Iqbal Khan
Afghan Taliban have successfully employed an ‘attack and talk’ strategy’. Coupled with President Donald Trump’s pathological impatience, Taliban are likely to achieve their all key demands. Reportedly, America and Taliban have cobbled together the broader contours of a deal which could pave the way for a face saving exit for the US. But both US and Afghan officials said several major issues remain to be resolved before a peace agreement can be reached, including US demands for an extended cease-fire and the Afghan government’s insistence on being included in talks about the Taliban’s future role in government and society. Strong support across the US government for a political solution reflects a recognition of the elusiveness of a military victory against Taliban.
In a reconciliatory tone, Taliban said on January 30 that they are not seeking a “monopoly on power” in a future administration in Afghanistan but are looking for ways to co-exist with Afghan institutions. Suhail Shaheen, a Taliban spokesman in Qatar political office, told Associated Press: “After the end of the occupation, Afghans should forget their past and tolerate one another and start life like brothers. After the withdrawal, we are not seeking a monopoly on power,” Shaheen said. “We believe in an inclusive Afghan world, where all Afghans can see themselves in it,” he added.
New York Times has recently commented that senior US national security aides have tried to use an intelligence assessment to convince their Commander-in-Chief otherwise. Assessment says a complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan would lead to an attack on the United States within two years, and that a residual counterterrorism force must remain in the country. President is not impressed. He thinks his intelligence chiefs are passive and naïve.
Comments by the US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad carried by the New York Times on January 28 indicate that talks between Washington and the Taliban are progressing, triggering hopes of a breakthrough. Points that need pondering is that where will the Yanks employ their would-be surplus soldiers from Syria-Afghanistan theatres and how would it use the dormant capacities of its military industrial complex.
Afghan civilians continue to pay a terrible price, with some estimates showing the Afghan conflict overtook Syria to become the world’s deadliest last year. Though an 18 month timeframe is being quoted, acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan said that there was still no accord on a timetable for a US withdrawal or a ceasefire. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that without a withdrawal timetable, progress on other issues is “impossible”. Khalilzad has confirmed that Taliban acceded on one major issue for the US: safe havens. “The Taliban have committed, to our satisfaction, to do what is necessary that would prevent Afghanistan from ever becoming a platform for international terrorist groups or individuals,” he added. Taliban have no love lost for Daesh and Al-Qaeda is a dying entity. Hence, Taliban’s gesture is only symbolic, aimed at giving a safe runaway alley to the US.
General John F Campbell, a former American commander in Afghanistan commented, “if our primary strategic interest is that Afghanistan does not become another safe haven for terrorists, we need to put some measurements in place to make sure that doesn’t happen.” “It’s necessary to provide our own counterterrorism operation so that we can keep a lid on things and prevent these groups from being able to run around without fear of drone strikes,” said Caitlin Forrest, an Afghanistan expert with the Institute for the Study of War. Afghan officials are especially suspicious that Trump will make a deal with the Taliban behind their backs. “They’re deeply worried they’re about to be sold out by the U.S., and rumours are rife in Kabul that the US is making significant concessions without the Afghans at the table,” said Daniel Feldman, President. Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The ultimate question is whether the Trump administration viewed its goal as simply withdrawing troops or leaving behind a comprehensive settlement. Mr. Feldman said Mr. Khalilzad deserved time to show results. But Mr. Trump, who is hungry for a foreign-policy victory after the government shutdown, may not have the patience to wait for the diplomacy with the Taliban to bear fruit. And once the troops are gone, the ability of the United States to influence events will rapidly ebb. “Is this the beginning of the end of the US war in Afghanistan or the beginning of the end of the war in Afghanistan?” said Laurel E. Miller, who succeeded Mr. Feldman as Obama’s special representative.
President Ashraf Ghani has confirmed that all foreign forces will leave Afghanistan. Moreover, Afghan authorities have warned that any deal between the US and the Taliban would require Kabul’s endorsement. Ghani warned against rushing into a deal, citing violence following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Presidential palace also said that Khalilzad had reassured the government that the negotiations in Qatar remain focused on bringing the insurgents to the table for talks with Kabul.
Actually, Ashraf Ghani is in no position to not to endorse any plan worked out by Khalilzad. He is only looking forward for a photo session with Taliban leadership. “I call on the Taliban to… show their Afghan will, and accept Afghans’ demand for peace, and enter serious talks with the Afghan government…We want peace, we want it fast but we want it with a plan,” President Ashraf Ghani said.
There is a big question mark as to whether Taliban and the Kabul government would ever agree to a pie sharing formula. At the same time, remnants of erstwhile Northern Alliance and few Iran supported sectarian elements may have significant disruptive capability. Another dilemma is how the US would enforce the agreement unless Taliban are given requisite legitimate governance authority. Taliban may seek to overthrow the Afghan government once the Americans are gone. An equally intriguing is the postulations about American end objectives. Experienced hands on Afghanistan also question whether the Taliban were unified enough to deliver on the agreement, and whether the Afghan National Army and police were strong enough to hold the fort.
In all probability, President Trump has reconciled to the idea of handing back Afghanistan to Taliban with the proviso of an interim stage whereby there could be a phase of symbolic power sharing with “puppet regime”. This phase could end in about two years’ time as the puppets would not be able to sustain the power sharing burden as they would lack requisite implementation mechanism. A hasty American withdrawal would irreparably erode the authority and legitimacy of the Afghan government, and the Taliban could incrementally recapture control of the country. And probably, there would be no viable force to resist the Taliban takeover. Afghan National Defence Forces would desert to Taliban side with their arms and ammunition. This scenario now seems more likely than the civil war spectre.
