What's next for Afghanistan as the US prepares to pull out?

As the U.S. prepares to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, questions remain for Washington’s goal of global security, and for Afghanistan’s internal security and governance.

David Goldman/AP
U.S. soldiers sit beneath an American flag raised to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks at Forward Operating Base Bostick in Kunar province, Afghanistan, Sept. 11, 2011.The Biden administration is planning to withdraw troops by the 20th anniversary.

The Biden administration’s surprise announcement of an unconditional American troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by Sept. 11 appears to strip the Taliban and the Afghan government of considerable leverage and could ramp up pressure on them to reach a peace deal.

The Taliban and Afghan government can no longer hold the United States hostage – the Taliban with escalating violence and the Afghan president by dragging his feet on a power-sharing deal with the insurgents that doesn’t include him as president – because Washington made it clear that its troops are leaving, no matter what.

Still, there are growing fears that Afghanistan will collapse into worsening chaos, brutal civil war, or even a takeover by the Taliban once the Americans are gone – opening a new chapter in the constant war that has lasted for decades.

Already, violence and seemingly random attacks on civilians have surged since former U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration reached a deal with the Taliban in February 2020 that had committed Washington to withdraw by May 1 this year. More than 1,700 civilians were killed or wounded in attacks the first three months of 2021, up 23% from the same period last year, according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan.

On Wednesday, the Biden administration set a new timetable. It said it would begin pulling out its remaining 2,500 troops on May 1 and complete the pullout at the latest by Sept. 11 – the 20th anniversary of the Al Qaeda terror attack on the U.S. that had triggered the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. NATO announced it would follow the same timetable for withdrawing nearly 10,000 troops, 7,000 of whom are non-U.S. soldiers.

In leaving, Washington has calculated that it can manage its chief security interest – ensuring Afghanistan doesn’t become a base for terror attacks on the United States – from a distance.

Still, it is hoping to leave a country with a chance at peace. The U.S. is pressing the Taliban and the Afghan government to reach a peace agreement during an April 24 to May 4 conference in Turkey.

At the moment, it’s not certain that the Taliban will attend.

In response to the new withdrawal timeline, the Taliban said they won’t attend any conference on Afghanistan’s future while foreign forces are still in the country. A spokesman, Zabihullah Mujahid, said that if the original May 1 deadline is not met, “problems will be compounded.” Still, he did not explicitly threaten a resumption of Taliban attacks on U.S. troops.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made an unannounced visit to Afghanistan on Thursday to sell Afghan leaders and a wary Afghan public on the withdrawal plan. A day earlier, he ramped up indirect pressure on the Taliban during a phone call with Pakistan’s powerful military chief.

With their leadership headquartered in Pakistan, the Taliban ignore Islamabad at their own peril. Until now, Pakistan has been key to getting the insurgent militia to earlier rounds of talks and has expressed support for the Turkey conference.

The Taliban control about half of Afghanistan. But they also have much to lose if they walk away from the peace process, particularly a chance at international recognition. The group has been courting world powers since 2013 when they set up their political office in the Qatari capital Doha.

The U.S. has warned that the Taliban won’t get that recognition if they are not part of a new government. The Turkey conference, jointly convened by the U.N., lends international support to that warning.

The bet is that the Taliban won’t want to rule as a pariah, as they did from 1996 until their overthrow by the U.S.-led coalition in 2001. They had no money to feed their people, unemployment was rampant, and drought and poverty devastated farmers. Their only source of income in the final years was from Al Qaeda and its wealthy Saudi leader at the time, Osama bin Laden.

“If the Taliban wants recognition, if they want international support ... that can’t happen” if they press war further, Mr. Blinken said on Meet The Press on Sunday. “We’ll see how the parties calculate their interest.”

Torek Farhadi, a former Afghan government adviser, said he doesn’t expect the insurgents to attend in Turkey.

Instead, he said, they are likely to negotiate with local leaders around Afghanistan and wait for the Americans to leave, further weakening and isolating President Ashraf Ghani. The Taliban have refused to even sit across the table from him.

Responding to the U.S. strategy shift, Mr. Ghani pledged to pursue peace, without elaborating. He tweeted late Wednesday that he had spoken with President Joe Biden and “we will work with our U.S. partners to ensure a smooth transition.”

Previously, Mr. Ghani had floated an alternative peace plan that calls for him to head an interim government until fresh elections can be held. Rejected by the Taliban, it’s seen by his political opponents as an attempt to cling to power.

Mr. Ghani’s government has been denounced for runaway corruption and divisive politics. He has embraced warlords he once shunned, like Uzbek powerhouse Rashid Dostum, accused of war crimes.

The many warlords who hold sway in Kabul have amassed considerable wealth in the last 20 years and boast loyal militias with well-equipped arsenals. Most Afghans say the U.S. and NATO troop presence has kept feuding warlords apart and fear that without it the country will collapse back into the brutal infighting that raged from 1992-1996, giving rise to the Taliban.

The previous Trump deal with the Taliban had imposed conditions. The big one was that the Taliban break with their longtime ally, Al Qaeda, and stand against other militants before U.S. troops would withdraw.

A senior Taliban official earlier told The Associated Press that the group last month ordered the remnants of Al Qaeda and other militants out of the country and told its own fighters not to associate with foreign fighters.

Asfandyar Mir, at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, said the order against foreign fighters was a good first step. But he noted it only confirms the Taliban’s use of foreign fighters, which it long denied – even as publications affiliated to the Taliban and Al Qaeda touted Al Qaeda’s oath of loyalty to the Taliban leader, Hibatullah Akunzada.

Mr. Mir also pointed to the evidence of  Al Qaeda operations even in recent years in areas under Taliban control.

Controlling militant groups will be even harder if Afghanistan tumbles into chaos.

Michael Kugelman, deputy director of the Asia Program at the U.S.-based Wilson Center said that it’s “hard to imagine any scenario under which peace would break out post-Sept. 11 in Afghanistan.”

“The best hope is that the peace process won’t be dead,” he said.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

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 What's next for Afghanistan as the US prepares to pull out?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today