In an article published recently in National Interest magazine, the former U.S ambassador to Afghanistan James Cunningham said there is no guarantee that America can "win" in Afghanistan, but it is quite clear that it can lose.

He stated that U.S President Donald Trump’s decision last month to delegate troop level and operations decisions to his secretary of defense, James Mattis, set the correct conditions to improve security in Afghanistan.

But Cunningham asked the question that many have done - if the U.S could not win with 100,000 troops, what difference would a few thousand more now make?

He said the key here was that despite mistakes having been made in the past and present, there have been significant achievements gained. He also said that any new strategy must aim all its instruments of power at countering Daesh and the Taliban.

He said if the U.S gets this right, “America and its allies will be on much sounder footing in Afghanistan and in the global confrontation with Islamist terror.”

He went on to say, “There is no guarantee that the United States can ‘win’ in Afghanistan, but it is quite clear that it can lose, with grave consequences for American security.”

Cunningham also stated that even at its peak, the U.S military effort, along with its coalition, had never aimed to defeat the Taliban but rather to push it back in key areas, degrade its operations and provide the time and space for the Afghan security forces to assume responsibility for protecting the Afghan people.

He said that after the combat mission ended in 2014, “the subsequent effort to support Afghan forces was handicapped by uncertainty about U.S commitment, and by limited authorities for U.S commanders to bring critical air and intelligence capabilities to bear as the Afghans took over the fight - in addition to serious deficiencies on the Afghan side.”

He noted that since the 2014 draw down, the Afghan forces have done virtually all the fighting against the Taliban and work closely with the U.S in the fight against Daesh, al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.  

Cunningham stated that Mattis now has the authority to adjust the size of the force as needed, and to give his commanders "more agility" in conducting operations. “This is long overdue and should lay the foundation for the improved security and stability Afghanistan so badly needs,” he said.
 
Cunningham states that troop levels will in future apparently be defined not by numbers and timelines but by missions and conditions, so that continued withdrawals of U.S forces are based on Afghan success.

“To pursue such an approach would not be throwing good money after bad. It would be looking to preserve return on investment in the interests of American security. Seeking to end the conflict, with an enduring military commitment as the foundation of an integrated multifaceted and multilateral effort, would signal a qualitative shift away from the constraints and timelines favored by (former) President (Barack) Obama. This would not imply large increases in military forces; indeed it has been widely recognized for some time that there is no military solution in Afghanistan.”

“Winning will require impacting the calculations of all parties involved and marshaling the instruments of military, political and economic power at the disposal of the United States and its international partners.  

“It will also be necessary to demonstrate that this administration is committed to supporting those who support the United States, and to protecting American interests while taking into account the legitimate security concerns of others in the region.

“In particular, Washington must finally find a way to persuade Pakistan that the continued ability of the Taliban and the Haqqani network to operate in and from Pakistan is no longer acceptable to the international community. The Taliban must conclude that it cannot win through violence; ending the conflict will be immeasurably more difficult if Pakistan continues to afford safe haven to the insurgency,” Cunningham said.