The observation that stabilizing the weak central government of Afghanistan will require more U.S. troops, which President Donald Trump has promised, comes as no surprise. Despite the fact that America has invested 16 years in the war effort already, with no viable way out, there is clearly a vulnerability that comes with the failure of the Afghan regime to maintain security against terror.

And that vulnerability gap could easily widen into catastrophic global risk. The impossibly complex political landscape encompasses a Taliban insurgency gaining ground in Afghanistan, with support networks in Pakistan, its neighbor. Pakistan is a nuclear power, as is India, its longstanding foe.

The active-duty military force and part-time National Guard complement in Hawaii, as in many parts of the U.S., have endured countless deployments to Afghanistan. They are struggling to cope with the injuries and losses of that war.

Still, it seems that this is not a set of tensions that can be allowed to spin out of control. In his national address on Monday, Trump quoted expert tallies of 20 terroristic groups established in Afghanistan and noted that “Pakistan often gives safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror.”

So the president, having campaigned against continuing on a war footing in one of the world’s most explosive hot spots, has come to a rational conclusion. It’s one that his predecessor in office reluctantly accepted, too: Dialing down the war in Afghanistan is not a simple proposition.

The central, unresolved question is the same, too: How can the U.S. find a pathway to a brokered peace in the war-torn country, one not so reliant on America for its armed forces support?

Even with critics dismissing his policy as “Obama light,” Trump maintained that it is a “new strategy,” a shift “from a time-based approach to one based on conditions.” This was a reference to former President Barack Obama’s troop surge, followed by a planned drawdown of troop strength.

It’s also a strategy of less tolerance toward Pakistan, which is still a difficult balance to strike. The U.S. needs cooperation with Pakistan to achieve its own tactical ends.

While it’s unknown exactly how many troops will be committed, a broad increase in deployments to the region has been anticipated in recent weeks. Locally, the Hawaii Army National Guard was told that about 1,000 of its citizen soldiers could deploy to the Middle East and Europe starting in the spring, with those departures continuing into 2019.

Home communities such as Hawaii’s have seen the result of long and serial deployments. Veterans suffer from physical and mental health problems; suicide rates have risen at an alarming rate. Homelessness among veterans is chronic.

So even if having a “date certain” for troop withdrawal is problematic, an intractable military engagement carries intolerable costs. The administration must clarify its diplomatic pursuits and how native Afghan security forces are being trained to take over more of the burden.

The Afghan government has been unable to suppress the Taliban, a militant Islamic group that governs through imposition of Sharia law, a radical and sometimes brutal judicial system. It’s not a regime that garners support from Americans because of its human rights violations.

Nonetheless it’s difficult to imagine a sustainable and stable government in Afghanistan that does not accommodate the Taliban, perhaps through a negotiated power-sharing arrangement.

Trump is promising partnerships based on “shared interests, not asking others to change their way of life.” It will take that kind of pragmatism to navigate toward stability in Afghanistan. That, in turn, would allow Americans to strive for something better at home than war without end.