The security scenario in India’s neighbourhood is undergoing a change, requiring reorientation of the strategic policy in dealing with Pakistan and the related issue of terrorism . The much-promised ‘America first’ policy of US President Donald Trump is now taking shape in Syria and Afghanistan . Leaving allies and Pentagon bewildered, President Trump on December 19 ordered withdrawal of the US troops, numbering around 2,000, from Syria. The neocons, warmongers and supporters of military-industrial interests, including Secretary of Defence James Mattis, have been left fretting and fuming. Trump is no fool. He understands that the move would be popular at home and save the US from the escalating cost of conflict and loss of life, which other NATO allies are unwilling to share.With melting away of fighters belonging to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in Syria, the professed objective of stationing of the US troops, there is hardly any justification for maintaining the presence there. However, the US, Saudi Arabia and their allies in the Gulf are nowhere near their real goal of dislodging Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, for whom resistance groups were created — ISIS being a byproduct of the process. So, in a way it is a defeat for the US and its allies.Same is the case in Afghanistan after more than 17 years of US involvement. No one in the US is ready to admit defeat there too. In the beginning itself, in 2001, the US had wasted an opportunity to withdraw from Afghanistan, when Taliban had rapidly unravelled and its strongholds collapsed one after another, with the last one, Kandahar, falling on December 9, 2001. Despite spending close to $1 trillion, loss of about 2,500 Americans and thousands of Afghan civilian lives, victory is nowhere in sight. Rather, resurgent Taliban now controls 61% of districts with a strength of about 70,000 and an affiliate of ISIS, called Islamic State-Khorasan Province, remains strong. The US should have realised that simply the presence of foreign troops is a huge traction for people to join resistance, even if that means support to obscurantist Taliban, whom they dislike.The announcement of reduction of troops in Afghanistan would be a precursor to the final withdrawal that may take place sooner than expected. Pakistan is fully exploiting the US haste in striking a Faustian bargain with the Taliban to get out of the quagmire. Taliban’s ascendency would sound the death knell for the government of Ashraf Ghani and also Indian influence there. Afghanistan could again become a sanctuary for all kinds of terrorist groups.That means Pakistan’s policy of surreptitiously extending all kinds of support to the Taliban risking international isolation has finally paid off. As a natural corollary, why would Pakistan take action against Jamaatud-Dawa and Jaish-e-Mohammad, the groups inimical to Indian interests, knowing their usefulness in the long run? Going by the history of Pakistan-US relations, Pakistan would also expect the US to pressurise India to hold dialogue on Kashmir as a quid pro quo for facilitating talks with the Taliban.India may or may not talk to Pakistan, but it should now be clear that it can’t any more clap and cheer any wrap on the knuckles or armtwisting of Pakistan by the US and hang on to the coattails of the latter. Similarly, India can’t remain oblivious to the ground realities in Afghanistan by maintaining a hostile attitude towards the Taliban.The policy should be “India first”. The huge goodwill that India has among the people of Afghanistan needs to be harnessed to ensure that the country remains friendly towards it, not a haven for hostile elements. India may continue using international leverage on Pakistan on the issue of terrorism, but at the same time realise its limitations. The policy needs to be reoriented based on India’s strength and weaknesses visà-vis its neighbour.(The author is a former Intelligence Bureau official who served in Jammu and Kashmir and Pakistan)