Planned withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan - its implications

No way out of the terrible Afghan impasse is in sight. The situation, instead, continues to evolve into something more violent and complex. The media on a regular basis reports incidents in which civilians as well as law-enforcement officials get killed. This is happening despite coordinated attempts by the North American Treaty Organisation (NATO), European Union (EU) and the USA. The most unfortunate aspect has been the absence of commitment on the part of different stakeholders.
Towards the end of the third week of December, 2018, the CNN and the Wall Street Journal reported that the US military had been ordered by the US Administration to begin planning to withdraw about half their troops in Afghanistan. It would be fit to recall here that President Trump has long been critical of the US presence in Afghanistan, which began after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since his election, Trump has made his frustration with the continued military presence clear. To recall his comment made in 2011: "When will we stop wasting our money on rebuilding Afghanistan? We must rebuild our country first." He noted in August 2017: "I share the American people's frustration. I also share their frustration over a foreign policy that has spent too much time, energy, money -- and, most importantly, lives -- trying to rebuild countries in our own image instead of pursuing our security interests above all other considerations."
Analysts, however, point out although the plan has been initiated, it could take months to withdraw the nearly 7,000 troops. The decision was made at the same time as Trump's decision to withdraw the US military from Syria -- moves that precipitated Defence Secretary James Mattis's resignation.
It would be relevant to note here that General John Allen, a former commander of NATO and US forces in Afghanistan, reacted to this scenario by telling CNN that a drawdown in Afghanistan would be a mistake and might create "chaos in the strategy". US lawmakers have echoed Allen's concern about a hasty departure.
The US has about 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, most of which are present as part of a larger NATO-led mission to train, advice and assist Afghan forces. Consequently, any withdrawal would be complicated by the fact that the United States is part of NATO's Resolute Support mission.
South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has told the media that "according to our military commanders and everybody I know, we want to withdraw from Afghanistan with honour and do it based on conditions on the ground…Based on my assessment in Afghanistan, if we withdrew anytime soon, you would be paving the way for a second 9/11." Graham responded to Trump's statement that he wants other countries to do the fighting by saying that "Since August of 2017, 5,600 Afghans have died fighting the Taliban and ISIS and eighteen American have been killed in combat and four killed through accidents. God bless the 22."
However, only two weeks before the news of the withdrawal plan was flashed, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joseph Dunford, told Washington Post that he "had not recommended" that the US withdraw." He added that "I had not recommended that we leave Afghanistan because, again, in my judgment, leaving Afghanistan not only would create instability in South Asia, but would give terrorist groups the space within which to plan and conduct operations against the American people, our homeland and our allies, and that really is the problem we are trying to solve."
SEARCH FOR LASTING PEACE: The evolving equation searching for lasting peace in Afghanistan has moved forward and then fallen back to square one. It has been like a snail climbing a greased pole. Though the casualty rate for US troops is far lower than it was earlier in the war, Americans are still losing their lives 17 years after it began. While the Taliban have been unable to take major cities or towns, the Afghan security forces, despite receiving US support, are also still unable to put an end to the insurgency. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has recently announced that about 29,000 Afghan soldiers and police had been killed or wounded since 2015. The number of US casualties during the same period has declined sharply as American soldiers largely shifted away from direct combat.
This sudden decision on the part of Trump will make Zalmay Khalilzad's job as the US special envoy for Afghanistan reconciliation more difficult. He has been eager to wind down the war and has facilitated several high-level meetings between senior US officials and Taliban representatives, including an encouraging exchange in the UAE in early December, 2018. He subsequently mentioned that the Taliban now realise that they cannot defeat the United States but need to sit in a dialogue not only with the USA but also with the Afghan government and resolve the issues through political means. This was seen as significant because the Taliban representation included the head of its political office and chief of staff to supreme leader Mullah Akhundzada.
However, strategic analysts are now feeling uncomfortable with Trump's decision. They are interpreting the withdrawal of US troops as a step where the USA will lose leverage in future talks. Trump's decision is being seen as a measure that will squander a precious opportunity. The US President, according to them, has now given the Taliban what they've long demanded - a commitment to withdraw troops - and they do not need to give up anything in return, much less conclude a deal.
On the other hand, some other observers have pointed out that The Taliban had previously said they might be open to formal talks with the Afghan government to end the war once Washington committed to troop withdrawals. Consequently, they are asking that Trump's decision should be seen as an opening to launch a peace process. Attention is also being drawn to the fact that the insurgents, who have pushed back hard against beleaguered Afghan forces, now hold more territory than at any time since the 2001 US-led invasion.
It may be added here that ever since US forces expelled the Taliban from power in 2001, the group has denounced Afghan governments as illegitimate and puppets of Washington. They argue that such crude characterisations apply particularly well to the present Afghan Administration - a national unity government that is the product of a US-led negotiation and not an election. This was achieved after Afghanistan's 2014 presidential election which ended inconclusively and required direct intervention by US Secretary of State John Kerry. He hammered out a power-sharing deal between the two top vote-getters - Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah who lead the current government.
According to data from the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission published in November, 2018, the government of President Ashraf Ghani has control or influence over 65 per cent of the population but only 55.5 per cent of Afghanistan's 407 districts, the lowest since 2001. On the other hand, the Taliban claim that they control 70 per cent of the country.
Matters regarding reconciliation have however turned for the worse since the end of December. The Talibans are now refusing to hold formal talks with the 'Western-backed' Afghan government next month in Saudi Arabia. They have instead indicated that they "will meet the US officials in Saudi Arabia in January 2019 and will start talks that remained incomplete in Abu Dhabi". The armed group has insisted on first reaching an agreement with the US, which it sees as the main force in Afghanistan since US-led forces toppled the Taliban government in 2001.
Observers have in the meantime noted that officials from the warring sides have already met at least three times to discuss the withdrawal of international forces and a ceasefire in 2019.
So the question that is now being asked is what Washington can do to pick up the crumbling pieces and put things together.
It is being suggested that the first step should be directed towards damage control. Top US officials should assure Kabul that despite imminent troop reductions, they are not going to abandon Afghanistan. United States should emphasise that it will continue to provide critical funding to Afghan security forces and to support efforts to expand the Afghan Special Forces, the crown jewel of Afghanistan's army which is badly suffering from overexertion. Such measures might be able to ease Afghan concerns about US abandonment and limit the Taliban's potential battlefield gains following US troop departures.
The US and NATO leadership along with the European Union should, if and when contacts with the Taliban resume, focus on getting the Taliban to formally renounce ties with the al-Qaeda. This step might then reassure civilians in Afghanistan who fear that Afghanistan will revert to an international terrorism sanctuary in the event of a US withdrawal.
Pakistan can be very useful in this regard. Washington should press Islamabad, which enjoys extensive influence over the insurgents, to take up the al-Qaeda issue with the Taliban, and also enlist key regional actors Russia, Iran, and China in this campaign. These four countries might not be able to get along with Washington, but they also have no interest in Afghanistan reverting to an al-Qaeda sanctuary.
Lastly, Washington should extend its full support to the forthcoming Afghan Presidential elections that has now been delayed until July 20 this year. The Afghan authorities will need security, technological, and logistical support to ensure the poll is credible. That might then persuade the Taliban to sit down with an Afghan government which has been elected to office.

Muhammad Zamir, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
[email protected]