Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, former Prime Minster of Afghanistan visited Pakistan from October 19 to 21, ostensibly to seek cooperation for reduction in violence. Reduction in violence is the latest American buzz word that implies Taliban should stop fighting while the Afghan National Security Forces and the US led occupation forces should keep brow beating Taliban with impunity and in clear violation of February 29, 2020 US-Taliban Agreement.
Who would know better than Hekmatyar that with heaps of unaccounted for munitions and hordes of hardened fighters, one could only wish for reduction in violence, but achieving it is a tall talk.
Hekmatyar is responsible for many problems of Afghanistan. After withdrawal of Soviet forces, he became Prime Minster of Afghanistan. But instead of taking up his role as a responsible leader, he could not outgrow the role of a war lord and chose to remain a divider-in chief. Later, midway the struggle against the US occupation of Afghanistan, he ran out of steam and abandoned Jihad. He dumped the Taliban and chose to play second fiddle to the Afghan government in exchange for paltry concessions by the US.
During his meeting with Prime Minister Imran Khan on October 20, Hekmatyar appreciated
Pakistan’s positive role in facilitating the Afghan peace process. He also thanked Pakistan for its long-standing contribution to the socio-economic development of Afghanistan and for hosting millions of Afghan refugees for more than four decades. Prime Minister, while welcoming the guest, underscored historic bonds of friendship and brotherhood between Pakistan and Afghanistan. He expressed best wishes for successful outcome of the Afghan peace process as Pakistan had the highest stake in peace and stability in the region. The Prime Minister stated that Intra-Afghan negotiations provided a historic opportunity for the Afghan leadership to establish lasting peace. Imran Khan also warned against the damaging role of ‘spoilers’ within and outside Afghanistan, as this could also undermine the peace dividend to be accrued in terms of progress and prosperity of the Afghan people.
Afghanistan is certainly not heading for a conventional format of peace evolving out of absence of violence. It may very well spiral into something like the Lebanon syndrome, where dysfunctional state structures, armed gangs and shifting political loyalties have ensured sustenance of chaos for decades. The Afghan government and Taliban negotiators remain far apart on even the most basic issues. The abyss, not just on prickly problems like a ceasefire and women rights but also on foundational issues like constitutional changes to absorb upcoming power sharing arrangement and disarming of militias, indicate formidable challenges to any hopes of peace.
Lebanese brand peace appears a likely destination with violence and a dysfunctional government as a new normal. This would cause frequent domestic political upheavals and regional chaos, creating ample space and scope for external spoilers to act via local proxies. India, the spoiler-in chief has already started showing overtures to Taliban for staying in area in one way or the other.
The American ‘Deep State’ consisting of Pentagon-CIA combine, financially propelled by the rouge American Defence Industrial Complex has so far overwhelmed Trump, making him eat the dust again and again. Before making a complete pull-out statement about Afghanistan, his such announcements for Syria and Iraq had met the same fate. So far, Trump has not been able to end any war through a formal treaty. All such announcements have met same fate spontaneous rise in violence and reversal of presidential decisions.
And who is engineering it? In all probability it is America Deep State with the help of respective local elements who are by now hardened, habitual of thriving on war economies of these conflict ridden states. No wonder the “send button” of Trump’s twitters and rise in violence are near simultaneous.
Behind the scene intra-Afghan negotiations are running into problems.
The devil lies in details and the sides participating in intra-Afghan talks reportedly have substantial differences not only in core issues but also in periphery matters. Inside Afghanistan tempo of fighting is picking up. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad claims another ‘reset’ with Taliban on February 29 Agreement to reduce violence.
According to Rebecca Kheel, Trump sowed confusion about the US military plan for Afghanistan by tweeting that “we should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas.” The wording of the tweet made it unclear if Trump had actually ordered a withdrawal or was trying to appeal to voters in the final stretch of the presidential campaign. Further compounding the muddle, the presidential tweet came hours after national security adviser Robert O’Brien announced a drawdown to 2,500 troops in Afghanistan by early 2021.
Daniel R. DePetris, in his October 13 piece for Defence One, “The 20th Year of the Afghanistan War Should Be America’s Last”, opines that: “US national security interests do not depend on the outcome of the peace talks. It’s time to come home”.
With post tweet confusion galore, General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has declined to endorse Trump’s statement that remaining 4,000 US troops in Afghanistan should come home by Christmas. “I’m not going to engage in speculation,” Milley said in an interview with National Public Radio (NPR). “I’m going to engage in the rigorous analysis of the situation based on the conditions”.
Washington Post’s interesting October 12 article reported: “Afghans stunned, worried by Trump tweet to bring home US troops early” indicates the anxiety of the elements whose bread and butter has, for decades, been dependent on the spoils of Afghanistan’s war economy. Many Afghan officials and analysts fear that if Trump follows through, abruptly dropping the US-Taliban agreement for a conditions-based and gradual pull-out, the country might plunge again into full-scale war and political mayhem. “If the withdrawal takes place according to the tweet, it will create chaos”.
“The peace process will collapse and we will go back to square one” said Ehsanullah Zia, a former senior Afghan official who heads the Kabul office of the US Institute of Peace. “This is the only thing the Taliban really wanted. People were becoming hopeful but this sudden tweet has changed the scenario. Now all that investment, all that sacrifice, could go down the drain.” Officials in the Ghani administration, however, are playing down the fears and say they can defend their country alone. Shah Mahmood Miakhel, a deputy Defence minister, said, “99% of all military operations are planned and executed by Afghans” a tall claim indeed.
Taliban leaders reacted with open delight welcoming Trump’s statement and reportedly telling CBS News that they hoped he will win re-election in November. Later, the spokesman said his comment to that effect had been “incorrectly” interpreted, after it set off a frenzy of controversy and was rejected by the White House.
According to Abdul Khaliq, American forces conducted several airstrikes over the past few days in support of Afghan security forces under attack by the Taliban in the southern Helmand province, which is against the understanding of the US-Taliban Agreement of February 29. The Helmand governor’s media office said on October 13 that Afghan Special Forces, aided by air strikes from the country’s air force, had managed to take back five checkpoints from Taliban control, killing 23 Taliban. Jets and helicopters continued to circle Lashkar Gah on the nights of October 12-13, attacking the Taliban’s positions.
Afghan security forces have launched a counter offensive in the south against Taliban fighters, government officials stated on October 13. Fighting raged for days in a major insurgent offensive that has overshadowed peace talks. The Taliban assault on Helmand province tests the resolve of the government at the start of talks to end the war, and could complicate Trump’s recent pre-election pledge to bring home the remaining US troops by Christmas.
However, Colonel Sonny Leggett confirmed on his twitter account that “the strikes over the past two days in Helmand did not violate the US-Taliban agreement.” The Taliban need to immediately stop their offensive actions in Helmand Province and reduce their violence around the country. It is not consistent with the US-Taliban agreement and undermines the ongoing Afghan Peace Talks,” Leggett’s tweet said.
The US strikes came after a gun battle around Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province on October 12. There was sporadic shooting inside the city and residents fled from the districts because of the fighting. According to spokesman for the provincial governor in Helmand, Taliban had started their coordinated attacks in different parts of the province a week earlier which later intensified. “The Taliban have destroyed several bridges over the main highway, so the highway is closed right now and no one can travel.”
Many Afghans were angered and disillusioned by the US-Taliban agreement signed on February 29 after a year of negotiations. They felt the Trump administration had made too many concessions in its haste to clinch the deal and to jump-start peace talks between Afghan and Taliban leaders.
The world has since long gotten used to mercurial twittering outbursts by Trump which he himself also does not take seriously. If he loses elections he will hand over all conflicts to the Democrats almost in the same state as he inherited from them. And if he wins he will keep doing what “Deep State” likes him to do.
Over the past few years, the resurgent Taliban have gained control of roughly 80% of the provinces, mainly the rural areas; while major urban district centres are still under government control. And that is the “Divide” that would persist for quite some time weather the occupation forces stay on or depart.
Pressure is building on the US-installed and sustained government to share power with the Taliban. President Ashraf Ghani’s spokesman questioned what he said was the Taliban insistence on settling the issue of the Islamic system so early in the talks. “This doesn’t resonate well with our people’s wish for a lasting peace and the current political system of Afghanistan which is an Islamic Republic state and has legitimacy,” said the spokesman, Sediq Sediqqi. Focus is on keeping the negotiators at the table. Singular challenge for the under writers of talks is to ensure that no one quits the talks. Despite the difficulties, the talks are the best hope for peace.
Dr. Abdullah Abdullah visited Pakistan in September for three days, it was his first visit to Pakistan in 12 years, earlier he had arrogantly declined many invitations on clumsy grounds, ostensibly to appease India. Now as India is also showing overtures towards the Taliban, the likes of Abdullah hardly had any other option than to reconcile with the centrality of Pakistan’s role towards peace in Afghanistan. Yet, as old habits die hard, Abdullah was still stuck with some out dated phrases.
While Abdullah was still in Pakistan, and Pakistan’s foreign minister was mollycoddling him for steering the intra-Afghan talks in right direction, American chief negotiator Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad rushed to Doha to re-rail stalled intra-Afghan talks.
As President Donald Trump remained persistent in pulling out foreign occupation troops from Afghanistan leading to the US-Taliban Agreement signed on February 29, the centre of gravity of influence yielding politico military power has quietly shifted from the US and its camp followers to Taliban. Seeing the writing on the wall, the likes of President Ashraf Ghani and Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, head of Afghan High Peace Council for National Reconciliation, are struggling to remain relevant.
Abdullah’s visit came at a crucial time for Afghanistan as government and Taliban negotiators sit across the table in Doha “to plot a future course.” Abdullah oversees the government side in these negotiations. According to Ashraf Ghani: “Afghans and their international partners have paid the costs. Now we’re taking a risk for peace”.
Prime Minter Imran Khan in his September 26 Op-ed for Washington Post captioned: “Peace is within reach in Afghanistan, A hasty international withdrawal would be unwise”, wrote: “With the exception of the resilient Afghans themselves, no people have paid a higher price for the conflict in Afghanistan than the people of Pakistan”.
Washington and Kabul have time and again commended Pakistan for its role in getting the Taliban to the peace table, first in direct talks with the United States, which resulted in an agreement that led to ongoing intra-Afghan negotiations.
Kathy Gannon summarized Dr Abdullah Abdullah’s visit to Pakistan for Associated Press in her piece “Envoy pushes Pakistan to press Taliban to lessen violence”. Quoting Abdullah’s interview on September 30, she is of the view that “Abdullah ended a three-day visit to Pakistan optimistic; the uneasy neighbours have turned a corner away from a relationship marked by suspicion and downright hostility toward one akin to a partnership for peace in the region”. Abdullah said he asked Pakistan’s powerful military to use its influence to press the Taliban into a reduction of violence, which could be seen as a first indication the two neighbours share the same goal of peace.
Abdullah said he has asked not just Pakistan, but Washington and every other country that has a voice at the Afghan table, to press for a reduction of violence with the Taliban. “It’s in their best interest of peace to encourage the Taliban (but) if cease-fire today, for example, is too heavy a word for the Taliban let us talk together to find what can we do so that people see that there are changes in the security environment.” Abdullah also said he was encouraged by the tone of conversations in Pakistan.
In his meetings with Abdullah, Prime Minister Imran Khan clearly wished a peaceful end to Afghanistan’s unyielding conflict through a reduction in violence by all sides in the conflict. In the same September 26 Op-ed for Washington Post he wrote, “We have arrived at a rare moment of hope for Afghanistan and for our region. On Sept. 12, delegations from the Afghan government and the Taliban finally sat down in Doha, Qatar, to begin negotiations toward a political settlement that would bring the war in Afghanistan to an end. With the exception of the resilient Afghans themselves, no people have paid a higher price for the conflict in Afghanistan than the people of Pakistan”.
Speaking at an Islamabad think tank, alongside Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah said “Pakistan has played an important role in the Afghan peace process and I thank you for that as I look forward to a joint peaceful future for our region. I am a firm believer of going beyond rhetoric and conspiracies. We need fresh approaches toward peace.” He went on to say that “using patience, compromise, dialogue and sacrifices made over the past 19 years, Afghanistan wishes for sustainable peace”.
Abdullah asked Pakistan “to send the right message to all sides but mainly to the Taliban that this is the right time to make genuine efforts for achieving peace, to ‘be flexible’ be ready, be determined (and) know that there is no other way. This will be the right thing at this stage.” One wonders how this runaway leadership of Afghanistan continues to speak a victor’s language
Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi assured Pakistan’s complete support to the Afghan peace process. “Pakistan respects the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Afghanistan,” he said, adding that Pakistan has no favourites and it does not want to meddle in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. He emphasised the need for greater collaboration between the two countries in different fields to build a common future.
The talks at the foreign ministry focused on intra-Afghan dialogue, the peace process and bilateral relationship, said Dr Abdullah in a tweet after the meeting. The foreign minister said that Dr Abdullah Abdullah’s visit will greatly help in forging a common understanding on the Afghan peace process. He commended Dr Abdullah for steering the peace negotiations to a successful outcome.
Pakistan attaches a lot of importance to its relations with Afghanistan. Recently, at the request of the Afghanistan government, Pakistan opened five border crossing-points to facilitate the transit trade, bilateral trade and pedestrian movement. Pakistan has also extended a US$1 billion development and capacity-building assistance to support the reconstruction and economic development in Afghanistan.
Pakistan supports a peaceful, stable, united, sovereign and prosperous Afghanistan. It is important that mistakes of the past not be repeated; nor past history should dictate the future course of action. There is a need to guard against the detrimental role of ‘spoilers’, both within and outside Afghanistan, who do not wish to see return of peace in the region.
Pakistan has always maintained that there was no military solution to the Afghan conflict and encouraged all parties to reach a political solution through an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process.
With the commencement of intra Afghan talks, it is now, largely, up to the Afghan leadership to seize this historic opportunity to bring an end to the decades’ long conflict and secure an inclusive, broad-based and comprehensive political settlement. Abdullah’s visit amidst the backdrop of on-going intra-Afghan talks was the first high-level visit from Afghanistan in several months, highlighting increased interaction between the two neighbours. despite their questionable mandate, the US stooges likes President Ashraf Ghani and Dr Abdullah are struggling to remain relevant as fate of another Soviet stooge, President Dr Najeebullah, haunts them during sleepless nights. History may just be about to repeat itself!
According to Daniel R. DePetris, “When the United States’ war in Afghanistan began, it is unlikely that architects of the war could have predicted that thousands of US troops would remain on Afghan soil two decades later. Yet this is precisely what has occurred as the mission lost sight of its original goal”. Now the mantra is “It’s time to come home”. As of now, about three-quarters of Americans and roughly the same share of veterans supports a decision to bring US troops home – a sentiment akin to the fag end of the US expedition in Vietnam.
By early 2002, the U.S. objectives of routing al-Qaeda and punishing the Taliban were achieved swiftly and with minimal American casualties. Unfortunately, rather than recognizing success and withdrawing forces, the newly found hazy errand of Global War on Terrorism occupying the centre stage of the mission statement turned first into an occupation and then into a war industry. So, Washington found itself entrapped in what has become an indefinite, fruitless (in) stability operation on behalf of a weak and ineffective Afghan government.
The results of this misguided mission speak for themselves. More than 2,400 US troops died and over 20,000 Americans in uniform have been injured. The attempt to turn Afghanistan into a stable, functioning democracy has cost US taxpayers at least $2 trillion, or 15-times more than what the United States invested in the Marshall Plan.
Since 2002, the US has devoted more than $35 billion to support governance and economic development in Afghanistan. Still, corruption remains the lifeblood of Afghan politics. Transparency International ranks Afghanistan 173 out of 180 on its corruption perceptions index. Afghanistan continues to source 90 percent of the world’s opium supply. Despite spending $86 billion to build an Afghan security force that is both effective and self-sustainable, Kabul remains entirely reliant on the United States for everything from funding to close-air support to ward off Taliban offensives.
An evolving US narrative has it that: “The US national security interests do not depend on the outcome of the peace talks. Establishing a comprehensive peace in Afghanistan is an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned affair that should not be confused with the US objective of defending the homeland, which Washington can accomplish without a permanent deployment of American ground forces on Afghan soil”.
Daniel R. De Petris concluded, “While the United States can support intra-Afghan talks, policymakers should avoid tying a full US military withdrawal directly to the ability of Afghans to make peace with one another. The 20th year of the war should be America’s last.”
All realistic assessments point towards bleak prospects of a stable and peaceful Afghanistan. It is a sorry end state, but this is the reality. While Americans could soon become indifferent, Pakistan has a long-term problem to handle.
