Not a great deal
The Middle East Institute hosted a panel of four Afghanistan experts September 5 to assess the opportunities and hurdles of a US–Taliban deal. Until President Trump suspended negotiations this weekend, the two delegations were expected to approve a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. In return, the Taliban leadership was to deny terrorist groups like al Qaeda a presence on Afghan soil. The panel consisted of Javid Ahmad, a senior fellow the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, Lt. General David Barno (ret.) a visiting professor at John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Jarret Blanc, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Laurel Miller the director of the Crisis Group’s Asia Program.
Here are the major takeaways from the event, which may or may not remain valid in the current situation:
- The Taliban are winning
The agreement is a peace agreement between the United States and the Taliban, with hopes that a subsequent peace process will start between the Afghan central government and the Taliban. According to Ahmad, the Taliban are winning on the battlefield and at the negotiation table. They will not sign an agreement unless they can have the basis of victory.
- The negotiations are generating uncertainty
There have been nine rounds of negotiations in Doha between the US and the Taliban. There is a growing sense that a deal will be made, but in the meanwhile uncertainty among Afghans does not help maintain stability. The agreement says little about implementation following US withdrawal. This ambiguity makes the future of Afghanistan uncertain.
- The US has already made a major concession
There is no ceasefire agreement. The US has agreed to negotiate with the Taliban even while they fight against the Afghan government. This reflects American warweariness: President Trump has clearly stated his disapproval of the current extent of America’s overseas commitments. The war in Afghanistan has lasted for 18-years and he is anxious to end it.
- The Taliban has no incentive to negotiate with the Afghan government once the US withdraws
Afghanistan’s forces are not as strong as the insurgents and will struggle to maintain the territory they currently control without US support. Blanc commented, “Why would they negotiate themselves out of power? Without the US present, the Taliban can continue their offensive.” The central government and the Taliban favor different political landscapes in Afghanistan – one democratic and one autocratic. Why would the Taliban share power with a democratic political institution if they can continue to conquer territory?
- The Taliban is not unified in their vision for the future
Afghan government and Taliban negotiators are scheduled to meet in Oslo, Norway later this month to discuss a potential peace process. The Taliban are sending 19 representatives to the negotiation table. However, only 5 of them are actual negotiators and the group is not fully representative of the organization. Miller discussed how neither the Taliban nor the Afghan government have a straight-forward agenda or clear objectives.
- Major US threats converge in Afghanistan
In the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Trump Administration defined five key threats to US national security: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and global terrorism. North Korea is the only one not involved in Afghanistan in one way or another. How can the United States preserve its national security interests without a foothold in such a geopolitically important country ? Barno said that there are two implications of US disengagement from Afghanistan: it will likely revert to harboring terrorist organizations and US influence on Pakistan and Iran will decrease. Before withdrawal, the US should have a reliable partner in Kabul to continue counter terrorism efforts throughout the region.
RSS - Posts
