Values Based Capitalism: The Imperative of Defining Commitment…

By Denis Bright Editorial insiders at The Weekend Australian (28-29 January 2023)…

A walk in the forest

Bayerischer Wald can be just as hard to get to than it…

An Emergent Premier Chris Minns - Uniting Sydney…

By Denis Bright After more than a decade in Opposition, NSW Labor is…

Forget Australia Day And Celebrate: Rum Rebellion Day…

After pointing out for a number of years that January 26th isn't…

Whither Constitutional Change?

Within a very short space of time, we are going to be…

Distracted by hate, we are robbed

We are at a crossroads. The Ultra High Net Worth Individual (UHNWI)…

Doltish Ways: Biden’s Documents Problem

Through the course of his political life, the current US president has…

From 2016: Captained by Crusaders

This account of an event at the Melbourne Club in 2016 was…

«
»
Facebook

The Taliban Scores a Coup

It threatened to disappear under the viral haze of COVID-19, but February 29 saw representatives from the US and Taliban, loftily acknowledged as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, sign the “Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan.” After two decades of conflict, the agreement sets in motion the process that should see American troops leave Afghanistan within 14 months. Initially, 8,600 troops will leave over a 135-day period; the balance is set to do so after 9 months.

The Doha ceremony was attended by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Taliban deputy leader Mullah Baradar, a person said by former CIA Operations Officer Douglas London to be of “little influence or authority” serving as “convenient window dressing.” The ink from the US side for the signature was supplied by US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Conspicuously absent, and much in recognition of the failings of that institution, was the NATO-backed Afghan government. Nor was the Taliban present in the joint US-Afghan declaration. The results of that say much about the sheer will power, not to mention staying power, of Taliban negotiators. It was they who insisted not to be part of any instrument acknowledging the legitimacy of the Afghan government.

In sum, both instruments lay out various steps for the Taliban, US and Afghan government to take. The Taliban are to prevent their territory from hosting groups or individuals who might threaten the US and their allies; the US is to draft a timeline for the withdrawal of all US and coalition forces; the Afghan regime and the Taliban are to commence peace talks at the conclusion of the withdrawal, with the parties ultimately developing the basis for a permanent and comprehensive cease-fire.

Having stolen the show, the Taliban has merely promised to engage in talks with the Afghan government about a lasting peace; cunningly, even brashly, they have refused to specifically renounce resorting to violence in achieving their aims. It will be hard to refute the claim that they have their opponents on the run and intend keeping it that way.

The deal will be another etching on the long list of agreements made in the cemetery of imperial failure. Afghan resistance can rightly claim the scalps of many, including Britain and the Soviet Union. Afghan president Ashraf Ghani has approved the release of 1,500 Taliban prisoners in exchange of 1,000 government troops. The decree signed by Ghani noted that the prisoners will be released within 15 days “with 100 prisoners walking out of Afghan jails everyday.” The US-Taliban agreement intends for the release of up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners.

The joint US-Afghan declaration, for its part, has the Afghan government promising to “participate in a US-facilitated discussion with Taliban representatives on confidence building measures, to include determining the feasibility of releasing significant numbers of prisoners on both sides.”

On March 10, the UN Security Council gave the US-sponsored resolution supporting the deal their unanimous blessing, deeming it one of the “significant steps towards ending the war” and promising to provide “sustained support” in negotiations to achieve peace. It also spoke of “the willingness of multiple countries to facilitate or convene intra-Afghan negotiations in order to achieve political settlement and a permanent and comprehensive cease-fire.”

But this vote of confidence does not detract from the possibility that the US will still maintain a presence, or that conflict will continue. The US-Afghan joint declaration, for instance, takes the position that the withdrawal of US forces will eventuate on the “Taliban’s fulfilment of its commitments.”

Those barracking for some continuing US footprint are many, though the years have taken their toll. Paul D. Miller, formerly of the National Security Staff for both President George W. Bush and Barack Obama, sees inadequacies and threats in the brokered deal. Tear up the agreement, he urges in Lawfare; al-Qaeda is likely to return in force and find a place of, if not hospitality then certainly sanctuary. “President Trump and his successor should scrap the deal and increase military pressure until the Taliban publicly denounces al-Qaeda and agreed to verifiably sever links with the group.” US commitments were “clear, specific and measurable”; those of the Taliban, lacking in detail, means of enforcement and verification.

Miller’s view that the US remain is based on a certain contempt for the US public and, it must be said, the armed forces. To maintain the imperium, you need to ignore the former, at least to a certain extent, and use the latter. The troop presence is not large, expensive or costly in terms of casualties. “There is no mass anti-war movement. The American people are not sick of the war: They are hardly even paying attention to it.”

London concurs on most points. He sees the Taliban with the same conviction that took US forces to Afghanistan in the first place. The agreement “naively relieves the Taliban from renouncing [ties to terrorist groups] or expelling them outright.”

Others nurse the maybes and the tormenting hypotheticals. Lawrence J. Korb, who in 2010 was engaged in negotiating efforts on ending the war in Afghanistan, rued the lost chances of the Bush administration in 2002 to annihilate the Taliban. “It compounded the problem by simultaneously expanding its objective from defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan to nation-building.” This train of thought is persistent in US strategic thinking: insurgents are somehow foreign and not indigenous, lacking local support; they can be culled, restrained or eliminated altogether.

There is little doubt that the resilient, seemingly indestructible Taliban will take greater heart in the entire process than the cheerleaders for empire. They have resumed operations against their enemy with enthusiasm. The unpopular central government is negotiating from a position of profound weakness.

Even Korb, despite lamenting lost opportunities, felt that it was no longer a conflict the US should contend with. “Just as America did not make it out better than France in Vietnam, it is time for its officials to realize that America will not make it out any better than the British or Soviets in Afghanistan – no matter how long it tries to stay.”

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Donate Button

 250 total views,  2 views today

6 comments

Login here Register here
  1. New England Cocky

    The USA (United States of Apartheid) should never have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, except the US multinational oil corporations coveted the proven and unproven oil reserves in Iraq and other corporations coveted the alleged potential mineral wealth of Afghanistan.

    Moreover, the decision by Little Johnnie Howard to play Deputy Dawg to Shrubya Bush was an act of self-serving aggrandisement rather than sensible Australian national foreign policy. Too many good young Australian troops died in this imperialist venture chasing profits for the US NE military industrial complex and their shareholders. And how much has it cost Australian taxpayers that could have more profitably been expended on internal Australian transport infrastructure and facilities?

  2. Pingback: The Taliban Scores a Coup #newsoz.org #auspol - News Oz

  3. ajogrady

    New England Cocky. Everything fundamentally wrong with Australia can be laid squarely at the feet of John Winston Howard and his government. Whether it be creating structural deficits for future governments, privatising government entities that created revenue streams for the people of Australia, the demonising of unions and the undermining of wages that created a economy that the new business plan of any business today is primarily wage theft of their employees and the destruction of the “fair go” to all that has divided Australia into “haves and have nots” or those on social security ( I refuse to use the term bought in by these parasites of ” welfare recipient”). There are many more objectionable and deplorable things that have been done by the Howard government that left the fabric of the Australian society torn to shreds. The worst being sending young Australians to their death or be maimed in a illegal war. But the Howard government is small fry compared to the damage done by the US of A seeking world dominance not only as a country but for their businesses. The real terrorists and criminals bringing death and mayhem to the world is the US of A and sadly Australia has been a willing accomplice. Australia is slowly learning that when you lay down with dogs nobody can tell the difference.

  4. Michael Taylor

    What a nasty piece of work John Howard is.

  5. Kathryn

    The Taliban have ALWAYS stated that “the West have all the clocks but WE have all the TIME!” – in other words, they will just sit and wait it out until Australia and the US have decided they have created enough chaos and dysfunction and decide to rush out of Afghanistan like dogs with their tails between their legs! The nano second this happens, defenceless Afghani women and little children will, once again, be at the cruel mercy of the unspeakably misogynistic, horrifically cruel, medieval and intolerant Taliban. The fact that the crawling, insignificant war criminals, George W Bush and John Howard, played a HUGE role in the creation of the appalling Taliban should NEVER be forgotten. The real victims here will be women and little girls because, when there is NOBODY else to blame, these primitive Taliban bastards will ALWAYS look for a woman to stone, behead, cowardly execute and deny education. I really fear for any future in Afghanistan where the Taliban are allowed to rise up again.

  6. Andrew Smith

    With benefit of 20/20 hindsight Howard (with a chip on his shoulder) started in the ’80s opening the door to hollowing out the Liberal Party e.g. former Vic Premier Rupert ‘Dick’ Hamer would not be welcome (deemed ‘wet’ or ‘leftie’), taking on US radical libertarianism via the IPA (which I guess was starting to be directly influenced by Koch’s Atlas Network, Heritage, Cato etc.), letting Murdoch et al. off the leash, encouraging Christianity and using Crosby Textor’s manipulative messaging.

    Now we have situation where LNP MPs and govt., like GOP reps, follow narratives and tactics provided by the above, but are left floundering with black swan events such as bushfires and Corona (like never ending situation in the Mid East).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The maximum upload file size: 2 MB. You can upload: image, audio, video, document, spreadsheet, interactive, text, archive, code, other. Links to YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and other services inserted in the comment text will be automatically embedded. Drop file here

Return to home page
%d bloggers like this: