OPINION:
For four years the Trump administration sought an agreement in Afghanistan and the removal of U.S. military forces from a nation where the U.S. has no strategic interest.
The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for 20 years now, the longest war in our history, claiming over 2,300 American lives in an effort to defeat the Taliban — the Islamist movement that still controls much of the country.
Unfortunately, former President Trump was unable to accomplish this objective, and he was often in conflict with some military leaders who were unable to deal with either the political or military reality of the situation, and their own bias built on two decades of failed policy. Since the outset of this conflict the military has continued to provided false narratives, misleading statistics, and failed arguments as to why a continued U.S. presence is needed.
One myth is that the Afghan regime governs the country at all. Beyond Kabul, they prevail over a small part of that nation, and the Taliban controls the rest. With ISIS largely gone, the Taliban’s power and reach have soared, even as U.S. troops and a contractor base remain on the ground with the claimed mission of “stabilizing” the country. A second myth is that U.S. military is critical to the training and arming of Afghan security forces, who, in reality, often defect in large numbers taking their weapons with them.
Fortunately, this is one area where efforts at negotiation begun under Mr. Trump have continued with the key people still involved. The Biden administration has retained Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, quite possibly the best person for the job, for further talks with the Taliban. He is supported by Secretary of State Antony Blinken actively engaged with putting pressure on Afghan President Ashraf Ghani.
In a recent and sternly worded letter to Mr. Ghani, Mr. Blinken said that Washington wanted to see progress on peace talks and called for a new, inclusive government — which Mr. Ghani has resisted. Mr. Ghani has repeatedly said no interim government would be formed “as long as I am alive.” Mr. Blinken, however, was uncompromising in his letter, released by Afghanistan TV, stating “I am making this clear to you so that you understand the urgency of my tone regarding collective work.”
Further, Mr. Blinken said a May 1 deadline for a final withdrawal of U.S. troops — stipulated in a Taliban-U.S. deal last year — is still on the table. Even with $4 billion in aid to Afghanistan’s National Security Forces, a U.S. withdrawal could mean quick territorial gains for the Taliban. The letter also proposes a revised plan for a 90-day reduction in violence that would prevent the start of a spring offensive by the Taliban and would be followed by a permanent cease-fire laid out in the draft peace agreement.
Clearly the U.S. has become frustrated by a stalled peace process and escalating violence, and has now presented a draft peace agreement to Afghanistan’s warring sides for review, telling the parties to come to Turkey in the coming weeks ready to move on it. The draft outlines the terms of a cease-fire and its enforcement; calls for the protection of the rights of women, children and minorities; and envisions a truth and reconciliation commission aimed at healing 42 years of conflict.
For years Mr. Ghani has resisted any agreement with the Taliban, recently stating that “We will make peace with dignity, but never … an imposed peace.” Mr. Ghani has been accused by his political opponents of trying to cling to power at all cost. Another spokesperson has insisted that “Afghan ownership and Afghan leadership must be respected” and that “The process should not be rushed.”
It now appears that Mr. Blinken has only limited patience. As his letter proposes a revised plan for a 90-day reduction in violence that would prevent the start of a spring offensive by the Taliban and would be followed by a permanent cease-fire laid out in the draft peace agreement.
The draft lays out an ambitious road map that protects the rights of all, guarantees elections, demands transparency and a fight against corruption and the illicit drug trade. It proposes the establishment of a “peace government” that would oversee the writing of a new constitution and elections held immediately afterward. The new constitution is to protect the rights gained in the last 20 years since the toppling of the Taliban. It also calls for one national government — no parallel governments and no parallel security forces, that would mean an end to Taliban fighters and loyal to warlords holding sway in Kabul.
While such a peace plan offers a chance for a cease-fire and a chance to bring the Taliban from the battlefield into peace talks without giving them all the power, there is an equally good chance that the existing Afghan government could simply implode. Here the analogy to the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam cannot be dismissed, although many are highly reluctant to make this comparison.
Afghanistan is largely a failed state, and it is likely to remain one immediately after the withdrawal of the remaining U.S. forces absent a better political arrangement. That is the reality of Afghanistan and the U.S. cannot remain there for another 20 years, propping up the current central government forever. The current effort is certainly a heroic one, but those undertaking it understand what the risks and results might be.
• Abraham Wagner has served in several national security positions, including the NSC Staff under Presidents Nixon and Ford and is the author of the forthcoming book “Israel and the Search for Peace.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.