US President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan by September 11 shouldn’t come as a surprise. Since he took office in January, Biden has telegraphed his intention to leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later, formally bringing an end to the 20-year war. In a Tuesday briefing, the administration indicated its plans to end military operations while keeping a focus on the ongoing Afghan peace process.
In reality, the new withdrawal plan complicates US efforts to broker peace between the Afghan government and the Taliban. But if there is any chance of peace in Afghanistan, the five months before the completion of the withdrawal will be critical. Peace prospects will hinge on how the Taliban react to two key dates: May 1, the previously agreed deadline for US withdrawal, and September 11, or whenever the last US soldier has departed.
Biden’s withdrawal decision should, in theory, advance the peace process: an agreement between Washington and the Taliban reached in Doha in 2020 called for all US troops to leave Afghanistan and ended Taliban attacks on US forces. But the Doha accord stipulated that US troops leave by May 1, and the Taliban have repeated that all US soldiers still must be out by that date. Moreover, the Taliban will enjoy a battlefield advantage when the withdrawal is complete that gives the group little incentive to remain committed to peace talks.
The Taliban have already insisted on a strict interpretation of the May 1 withdrawal clause. The worst-case scenario is Taliban members conclude the US has violated the Doha deal by staying past the deadline and tear up the agreement, relaunching attacks on US forces and rejecting the Afghan peace process. In an indication of the Taliban’s fixation on US withdrawal, the group’s spokesperson tweeted hours after news of Biden’s plan broke that the Taliban will not participate in any Afghanistan conference “until all foreign forces completely withdraw from our homeland”.
The Biden administration hopes to avoid this scenario by pointing to the fact that its withdrawal will begin before May 1 and will be done by September 11. It hopes the Taliban will find this brief extension, with a specific end date, more palatable than an open-ended one. Washington is also banking on the fact that the Doha deal has given the Taliban the global legitimacy it seeks by locking the insurgents into an internationally recognised agreement. If Taliban leaders rip up the accord and relaunch attacks on US forces, the group risks losing that legitimacy.
The Taliban have given little indication of their plans, though a former Taliban minister told the Daily Beast that by extending its presence, the US “has shattered the Taliban’s trust”. On Wednesday, a Taliban spokesperson tweeted, “if the agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable”. At a Tuesday briefing, a senior Biden administration official said if the Taliban do attack US forces, “we will hit back hard, and … we will hold them accountable for that”.
But come September, US firepower will no longer be an option to deploy against the Taliban. Once the US has withdrawn, the Taliban have a strong incentive to focus their full attention on the battlefield. Turning their back on the peace process would give the insurgents an opportunity to finish off a war they have long seen as theirs to win. The withdrawal will eliminate the threat of US airpower, a potent tool preventing Taliban forces from advancing into cities. The departure of the 7000 remaining majority-NATO forces in coordination with the US drawdown will deliver another blow to Afghan troops, who will no longer receive US training and advice. The beleaguered forces, already reeling from record-level fatalities, will face a major challenge to morale.
From the Taliban’s perspective, the appeal of turning their full attention to the fight against the government after US withdrawal is only enhanced by a peace process that appears set up to fail. The Afghan government and the Taliban are worlds apart on many issues, from how to prioritise the negotiating agenda to their preferred post-war political system.
As currently envisioned, the peace process aims to produce a power-sharing agreement that ends the war. But Taliban leaders reject democratic elections and the principles of civil and human rights enshrined in the Afghan constitution and favor draconian interpretations of Islamic law. The insurgents already seem to threaten the voices deemed unwelcome in their preferred political system. In recent months, a horrific campaign of targeted killings against civil society has convulsed Afghanistan, with election activists, female judges and media workers targeted. No group has claimed responsibility, but a NATO official recently estimated in a private briefing that the Taliban is behind about 80% of them.
The Taliban could easily decide they are better off fighting for complete power than negotiating for partial power within a system that they repudiate. They have already rejected the peace plan advanced by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, and they have declined to endorse one proposed by the Biden administration.
The US has five months to keep the sputtering Afghan peace process alive. Securing a comprehensive ceasefire is an important first step. Washington should refuse to fulfil its remaining obligations to the Taliban under the Doha deal, including the release of Taliban prisoners and the removal of the Taliban from United Nations sanctions lists, until the Taliban agrees to a ceasefire. It should enlist regional governments and the broader international community in this effort. The US needs to deliver a strong message: if the Taliban reject a global consensus supporting a ceasefire, they jeopardise their own legitimacy.
Another key step is setting up an interim government to oversee the peace process. Ghani rejects this proposal, likely because it would end his presidency. But the Taliban are more likely to agree to an extended ceasefire with a transitional government in place — and one that doesn’t include Ghani, who they refuse to work with. Washington should threaten to reduce future financial assistance to Kabul if Ghani doesn’t agree to one, reiterating that peace — not concerns about political survival — is in Afghanistan’s national interest.
None of this will be easy. The Biden administration acknowledges as much: an annual assessment from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence released on April 9 concludes the prospects for peace “will remain low during the next year”.
Afghanistan’s fate will ultimately be left in the hands of Afghans. But Washington owes it to them to do its best over the next few months to ensure it doesn’t leave them high and dry on September 11. The US will soon wrap up its longest foreign war. For Afghans, the war has lasted twice as long, and most of them don’t have the luxury of escaping it.
Michael Kugelman is the writer of Foreign Policy’s weekly South Asia Brief. He is the Asia Program deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center in Washington. Twitter: @michaelkugelman
The Taliban have won, will not give a damn about their ‘international legitimacy’ and will impose a repressive form of Islam simply to prove that they can. They have outlasted their enemy despite all the firepower thrown against them. The reimposition of strict Sharia law will be a horror show for women and children, but the West has washed its hands of the whole sorry business and will be extremely reluctant to put boots on the ground in the cesspool of the Middle East any time soon.
The Taliban are a product of American aggression. They began as the American backed Mujahideen when Russia was still in Afghanistan. The Americans knew they were dealing with hard line extremists but they went ahead & empowered them any way. Its what they do. The war was never about ideals, always about oil & resources. The only reason the Americans EVER go to war.
If you believe otherwise, you probably still believe that all good cowboys wore white hats & the bad cow boys wore black hats & that America was put there for the pilgrims to find.
Not so. The withdrawal of the Russians was accompanied by the takeover of the country by a collection of US backed warlords. Drug dealing, murdering scum to a large degree. The Taliban were a Wahhabist religious group organised by the Pakistani ISI and funded largely from Saudi Arabia, the real homeland of Islamic terror. The Afghanis kind of supported them because anything was better than the warlords, until they found they weren’t.
You are correct but you fail to mention that many of these drug lords were also Taliban. I know. I saw them in Northern India in 1982 when I was living there. They were a mixture of heroin dealers, murderers & idealists- living in Northern India & Pakistan in exile- waiting for the Russians to withdraw. The Americans funded them & their heroin trade- shades of Vietnam all over again. They bought death to the valley I lived in. American money funded the Taliban too.
You might enjoy Alfred McCoy’s books on the US politics of heroin, from Vietnam onwards.
Having exposed so much official, military involvement the author no longer considers himself safe to live in the Benighted States.
It was the Soviets in Afghan not Russia alone. Now who was in charge of the Soviet Union then, Leonid Brezhnev who by the way was a Ukrainian.
Correct. USSR then.
The Soviets went into Afghanistan to stamp out the extremists who were causing trouble for Russia. At least Russia had a legitimate excuse – the USA did not & 9/11 was their set up excuse -which was all pre planned years before.
True, the Soviets were invited by the Afghan government.
Just where did you get that piece of information? Secondly, do you mind quantifying the “extremism” for Leonard?
It is simple statement of fact.
As Brezhinsky said “draw the Russkies into a Vietnam style quagmire – who cares if we leave a bunch of stirred up muslims” when he goaded Carter into supporting the mullahs of the feudal landlords resisting the new government’s land reforms, expanded education (any, at all, not just females) in the rural areas, clinics & irrigation projects.
A couple of days ago I recommended ex-Ambassador Martin Ewans’ 2003 book – “Afghanistan – a Short History…” – and have since found that he has put out an updated edition taking in the developments which he predicted.
Spelling – Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski served as a counselor to President Lyndon B. Johnson from 1966 to 1968 and was President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor from 1977 to 1981.
Prior to the coup both sides were leftist but the Russian pets got the elbow. In the scheme of things the victors did not last long either.
We had 1956, 1968, and for a hattrick 78-9; roughly a decade between all three. Brezhinsky certainly had Carter’s ear but (re John) there was no sense of extremes; that was added to the mix later. See my former remarks.
Coup? Which one?
Certainly not when King Zahir finally managed to abdicate in 1972.
He’d tried several times after discovering the joys of Italian wine and had bought property there in the 60s.
He even tried during one of my visits (1967 if befuddled memory serves) and it was hilarious watching the tribesmen beseiging the capital to prevent his departure.
This was not due to affection but because he had once been the only way the various regions, linguistic & ethnic groups could get along without one dominating.
It is really 3 entities, Persian/Shia in the west, fiercely Sunni in the pushto south and more like Tashkent in the north than Kabul.
Poor bloody Hazari, Asiatic heretics from the central Bamiyan province left over from the great Buddhist civilisation which once throve there, copped it in the neck from everyone.
Good summary with a nod to the NON-Homogeneity of the region.
I was referring to the Saur (as In the month) with the eventful topping of Taraki.
There is another reason the Yanks took a foothold in Afghanistan.
“The Wakhjir Pass,[1] also spelled Vakhjir Pass, is a mountain pass in the Hindu Kush or Pamirs at the eastern end of the Wakhan Corridor, the only potentially navigable pass between Afghanistan and China in the modern era. It links Wakhan in Afghanistan with the Tashkurgan Tajik Autonomous County in Xinjiang, China”
The war was ideologically motivated Penny. Nothing so grand as resources. The yanks were quite happy to work with either pre or post coup personalities.
I think you will find that the only ideology Americans understand is the pursuit of profit at any cost. Look who had oil concessions in Afghanistan- I think you will be surprised.
We are kinda agreeing. Prior to the invasion by the USSR the yanks were not greatly fussed by who was in charge. It became ideological or knee-jerkey when the USSR put its oar in.
The most dangerous of combinations- a lust for profit fuelled by extremist ideology…
That is pre or post coup prior to the Russian invasion.
The other reason for war is profits for the well-connected arms/surveillance/military contracting industries.
The presence of oil, anywhere, would be a miracle salve for any such reluctance.
Or routes.
One of the reasons the amerikans encouraged the Gulf autocracies to create, fund and support the insurgents in Syria was to control Iraqi oil exports via the pipeline across the north – mainly for French but general Euroland consumption.
The same in Libya – its light, sweet crude was no use to the rust belt US fossil plants built for heavy, salty Texan crude whereas the modern refineries of France had been built for it.
It was as much a whack at the cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys for insufficiently supporting the War on Terror™ ® Shrub as any desire to install, yet another, Jeffersonian democracy in Araby.
It is just pure coincidence that Russia, since the Tzars, had wanted a route across Afghanistan & Baluchistan to the Indian ocean.
On the one hand, there was no sense of coherence but, on the other hand, the Moscow-vites extended Russia from Moscow to present day Alaska in an interval of about 450 years which is quite impressive. However, the regions were never ‘unified Russian’ as a collective entity.
Since Catherine the emphasis was on Western Russia and the adoption of European norms. From the late 18th century upper crust Russians spoke French. Russian literature, takes us in another direction.
Another example if the idiocy of US middle east policy. The reasons for attacking Afghanistan were many and the al Qaeda haven was one. Others were related to oil. The Taliban were a completely evil regime as bad as Hussein, which one might expect given their Saudi and Pakistani backing. But the people that the US used to overthrow the Taliban were the same murderous bunch of warlord thugs that give rise to the Taliban with their excesses. So now the country will be handed back. These are not peace talks, the Taliban has no enthusiasm for peace. They just want the US gone. They have sat ti out and won like every other time Afghanistan has been invaded. What has been the use of the loss of soldier’s lives? What is the cost of the 200 000 odd civilian lives in the long run. What is the fate of those of our allies, the workers, the translators whom we used and turned into targets, but are so reluctant to help? What has changed? Iran is three times more influential and the hopes of Afghgani women are back in the dark ages again and the Saudis are still funding terror. We also have ISIS which is funded by mostly private Saudi and Gulf State funds whom we fawn upon.
We will abandon those who helped or worked for NATO as usual. Just watch how quiet that stuttering puke Jens Stoltenberg will be for awhile.
Ah yes, NATO and Jens.
I’m not sure if the author of this, at Foreign Policy, is again trying to ‘pull the wool’, or is just way behind the reality.
If you look around the web, e.g at Counterpunch or Globetrotter, you’ll find a very recent piece by the former Indian diplomat, M. K. BHADRAKUMAR.
It’s titled;
What are Turkey and the US Up to in Afghanistan?
Erdogan has long seen himself as the Sultan of the Turkmen.
Xinjiang’s a.k.a.?
East Turkestan.
Thanks Dave will take a peek. Here is a reasonably honest perspective from the Turkish end. https://www.ankasam.org/en/
M.K. also runs his own site, Tony – “India Punchline”, which I peruse regularly.
Also, for historical background, check out several editions of National Geographic in the 60s which did many stories about the brave, freedom loving tribes of Turkmen moved from the wicked USSR to Turkey.
Peace will resume when NATO leaves and the corrupt Afghan government are dealt with.
There was no peace before and there’ll be no peace after. Yes the govt is corrupt, but the taliban are a murderous religious sect. A poisonous mix. All western intervention has done is delay whatever will come next and it won’t be pretty…
Yes I know, I’m not supporting the Taliban just pointing out the reality. Peace in Afghanistan is a bit different to peace as we know it.
It may surprise you how many people prefer safety to freedom.
It is actually the norm otherwise dictatorships across Africa would collapse.
I doubt that Franklin’s quip (though about money rather than liberty/security as often (mis)thought) would have much currency (sic!) in the Benighted States today.
Or here.
Either way, I tend to agree with Franklin that they deserve neither; at which point the woke brigade becomes .. err woky.
Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest. Which mother would want the status quo.
Depends on the state of the status and which quo is where.
Some of my post seem to wafted into the aether.
Towards the end of the 19th century and for about four decades from the early 1930s modernity developed along with peace.
It was peaceful, pleasant & beautiful prior to the dying daze of the Carter presidency.
After the disaster in the desert trying to rescue the embassy hostages, he was desperate to appear strong to defeat Reagan hence falling for the b/s of Brzezinski, his NSA for four years. .
Dealt with by whom?
Dealt with by the Taliban. They may be religious nasty extremists but are they corrupt. Notice the west hasn’t hung the corrupt tag in Xi Jinping like they have with Putin.
We wouldn’t be over-generalising if only inadvertently? Xi, over the past nine years, has done more than his mate Putin to clean the place up.
The problem with the Taliban, despite their name, is that they are their own law rather than that of the Hadith and the Quran.
Vietnam redux. Except the poor devils left behind will not be able to flee on boats.
This one might be more orderly.
“The Taliban have already insisted on a strict interpretation of the May 1 withdrawal clause.”
Good ! So they should – they well know that the USA is Not to be trusted. Stick to the agreement or they will sent back in body bags. Maybe the monster will be weakened especially if US Citizens speak up.