US Afghan policy will be realistic CENJOWS 01 Jul 19
https://cenjows.gov.in/article-detail?id=185
US Afghan policy will be realistic CENJOWS 01 Jul 19
Zalmay Khalilzad in his tweets almost laid down the US mindset on Afghanistan. He stated, ‘As we prepare for the next round of talks with the Taliban, important to remember we seek a comprehensive peace agreement, NOT a withdrawal agreement. A comprehensive peace agreement is made up of four parts: counter terrorism assurances, troop withdrawal, inter-Afghan negotiations that lead to a political settlement and a comprehensive and permanent ceasefire.’ The latest round of talks commenced amid a Taliban attack on election officials and security forces over the weekend, which claimed 19 lives.
On the contrary, Trump has on multiple occasions left the world confused. He professes one thought, tweets something different and acts in the opposite direction. He threatens Kim Jong Un of North Korea and then tweets about his willingness to meet him in the demilitarized zone and even sends a letter offering talks. He places sanctions including CAATSA against Russia then rushes his Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, to discuss contentious issues with them. At the same time claims that Putin and he get along well. He has understood that post placing sanctions and imposing CAATSA, Russia would not bend. He announces withdrawal from Syria, then backs down, claiming that his military does not agree.
Equally confusing is his policy on Afghanistan. As part of his election promises, he vowed to withdraw from Afghanistan. He claimed it a drain on the exchequer and a losing battle. There was no doubt that it was a losing battle as Pak was behind the Taliban. Trump subsequently cut off all aid to Pak rightly stating it was employing US aid to equip the Taliban. He enhanced diplomatic pressure on them, including stopping training of Pak army officers in the US. His initial advisors, all military personnel advised him against withdrawal from Afghanistan, unless the deal was in their favour.
Hoping to create the right conditions for withdrawal from Afghanistan, he appointed Zalmay Khalilzad as his special envoy to commence peace talks with the Taliban. His government initially insisted that the talks should be, ‘Afghan led, Afghan owned’, subsequently it appears that the talks are anything but that. With the Taliban insisting that they would not talk to the Afghan government, Khalilzad and his team, without any Afghans, is continuing the talks.
Currently the talks are bogged down on two major issues. From the Taliban side the primary demand is fixing the schedule of withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghan soil. They are unwilling to discuss anything further unless this is confirmed. Khalilzad on the other hand is seeking that the Taliban declare a ceasefire and commence discussions with the Afghan government before any further progress can be made. Both sides have had multiple rounds of talks, but each has been blocked on these issues.
The Taliban has also openly announced that it is aware that the US is losing and would withdraw. In the view of the Afghan government, recent losses by the Taliban would compel them to commence talks with them, rather than with Khalilzad.
The US, which had earlier stopped the holding of Presidential elections in Afghanistan, hoping for an early agreement with the Taliban, has now asked the country to prepare for the same. They are scheduled in Sep.
This indicates that the US is aware that talks would continue slowly. The Taliban leadership, on the other hand feels that the US would pull out as its elections draw close and Trump becomes desperate to hold onto his promise.
The arrival of the ISIS (IS-K) in Afghanistan has added to the confusion. They have also begun their attacks in the country, seeking to announce their presence. They are entrenched in Nangarhar and Kunar regions of Afghanistan. The Taliban and the IS-K are sworn enemies, fighting for control within the same region. Russia and China are accusing the US of supporting IS-K to counter the Taliban, which in the long term could threaten them. The US claims that Russia and China support the Taliban against the US.
In this entire confusion of dominating the region, the Afghan government and its people are ignored. They are neither consulted nor are they involved in the discussions. They are regularly informed of the progress of talks.
Despite all his rhetoric, it does appear that the Trump administration would have war gamed all its options and come to a logical conclusion. This would have also considered the international standing and reputation of the US. In some ways, lessons from Trump’s announcements and actions in Syria would have played a role.
There have always been doubts on whether the Taliban would adhere to its promises made during negotiations. Afghanistan post 9/11 had a civil war in progress when the US invaded. It supported the Northern Alliance which was challenging Taliban rule and hence were able to achieve success in a short time. Nothing like that exists at present.
Hence, if the Taliban renege on their promise and open doors to anti-US or Western groups, the US would find itself in a quandary. It would never be able to repeat its actions and be forced to only launch missiles from afar. Even support from Pak, which was pushed through post 9/11 by a threat of ‘bombing them into stone age’ would no longer work.
For Trump, pulling out of Afghanistan without a peace deal, despite the time it may take would be degrading and signal a defeat. It cannot show US to be a second Soviet Union, which withdrew unilaterally from Afghanistan. More importantly, it would open Afghanistan to influence of Russia and China, which would leap in to fill the void. China is desperate to expand its Belt and Road initiative to Afghanistan and Russia would jump in like it did in Syria. Iran which is also supporting the Taliban would enhance its influence amongst Afghani Shia’s. Strategically, a base in Afghanistan for the future would be of major benefit to US policy for Central Asia.
In Syria too, Trump had announced his unilateral withdrawal, but pressure from his own military, which realised that if the US withdraws, the security for its own created forces would deteriorate as also provide a window for the ISIS to recoup compelled him to back down. This lesson is equally important for Afghanistan. Withdrawal without the creation of a joint government, which would ensure peace and stability, would only enhance problems, rather than solving them.
While the offer for withdrawal may remain and talks continue, the final decision would never come easy. This may be against the demands of the Taliban but would be ultimately what the US may seek. The US military, aware of their losses in reaching the present state, would be unwilling to let it all end in benefit of China and Russia as also possibly open doors for the Taliban to provide safe havens for terrorist groups targeting the west.
Hence, despite all his rhetoric and threats and whether he desires to fulfil his election promise, withdrawal from Afghanistan, unless on US terms, including maintaining a base may never happen. The scenario may just drag on for the next US President to handle.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army