawal, the Taliban can no longer just wait for the U.S. and its NATO partners to leave.
“With the announcement of this policy, the Taliban cannot win on the battlefield. It is time for them to join the peace process,” Nicholson said.
It is unclear whether the increase in American air support will require more U.S. strike aircraft to be based in Afghanistan, as currently missions are flown from bases in Qatar, the U.A.E., from aircraft carriers in the region, and even from the United States.
“Given the new president’s guidance, we are now looking at what the implications are and exactly what forces will be required,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told reporters Friday.
