Mediaboss Marketing

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US and the Taliban have signed an "agreement for bringing peace" to Afghanistan after more than 18 years of conflict.

The US and Nato allies have agreed to withdraw all troops within 14 months if the militants uphold the deal.

President Trump said it had been a "long and hard journey" in Afghanistan. "It's time after all these years to bring our people back home," he said.

Talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban are due to follow.

Under the agreement, the militants also agreed not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control.

Speaking at the White House, Mr Trump said the Taliban had been trying to reach an agreement with the US for a long time.

He said US troops had been killing terrorists in Afghanistan "by the thousands" and now it was "time for someone else to do that work and it will be the Taliban and it could be surrounding countries".

"I really believe the Taliban wants to do something to show we're not all wasting time," Mr Trump added. "If bad things happen, we'll go back with a force like no-one's ever seen."

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US invaded Afghanistan weeks after the September 2001 attacks in New York by the Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda group.

More than 2,400 US troops have been killed during the conflict. About 12,000 are still stationed in the country. President Trump has promised to put an end to the conflict.

The deal was signed by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo as a witness.

In a speech, Mr Pompeo urged the militant group to "keep your promises to cut ties with al-Qaeda".

Mr Baradar said he hoped Afghanistan could now emerge from four decades of conflict.

"I hope that with the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Afghanistan the Afghan nation under an Islamic regime will take its relief and embark on a new prosperous life," he said.

Meanwhile US Defence Secretary Mark Esper was in the Afghan capital Kabul alongside Afghanistan's President Ashraf Ghani - whose government did not take part in the US-Taliban talks.

Mr Esper said: "This is a hopeful moment, but it is only the beginning. The road ahead will not be easy. Achieving lasting peace in Afghanistan will require patience and compromise among all parties." He said the US would continue to support the Afghan government.

Mr Ghani said the country was "looking forward to a full ceasefire". The government said it was ready to negotiate with the Taliban.

Within the first 135 days of the deal the US will reduce its forces in Afghanistan to 8,600, with allies also drawing down their forces proportionately.

The move would allow US President Donald Trump to show that he has brought troops home ahead of the US presidential election in November.

The deal also provides for a prisoner swap. Some 5,000 Taliban prisoners and 1,000 Afghan security force prisoners would be exchanged by 10 March, when talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government are due to start.

The US will also lift sanctions against the Taliban and work with the UN to lift its separate sanctions against the group.

In Kabul, activist Zahra Husseini said she feared the deal could worsen the situation for women in Afghanistan.

"I don't trust the Taliban, and remember how they suppressed women when they were ruling," the 28-year-old told AFP.

"Today is a dark day, and as I was watching the deal being signed, I had this bad feeling that it would result in their return to power rather than in peace."

This historic deal has been years in the making, as all sides kept seeking advantage on the battlefield.

The agreement is born of America's determination to bring troops home and a recognition, at least by some Taliban, that talks are the best route to return to Kabul.

It's a significant step forward, despite deep uncertainty and scepticism over where it will lead. When the only alternative is unending war, many Afghans seem ready to take this risk for peace.

Taliban leaders say they've changed since their harsh rule of the 1990s still seared in the memory of many, and most of all Afghan women.

This process will test the Taliban, but also veteran Afghan leaders of the past, and a new generation which has come of age in the last two decades and is hoping against hope for a different future.

Since 2011, Qatar has hosted Taliban leaders who have moved there to discuss peace in Afghanistan. It has been a chequered process. A Taliban office was opened in 2013, and closed the same year amid rows over flags. Other attempts at talks stalled.

In December 2018, the militants announced they would meet US officials to try to find a "roadmap to peace". But the hard-line Islamist group continued to refuse to hold official talks with the Afghan government, whom they dismissed as American "puppets".

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Following nine rounds of US-Taliban talks in Qatar, the two sides seemed close to an agreement.

Washington's top negotiator announced last September that the US would withdraw 5,400 troops from Afghanistan within 20 weeks as part of a deal agreed "in principle" with Taliban militants.

Days later, Mr Trump said the talks were "dead", after the group killed a US soldier. But within weeks the two sides resumed discussions behind the scenes.

A week ago the Taliban agreed to a "reduction of violence" - although Afghan officials say at least 22 soldiers and 14 civilians have been killed in Taliban attacks over that period.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

It began when the US launched air strikes one month following the 11 September 2001 attacks and after the Taliban had refused to hand over the man behind them, Osama bin Laden.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The US was joined by an international coalition and the Taliban were quickly removed from power. However, they turned into an insurgent force and continued deadly attacks, destabilising subsequent Afghan governments.

The international coalition ended its combat mission in 2014, staying only to train Afghan forces. But the US continued its own, scaled-back combat operation, including air strikes.

The Taliban has however continued to gain momentum and in 2018 the BBC found they were active across 70% of Afghanistan.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Nearly 3,500 members of the international coalition forces have died in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion.

The figures for Afghan civilians, militants and government forces are more difficult to quantify. In a February 2019 report, the UN said that more than 32,000 civilians had died. The Watson Institute at Brown University says 58,000 security personnel and 42,000 opposition combatants have been killed.

There are many reasons for this. But they include a combination of fierce Taliban resistance, the limitations of Afghan forces and governance, and other countries' reluctance to keep their troops for longer in Afghanistan.

At times over the past 18 years, the Taliban have been on the back foot. In late 2009, US President Barack Obama announced a troop "surge" that saw the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan top 100,000.

Media playback is unsupported on your device

The surge helped drive the Taliban out of parts of southern Afghanistan, but it was never destined to last for years.

The BBC World Service's Dawood Azami says there are five main reasons the war is still going on now. They include:

There's also the role played by Afghanistan's neighbour, Pakistan.

There's no question the Taliban have their roots in Pakistan, and that they were able to regroup there during the US invasion. But Pakistan has denied helping or protecting them - even as the US demanded it do more to fight militants.

Follow this link:
Afghan conflict: US and Taliban sign deal to end 18-year war - BBC News

It is a clich to say that certain eras "end not with a bang, but a whimper," but the old trope is true in Afghanistan. U.S. and Taliban officials signed an agreement over the weekend that should lead to the withdrawal of American troops from that country a development mostly overshadowed by the spread of coronavirus and developments in domestic presidential politics.

That shouldn't be the case. Attention must be paid. Along with the war in Iraq, the Afghan experience defines the U.S. interactions in the world in the 21st century a righteous display of might that ultimately devolved into an unending, unsolvable, exhausting slog.

The war began on 9/11, when hijackers flew passenger planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon another plane crashed in the Pennsylvania countryside killing 2,977 victims and 19 hijackers. More than 2,300 American servicemembers have died in Afghanistan over the last generation, while estimates say that 157,000 people died there during the war including more than 43,000 civilians. Everything about the war has been a tragedy.

The invasion of Afghanistan is the only U.S. military offensive that I have wholeheartedly rooted for during my adult life. A few weeks after 9/11, I drove from my home in Kansas to New York via the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania to witness history for myself. Smoke was still wafting from the bowels of the Twin Towers. Like Americans everywhere, I wanted revenge.

I didn't believe for one second that the Al Qaeda terrorists hated us "for our freedom," the easy explanation offered Americans during the early days of "why do they hate us?" questioning after the attack. But thousands of civilians had been killed in the first days after 9/11, it was widely believed that tens of thousands of civilians had been killed and in the heat of the moment, it seemed that such massive violence must be met with equally massive violence. When Vice President Dick Cheney went on TV the next weekend to hint at the likelihood of torture in the coming conflict promising U.S. personnel would work on "the dark side, if you will" even that seemed to make sense to a nominal pacifist like myself.

I was wrong. We all of us who cheered the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were wrong.

We were wrong because we ignored world history. There was a reason that Afghanistan occupied over the years by the British, then by the Soviets was already known as "the graveyard of empires." For cultural and geographic reasons, no would-be conqueror of the country has ever fully subdued its people. Responding to the 9/11 attack was not necessarily America's big mistake. Staying and trying to recreate Afghanistan in something like our own image was the crucial error, both hubristic and well-intentioned we thought we could be the conquerors who left the country better than we found it. We are not.

We were wrong, too, because we ignored our own history. By the time 2001 arrived, the memories of America's misadventures in Vietnam had mostly faded, pushed down the memory hole by the end of the Cold War and U.S. battle victories over a series of weaker foes, including Iraq during the first Gulf War in 1991. The military establishment turned its attention in the late 1970s and 1980s to the task of confronting the Soviet Union, forgetting whatever it had learned about counterinsurgency wars. America's leaders were prepared for tank battles and seizing capitals and were less ready to deal with guerilla warfare. The tactical lessons of Vietnam might have helped had they been implemented earlier, but Americans also ignored the bigger strategic lesson: that it doesn't ultimately serve U.S. interests to get bogged down, thousands of miles from home, fighting rebel guerillas on their own land. We're bad at it.

We were wrong, finally, because the real enemy the stateless terrorists of Al Qaeda were not the opponents we wanted or were prepared to fight. When Pearl Harbor happened, the United States conquered Japan. When the USS Maine sunk in Havana Harbor, Americans went to war with Spain and ended up governing Cuba and the Philippines. Al Qaeda terrorists roamed from Saudi Arabia to Germany to, yes, training camps in Afghanistan in preparing for the 9/11 attacks. But there was no chance the United States was going to invade Riyadh or occupy Hamburg. We invaded and occupied Afghanistan because 9/11 felt like war, so we responded like we always do in war we took over somebody else's land. And then, for good measure, we stupidly went and did the same thing in Iraq.

That was never the wisest strategy against Al Qaeda, which could melt away from the battlefield and reorganize somewhere else. Indeed, Osama bin Laden wasn't brought to justice for nearly a decade he was hiding out in Pakistan when U.S. troops found and assassinated him. American forces have remained in Afghanistan since then, fighting and dying for nearly another decade.

It has long been clear that it is time for America to cut losses and come home. Most U.S. veterans say the fight hasn't been worth it. Me? I no longer want revenge not when it comes at the costs of more dead and injured, not when so many of the new dead and injured weren't even born when 9/11 occurred.

But we should not fool ourselves. The end of American involvement in Afghanistan will not mean the end of that country's civil war. There are probably calamitous days ahead for the people of Afghanistan. That is to be deeply lamented, but there is not much the United States can do to solve that problem. The tragedy there will continue. After a generation of losses, the least-bad thing we can do is end our role in it.

Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week's "Today's best articles" newsletter here.

More:
I cheered the Afghanistan invasion. I was wrong. - The Week

An unwinnable war is now a potential opportunity for diplomatic victory. That is what President Donald Trump, U.S. Special Representative Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, and Khalilzads team have achieved with the help of Qatar and Pakistan through Saturdays accord with the Taliban.

The U.S.-Taliban agreement is no peace deal. At its core, it exchanges a full U.S. military withdrawal for Taliban counterterrorism guarantees. But it does more than that. It includes a Taliban commitment, in exchange for the release of some five thousand prisoners, to participate in a political dialogue with other Afghan leaders, including those from President Ashraf Ghanis government, on their countrys future. And in doing so, the agreement forged by Khalilzad and lead Taliban negotiator, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, provides a real pathway to responsibly end Americas longest war and the broader forty-year Afghan civil war.

On Saturday, an emotional Secretary of State Mike Pompeo underscored the historic opportunity before Afghan leaders, stating that they must not fail to seize it. He implored them to think beyond their personal interests.

The ball is now in the court of Afghanistans leaders. The Taliban appear to have implicitly consented to Ghani playing a lead role in forming the committee of Afghans with whom they will negotiate. But Ghani, unfortunately, has not changed his stripes. His priority remains staying in power by any means, even if that requires upending the peace process.

On Sunday, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah accused Ghani of trying to monopolize the intra-Afghan process. Abdullah has endured almost six years of a miserable arranged marriage with Ghani, who has largely disregarded their power-sharing arrangement, which was brokered by then-Secretary of State John Kerry.

Abdullah and Ghani faced off again in Septembers presidential elections. After a four-month impasse, the Afghan election commission, stacked with Ghani loyalists, declared Ghani the victor. The election commission failed to conduct an audit on three hundred thousand disputed votes mandated by the complaints commission. Yet another election was stolen from Abdullah by Ghani.

Ghani wants to be inaugurated as president once again on March 9the day before the intra-Afghan talks are scheduled to begin. Through this game of brinksmanship, Ghani aims to leverage Americas desperation for the talks to succeed and gain its approval for his second term.

For Ghani, the intra-Afghan talks are not a means toward resolving this conflict. He is using them to project his authority, though neither the Taliban nor his elections rivals regard his presidency as legitimate.

This weekend, Abdullah complained that Ghani has been monopolizing the process of determining which Afghan figures will sit on the opposite side of the table with the Taliban later this month. And Ghani also refuses to release the five thousand Taliban prisoners before the March 10 talks as mentioned in the U.S.-Taliban accord. But the Taliban have said that they will not participate in the intra-Afghan talks unless those prisoners are released.

America must be firm with Ghani. The clock is ticking. Ghani, bizarrely, claims that Trump congratulated him on the agreement signed on Saturday, though the Afghan government is not a signatory and did not even attend the ceremony. The White House has not yet released a readout of the call. One can only hope that Trump, in reality, read Ghani the riot act. There is indication from the administration that Ghanis time is up and that once the intra-Afghan process gets rolling, his presidency will be replaced by an interim arrangement including the Taliban.

The intra-Afghan process will be rocky and long; leaders of Afghanistan, both Taliban and non-Taliban, have less than fourteen months to get it right. The process must be inclusive. It cannot amount to a mere intra-Pashtun reconciliation. The desire of non-Pashtuns for decentralization must also be addressed. The Talibans hegemonic impulses must be restrained. A statement released on Saturday by Taliban leader Hibatullah Akhundzada strikes a conciliatory tone. Akhundzada called on his fellow Afghans to work together and find a solution to our problems in light of the religious and national values of our people.

Peace will come when the Afghans decide they will stop fighting amongst themselves. But what Khalilzad was able to achieve on Saturday was no easy feat. The effort to end the Afghan war has lasted more than half of the entire wars duration. American officials first held secret talks with Mullah Omar aide Tayyib Agha on November 28, 2010.

The Obama administration eventually began a meaningful exploratory process with the Taliban. But its many outreach efforts eventually failed.

Trump was wise to select Khalilzadan American of Afghan origin uniquely capable of completing this weighty taskand give him both a clear mandate and his full backing. Khalilzad was able to not only overcome spoilers in Afghanistan and nearby, but also Americas own wily generals and allied politicians, who are adept at playing the media game and helped upend Obamas efforts to end the war.

Khalilzad succeeded where his Obama administration predecessors failed also because his team dropped prerequisites, though it cleverly rolled some back in as confidence-building measures. A ceasefire was rebranded as a reduction in violence agreement.

Khalilzad also came to terms with the reality of the need to bring regional statesnamely, China, Pakistan, and Russiaon board, instead of working at odds with them.

And above all, he and Trump abandoned the fantasy that a resilient Taliban would somehow agree to an indefinite U.S. military presence after more than 18 years of fighting.

Khalilzad has much more work ahead of him. His mandate has expanded beyond negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the Taliban. He must now broker a broader peace among Afghans. And to do so, he should tell Ashraf Ghani that its time to go.

Arif Rafiq (@arifcrafiq) is president of Vizier Consulting, LLC, a political risk advisory company focusing on the Middle East and South Asia.

Image: Reuters

More:
Are Afghan Elites Ready for an Afghanistan Without America? - The National Interest Online

Photo by: Matthew Karsten

DISCLAIMERThe opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views ofThe Khaama Press News Agency.We welcome opinions and submissions to Khaama Press Opinions/Exclusives Please email them toinfo@khaama.com.

Afghans witnessed a historic and unprecedented measure ever taken for de-escalating the decades-long war after the peace agreement inked on 29th February in Doha. The war between the US and the Taliban which started after the tragedy of 9/11 has apparently come to an end. Based on the pact, America withdraws its all forces within 14 months and the Taliban pledged to cut their ties with major terror groups and to not let Afghan soil be used by terrorists.

The peace accord along with some major clauses also contains an item based on which the Afghan government is to release 5000 Taliban prisoners for 1000 government captives who will be freed by the Taliban. The very article has been a hot potato over the last three days after President Ghani denied the release/swap.

Ghani a day after signing the pact told reporters that he has not agreed with any side on freeing the prisoners. He added that the issue belongs to the Afghan government and Taliban and asked the US to remain impartial.

This contentious article is apparently making the situation worse for the intra-afghan talks which are planned to kick off in the coming seven days. As per the spokesman of Taliban political office based in Doha, the ten-day gap between the very agreement and intra-afghan talks is a trust-building period in which prisoners swap will take place. Taliban also urges the swap as their prime condition for the parley with the Afghan government.

On the other side, President Ghani said that there is no guarantee for the prisoners not to rejoin the battlefield, taking into consideration this threat, any potential swap or release will be conditions-based.

This argument which can most probably ruin the given opportunity for restoring peace needs to be solved on urgent bases. Taliban have recently announced to resume their operations against Afghan forces and foreigners to remain untouched. The announcement presumably seems to be made as retaliation for the denial of release by the Afghan government and to pressurize President Ghani to comply with the clause on prisoners release.

Taliban dubbed their 19-year long war as Jihad against invaders and freeing Afghanistan from occupation. Now With the resumption of war against Afghan forces, the Taliban not only defy their own claim for waging Jihad against Americans but also proves to be a proxy group.

A week-long reduction in violence (RIV) which culminated in signing the peace deal was too optimistic for a war-free nation. People of Afghanistan have never been so hopeful and overjoyed as they were after the Doha agreement. People across the country have been celebrating the measure by dancing on the street. They gave charity to express gratitude for the violence-free week being granted. Afghan soldiers who could not go to their villages utilized the opportunity and met their families, some did this after years. Gravediggers, coffin makers and morgue owners have been out of business but were still thankful. The (RIV) week was rare and unprecedented which was welcomed by the entire world. The violence reduction sprang up hopes of Afghan people for a truce which will be followed by a nationwide peace. They even thanked the Taliban for abiding by the pledge of non-violence week.

After the recent announcement by the Taliban, all the optimism and hope for peace and stability seem to go in vain. The war apparently does not seem to end and killing innocent people does not seem to stop. This will be rather shameful for the Taliban targeting Afghan soldiers for no reason and incentive. This measure will also defame the Taliban on the international level after they were recognized partially as a political address to negotiate with rather than an insurgent group.

The destiny of the Afghan people is looking to be very implicit. Now, this is up to the Taliban to welcome the desire of Afghans for peace and deal with the conflicts through negotiations. Talks between Taliban and America concluded in peace thus there remains no excuse for the continuation of war with Afghans. Taliban as Afghans can very easily conclude in a deal with their countrymen.

Excerpt from:
Op-Ed: Where is Afghanistan heading to? - The Khaama Press News Agency

Kabul, Afghanistan, March 3, 2020 Responding to the peace deal reached between the Taliban and the US Government, possibly paving a way for a significant reduction in violence, Vicki Aken, Afghanistan Country Director for the International Rescue Committee (IRC), said:

This mornings attacks highlight the importance of ensuring that all stakeholders are equally involved in peace negotiations. Peace made between the US and the Taliban must also secure peace within the country. Failing to do so puts the lives of everyday Afghan women, children and men at risk.

The decades-long conflict in Afghanistan has devastated the lives of more than 9 million Afghans who are in need of humanitarian assistance and forced millions to flee their homes and seek refuge. The IRC welcomes all genuine efforts to reduce violence and pave the way toward sustainable peace in Afghanistan.

However, real peace in the country cannot just be something negotiated in a foreign capital, it must also be worked out in all of Afghanistans 394 districts.Lasting peace must meaningfully include the voices of women, youth, and minority groups. Women and girls, in particular, have made remarkable strides towards reclaiming personal agency in the last two decades; any deal negotiated must not come at the expense of their fundamental rights.

The IRC is already mobilizing resources to meet the urgent needs of those in areas previously inaccessible to humanitarian agencies due to violence and insecurity. We urge the international community to renew its commitment to maintain a focus on Afghanistan to ensure that peace is supported with adequate resources for every Afghan woman, man, and childto recover, rebuild, and move the country forward for the long-term.

The IRC has been working in Afghanistan since 1988 providing aid to the most vulnerable. With more than 1,700 staff and volunteers, the IRC reaches more than a million Afghans each year with education, protection, water and sanitation, emergency response, and economic recovery programs.

About the IRC

The International Rescue Committee responds to the worlds worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is at work in over 40 countries and over 20 U.S. citieshelping people to survive, reclaim control of their future, and strengthen their communities.Learn more at http://www.rescue.org and follow the IRC on Twitter & Facebook.

More:
As peace talks in Afghanistan move forward, the IRC calls for urgent investment in long-term development - International Rescue Committee