“The Economist” published a story that Estadão replicated, yesterday, on the dilemma facing Americans about whether they should, or not, stay longer in Afghanistan.
It is important to remember that one of Donald Trump's campaign promises to the US presidency, in 2016, was the total withdrawal of American troops. he claimed, So, that the United States had committed “a terrible mistake when getting involved in Afghanistan”. once in power, however, D.T. authorized the permanence and increase in the number of troops. As a result, the United States still hosts a contingent of about 14.000 military on afghan soil.
It is worth remembering that the presence of this contingent, and those from other Western countries that are still stationed in Afghanistan., already dated december of 2001, right after the attack on the "World Trade Center". It was much bigger – more than a hundred thousand, according to some analysts – and yet, so far no concrete results have been achieved.: instead, not only has it not yet been possible to bring the various local ethnic groups to an understanding, but also the foreign military presence intensified the dispute for power between the various groups involved in the resistance, mainly the Taliban and ISIL/Islamic State, and also the feeling “nativist / religious”. It fits, for this purpose, remember that the ISIL, from the Taliban's "franchise" has now become their greatest enemy, whom he accuses of cooperating with "foreign invaders".
After nearly two decades of fruitless struggle, last year the United States decided to change its strategy and started a direct dialogue, unprecedented with the Taliban, in Doha, in Qatar. D.T. manifested, In this ocasion, once again your desire to close the “endless wars” and turn the page on your country's costly military interventions abroad. Informal talks between the US and the Taliban are now in their ninth round, and took the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, to be “optimistic” about their future.
The "US Special Representative for Reconciliation with Afghanistan", the Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad, chegou a afirmar no mês passado que ”we are at the threshold of an agreement that will reduce violence and open the door for Afghans to sit together to negotiate an honorable and sustainable peace and a unified, sovereign Afghanistan that does not threaten the United States, its allies, or any other country”. Khalilzad focused his work on four interrelated objectives: 1) a timetable for the departure of all foreign troops currently in Afghanistan; 2) the Taliban's commitment to prevent hostile acts from being perpetrated against US troops; 3) direct negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government, who consider “illegitimate” e “puppet” of the westerners; e 4) a nationwide ceasefire.
Underlies Washington's "hurry" to speed up talks, on one side, the complicated afghan presidential election, scheduled for the end of this month, e, from another, the effective start of the election campaign for the White House. Successful case, the understandings would provide D.T. to claim to have fulfilled his first election campaign promise. This haste was the reason, by the way, of the disagreements between Donald Trump and his then Secretary of Defense, John Bolton, that being contrary to the "lenience" with which his Boss was, in your view, leading conversations with "terrorists", resigned from the position.
Even though Washington is in a hurry to disengage its troops, ideally through a political agreement with the Taliban., it will be difficult for the Americans to achieve this intent, at least in the short and/or medium term. It turns out that the Taliban are not the only group involved in the resistance to the "outsiders". Several other armed opponents from several other phalanxes would also have to be involved in the process.. The weakness of the Afghan government and internal political divisions would give the Taliban, for some analysts, advantage in any power-sharing arrangement, particularly after the US and allied forces left the country.. But it is very doubtful that the Taliban, whether in power or as a partner in power, can control other armed opposition groups., the most important of which the Khorasan branch of the Islamic State/IS-K, or even garner the cross-cutting support of the diverse and multiethnic population. Such has been the historic process in Afghanistan., especially since the fight against the Soviets.
That is, a hard-to-solve equation…
Proof of this is the recent suicide attack committed by the IS-K phalanx – who is committed to creating dissent and chaos. – at a wedding in Kabul, killing more than 60 people and hurting close to 200. This is a tragic reminder of the situation of insecurity that reigns in the country and supports the conviction that “a deal” with the Taliban, only, will result in "no deal", or truce, not even.
what would be the solution, if there is any?…
It is necessary to understand what escapes the westerners: Afghanistan doesn't work according to the West's mind. From the beginning there, the "jirga" system has prevailed, that is, the assembly of elders, composed of the leaders of the different ethnic groups that make up its population. – pashtuns, tajiks, hazaras, uzbeks, guess, Turkmen, beluchis, pashai, nuristani, Gujiar and Arabs, etc…– all proud of their history and civilizational values. None of them, however small in absolute numbers, will accept the yoke of another. Like this, only the consensus between them will provide a – fragile and always traded- stability. IT'S, in its essence, the most authentic democratic process…
and how to do this? ….I'm safe, from my experience in the region, that this is the question that will have to be answered by the Afghans themselves., their way and without interference.
Moral of the story: it's Iraq that repeats itself?… it would have been better not to have started this sad chapter of history…How many lives lost in vain…
I suggest to friends that they read the article from “The Economist”/”Estadão”: About this site
INTERNACIONAL.ESTADAO.COM.BR The US and the difficult negotiation with the Taliban in Afghanistan – International – Estadão
