Trump’s Dead End in Afghanistan
Published in Regnum
(Russia) on 7 March 2020
by Stanislav Tarasov (link to original)
The ink on the peace deal between the U.S. and the Taliban signed in Doha was still wet as Afghanistan was rocked once again by terrorist attacks. An attack on a memorial service took place in Kabul. At least 27 people were killed, among them women and children, and an additional 55 people were injured.
The Taliban have said that they had nothing to do with this attack. The Islamic Jihad group has taken responsibility for the incident, which immediately raises the question: Who is running the show? Prior to the attack, the U.S. carried out airstrikes in Helmand province in the south of Afghanistan against the Taliban, which led 43 attacks on March 3 against the Afghan National Security Forces in Helmand and a military base in the city of Kunduz. That raises yet another question: With which Taliban did the Americans sign an agreement, and is that Taliban controlling the situation to the extent that they can be held responsible for the March 3 attacks?
When Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid announced that attacks would continue until the conclusion of an intra-Afghan agreement, the meaning of the Doha peace deal became particularly interesting. The first part of the agreement states that the United States and the Afghan government will release up to 1,000 prisoners by March 10, and the Taliban will release 5,000 prisoners. However, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is claiming that this condition is not binding. In response, the Taliban are saying that, without an exchange, there won’t be any political negotiations. In a nutshell, the peace process in Afghanistan has only just begun – on paper – and there is still a long way to go in negotiations regarding the country’s political future.
The reasons for this are obvious. The Taliban are fundamentally rejecting negotiations with Kabul. In turn, Kabul is refusing to recognize the Taliban as a political movement. At the same time, there are powers in Afghanistan, for instance, the Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which believe that the Taliban are, firstly, dysfunctional, and secondly, do not reflect the position of the entire resistance movement against American military presence in the country. Naturally, the logic of the process presents the U.S. with the opportunity to play one group against the other in order to weaken the resistance movement, but Washington isn’t getting anywhere.
The Doha agreement predicts a decrease in the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 12,000 to 8,600 within 135 days. After that, the U.S. should continue its withdrawal of all American and NATO forces within 14 months. But the U.S. is being prevented from leaving Afghanistan “with dignity.” It is being drawn into various political alliances, initiating terrorist attacks and offensive operations. What’s next? Iran, whose influence in Afghanistan is quite significant, believes that the U.S. does not have the right to sign a peace agreement with the Taliban concerning Afghanistan, and that peace in this country can be achieved only on the basis of intra-Afghan negotiations among all political groups, including the Taliban, as well as Afghanistan’s neighboring states.
But this is just a nice diplomatic formula, which can only be realized in cooperation with the U.N. Security Council. And there are still several obstacles along this path, particularly inside Afghanistan. Whichever way you look at it, the fact of the matter is that the Taliban, which is considered a terrorist group all over the world, has raised its international status within the information and propaganda sphere, and that is facilitating the involvement of other similar Afghan political actors. The downside of this situation involves the political fate of the acting pro-American Afghan powers, with whom representatives of the resistance movement do not intend on entering a dialogue. This is the curse of Afghanistan.
To what extent do the Afghan elite, the multiple warlords who are creating extremist groups there, need peace, and which of them is planning on wearing the “victor’s” toga? This isn’t clear. On the other hand, stopping the war is totally necessary for President Donald Trump. And yet, he is completely unable to tear himself away from the United States’ longest war. Since the war began, Americans have lost 2,351 soldiers and 3,814 private contractors, and have spent around $1 trillion. There is no end in sight.
The Taliban have said that they had nothing to do with this attack. The Islamic Jihad group has taken responsibility for the incident, which immediately raises the question: Who is running the show? Prior to the attack, the U.S. carried out airstrikes in Helmand province in the south of Afghanistan against the Taliban, which led 43 attacks on March 3 against the Afghan National Security Forces in Helmand and a military base in the city of Kunduz. That raises yet another question: With which Taliban did the Americans sign an agreement, and is that Taliban controlling the situation to the extent that they can be held responsible for the March 3 attacks?
When Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid announced that attacks would continue until the conclusion of an intra-Afghan agreement, the meaning of the Doha peace deal became particularly interesting. The first part of the agreement states that the United States and the Afghan government will release up to 1,000 prisoners by March 10, and the Taliban will release 5,000 prisoners. However, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani is claiming that this condition is not binding. In response, the Taliban are saying that, without an exchange, there won’t be any political negotiations. In a nutshell, the peace process in Afghanistan has only just begun – on paper – and there is still a long way to go in negotiations regarding the country’s political future.
The reasons for this are obvious. The Taliban are fundamentally rejecting negotiations with Kabul. In turn, Kabul is refusing to recognize the Taliban as a political movement. At the same time, there are powers in Afghanistan, for instance, the Political Office of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which believe that the Taliban are, firstly, dysfunctional, and secondly, do not reflect the position of the entire resistance movement against American military presence in the country. Naturally, the logic of the process presents the U.S. with the opportunity to play one group against the other in order to weaken the resistance movement, but Washington isn’t getting anywhere.
The Doha agreement predicts a decrease in the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 12,000 to 8,600 within 135 days. After that, the U.S. should continue its withdrawal of all American and NATO forces within 14 months. But the U.S. is being prevented from leaving Afghanistan “with dignity.” It is being drawn into various political alliances, initiating terrorist attacks and offensive operations. What’s next? Iran, whose influence in Afghanistan is quite significant, believes that the U.S. does not have the right to sign a peace agreement with the Taliban concerning Afghanistan, and that peace in this country can be achieved only on the basis of intra-Afghan negotiations among all political groups, including the Taliban, as well as Afghanistan’s neighboring states.
But this is just a nice diplomatic formula, which can only be realized in cooperation with the U.N. Security Council. And there are still several obstacles along this path, particularly inside Afghanistan. Whichever way you look at it, the fact of the matter is that the Taliban, which is considered a terrorist group all over the world, has raised its international status within the information and propaganda sphere, and that is facilitating the involvement of other similar Afghan political actors. The downside of this situation involves the political fate of the acting pro-American Afghan powers, with whom representatives of the resistance movement do not intend on entering a dialogue. This is the curse of Afghanistan.
To what extent do the Afghan elite, the multiple warlords who are creating extremist groups there, need peace, and which of them is planning on wearing the “victor’s” toga? This isn’t clear. On the other hand, stopping the war is totally necessary for President Donald Trump. And yet, he is completely unable to tear himself away from the United States’ longest war. Since the war began, Americans have lost 2,351 soldiers and 3,814 private contractors, and have spent around $1 trillion. There is no end in sight.
Previous article![]( "Coronavirus Shows Trump Is an Emperor with No Clothes – and the Country May Soon Be Biden’s for the Taking")
/arc-anglerfish-tgam-prod-tgam.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3FJA4UTRDBGOVGFCMMWVDHKTZ4.jpg "Coronavirus Shows Trump Is an Emperor with No Clothes – and the Country May Soon Be Biden’s for the Taking")
Next article![]( "A Transformed Trump Finally Confronts the Coronavirus Reality")
