By: Azhar Azam
His national security adviser Robert O’Brien on Friday said that Trump was just expressing a hope and echoed the troop levels would be reduced to 2,500 in the early part of the next year albeit chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley had warned him not to “speculate.”
While cranky O’Brien claimed to be speaking for Trump and Milley too touted his conversation with the president on the poser, the tensions between the US federal government and establishment are being reflected in Afghanistan.
After the US military carried out airstrikes against Taliban in Helmand last week, the spokesperson of US forces in Afghanistan Colonel Sonny Legget on Sunday defended the bombing in wake of its support for Afghan security forces. He also denied militants’ accusation the aerial bombardment violated the Doha agreement.
Since signing of the deal between Taliban and the US in February, violence in Afghanistan has been on the rise and should be a source of great concern for international community, regional stakeholders and peace brokers.
Notwithstanding, armed militia had pledged to take action against Islamic State and its affiliates and not to allow Afghan soil for launching terrorist activities against other countries, it refused to put a stop to its attacks on Afghan military. They however gave their assent to discuss a “permanent and comprehensive ceasefire” in the intra-Afghan dialogue.
But there are no signs of stopping the carnage of common Afghans as an unclaimed suicide car assault on Sunday killed 15 civilians and wounded nearly 150 others. The callous attack outside a provincial headquarters in central Afghanistan urges both sides to exercise responsibility and build a climate of trust to prevent a collapse in peace negotiations.
Taliban needs to understand their high stakes in the country and the nitty-gritty that despite controlling a large expanse of Afghanistan, they do not represent a significant proportion of the population, which backs the Afghan national government.
Engagement, not aggression, is the ultimate solution to the sweltering Afghan dispute. It therefore would be a smart decision if the insurgent group could make a commitment on violence reduction and contribute towards a meaningful and successful peace discussion for bringing peace and stability in Afghanistan.
Conversely, the Trump administration must keep the peace and security of Afghanistan away from the US presidential election and avoid making empty promises about force withdrawal. The Pentagon too shouldn’t display its gripes with the US federal government through mounting strikes in Afghanistan.
Showing their serious reservations about the possibility of all 5,000 troop withdrawal and dismantling of the US military headquarters in Afghanistan by the end of the year, experts suggested that Trump had changed tactics to shift the news cycle away from coronavirus and Pentagon would likely decline executing any such executive order before November 3.
Escalation to seek leverage by Washington (or the combatants) could result in catastrophic consequences for Afghan people and the country as it would further dampen the trust of ordinary civilians in the peace process and push Afghanistan into a convoluted and irrepressible unrest and pandemonium.
As a lead sponsor of the intra-Afghan dialogue, the greater responsibility rests with the US to restore the confidence of millions of Afghan casting doubts on the peace process and emphasizing on the significance of warding off the next war as ending the existing one.
Putting the onus of Afghan cataclysm on all sides, the former Prime Minister of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai said in an interview “Everyone has done (its) part, unfortunately, in bringing suffering to our people and to our country.” “No one can (point) a finger toward someone to say you’ve done it.”
Over the years, local Afghans have gone through an excruciating infighting between pro- and anti-government forces with the US persistent interventions inflating their social and economic challenges. They would desperately wish all the warring parties to forge a consensus on peace and wield efforts to ease off their hardships.
Nonetheless, the peace still requires more “patience and compromise” and needs protection from the “regional spoilers,” something the Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan sought in his article for the Washington Post last month in a whistleblower alert.
Stating a hasty international withdrawal would be unwise, Khan said that the peace “progress could be slow and painstaking” and recalled “a bloodless deadlock on the negotiating table is infinitely better than a bloody stalemate on the battlefield.”
Khan was pointing the finger at India that has equivocally supported the peace process. New Delhi’s backing still remains smoggy with its wariness to directly talk with Taliban regardless of assurance to Abdullah Abdullah, overseeing the Afghan government talks with the armed faction for a power-sharing deal, for “active involvement” in dialogue.
While the US should safeguard hard-earned progress on Afghan peace process from regional firebrands eying to sabotage the historic peace talks – the Trump administration must let off the peace in Afghanistan for crass partisan politics, which could undermine intra-Afghan dialogue and breed new conflicts in the distraught country.
*This is one of my opinion pieces (unedited) that first appeared in "The Express Tribune":
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2269880/why-afghan-peace-must-be-spared-from-partisan-politics
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2269880/why-afghan-peace-must-be-spared-from-partisan-politics