The Pentagon on Wednesday played down a wave of attacks by Taliban fighters and a retaliatory U.S. airstrike against the insurgent group, amid concern that fresh violence in Afghanistan will derail the fragile, high-stakes peace deal the Trump administration reached with the militants last weekend.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley said U.S. troops are prepared to escalate their response to the Taliban if necessary, but stressed that attacks by the militants on U.S.-backed Afghan forces have been “small” since the peace deal was inked Saturday and that the agreement remains intact.
His comments, along with similar remarks by Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper during a Pentagon budget hearing on Capitol Hill, came after U.S. forces conducted an airstrike Wednesday to drive back a Taliban assault on an Afghan government checkpoint in the nation’s southern Helmand province — a Taliban stronghold.
But skeptics say the renewed violence points up a number of vulnerable links in the accord to end America’s longest war and fulfill President Trump’s promise to bring U.S. troops home — including the lack of central Taliban control over its militants; the weakness and divisions within the government in Kabul; the continuing threat from jihadist groups such as Islamic State and al Qaeda; and the difficulty of coordinating moves by the various parties designed to bring about an end to the fighting and a stable unity government.
The American strike came less than a day after Mr. Trump spoke for the first time directly with a top Taliban leader and expressed confidence the peace deal would hold.
Pentagon officials said that Gen. Scott Miller, top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, retains the authority to order strikes on the Taliban if he deems it necessary. Wednesday’s sortie was described as a clear warning to the Taliban that the recent uptick in attacks was unacceptable.
Mr. Trump told reporters Tuesday that he’d had “a good conversation” with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who signed the peace agreement Saturday after nearly two years of negotiations with U.S. officials in Doha, Qatar.
The president suggested the two had agreed in a phone call that a key reduction in violence pact tied to the deal was working. “We’ve agreed there’s no violence,” Mr. Trump said. “We don’t want violence.”
But officials in the U.S.-backed Afghan government told a different story Wednesday, revealing that Taliban fighters had carried out some 30 separate attacks against them across 15 Afghan provinces over a 24-hour period this week.
An Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman said U.S.-backed Afghan forces had responded and killed at least 17 Taliban in various clashes. The Afghan Defense Ministry separately said seven Afghan soldiers were killed when Taliban fighters attacked a checkpoint in the northern province of Kunduz.
’Lower-level attacks’
The accord signed in Doha by Zalmay Khalilzad, Mr. Trump’s lead envoy to the negotiations, would clear the way for the rapid withdrawal of about 4,000 of the estimated 12,000-plus U.S. troops in the country to withdraw. But U.S. officials also have said the drawback with be “conditions-based,” tied to progress in implementing the peace deal.
Gen. Milley told a Senate hearing Wednesday that the Taliban activity this week has been “small, lower-level attacks out on checkpoints.”
“They were all beaten back,” he said, asserting that “what is important” is the Taliban is adhered to its major commitments under the peace agreement to refrain from any high-profile attacks or strikes against American and other international troops in Afghanistan.
But Mr. Esper acknowledged that “the results so far have been mixed” since the inking of Saturday’s U.S.-Taliban agreement.
“The Taliban are honoring their piece in terms of not attacking U.S. and coalition forces, but not in terms of sustaining the reduction in violence,” the defense secretary said.
The U.S.-Taliban deal reached in Doha called for a comprehensive nationwide cease-fire to be negotiated through the impending intra-Afghan talks, which are slated to begin next week in Norway.
In the interim, the United States must begin the first phase of the troop withdrawal. A subsequent, phased drawdown of U.S. and allied troops would be then dependent on the Taliban entering serious negotiations with the Afghan government in Kabul, the legitimacy of which the militants have previously refused to recognize.
The deal also hinged on ironclad commitments from Taliban leaders that the country never again be used as a base of operations by al Qaeda or any other terrorist group.
But the violence has not been the only snag since the deal was signed. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has refused to sign off on the release of thousands of Taliban prisoners held by the government ahead of the peace talks, fearing it will give away a major source of leverage for the government.
First step
U.S. and NATO officials have consistently warned that the Taliban deal — which was not signed by the Afghan government — was just a first step and that the aftermath could be messy.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told Agence France-Presse on Wednesday there was a “long and hard” road to peace ahead, warning that if the Taliban fails to honor its commitments, foreign forces will not leave Afghanistan.
“It is a very difficult situation and Taliban must honor their commitment,” Mr. Stoltenberg said. “We need to see reduction in violence.”
A spokesman for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan (USFOR-A) said on Twitter Wednesday that the U.S. side remains “committed to peace,” but also dedicated to defending Afghan government forces.
“Taliban leadership promised the [international] community they would reduce violence and not increase attacks,” USFOR-A spokesman Col. Sonny Legget tweeted. “We call on the Taliban to stop needless attacks and uphold their commitments.”
The U.S. military strike against the Taliban on Wednesday was the first by American forces since the initial reduction in violence pact with the militants went into effect 11 days ago.
Various reports this week have claimed the Taliban have made a strategic decision to carry out attacks against Afghan security forces, while refraining from direct attacks on U.S. or other international troops.
But U.S. officials fear ground-level Taliban commanders might be exploiting the current situation, both to gain territory ahead of any intra-Afghan negotiations and to test Mr. Trump’s resolve.
Mr. Esper offered a cautious response when pressed on that matter by Sen. Joe Manchin, West Virginia Democrat, during Wednesday’s hearing.
“Keeping that group of people on board is a challenge,” the defense secretary said, adding that the Taliban has its “range of hardliners and softliners” and is likely “wrestling with that, too.”
Gen. Milley said there were some positives to report from the front lines as well.
“There’s no attacks in 35 provincial capitals, there’s no attacks in Kabul, there’s no high-profile attacks, there’s no suicide bombers, there’s no vehicle-born suicide [attacks], no attack against the U.S. forces, no attack against coalition [forces],” he said. “There’s a whole laundry list of these things that aren’t happening.”
⦁ This article is based in part on wire service reports.
• Guy Taylor can be reached at gtaylor@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.