Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Defense Secretary Mark Esper testifies at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing March 4, 2020 in Washington. Secretary Esper told the Senate panel that the wave of Taliban attacks in Afghanistan this week did not target U.S. and coalition forces.

Peace deal? Why the US launched an airstrike on Taliban.

Within 24 hours of signing a peace accord with the United States, the Taliban released a wave of attacks across Afghanistan. The U.S. airstrike was intended as a message to the Taliban, but does not stop the peace process, officials say. 

Less than 24 hours after President Donald Trump said he had a "very good talk" with a top Taliban leader and insisted the group wants to cease violence, a U.S. military drone on Wednesday targeted the militant group – retaliation for an uptick in Taliban attacks against Afghan forces.

The mixed signals underscored the fragility of the U.S.-Taliban deal signed last weekend that aims at ending America's longest war.

U.S. officials said Wednesday's airstrike was intended as a message to the Taliban to continue to enforce a reduction in violence commitment they had agreed to ahead of intra-Afghan peace talks that are supposed to begin next week. They stressed there was always the expectation that there would be hiccups in the process and that scattered violations would not necessarily crater the deal or the intra-Afghan talks.

Officials noted that the deal signed in Doha, Qatar, does not include a full-on cease-fire but rather leaves negotiations on a comprehensive nationwide truce to the intra-Afghan talks. In the meantime, the reduction in violence commitment had been expected to be respected. It does not, however, say that the truce or completion of a peace accord are required conditions for the withdrawal of American troops.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper told a Senate panel Wednesday that the Taliban are honoring the agreement by not attacking U.S. and coalition forces, "but not in terms of sustaining the reduction in violence." He added: "Keeping that group of people on board is a challenge. They've got their range of hard-liners and soft-liners and so they're wrestling with that too, I think."

Mr. Esper, who was in Kabul on Saturday with Afghan leaders while the peace agreement was signed in Doha, said the document allows the U.S. to act in defense of the Afghan forces. "It's the commitment I made to the Afghans when I was there on Saturday. We would continue to defend the Afghans," he said.

The peace deal calls for a comprehensive nationwide cease-fire to be negotiated in the intra-Afghan talks, and it says the U.S. must begin withdrawing more than 4,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan in the next week or so.

Still, a surge in Taliban attacks since the peace deal was signed, coupled with the refusal thus far of the Afghan government to release thousands of Taliban prisoners, may have imperiled the planned March 10 start of the Afghanistan negotiations.

And, as the renewed violence complicated the situation, U.S. lawmakers expressed concern that the U.S.-Taliban agreement gives away too much for too little and may threaten America's national security. They also complained about two annexes to the agreement that have not been made public that lay out the process for the withdrawal of American and allied troops.

"I read the secret annexes to the Taliban deal today. Bottom line: the administration is telling a terrorist group the conditions (such as they are) of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, but not telling the American people. This is wrong. And it serves no national security purpose," said Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., a former State Department official.

Even Mr. Trump's allies like Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., have aired doubts.

At a congressional hearing on Tuesday, Ms. Cheney made a point similar to Mr. Malinowski's. "The documents have been seen by the Taliban, so I believe that the American people deserve to know what agreement has been entered into our name with the terrorists" who harbored those behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, she said.

Mr. Graham accused the Taliban of violating the deal. "Always suspicious of the Taliban when it came to any peace agreement, but can't believe they're this stupid," Mr. Graham tweeted, adding that the violence "not only violates the spirit of the alleged peace deal, it violates the letter of the agreement."

U.S. military spokesman Col. Sonny Leggett said in a tweet that Wednesday's "defensive" strike was aimed at countering a Taliban assault on Afghan government forces in southern Helmand province. He said Taliban forces had conducted 43 attacks on Afghan troops on Tuesday in Helmand, where the local governor's official said two police officers were killed.

The Afghan Interior Ministry said four civilians and 11 troops were killed Wednesday in a wave of Taliban attacks across the country.

In his account of the call with Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and head of their political office in Qatar, Mr. Trump told reporters that his relationship with Mr. Baradar is "very good" and that the Taliban "want to cease the violence."

The White House readout of the call was more restrained. It said Mr. Trump had "emphasized the need to continue the reduction in violence" and urged the Taliban to participate in the intra-Afghan talks.

In a tweet Wednesday, the U.S. special representative, Zalmay Khalilzad, said he had met with Mr. Baradar and other Taliban members before the call with Mr. Trump. "We all agreed the purpose of the U.S.-Taliban agreement is to pave the path to a comprehensive peace in Afghanistan," he said.

Mr. Trump has looked to the agreement as a step toward making progress on his campaign pledge to extract U.S. troops from "endless wars."

Although the agreement signed in Doha says the phased drawdown of American and allied troops is dependent on the Taliban entering intra-Afghan negotiations and taking them seriously, the withdrawals are only specifically contingent on the Taliban meeting its counterterrorism commitments, including a rejection of Al Qaeda and other groups.

This story was reported by The Associated Press. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Peace deal? Why the US launched an airstrike on Taliban.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today