Gehrke: Nearly 16 years in, there is no good end game for Afghanistan, but Trump avoided the worst one

On Saturday, friends and family and dignitaries will gather in Monticello for the funeral of Staff Sgt. Aaron Butler.

He was killed when a bomb detonated as an elite unit of the Utah Army National Guard were clearing a building of militants in eastern Afghanistan. Eleven others were injured.

When this war began, Butler was 12 years old. And it is a conflict that appears to have no realistic end in sight. It has cost Americans more than $1 trillion and 2,400 lives.

Monday night, President Donald Trump, in touting his new strategy in the region, did the unthinkable by tacitly admitting his simple-minded campaign pledge to pull out of Afghanistan was (gasp!) wrong.

Trump came to the realization — correctly, I believe — that withdrawal from the nation in the face of a Taliban resurgence would create a vacuum, likely plunging the nation into civil war and toppling the already shaky government. A destabilized Afghanistan could revert to a hideout for terrorists.

His solution, is really a rough sketch more than a blueprint, and members of Congress from his own party, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee, are wanting more details.

“While I am hopeful President Trump truly does want to end our nation’s involvement in the 15-plus-year war in Afghanistan, I still have unanswered questions,” Lee said in a statement Tuesday, pointing at troop levels and changes to the rules of engagement.

“In the last few days alone, one member of the Utah national guard has lost his life in Afghanistan, while eleven others have been injured,” he said. “These high human costs require us to approach all wars with great caution and respect for the brave men and women who fight to keep us free.”

Generally, the new course sounds like a familiar tune — as many as 4,000 more troops arriving within a matter of days; a continued focus on training Afghan soldiers; diplomatic efforts to get Pakistan and India to help fight terrorism.

Not exactly groundbreaking stuff.

Trump tried to dress it up to appease his “America First” base, by claiming this wouldn’t be nation building and the focus would now be victory. That’s nonsense. Stabilizing and securing the country is nation-building, and it’s naive to think we’ll see a white flag and some grand peace treaty.

The sad truth was summed up by Stephen Biddle, a George Washington University professor and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who told Foreign Policy recently: “There isn’t any way out of making a choice between unappealing options at this point. That’s just the way grown-up, real-life policy works.”

On the left, some are calling for immediate withdrawal, and on the right, there are some skeptics, like Lee. I’d like nothing more than an end to an American presence there, too.

But here is the thing: the government is too precarious and the military is unable to control large swaths of the country. Parliamentary elections are scheduled for next year, and stabilizing the country should be a near-term goal. Geopolitically, the region is too important to let it fall into chaos.

That same Foreign Policy article suggested Trump became interested in staying in Afghanistan when he was told there was as much as $1 trillion in natural resources that could create a flood of wealth. It sounds entirely believable.

And anyone who has been paying attention is right to doubt whether Trump has the temperament to actually maintain focus and execute any kind of a coherent strategy.

But, based on what we know about his plan to this point, the president may have settled on the least-terrible choice on a menu of terrible choices.

Unfortunately, that means Aaron Butler will likely not be the last soldier to die in Afghanistan. Here’s hoping we appreciate his sacrifice and that of the others who have died, and that someday soon it means stable Afghanistan and a safer, more peaceful world.