President Trump’s predicament could not have been worse as he touched on Afghanistan in his first State of the Union Address in Congress this week.
“Our warriors in Afghanistan also have new rules of engagement. Along with their heroic Afghan partners, our military is no longer undermined by artificial timelines, and we no longer tell our enemies our plans,” he said.
His words came against a backdrop of three major attacks in Kabul over the past ten days. About 140 people were killed. Mr Trump could only tell Congress that his soldiers in Afghanistan were no more held back by restrictive rules of engagement. He said there was no set deadline for the completion of the job and that the enemy would be kept guessing.
US on Afghanistan
Afghanistan has always featured in the American president’s State of the Union address since 2002. On each of those occasions, successive presidents have said that the effort in Afghanistan was a work in progress, but they have also been elaborating on the gains that were being made—irrespective of how insignificant they were proven to be by subsequent developments.
This time round, however, Mr Trump only emphasized the aggressive character of his strategy for Afghanistan, which he had announced August last year. In it an additional 3,000 troops have been sent to the war theatre, and another 1,000 are being committed.
Only a day before his State of the Union address, President Trump told envoys of the countries represented in the United Nations Security Council that neither does he see peace talks with the Taliban happening in the near future nor does he want to talk to the group. He stressed military action and vowed to finish the job. His message comes in sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom that peace talks are the only way out of the Afghan imbroglio. But Trump is Trump and, notwithstanding the ground realities, he believes that a military victory is very much possible.
The recent most Kabul attacks, two of which were claimed by the Taliban and the third one by the Islamic State have also contributed to the hardening of positions in Washington. The Trump Administration’s strategy for Afghanistan was always centered on fighting and beating the Taliban militants to ultimately force them to reach a settlement with the government in Kabul.
America’s hawkish envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, recently said that the aggressive strategy, which included increased aerial attacks on militant targets, was working and pushing the insurgents closer to talks. But that assessment has changed for now, leaving Mr Trump to categorically say that, “There’s no talking to the Taliban”.
Shah Hussain Murtazawi, a spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, echoed the same sentiment and said: “The Taliban have crossed a red line and lost the chance for peace.”
Mr Trump’s unequivocal ‘no’ to talks was taken by the Taliban as a vindication of their position that the real authority lay with the “American invaders” and their spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid warned of an upsurge in militancy.
Peace talks
Closing the door on negotiations would further dim the prospects of peace. The talks have not, however, been able to take off despite efforts being made by several international stakeholders. It shouldn’t be forgotten that a stalemate has been persisting in the Afghan conflict for years now. It will be difficult to turn the tide in favour of the government troops with the capacity of the Afghan forces, their unacceptably high attrition rate, and the extent of the involvement of the American troops in fighting on the ground.
Had the situation not been all that bad, the Pentagon would not have stopped the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction from publishing data on how much territory is under the control of the Afghan government or insurgents in its latest war report released on Tuesday. The previous quarterly report had stated that approximately 56.8% of Afghanistan’s 407 districts were under Afghan government control or influence which translates into 74 districts under control and another 157 under influence. That’s the lowest level since the US agency started collecting data on areas under government control.
The Pentagon, soon after the publication of the report, said the restriction on publishing data was a mistake and it revealed that the area under Kabul’s control or influence had further reduced to 56%, whereas the remaining 44% was either under insurgent control or contested.
Afghan reaction
Another development worth mentioning in Afghanistan after the recent incidents is the increased intensity with which people are questioning the Ghani government’s narrative on the attacks. Kabul always accused Pakistan of providing sanctuaries and support to terrorists carrying out attacks and did the same after the recent most ones. But people are now seeking explanations over the failure of the security and intelligence in preventing the attacks.
An editorial in Daily Outlook Afghanistan read: “Either it is because of the negligence or the incapacity of the security agencies that the insurgents have been able to carry out attacks as lethal as the recent ones in the areas of the capital that are considered very important and are properly guarded. Saturday’s attack must open the eyes of the authorities in Afghanistan. They should realize that they have to change things if they are really interested in ensuring a better and safer Afghanistan for the people; and even for the security forces themselves. Emotional responses are no more acceptable; there has to be a comprehensive policy that must be able to address the actual security issues.”
This questioning from inside Afghanistan is very important as it would make the government look for problems within instead of just pointing fingers outside.
Pakistan reaction
At the same time it is important that Pakistan and Afghanistan develop a regular intelligence exchange mechanism. Afghan Interior Minister Wais Ahmad Barmak and National Directorate of Security chief Masoom Stanekzai visited Islamabad on Wednesday on an unscheduled trip to share information on the recent attacks.
The Pakistani and Afghan sides gave differing accounts about how the visit took place. According to Foreign Office Spokesman Dr Muhammad Faisal, the Afghan government had requested the visit and had come with a message from President Ashraf Ghani. Afghan Ambassador Omar Zakhilwal, meanwhile, claims that the delegation had come in response to a message from Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. In a bid to show that Pakistan was being responsive to Afghan concerns, on the eve of the visit by the Afghan interior minister and intelligence chief, the Foreign Office disclosed that it had handed over the custody of 27 Taliban and Haqqani Network insurgents to Afghanistan in November 2017.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com
“Our warriors in Afghanistan also have new rules of engagement. Along with their heroic Afghan partners, our military is no longer undermined by artificial timelines, and we no longer tell our enemies our plans,” he said.
His words came against a backdrop of three major attacks in Kabul over the past ten days. About 140 people were killed. Mr Trump could only tell Congress that his soldiers in Afghanistan were no more held back by restrictive rules of engagement. He said there was no set deadline for the completion of the job and that the enemy would be kept guessing.
US on Afghanistan
Afghanistan has always featured in the American president’s State of the Union address since 2002. On each of those occasions, successive presidents have said that the effort in Afghanistan was a work in progress, but they have also been elaborating on the gains that were being made—irrespective of how insignificant they were proven to be by subsequent developments.
This time round, however, Mr Trump only emphasized the aggressive character of his strategy for Afghanistan, which he had announced August last year. In it an additional 3,000 troops have been sent to the war theatre, and another 1,000 are being committed.
Only a day before his State of the Union address, President Trump told envoys of the countries represented in the United Nations Security Council that neither does he see peace talks with the Taliban happening in the near future nor does he want to talk to the group. He stressed military action and vowed to finish the job. His message comes in sharp contrast to the conventional wisdom that peace talks are the only way out of the Afghan imbroglio. But Trump is Trump and, notwithstanding the ground realities, he believes that a military victory is very much possible.
After the recent incidents is the increased intensity with which people are questioning the Ghani government's narrative on the attacks
The recent most Kabul attacks, two of which were claimed by the Taliban and the third one by the Islamic State have also contributed to the hardening of positions in Washington. The Trump Administration’s strategy for Afghanistan was always centered on fighting and beating the Taliban militants to ultimately force them to reach a settlement with the government in Kabul.
America’s hawkish envoy to the UN, Nikki Haley, recently said that the aggressive strategy, which included increased aerial attacks on militant targets, was working and pushing the insurgents closer to talks. But that assessment has changed for now, leaving Mr Trump to categorically say that, “There’s no talking to the Taliban”.
Shah Hussain Murtazawi, a spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, echoed the same sentiment and said: “The Taliban have crossed a red line and lost the chance for peace.”
Mr Trump’s unequivocal ‘no’ to talks was taken by the Taliban as a vindication of their position that the real authority lay with the “American invaders” and their spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid warned of an upsurge in militancy.
Peace talks
Closing the door on negotiations would further dim the prospects of peace. The talks have not, however, been able to take off despite efforts being made by several international stakeholders. It shouldn’t be forgotten that a stalemate has been persisting in the Afghan conflict for years now. It will be difficult to turn the tide in favour of the government troops with the capacity of the Afghan forces, their unacceptably high attrition rate, and the extent of the involvement of the American troops in fighting on the ground.
Had the situation not been all that bad, the Pentagon would not have stopped the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction from publishing data on how much territory is under the control of the Afghan government or insurgents in its latest war report released on Tuesday. The previous quarterly report had stated that approximately 56.8% of Afghanistan’s 407 districts were under Afghan government control or influence which translates into 74 districts under control and another 157 under influence. That’s the lowest level since the US agency started collecting data on areas under government control.
The Pentagon, soon after the publication of the report, said the restriction on publishing data was a mistake and it revealed that the area under Kabul’s control or influence had further reduced to 56%, whereas the remaining 44% was either under insurgent control or contested.
Afghan reaction
Another development worth mentioning in Afghanistan after the recent incidents is the increased intensity with which people are questioning the Ghani government’s narrative on the attacks. Kabul always accused Pakistan of providing sanctuaries and support to terrorists carrying out attacks and did the same after the recent most ones. But people are now seeking explanations over the failure of the security and intelligence in preventing the attacks.
An editorial in Daily Outlook Afghanistan read: “Either it is because of the negligence or the incapacity of the security agencies that the insurgents have been able to carry out attacks as lethal as the recent ones in the areas of the capital that are considered very important and are properly guarded. Saturday’s attack must open the eyes of the authorities in Afghanistan. They should realize that they have to change things if they are really interested in ensuring a better and safer Afghanistan for the people; and even for the security forces themselves. Emotional responses are no more acceptable; there has to be a comprehensive policy that must be able to address the actual security issues.”
This questioning from inside Afghanistan is very important as it would make the government look for problems within instead of just pointing fingers outside.
Pakistan reaction
At the same time it is important that Pakistan and Afghanistan develop a regular intelligence exchange mechanism. Afghan Interior Minister Wais Ahmad Barmak and National Directorate of Security chief Masoom Stanekzai visited Islamabad on Wednesday on an unscheduled trip to share information on the recent attacks.
The Pakistani and Afghan sides gave differing accounts about how the visit took place. According to Foreign Office Spokesman Dr Muhammad Faisal, the Afghan government had requested the visit and had come with a message from President Ashraf Ghani. Afghan Ambassador Omar Zakhilwal, meanwhile, claims that the delegation had come in response to a message from Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi. In a bid to show that Pakistan was being responsive to Afghan concerns, on the eve of the visit by the Afghan interior minister and intelligence chief, the Foreign Office disclosed that it had handed over the custody of 27 Taliban and Haqqani Network insurgents to Afghanistan in November 2017.
The writer is a freelance journalist based in Islamabad and can be reached at mamoonarubab@gmail.com