WASHINGTON (AP) — Never tip your hand to the enemy. No timelines for military operations. No free pass for a neighbor who tolerates extremists or enables U.S. foes.

In President Donald Trump’s new Afghanistan strategy, elements of a broader approach to America’s most pressing national security concerns begin to emerge, consistent with his efforts in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. Though details are limited, the plan draws on organizing principles that are also woven throughout his plans for defeating the Islamic State group and containing the threats posed by North Korea and Iran.

Trump’s advisers say his Afghan strategy reflects a consistent world view, both in terms of America’s overseas objectives and the tactics to achieve them. But it’s too soon to say whether he is being driven by a well-formed doctrine or merely coining catchphrases.

“We are not nation-building again. We are killing terrorists,” Trump said Monday night speech.

Trump ran on a nationalist pledge to put “America First.” But he explained this week that things look different from the Oval Office. Conceding he was overriding an initial instinct to withdraw from Afghanistan, he peppered his speech with vows to empower commanders and to squeeze Pakistan for harboring the Taliban.

While Trump has cast his approach as a fundamental shift from other presidents, he’s borrowed more from them than he’s inclined to admit.

George W. Bush, too, sought to pressure Pakistan to crack down on the Taliban, even as he focused far more on an idea Trump is explicitly rejecting: promoting democracy around the world.

And Trump’s limited approach owes something to Barack Obama, who in his second term scaled back U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and settled on a counterterror-focused mission not dissimilar from the new American strategy.

A look at the pillars of Trump’s foreign policy:

MIND YOUR BUSINESS

The days of the U.S. military trying to “construct democracies” are over, Trump declared.

That means there will be none of Bush’s “nation-building” — no expansive goal to build up Afghanistan’s institutions and ensure the education of girls once the U.S. ultimately withdraws.

Trump’s approach in Syria is similar. There, as the Islamic State is ousted from its last major strongholds and a power vacuum results, Trump’s administration has said it wants to help restore electricity, water and sewage in areas freed from IS — but no more.

In Afghanistan, some questions still must be cleared up. Trump emphasized he could hold back future military and economic aid unless the Afghan government combats problems including rampant corruption.

KEEP YOUR PLANS QUIET

Of all the critiques of Trump’s plan, the loudest is he declined to tell Americans how many more U.S. troops will be sent to Afghanistan after 16 years of fighting.

His rationale is simple: Deny the Taliban and other extremists the advantage of anticipating U.S. military moves.

However, the contours of the Pentagon’s plan have been known for months. Senior officials said Tuesday up to 3,900 more troops will go, some possibly within days.

DON’T “MICROMANAGE”

Rather than centralize military decision-making in the White House, a critique often leveled at Obama, Trump has delegated much of the authority to his defense secretary and war zone commanders.

“Micromanagement from Washington, D.C., does not win battles,” he said in his speech.

Even before he unveiled his Afghan plan, the White House announced he’d given the Pentagon final say on how many troops to send.

CRACKDOWN ON ENABLERS

As Trump vowed to get tough on Pakistan, accusing it of giving “safe haven to agents of chaos, violence and terror,” diplomatic and military officials heard echoes of his plan for North Korea.

For more than a decade, the U.S. has pressed Islamabad to snuff out Taliban sanctuaries. Many of the group’s leaders reside in Pakistan, traveling freely across the Afghanistan border.

With North Korea, it’s China that must feel the weight of U.S. pressure, Trump has said. He has tried to squeeze Beijing into cutting off lifelines of economic support to North Korea to make it harder for Pyongyang to develop weapons that could harm the U.S.