Donald Trump Could Rock The Boat

Donald Trump, who seeks nomination from the Republican Party as presidential candidate, is on the surge of popularity among Republican voters. Since then the Republican Party establishment has been weary of Trump’s political successes, and believes if he gets the nomination on the basis of majority of delegates, the Grand Old Party would stand divided. Republican foreign-policy experts from diverse flanks of the party wrote an open letter opposing Trump’s candidacy, for his “hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric, his embrace of the expansive use of torture.” Donald Trump is neither a statesman nor a politician, but a businessman who invests in real estate, casinos, media and other ventures. He cannot realize how much damage he is causing to the GOP by his rhetoric and controversial remarks he makes during the primaries. He reflects the sentiments of Republican voters; however the majority of Americans do not subscribe to his views.
While responding to a question during a presidential debate, Donald Trump said if he was elected to the White House, he would keep the country’s troops in Afghanistan to protect Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. “I think you have to stay in Afghanistan for a while, because of the fact that you are right next to Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons and we have to protect those,” national English daily quoted him as saying. Last year, he had suggested involving India to de-nuclearise Pakistan, not realizing that his suggestion was fraught with danger of war between two nuclear states. Republican foreign-policy experts from diverse flanks of the party wrote an open letter opposing Trump’s candidacy, for his “hateful, anti-Muslim rhetoric, his embrace of the expansive use of torture.” But he is also drawing flak from all strata of society, and is being condemned for his controversial and acerbic remarks.
Republican Darrell Issa of California, who recently endorsed Senator Marco Rubio said: “You have everyone from the speaker of the House to both conservative and moderate Republicans, in addition to all the Democrats, denouncing Trump.” As regards security of Pakistani nukes, the IAEA and the United States have many a time expressed confidence in Pakistan’s commitment and dedication to nuclear security and appreciation of Pakistan’s efforts to improve its strategic trade controls. The State Department has made it public as well that the administration has been in regular discussions with the Government of Pakistan on a range of issues on important shared interests, including nuclear security, counter-terrorism and fostering a stable Afghanistan. Donald Trump is indeed popular in Republican voters; as he has won in seven out of eleven states. His voters wish to see even greater America, whereas Donald Trump is likely to bring death and destruction and ignominy to America.
America has indeed a great past; its traditions of freedom, democracy, human rights and human values date back to American founding fathers when they fought war of independence. It is, however, unfortunate that most successors negated the principles upheld by them. In the past, the US had resorted to unilateral use of force ostensibly to promote democracy in Haiti, Nicaragua and in Latin America. It had intervened forcibly to change regimes, restore order and preach democracy. However, on becoming President in 1933, Franklin D Roosevelt had abandoned the policy pursued by his predecessor President Woodrow Wilson. He treated his neighbours with respect, acknowledged past American blunders, and saw that constitutions alone did not guarantee a democratic outcome. However, it should be remembered that America is a super power, and the neocons and Jews have tremendous influence in the US Congress, and also in formulation of foreign policy.
But neocons should have remembered that the US and its allies were defeated in Vietnam. They had invaded Iraq on the pretext that it possessed weapons of mass destruction that were never found. The question is who gained in the process? Of course, Iran did. Following a mission spanning nearly 13 years, the US and NATO’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had announced the end of the mission/combat command in Afghanistan by December 2014. Along with ISAF, the ISAF Joint Command (IJC), set up in 2009, also ceased operations. The IJC used to handle the day to day operations for ISAF and controlled over 140,000 troops from more than 40 nations across six regional commands. From 1st January 2015, IJC was downsized to about 10,000 personnel, and its focus is towards building Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) systems and processes.
Ego of the super power may not allow it to accept its failure in Afghanistan, but entering into talks with the Taliban arguably unconditionally is an acknowledgment of the reality that the war was not winnable. In June 2011, when talks for establishing an office by the Taliban in Qatar began, then president Hamid Karzai had expressed indignation over efforts to sideline him, and stated that negotiations could falter if his government was not involved in the talks with the Taliban. Washington had already signaled for a negotiated political settlement of the Afghan imbroglio in 2012, and talking of peace with Taliban was acknowledgment that military option had failed. It has to be said that the Taliban remains a potent fighting force after most foreign forces left the end of 2014, and controls large swathes in South and East, and even outreach to the North.
In view of extreme positions taken by the US and the Taliban the prospects of peace are bleak at the present. The US had insisted that Taliban should renounce violence, abandon Al Qaeda and abide by the constitution; whereas, the Taliban insisted on withdrawal of all foreign troops, lifting sanctions on the Taliban leaders from the UN and release of prisoners. The US is not pressing any more on its conditions, but some elements in Afghan government do not wish to share power with the Taliban, as it would dilute their authority. Whereas both sides have suffered in men and material, Taliban fighters are in their country, their areas and homes, whereas America had felt the financial crunch as well as pressure from the Americans; hence it was not in a position to continue the ongoing adventures or start new misadventures.