U.S. and Taliban sign troop withdrawal deal; now comes the hard part

[rooster59]

U.S. and Taliban sign troop withdrawal deal; now comes the hard part

By Abdul Qadir Sediqi and Alexander Cornwell

 

Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, the leader of the Taliban delegation, signs an agreement with Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. envoy for peace in Afghanistan, at a signing agreement ceremony between members of Afghanistan's Taliban and the U.S. in Doha, Qatar February 29, 2020. REUTERS/Ibraheem al Omari

 

KABUL/DOHA (Reuters) - The United States signed a deal with Taliban insurgents on Saturday that could pave the way toward a full withdrawal of foreign soldiers from Afghanistan and represent a step toward ending the 18-year-war in the nation.

 

But while the agreement creates a path for the United States to gradually pull out of its longest war, many expect the talks to come between the Afghan sides may be much more complicated.

 

The deal was signed in the Qatari capital Doha by U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban political chief Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on hand to witness the ceremony.

 

U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper called the accord a good step but just the beginning.

 

"Achieving lasting peace in Afghanistan will require patience and compromise among all parties," said Esper, who met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul where they announced a joint declaration in parallel to the U.S.-Taliban accord.

 

The United States said it is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 -- from the current 13,000 -- within 135 days of signing the deal, and working with its allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period, if the Taliban adhere to their commitments.

 

A full withdrawal of all U.S. and coalition forces would occur within 14 months of the deal getting signed, if the Taliban hold up their end of the deal, the joint statement said.

 

"We are working to finally end America’s longest war and bring our troops back home," said U.S President Donald Trump in a White House statement.

 

The accord represents a chance to make good on a longstanding promise to get troops out, as he seeks re-election in November. But security experts have also called it a foreign policy gamble that would give the Taliban international legitimacy.

 

Ghani said he hoped the Doha deal paves the way towards lasting peace, telling a news conference in Kabul:

 

"The nation is looking forward to a full ceasefire."

 

The Afghan government said it stood ready to negotiate and conclude a ceasefire with the Taliban, and it affirmed its support for the phased withdrawal of U.S. and coalition forces subject to the Taliban's fulfilment of its commitments.

 

It also said that it remained committed to preventing militant groups from using its soil to threaten the security of the United States, its allies and other countries.

 

Separately, NATO pledged to adjust the coalition troop levels in the first phase too, bringing down NATO's numbers to about 12,000 from roughly 16,000 troops at present.

 

"We went in together in 2001, we are going to adjust (troop levels) together and when the time is right, we are going to leave together, but we are only going to leave when conditions are right," NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who was in Kabul on Saturday, told reporters.

 

HOPE FOR AN END TO BLOODSHED

 

Hours before the deal, the Taliban ordered all its fighters in Afghanistan "to refrain from any kind of attack ... for the happiness of the nation."

 

"The biggest thing is that we hope the U.S. remain committed to their promises during the negotiation and peace deal," said Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the hardline Islamist group.

 

For millions of Afghans, the deal represents some hope for an end to years of bloodshed.

 

"Peace is extremely simple and my country deserves it. Today is the day when maybe we will see a positive change," said Javed Hassan, 38, a school teacher living on the outskirts of Afghan capital, Kabul.

 

Hassan's children were killed in a bomb blast carried out by the Taliban in 2018. Since then, he has been writing letters to world leaders urging them to end the Afghan war.

 

SERIOUS CHALLENGES

 

The war, which has killed tens of thousands of people, began when the United States launched attacks on Afghanistan just weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington by the Afghanistan-based al Qaeda militant group.

 

Washington accused the Taliban of harbouring al Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden, and with its allies ousted the group from power. But the Taliban has remained a potent force and currently controls about 40% of Afghan territory.

 

The next step will be for negotiators to work out an agreement for comprehensive ceasefire and the future governance of the country.

 

Officials and experts say this will pose serious challenges as the Afghan government has until now been sidelined.

 

Even before getting to talks with the Taliban, Afghanistan's two main political rivals - Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah - must settle a dispute over which officials, opposition members and activists should negotiate with the insurgents.

 

Under the deal, the Taliban wants 5,000 fighters to be released from Afghan-run jails, but it is not clear whether the Afghan government will agree.

 

Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib said in an interview with Tolo news channel that the Afghan government made no commitment to release 5,000 prisoners by March 10, a date stipulated in the deal.

 

Mohib also said the deal lacked clarity about the Taliban's ties with Pakistan.

 

Afghanistan routinely accuses neighbouring Pakistan of supporting Taliban militants. Pakistan denies doing so and in turn accuses Afghanistan of supporting militants fighting the Pakistani government.

 

There are also questions about whether Taliban fighters loyal to hardline Islamist splinter groups will be willing to adhere to the reduction in violence agreement.

 

(Additional reporting by Idrees Ali, and Ooroj Hakimi in Kabul, Jibran Ahmed in Peshawar, Gibran Peshimam and Charlotte Greenfield in Islamabad, Hamid Shalizi in Istanbul, David Brunnstrom in Washington,; Writing by Rupam Jain and Euan Rocha; Editing by Frances Kerry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-03-01

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

 

 

[sirineou]

I keep reading:

"The United States said it is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 -- from the current 13,000 -- within 135 days of signing the deal, and working with its allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period, if the Taliban adhere to their commitments."

So we know what the US will do but as far as the Taliban is concern all I read is " if the Taliban adhere to their commitments."

But what are their commitments? I also have read several other articles and nowhere did I read what we won. Other than that we occupied the country, lost many lives and spend Billions of dollars. What did we win?

Does anyone know?

[Tug]

Let’s hope the truce holds enough death and destruction I am curious though about provisions for the safety of the Afghans that helped us I’m deeply concerned that trump will do them just like he did the Kurds I hope I’m wrong on this

[Mick501]

Trump and his team just know how to achieve things that previous administrations could not.   This is going to really trigger the <disallowed trolling comment removed> brigade, trying to find something to criticise.

Edited March 1, 2020 by metisdead

[jany123]

That trump.... making the Taliban great again.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Trump and his team just know how to achieve things that previous administrations could not.   This is going to really trigger the <disallowed trolling comment removed> brigade, trying to find something to criticise.

What did he achieve?

[earlinclaifornia]

10 hours ago, sirineou said:

I keep reading:

"The United States said it is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 -- from the current 13,000 -- within 135 days of signing the deal, and working with its allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period, if the Taliban adhere to their commitments."

So we know what the US will do but as far as the Taliban is concern all I read is " if the Taliban adhere to their commitments."

But what are their commitments? I also have read several other articles and nowhere did I read what we won. Other than that we occupied the country, lost many lives and spend Billions of dollars. What did we win?

Does anyone know?

The debt directly responsible for Republicans corruption. 

[earlinclaifornia]

3 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Trump and his team just know how to achieve things that previous administrations could not.   This is going to really trigger the <disallowed trolling comment removed> brigade, trying to find something to criticise.

I have freinds and family who lost lives. trump has done nothing 

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Trump and his team just know how to achieve things that previous administrations could not.   This is going to really trigger the <disallowed trolling comment removed> brigade, trying to find something to criticise.

 Yes indeed

Destroy respect for the presidency and other institutions that bind as into a nation

Expand deficit spending and the debt

Lie at every opportunity

Destroy ACA without replacing it with anything better

Roll back environmental protection

Make as the laughing stock of the world

Enrich himself at the expense of the nation

...........................................

 

 

 

 

[Isaanbiker]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

What did he achieve?

Nothing.

[ChouDoufu]

we're not going anywhere.  bagram is ours, just like those iraqi bases.  don't think we're gonna let china expand their silk road or allow iran to export oil via pipeline thru afghanistan.

 

the deal is big on "committed to" but short on definite goals, just like the north korea denukularization deal and the china phase one trade deal.  it's a flashy public relations exercise that's designed to (hopefully) blow up after the elections.

 

for those of you who question what we've gained in 20 years of endless war, you probably don't own ITA or XAR.

 

 

[Tagged]

4 hours ago, Mick501 said:

Trump and his team just know how to achieve things that previous administrations could not.   This is going to really trigger the <disallowed trolling comment removed> brigade, trying to find something to criticise.

What did we (Nato) achieve in Afghanistan at all? Except from 100 000 people died in the war. 

[DaddyWarbucks]

They're trying to put lipstick on a pig.

The war has been a bloody failure for everybody except those who have kept it going for so long. 

Edited March 1, 2020 by DaddyWarbucks

[simple1]

On 3/1/2020 at 10:17 AM, sirineou said:

I keep reading:

"The United States said it is committed to reducing the number of its troops in Afghanistan to 8,600 -- from the current 13,000 -- within 135 days of signing the deal, and working with its allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces in Afghanistan over that period, if the Taliban adhere to their commitments."

So we know what the US will do but as far as the Taliban is concern all I read is " if the Taliban adhere to their commitments."

But what are their commitments? I also have read several other articles and nowhere did I read what we won. Other than that we occupied the country, lost many lives and spend Billions of dollars. What did we win?

Does anyone know?

These agreements usually demonstrate at a point later in time secret conditions which wouldn't have been acceptable to public opinion at the time of signing. Currently what is known is USA has pledged for the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners by 10th March in exchange for Taliban to release 1,000 Afghan prisoners. Afghan government has immediately objected to the proposal, as well as other concerns - as you know they were not a party to the negotiations. The other challenge is the Afghans still haven't finalised who will be President after the recent elections. Taliban has also committed to take on IS and Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan and not to attack NATO forces. We do know Taliban has been reasonably successful at combating IS in Afghanistan as IS attempt to undermine Taliban authority. In addition Taliban has agreed to enter power sharing negotiations with the Afghan government, can visualise that ending well - LOL

 

Hopefully I'm wrong, but it does come across as a smoke and mirrors peace agreement, similar to the Vietnam War.

 

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by simple1

[DaddyWarbucks]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

These agreements usually demonstrate at a point later in time secret conditions which wouldn't have been acceptable to public opinion at the time of signing. Currently what is known is USA has pledged for the Afghan government to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners by 10th March in exchange for Taliban to release 1,000 Afghan prisoners. Afghan government has immediately objected to the proposal, as well as other concerns - as you know they were not a party to the negotiations. The other challenge is the Afghans still haven't finalised who will be President after the recent elections. Taliban has also committed to take on IS and Al Qaeda elements in Afghanistan and not to attack NATO forces. We do know Taliban has been reasonably successful at combating IS in Afghanistan as IS attempt to undermine Taliban authority. In addition Taliban has agreed to enter power sharing negotiations with the Afghan government, can visualise that ending well - LOL

 

Hopefully I'm wrong, but it does come across as a smoke and mirrors peace agreement, similar to the Vietnam War.

 

 

The failure to prevail militarily makes these smoke and mirrors peace agreements necessary.