The Trump administration agreed to withdraw from the country by May 1, 2021, when the Taliban brokered a peace deal with the Afghan government and promised to prevent terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Islamic State from gaining a foothold. After more than a year of talks, the deal marks the beginning of the end of America`s longest war. But many obstacles remain. In the background is the sad reality that if US troops were to withdraw tomorrow, it would likely be a disaster for Afghanistan, as the parties will first try to win by force if there is no clear framework for a political solution. Filling the void with a framework agreement for the talks was an implicit goal of the U.S.-Taliban deal and is now urgently needed if U.S. troops are to be withdrawn. Former acting defense secretary Christopher Miller told Defense One this week that Trump`s deal was actually a “game” to obscure his administration`s true intentions, which were to mediate a Taliban-led government that would allow a small number of U.S. troops to stay in the country to conduct counterterrorism missions. “The deal will mean nothing — and today`s good feelings won`t last — unless we take concrete steps regarding the commitments and promises declared,” Pompeo said. The agreement, signed in February 2020, stipulates that the United States and its NATO allies would withdraw all troops in 14 months if the Taliban kept their promises, including by not allowing al-Qaeda or other militants to operate in areas they control and to continue national peace talks. Much of the peace negotiations took place during a year of record power on both sides. In the last quarter of 2019 alone, the Taliban carried out 8,204 attacks, the highest in the last decade during that period.
The U.S. dropped 7,423 bombs and missiles during the year, a record since the Air Force began recording data in 2006. The agreement signed in Doha, Qatar, which follows more than a year of negotiations and ostensibly excludes the US-backed Afghan government, is not a final peace agreement, is full of ambiguities and could still be dissolved. The new plan is full of details but full of risks. He is already facing resistance: from both the Afghan government and the Taliban; and Afghans who fear that a peace cobbled together too quickly will only aggravate this war. John Bolton and H.R. McMaster, two of Trump`s former national security advisers known for their hawkish views, have criticized Trump and Biden for pulling out — though both have long criticized the deal with the Taliban. It is important to recognize that the US-Taliban agreement was intended as a stepping stone to a comprehensive settlement of the conflict, not as a substitute for an Afghan agreement. By agreeing to a conditional timetable for the withdrawal of combat troops, the United States was able to overcome the Taliban`s resistance to negotiating directly with the Afghan government. The Afghan peace process and the US agreement are interdependent.
Without U.S. forces as leverage, the two sides would not be able to negotiate further. Without a negotiated deal, safe havens for terrorists are likely to remain and the UNITED States will remain threatened by al-Qaeda and, increasingly, ISIS. He also proposed a “transitional government for peace” to guide the country through this precarious period, followed by national elections as well as a UN-led peace conference in Turkey, attended by foreign ministers and envoys from Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India and the United States. The United States and the Taliban signed a peace agreement, a turning point in the 18-year war in Afghanistan. Read the full story. Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who was fired by Trump in November 2020, said he thought at the time of signing the deal that it should have been “conditional,” which is part of why he later rejected Trump`s call for a Christmas return for U.S. troops. Talks between Afghanistan and taliban are a rare `peace opportunity` A number of former senior Trump officials have sought to distance themselves from the Taliban peace deal signed in February 2020, with chaos erupting after militants took control of Afghanistan this week.
The presence of U.S. and international coalition forces has been the main lever that has brought the Afghan parties to the table, but their power is greatly reduced by the small size of the remaining force and uncertainty over the U.S. embassy. Countries in the region that support both the Afghan government and the Taliban are an important source of influence that should be used more. Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran are all incentivized for the war in Afghanistan to end in a political solution and for US troops to withdraw “responsibly” – that is, soon, but with a political framework that protects against a major civil war. None of them want the Taliban to actually control Afghanistan, and none want a terrorist and refugee-producing catastrophe like the one that occurred after the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. For these reasons, both supported the US-led peace process, urged the Taliban to sign the February 29 agreement and begin negotiations with their fellow Afghans. “I truly believe the Taliban want to do something to show that we are not wasting all our time,” President Trump said in Washington hours after the deal was signed. “When bad things happen, we go back.” The two main ambiguities of the agreement concern the level of violence and what constitutes meaningful and gullible negotiations. The Afghan government`s top priority is reducing violence, which is seen as an indicator of the Taliban`s good faith.
While the U.S.-Taliban agreement only states that a ceasefire will be an item on the agenda of the talks, the U.S. says there was a clear understanding that violence would decrease after the agreement was signed. The link between the level of violence and US action against troops and international sanctions must be quantified and accepted by the Taliban for great progress to be made. The U.S. could also refuse to support the lifting of Taliban sanctions or the release of more Taliban prisoners to further increase pressure to reduce violence. The agreement sets out a timetable for the final withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, the impoverished Central Asian country that was once unknown to many Americans and now symbolizes endless conflicts, foreign entanglements and an incubator of terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, on the eve of the first anniversary of the US-Taliban agreement, Afghanistan remains far from peace. The historic agreement paved the way for a full withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the start of intra-Afghan talks on a political solution to the conflict.
While the withdrawal period expires on 1. In may`s approach, the Biden administration is conducting a rapid review of Afghan policy to determine its overall strategy for slow intra-Afghan negotiations in Doha, Qatar. One of the main reasons for the lack of movement in the talks is that both sides are eagerly awaiting what Biden will decide. The biggest question now is whether the U.S. will conclude that enough of the conditions set out in the February 29, 2020 agreement are met to withdraw all U.S. combat troops by May 1. By most criteria, the answer is no. The agreement has four “interconnected” elements: (1) the Taliban`s counter-terrorism actions; (2) a conditional timetable for the withdrawal of US troops, (3) the start of intra-Afghan talks, and (4) the discussion of conditions that would lead to a permanent ceasefire. CFR`s Carla Anne Robbins met Michele A. Flournoy and Carter A. Malkasian will discuss the prospects for peace in Afghanistan during this February 2020 conference call. Why it matters: The deal was reviewed to lay the groundwork for the U.S.
military`s withdrawal from Afghanistan, which coincided with a sweeping Taliban offensive that ended Sunday with the fall of Kabul. It derives millions of dollars from opium poppy cultivation [PDF] and the illegal drug trade, which pose other problems for the peace process. .