The Taliban deal

I see the deal signed today in Doha, Qatar, between the U.S. Administration and the medieval armed group that is known as the Taliban of Afghanistan, a terrorist organization, as follows:

1.  It gives the Taliban a good amount of legitimacy and political standing. Both within their country and in the international arena. It is therefore a victorious move for them. It puts the Taliban in a much stronger position than the national government.

2. It is an electoral manoeuvre played by the U.S. President. Donald Trump wants to be able to claim, during the coming months leading to the November Presidential election, that he brought the war in Afghanistan to an end.  Or, at least, that he brought the American soldiers back home from a protracted foreign conflict.

3.  It will not lead to inter-Afghan peace negotiations. The deal was not discussed with the legitimate government in Kabul and it is not seen by its leaders as a commitment they own. The official government will keep fighting the Taliban.

4.  It does not include a justice and reconciliation approach. The atrocities the Taliban are responsible for are just ignored.

5.  It encourages other Islamist groups in other parts of the world to keep fighting.

6.  It took the American allies also deployed in Afghanistan, under the NATO-banner called Resolute Support Mission, for granted. They were not part of the process. They are just supposed to follow suit. Those NATO allies have about 16,000 troops on the ground.

Lessons from Afghanistan

This last day of 2014 marks the end of ISAF, the international military mission in Afghanistan. The coalition of combat forces, the largest alliance of states for military purposes in recent history, has been on the ground for 13 years. Throughout this very long intervention, the human and financial costs were immense. Many raise questions. Was it worth the investment, the sacrifices of so many? Was it the best approach to bring together a deeply divided country which had become a breeding nest for violent extremism and negative model of retrograde approaches to life in society? Is the current situation that is left in the hands of the national authorities sustainable? Are we safer at present?

Many thesis will be written about the international assistance to Afghanistan. But beyond the academic papers, the model applied in Afghanistan will also challenge the way we see peace enforcement, international military assistance, and the relations between key international organisations, nation building and national leadership issues. The concept of comprehensive response will also have to be revised. It should include, a few other dimensions, the regional response. Afghanistan is just the inner circle of much larger storm that includes the neighbouring countries. Any military response within the smaller circle can only be effective and sustainable if it goes beyond that circle and brings together a much wider and multifaceted political response.

Beyond these substantive and wide-ranging issues, the points today, at the end of 2014, are to remember all those who have fallen during the many years past and to wish the people of that country and its region a more peaceful 2015. They dramatically need that type of hope.