The US and the Taliban have signed an agreement that will eventually, if all goes well, result in the removal of all US troops from the country in 14 months. The full text of the treaty can be read here. The main features are described in this report.
The two sides have long wrangled over the US demand for a ceasefire before the signing of the final peace agreement, which has four points: a timeline of 14 months for the withdrawal of all US and NATO troops from Afghanistan; a Taliban guarantee that Afghan soil will not be used as a launchpad that would threaten the security of the US; the launch of intra-Afghan negotiations by March 10; and a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire.
….Minutes before the deal was signed, a joint statement released by the US and the Afghan government said the US and NATO troops would withdraw from Afghanistan within 14 months.
About 14,000 US troops and approximately 17,000 troops from 39 NATO allies and partner countries are stationed in Afghanistan in a non-combatant role.
“The United States will reduce the number of US military forces in Afghanistan to 8,600 and implement other commitments in the US-Taliban agreement within 135 days of the announcement of this joint declaration and the US-Taliban agreement,” the joint statement said.
It added that the Afghan government will engage with the United Nations Security Council “to remove Taliban members from sanctions list by May 29”.
It is not clear where this leaves the long-suffering people of Afghanistan since there is every chance that the Talban, with its utterly reactionary polices, will eventually become the government, replacing the current US-backed one. Relief at not being in a state of war that has killed and wounded well over 100,000 people since 2009 alone, will undoubtedly be balanced by the fear of the country being run by Islamic fundamentalists who have positively ghastly views about women and education, among other things.
If this works out smoothly, Donald Trump will have finally achieved one major campaign promise. On the other hand, it looks like after 19 years of causing death and destruction, we will largely be back to where we were before the war began, with the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan, yet one more example in the long history of futile attempts by foreign powers to control the course of events in that country. Afghanistan is the graveyard for the dreams of empires.
On the other hand, it looks like after 19 years of causing death and destruction, we will largely be back to where we were before the war began, with the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan
Given that the ostensible reason for invading Afghanistan was to capture/kill Osama bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda somehow ending a failed regime-change war that is being fought for no obvious advantage to the USA seems sensible.
Of course, the 19 years is only the most recent round of the war. I cannot remember if the US was arming, training, and financing the Mujahideen before the Soviet intervention, I believe it was, but the US was in a war from at least 1979 until 1989 with generally disastrous results.
the fear of the country being run by Islamic fundamentalists who have positively ghastly views about women and education, among other things.
Given that the Taliban seem to control or or contest control of large portions of the country, things may not change that much. Holding weddings without drone attacks probably will be nice, assuming the US does not continue them (but only attacking Al Qaeda and ISIL /of course .
Maybe leaving the Afghans to themselves is a good idea. However at the moment (well yesterday) it seems the USA wants to leave some troops. Since it is obvious that the USA cannot be trusted to keep agreements, these ~9,000 troops look like a clear threat to the agreement and what in blazes are they supposed to do there other than perhaps packing up?
jrkrideau @ # 1: …I cannot remember if the US was arming, training, and financing the Mujahideen before the Soviet intervention, I believe it was…
Yup.
Which they were before the US invaded.
Not that that should be any surprise. The conditions which led them to take over the country in the first place have not changed in 20 years; if anything, they are more favorable to them. The USA made no attempt to actually change things, we just came in and killed lots of people and blew up a lot of stuff.
And thereby gave them a view of “Western Values” that would make anyone see them as invented by the Devil.
Allison @ # 3: The USA made no attempt to actually change things, we just came in and killed lots of people and blew up a lot of stuff.
Also, billions of dollars of “aid” were delivered -- via local governments to whose leaders’ fingers virtually all the $$$ somehow stuck, further disillusioning average Afghans regarding both Western values and their nominal government’s usefulness.
I recommend Andrew Curtis’ film Bitter Lake (On youtube and BBC player) Afghanistan is a war that goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The US never could have won. We had a better chance in Vietnam, i.e.: none.
All this stuff about leaving with dignity is the flipside of entering with no strategy for winning or leaving. There is no dignity to retrieve from such stupidity.
Adam not Andrew. Sorry , tired!
jrkrideau @1, heh. I remember the Rambo 3 movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqWjJdXKIXA
(God-fearing people against the godless Soviets!)
… and, of course, Kipling:
When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier.
[The Young British Soldier]
“entering with no strategy for winning or leaving”
The USA lost the chance to leave with dignity when they invaded Iraq under false pretenses.
I see this kind of formulation a lot, even from people who should know better -- the implication that [$DESIGNATED_ENEMY_FACTION] is some how entirely separate and distinct from [$COUNTRY_POPULATION], like they’re an occupying military force from the other side of the world or something.
It’s important to remember that a Venn diagram of “the long-suffering people of Afghanistan” and “the Taliban” comprises two sets with a very substantial intersection, and that is why all attempts to eradicate them short of outright genocide are doomed to fail.
@ 2 Pierce R. Butler
Thanks, I thought so.
@ 10 Dunc
“the long-suffering people of Afghanistan” and “the Taliban” comprises two sets with a very substantial intersection
I think that this is only partly true. My understanding is that the Taliban is essentially a Pashtun organization which leaves out about 50% or so of the population, especially in the North. Still, peace even under a Pashtun dominated government probably beats bombs.
And who knows, the Taliban may be open to power-sharing. After 19 years and a lot of casualties it is unlikely that the Taliban is ideologically quite the same as it was in 2001.
And how is that incompatible with my statement? When I said “a very substantial intersection” I did not mean an outright majority.