Trump sees 'good chance' for accord with Taliban by end of month

By Humeyra Pamuk and Jonathan Landay

 

U.S. Secretary of Defence Mark Esper speaks at a news conference following a NATO defence ministers meeting at the Alliance headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, February 13, 2020. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he thinks there is a "good chance" the United States would reach an agreement with the Taliban by the end of February on a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

 

Trump's comments were the latest indication of significant progress in negotiations that the United States and the Taliban have been holding since December in Qatar.

 

"I think we're very close," Trump said on a podcast broadcast on iHeart Radio when asked if a tentative deal had been reached. "I think there's a good chance that we'll have a deal ... We're going to know over the next two weeks."

 

Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the talks had achieved "a pretty important breakthrough." Defence Secretary Mark Esper said the sides have been negotiating a proposed seven-day reduction in violence that some lawmakers saw as a test of the Taliban leadership's control of its fighters.

 

Sources had told Reuters a U.S.-Taliban peace deal could be signed this month, a move that would pave the way for a withdrawal from Afghanistan of some 13,000 U.S. troops and thousands of other NATO personnel, 18 years after a U.S.-led coalition invaded following the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on the United States.

 

The demand to sharply reduce violence has been partly why the talks had been deadlocked, according to a Western diplomat in Kabul.

 

Speaking to reporters travelling with him to Munich, where he will attend a security conference, Pompeo expressed both optimism and caution.

 

"We have made real progress over the last handful of days and the President gave us the authority to continue to have the conversations," Pompeo said, adding: "We are not there yet."

 

"We hope we can get to a place where we can get a significant reduction in violence, not only on a piece of paper but demonstrated ... and if we can get there, if we can hold that posture for a while, then we'll be able to begin the real, serious discussion which is all the Afghans sitting at a table," Pompeo said.

 

He is expected to meet with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Munich, a former senior Afghan official said on Wednesday.

 

Esper, during a press conference in Brussels, said that if the process goes forward there would be continuous evaluation of any violence.

 

The news of a potential agreement comes amid continued attacks by the Taliban, who control about 40% of Afghanistan, according to Afghan defence officials.

 

Last month the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, a U.S. government agency, assessed that there had been a record-high number of attacks by the Taliban and other anti-government forces in the last three months of 2019.

 

Although the Taliban is negotiating with U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, it refuses to talk directly to Ghani's government, which it denounces as a puppet of the West.

 

U.S. Democratic Representative Tom Malinowski, who has expressed deep reservations about the talks with the Taliban, said he viewed the proposal of a reduction in violence as a test of the Taliban leadership.

 

"We also need to see whether the Taliban leadership conducting these negotiations actually can control what their forces in the field do. And I'm glad to see that intra-Afghan talks are supposed to start if this test is passed," he told Reuters.

 

(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Jonathan Landay; Additional reporting by Idrees Ali and Phil Stewart; Editing by Catherine Evans, Jonathan Oatis and Daniel Wallis)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-02-14

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

56 minutes ago, webfact said:

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Thursday he thinks there is a "good chance" the United States would reach an agreement with the Taliban by the end of February on a U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

To be followed shortly after with the taliban taking full control of the country. 
 

Let us hope that all those, and every member of their families, who worked with the western powers over the last 18 years will be granted immediate and unconditional asylum in those countries long before any such withdrawal, as their lives will be in danger once this happens. 

Edited February 13, 20206 yr by Bluespunk

I see total surrender cut and run leaving all the people who helped us left to be slaughtered but don’t worry trump will call it a win

Remember the Kurds!

2 hours ago, Tug said:

I see total surrender cut and run leaving all the people who helped us left to be slaughtered but don’t worry trump will call it a win

 

So you would rather American soldiers stayed there indefinitely, assuring many thousands more American troop deaths????????????????????????????????

 

Yep, strike a deal with terrorists and leave them to stew in the middle ages with their potty religion and their 12 year old wives.

21 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

So you would rather American soldiers stayed there indefinitely, assuring many thousands more American troop deaths????????????????????????????????

 

He who says 'A' must also say 'B'. It's like all of their foreign adventures, no thought put in to the consequences before they march in with 'gung ho.' Having marched in there is a moral duty to see it through, this time using a little brain power, politics beats smart bombs every time but if NK is anything to go by this 'agreement' will be a flop. Trump is a proven liar and nobody trusts his word.

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

To be followed shortly after with the taliban taking full control of the country. 
 

Let us hope that all those, and every member of their families, who worked with the western powers over the last 18 years will be granted immediate and unconditional asylum in those countries long before any such withdrawal, as their lives will be in danger once this happens. 

Yes, Trump has a fine reputation when it comes to honour and decency.

I trust Trump to get this done just as effectively as all his other "deals." That means, I think, we'll be lucky to see peace kept long enough to have a repeat of the helicopter evacuation from the US Embassy last seen in Saigon in 1975.

As we all know Trump is a master of making friends all over the word.

He will sort out all the problems in the world. First North Korea, then Israel and now the Taliban. Yeah, sure...

 

22 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Yep, strike a deal with terrorists and leave them to stew in the middle ages with their potty religion and their 12 year old wives.

Lets not forget the USA invaded Afghanistan and bombed it over almost the last 20 years. And then they call this "bringing democracy" to other countries. Yeah, sure.

1 hour ago, soalbundy said:

Yes, Trump has a fine reputation when it comes to honour and decency.

Like North Korea, Iraq, Middle east ...............................................................

Another "mission accomplished"? This guy is making me sick.

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Lets not forget the USA invaded Afghanistan and bombed it over almost the last 20 years. And then they call this "bringing democracy" to other countries. Yeah, sure.

 

It's good to see you here acknowledging the obscenity of US policy in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

Why then would you let your irrational hatred of Trump obscure the fact that he is the only American president in the last 40 or more years who has genuinely committed himself to stopping all the bloodshed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we have to go back to Carter to find a president who has not been the tool of the military/industrial complex....

 

 

4 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

It's good to see you here acknowledging the obscenity of US policy in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

Why then would you let your irrational hatred of Trump obscure the fact that he is the only American president in the last 40 or more years who has genuinely committed himself to stopping all the bloodshed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we have to go back to Carter to find a president who has not been the tool of the military/industrial complex....

 

 

Whats he actually done.

Troll post removed

9 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

It's good to see you here acknowledging the obscenity of US policy in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

Why then would you let your irrational hatred of Trump obscure the fact that he is the only American president in the last 40 or more years who has genuinely committed himself to stopping all the bloodshed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we have to go back to Carter to find a president who has not been the tool of the military/industrial complex....

 

 

May well be committed to end the shedding of US citizens blood overseas, but not to ending bloodshed by allies. 

i suspect the upcoming greatest deal ever will be no different that the one he backed out of a few months ago.

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Whats he actually done.

 

There's none so blind as those who cannot see.

 

What's he done?  Just saved committing a few more Americans to death.

10 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

There's none so blind as those who cannot see.

 

What's he done?  Just saved committing a few more Americans to death.

There is not the slightest evidence that he’s done any such thing.

 

 

20 minutes ago, simple1 said:

May well be committed to end the shedding of US citizens blood overseas, but not to ending bloodshed by allies. 

 

I'm not sure that this effusion is worthy of response, but I am puzzled as to how an American president can be committed to "ending bloodshed by allies".  Surely, that is the responsibility of the allies entirely.  (A separate question: who exactly are these allies that presently are in danger of shedding blood?)

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is not the slightest evidence that he’s done any such thing.

 

 

The absence of evidence in this case would in fact prove the contention that he has not sent American soldiers to their death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sorry if it's confusing.

8 minutes ago, blazes said:

The absence of evidence in this case would in fact prove the contention that he has not sent American soldiers to their death!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Sorry if it's confusing.

The opposite is true. He has sent 14000 to the region which includes afghanistan. He talks about things but actually does nothing.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/22/brett-mcgurk/mcgurk-right-trump-has-sent-14000-troops-middle-ea/

19 minutes ago, blazes said:

 

I'm not sure that this effusion is worthy of response, but I am puzzled as to how an American president can be committed to "ending bloodshed by allies".  Surely, that is the responsibility of the allies entirely.  (A separate question: who exactly are these allies that presently are in danger of shedding blood?)

To be clear, Blood shed by allies supporting US interests / policy In this case Afghanistan. One hopes trump administration will at a minimum still provide air cover, medical facilities and so on

7 hours ago, Tug said:

I see total surrender cut and run leaving all the people who helped us left to be slaughtered but don’t worry trump will call it a win

I wonder what Bot you are using. When a topic mentioning Trump comes on TVF you are almost always one of the first if not the first to 'react'. 

1 hour ago, blazes said:

 

It's good to see you here acknowledging the obscenity of US policy in Afghanistan over the last 20 years.

Why then would you let your irrational hatred of Trump obscure the fact that he is the only American president in the last 40 or more years who has genuinely committed himself to stopping all the bloodshed.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we have to go back to Carter to find a president who has not been the tool of the military/industrial complex....

 

 

Yes, it seems Trump is not as trigger happy as other presidents before him. And that is something good about Trump. But is one good part good enough to ignore the rest of him?

 

I read some time ago the Japanese mafia were first to help the people in an earthquake area with food and blankets. That was obviously nice of them. But should we now decide because they did that they must be good people in general? We all know the answer.

 

What I find amazing is that lots of people here mention the "irrational hatred". What gives you the idea it's irrational? If some people think someone is a criminal and even after years of finding no evidence they still think that person is a criminal now that is a situation were people act irrational.

But if we look at a person who lies constantly, who ignores laws constantly, who does everything so that the truth about his behavior does not come out and people don't want such a person as president there is nothing irrational about that. It's as easy as looking at facts and deciding that is a bad guy, he should be investigated and prosecuted and he should definitely not be the so called leader of the free world.

7 hours ago, blazes said:

 

So you would rather American soldiers stayed there indefinitely, assuring many thousands more American troop deaths????????????????????????????????

 

The us failed again

Like he really cares about anyone but him-lock the b**ch up ????

It’s like letting a pedophile out of jail on a promise 

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

He talks about things but actually does nothing.

that; in the real world is called, Delegating