Washington has finally come to terms with the Afghan Taliban and its Pakistani backers for the future of US military engagement in Afghanistan. A US-Taliban peace deal is expected to be concluded soon. According to US special envoy for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, Washington is now moving \u201ccloser to intra-Afghan negotiations that will produce a political roadmap and a permanent ceasefire.\u201d<\/p>\n
But should we be cautious about a US-Pakistan consensus on Afghanistan? Will the US-Pakistan deal really translate into peace for Afghanistan? Or, is it giving Pakistan\u2019s military establishment a free rein to find a way to carve up Afghanistan with the Taliban?<\/p>\n
Recent developments suggest that Donald Trump\u2019s administration is endorsing Islamabad\u2019s duplicity on Afghanistan and this is irrefutably not leading to peace and stability in the region. Washington must genuinely choose the path to peace by fully engaging with India, Russia, China, and Iran on Afghanistan. Unilaterally cutting a deal with Pakistan will fail severely.<\/p>\n
Also read: 6 factors to watch as US seeks deal with Taliban to get out of Afghanistan<\/p>\n
Why the US overlooks Pakistan\u2019s duplicity
\nIt is true that Pakistan holds the key in any Afghan peace talk because of the ISI\u2019s widely acknowledged ties to the Afghan Taliban.<\/p>\n
So, Washington continues to embrace Pakistan\u2019s policies in Afghanistan with an ill-advised understanding that it would protect US interests. Senior American officials accept that when Pakistani support becomes \u201cnecessary\u201d, Washington \u201cfinds a way to overlook Pakistani misdeeds and focus instead on common interests\u201d. They corroborate that in Washington\u2019s relations with Islamabad, there are times when Pakistan\u2019s \u201cduplicity is tacitly welcome by the Americans\u201d(88 Days to Kandahar, Robert L. Grenier).<\/p>\n
The history of US-Pakistan relations is full of such examples. In January 2018, Trump tweeted that Pakistan has given \u201csafe haven to the terrorists\u201d the US is hunting in Afghanistan. It has given the US \u201cnothing\u201d but \u201clies & deceit\u201d.<\/p>\n
President Trump\u2019s predecessors failed to take firm actions against Pakistan for its support to terrorism. In their view, Pakistan was Washington\u2019s \u201cstrategic ally\u201d. Former President Barrack Obama acknowledged that Washington\u2019s \u201csuccess in Afghanistan is inextricably linked\u201d to its \u201cpartnership\u201d with Pakistan.<\/p>\n
Like President Trump, Obama also believed that in the \u201cpast\u201d, American leaders before him \u201ctoo often defined\u201d US relationship with Pakistan \u201cnarrowly\u201d. He was of the opinion that those days were \u201cover\u201d and his administration is \u201ccommitted to a partnership with Pakistan that is built on a foundation of mutual interests\u201d.<\/p>\n
According to US security expert Bruce Riedel, Obama\u2019s administration \u201cmade heavy use\u201d of its \u201cwarm\u201d relationship with Pakistani military leaders. To serve US interests, in Riedel\u2019s words, Washington even secretly secured \u201can unprecedented three-year extension\u201d for Pakistan\u2019s army chief, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani\u2019s term in office. (Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global Jihad, Bruce Riedel)<\/p>\n
Now, Washington and Islamabad are once again \u201cbedfellows\u201d.<\/p>\n
Ahead of 2020 US elections, President Trump wants a peace deal with the Taliban and a significant troop reduction with an agreed timeline on total US troop withdrawal. So, Pakistan\u2019s military establishment has again become a key arbitrator of Afghanistan\u2019s destiny to the exclusion of the regional actors for the US.<\/p>\n
Also read: Islamic Republic or Islamic Emirate? Trump\u2019s Taliban deal has Afghanistan at a crossroads<\/p>\n
Afghans see the US colluding with Pakistan again
\nUnder the current US-Taliban deal, the Pakistani military and the ISI are using their influence over the Afghan Taliban to ensure a new role for them as a \u2018strategic asset\u2019 in Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
From the Afghan perspective, Washington has, once again, failed to convince Pakistan to take Afghanistan\u2019s legitimate concerns seriously. Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai said, \u201cAfghans want peace\u201d but not a \u201cUS-Pakistan deal\u201d on Afghanistan. Strongly condemning President Trump\u2019s remarks during his meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan last month, Karzai asserted that there are \u201cclear signs\u201d that Washington and Islamabad have brokered a deal on Afghanistan. \u201cThe Afghan nation wants peace but the US does not\u201d and \u201cpeace will come when the US leaves Afghanistan\u201d, said the former president. He urged President Ashraf Ghani\u2019s government to demand Trump to withdraw his troops from Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
Karzai has been supportive of Trump administration\u2019s peace negotiations with the Taliban in Qatar. He has publicly endorsed US peace talks, led by Zalmay Khalilzad. However, like many Afghans, he is highly suspicious of the US motives in the region and see the Americans working in collusion with Pakistan. Washington double-dealing on Afghanistan will again give Islamabad the upper hand to influence Afghan foreign policy, in particular, vis-\u00e0-vis India.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, President Ghani is naively appeasing Islamabad afresh. In a recent interview with TRT World, he thanked Imran Khan, army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and his colleagues for their \u201cchange of perspective\u201d regarding Afghanistan.<\/p>\n
While Pakistani officials see it as Afghan president\u2019s last attempt to stay in power, Ghani continues to propagate the false notion that after his last visit to Pakistan, Kabul and Islamabad have come to accept that \u201cconnectivity\u201d and \u201cthe stability of Afghanistan\u201d is in \u201cPakistan\u2019s interest\u201d, not \u201ca Taliban-run Afghanistan\u201d.<\/p>\n
Also read: Taliban controls & contests 65% of Afghanistan, as US gets desperate to withdraw troops<\/p>\n
In Afghanistan, despite growing optimism for peace with the Taliban, the road ahead is rocky with no peace in sight. The Pakistan paradox in the US policy is seemingly unsolvable and the current American administration has no desire to change the status quo vis-\u00e0-vis Islamabad. Trump administration\u2019s reliance on Pakistani military establishment to help organise peace talks with the Taliban should be a source of worry for responsible regional stakeholders.<\/p>\n
Kabul and regional players should be highly suspicious of the US agenda in Afghanistan and the wider region. Afghanistan\u2019s insecurity and instability are already dragging the region into a proxy war. That being the case, regional powers, particularly India, have growing stakes in peace and stability, and should actively get involved in the resolution of the Afghan problem.<\/p>\n
The author is an Afghan journalist and writer. He served as a spokesperson and director of communications to the former President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, from 2011 to 2014. Views are personal<\/p>\n
Read ThePrint\u2019s razor<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Washington has finally come to terms with the Afghan Taliban and its Pakistani backers for the future of US military engagement in Afghanistan. A US-Taliban peace deal is expected to be concluded soon. According to US special envoy for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, Washington is now moving \u201ccloser to intra-Afghan negotiations that will produce a …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":12566,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2777],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12564","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-analysis"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/ehsasnews.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/08\/TrumpImran-700x375.jpg?fit=700%2C375&ssl=1","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pbbJo6-3gE","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12564","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=12564"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12564\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12568,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12564\/revisions\/12568"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/12566"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=12564"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=12564"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ehsasnews.net\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=12564"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}