Afghanistan Peace Talks

[Abdülmecid I]

While the insurgency in Afghanistan slowly but steadily approaches its 20th anniversary, Kabul, the Taliban and Washington were negotiating a path towards peace in the relatively neutral capital of Qatar, Doha. However, despite the recent progress, Donald Trump announced that diplomacy has failed, allegedly because the other side insisted on continuing to carry out bloody attacks. Moreover, yesterday the American president fired John Bolton, his advisor over national security, supposedly over policy disagreements, despite the fact that Bolton claimed that he was the first to offer his resignation. His dismissal has been interpreted as a conciliatory gesture towards Tehran (Bolton was notorious for his hawkish obsession against the Iranian Republic), but, in my opinion, it's probably the result of White House's frustration over the unproductive talks with the Taliban.



In spite of the fact that thousands of American soldiers and their allies are present in the impoverished country, the military situation has hardly improved. In fact, contrary to the rosy descriptions of Coalition officers, the Taliban are reported to be in their strongest point, since the invasion of 2001 and the collapse of their Islamic Emirate. They control huge parts of the countryside, especially in the south, while even the communications between provincial capitals, such as Kabul and Kandahar or Herat, are not always guaranteed. Summarily put, the mountainous country is too vast for the resource-lacking and corrupt government to effectively impose its authority. All these domestic issues, as well as the interventionism of global and regional powers, like Pakistan and India, lead to the conclusion that the only way for the US to decisively defeat the opposition is to dramatically multiply their budget and the number of their troops. Obviously, neither of them is a viable option for any politician aiming to win the next elections or to serenely complete his term.

Spoiler for Levels of Taliban influence: 

Of course, America is directly and indirectly responsible for the current chaos, as its direct and indirect support for the reactionary uprising of the Mujaheddin against the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan inevitably led to the present destructive stalemate. It's essentially a vicious circle, with the central authorities lacking the means to smash the Taliban and with the conflict devouring too much effort and money for the government to reassert itself. Therefore, ceasefire followed by reconciliation could potentially solve the problem, although the process will necessarily be very slow, with the gradual withdrawal of foreign soldiers being the first step towards normalisation. However, diplomacy is too vulnerable to provocation, as the recent failure indicates, with hard-liners and foreign powers trying the best to prevent a unified Afghanistan from emerging.



In my opinion, the negotiations will eventually succeed, as neither side can enjoy the luxury of an alternative option. However, their harmonious coexistence will be exceptionally fragile, with the possibility of open hostilities recommencing being rather strong, in the case of the balance of power being disrupted (e.g. as a result of the departure of the international coalition). Finally, even if the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and the Taliban surprisingly manage to cooperate with each other, the future prospects of the people are not very bright, given the deterioration of the infrastructure, the enormous cost of the war and the subsequent reconstruction and, last but not least, the fact that ultra-conservatism and obscurantism will be endorsed as official policy, further impeding the chances of the country for recovering part of its past prosperity. So, what are your thoughts? Is negotiated peace the right strategy and, if the answer is yes, is there room for moderate optimism concerning the chances of the Afghani society?

[Papay]

There cannot be peace with foreign occupation. The prime reason is that the central government that US supports is too weak and corrupt. This means that Kabul either fights Taliban or relies on local warlords

[95thrifleman]

Mission accomplished?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Considering that the initial goal of US forces, qualitatively, was to destroy the Taliban, and certainly not to negotiate with terrorists, any peace negotiated with the Taliban is, by definition, a crushing defeat. Either the US continues to prop up the nominal government in Kabul, or we cut our losses and leave. Given that the US hasn’t even included its client government in the negotiations, it’s clear by all accounts that terrorists own the country.


It’s the same choice 10 years ago, today, or 10 years in the future. I’m sure there are more nuanced assessments out there, but that is ultimately the two choices available. The US is 30 years too late in attempting a pivot to Asia, and diminishing returns in Afghanistan turned negative years ago. Staying longer is merely a matter of principle, not strategy.


Afghanistan as a country should pursue the same policies it had prior to the Soviet coup and invasion: leverage its geographic position to play for concessions from more powerful interests in order to modernize. As long as the Taliban and other jihadist groups are present, there is no path forward.

[ikyu828]

just let the taliban win n rule afghan
it will be a bigger problem for russia n china with the taliban nearby

[95thrifleman]

just let the taliban win n rule afghan
it will be a bigger problem for russia n china with the taliban nearby

The taliban ruled from the end of the Russian invasion in the 80's to the American invasion and wasn't a "problem" for anybody but thier own people.

[alhoon]

@Abdulmecid: The map of the Taliban influence lacks captions Also, the article about them in their strongest point is 4 years old, although I don't think things changed much for the favor of USA.

@Legio: We are in partial agreement but about this crushing defeat: If the situation in Afghanistan is more or less as it was 20 years ago after all the money and lives USA has lost, as it seems to be the case here, the problems multiply and it's also not something a president would do 14 months before the elections.
It is a horrible mess with no solution at this time.

The taliban ruled from the end of the Russian invasion in the 80's to the American invasion and wasn't a "problem" for anybody but thier own people.

Aside of the horrors inflicted on their own people, that are people, the Taliban also supported Al Qaeda which led to the American invasion. As such, they were a problem for USA and everyone else too.

[95thrifleman]

@Abdulmecid: The map of the Taliban influence lacks captions Also, the article about them in their strongest point is 4 years old, although I don't think things changed much for the favor of USA.

@Legio: We are in partial agreement but about this crushing defeat: If the situation in Afghanistan is more or less as it was 20 years ago after all the money and lives USA has lost, as it seems to be the case here, the problems multiply and it's also not something a president would do 14 months before the elections.
It is a horrible mess with no solution at this time.



Aside of the horrors inflicted on their own people, that are people, the Taliban also supported Al Qaeda which led to the American invasion. As such, they were a problem for USA and everyone else too.

Go invade all the other nations that support AQ, that could be fun.....

[Bethrezen]

This will certainly contribute to any future new peace talks:

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

[conon394]

Is negotiated peace the right strategy and, if the answer is yes, is there room for moderate optimism concerning the chances of the Afghani society?

Yes to the first as whatever we need for a fig leaf to leave. Because I am tired of spending US tax dollars on a lost cause. I really do not care about A- stan at all. Anyone who ever worked for the US or can claim they will be oppressed by the once and future Taliban can have a green card. If the Taliban shelters anti US terror groups - carpet bombing no more wasting money on nation building in a place that by in large is corrupt to the hilt and cares not to be in the even in the 20th century let alone the current one. So on the second I care not. More so because with my daughters eying military academies I really have no desire to bury them for a waste of time like Afghanistan. Wow as liberal lefty I managed to sound all right wing...

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems that leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible is the best possible outcome for US.
I think anyone who isn't brainwashed by globalist media already realized that for US this war is pointless and unwinnable. Taliban receives enough support within and outside country and isn't going anywhere, while the state and social structures that US relies on to oppose it are too weak, corrupt and lack loyalty. Civilian death toll from American "liberation" also became quite extensive, and without a doubt bolstered Taliban's ranks with revenge-bound relatives of victims of "importation of democracy".
From American taxpayer perspective there is also little point in staying. Average American taxpayer cares little about theocratic insurgents in Afghanistan, when there are far-left nutjobs within US assaulting everyone they think is a Nazi (which is majority of population according to them) and attempting to blow up government facilities, which are almost directly supported by one of the major political parties in the country. Not to mention the wasted taxdollars. Only higher-ups in military industrial complex and ghost of Bush sr. know how much taxpayer dollars have been wasted on this pointless war. Imagine that money being spent on healthcare or space exploration.
The best US can do at this point is to at least temporarily limit Taliban's power.

[caratacus]

It is obvious to anyone that Afghanistan is a failed state and has been for a great many years. Attempts to forge it into a modern country seemed doomed to failure, whatever the force behind such a move. It is a mountainous area characterised by different tribes and peoples each with their own identity. A single state with a central government in Kabul has not been workable in the modern age even under communism, and probably never will.

Until this is recognised progress cannot be made in defeating the Taliban. Areas not under Taliban influence should be supported and given autonomous power to control their own areas. Areas like South Helmand would undoubtedly fall under Taliban control completely, but influence of the Taliban outside them could be more effectively contained. It's easier to undermine and defeat an enemy you can see, that one hiding in the shadows. Perhaps in the future a united peaceful Afghanistan may emerge, but not for some time yet. The Taliban aren't people you can negotiate with yet, as they see peace as weakness and the destruction of innocent lives justified.

Total withdrawal from Afghanistan is a surrender and defeat, but the creation of autonomous regions would at least create a more effective check to Taliban expansion and control. Pulling out altogether would only have them once again be the dominant force in the whole area. At present they are seen as the only opposition to central foreign influenced control. Deprive them of that role, whilst creating new tribal based factions, would check their advance and eventually force a proper negotiated settlement. Right now they see themselves holding all the cards.

The roots of Afghanistan’s tribal tensions
https://www.economist.com/the-econom...ribal-tensions

[Papay]

This will certainly contribute to any future new peace talks:

U.S. drone strike kills 30 pine nut farm workers in Afghanistan

https://news.yahoo.com/afghan-offici...174633730.html

Another strike, 40 dead. But who cares right?

[Bethrezen]

If I were the sole survivor of such an attack and my wife and kid died because of it, I'm not sure I would behave any differently than other people who probably radicalize because of similar events.

[conon394]

If I were the sole survivor of such an attack and my wife and kid died because of it, I'm not sure I would behave any differently than other people who probably radicalize because of similar events.

One sentence and you got a wedding party curtsy of unnamed and un-sourced sources?

OK when the Taliban agrees to show up on the town green in uniform and the US does not I will say the US bears an substantial burden for casualness. But say what if back in the day the the US bombed a family pow wow and killed Escobar. I mean a nasty piece of work shame about his wife and kids but I suppose they slept well enough with all the blood on his hands...

[Bethrezen]

Please delete.

[AqD]

It seems that leaving Afghanistan as soon as possible is the best possible outcome for US.
I think anyone who isn't brainwashed by globalist media already realized that for US this war is pointless and unwinnable.

The war may be difficult but not pointless. Fundamentalism and all those preachers need to be erased or our civilization will start growing backward generations from now.

US is clearly not doing all it can - allowing opium to bring real benefits to locals and arming corrupt warlords would be a great start, so long as they support our values (western education would be sufficient).

[hellheaven1987]

The taliban ruled from the end of the Russian invasion in the 80's to the American invasion and wasn't a "problem" for anybody but thier own people.

Except they are chief supporter of Chechen separatists...

Anyway, it is clear the best solution would be buff up Afghan police, but unfortunately West lacks experience of organizing large scale armed police makes it difficult to achieve.

[conon394]

Anyway, it is clear the best solution would be buff up Afghan police, but unfortunately West lacks experience of organizing large scale armed police makes it difficult to achieve.

Well history shows the US is rather good at that - just ask Central and South America. The problem is historically and culturally enough of the elites and middle class bought into the system the US was shilling. Thus you get marginalized rebellions (sans a few outliers), screwed peasants - but not too many, United Fruit makes money, and those dictators are really our boys against the reds. Critically looking at this from a US not western perspective the old Diaz quote does not work for A-stan. 'Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!'. The Gringo is a fact of life he is not in for the short run. But pretty much everyone knows (knew) the US and the West were not sticking around in Afghanistan. You not really going to get people to make long term decisions without that certainty. Thus you are likely never going to get a national police that will defend effectively what everyone thinks is a temporary state of affairs.

[hellheaven1987]

But pretty much everyone knows (knew) the US and the West were not sticking around in Afghanistan.

I highly doubt US does not want to stick around in Afghanistan, particularly when it can be a thorn on Persia back. What Americans do not want is stationing too many troops and money there.