Unresolved Prospect of US Withdrawal from Afghanistan

2020/07/25 | Note, political, top news

Strategic Council Online If peace between Afghans does not occur and the Taliban continue to be a threat to the Afghan government, then Washington’s withdrawal strategy may be halted and the United States will continue to be present and confront the Taliban. Nozar Shafiee - Expert and Researcher of Subcontinent Affairs

During the Doha talks, the Americans and the Taliban reached various agreements that included the rights and obligations of the parties. As part of these agreements, it was decided that the United States should withdraw from Afghanistan; but at the same time, there was a dilemma in this regard: What is the meaning of the withdrawal of American troops? Should the United States withdraw all or just part of its forces? Because some US troops are stationed at military bases and have a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan; Therefore, according to this agreement and, of course, the investments of the United States in this country, in any case, a part of the American troops will remain in Afghanistan, but it is possible to withdraw the part of the forces that have an operational function against the Taliban.

Now, although Anata Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the United States Department of Defense, has confirmed the withdrawal of US troops from five bases on Afghan soil, this means that whatever US troops are in the country must be withdrawn; but according to previous agreements between the two countries, part of these forces must remain in Afghanistan. There is a dichotomy in this decision and the published news, and this contradiction has left the issue of troop withdrawal unresolved.

On the other hand, it is part of the military operation related to the Taliban, which was agreed in Doha meeting to hold a dialogue between the Afghan government and the Taliban. The Afghan government has decided not to comply with any demands from the Taliban because it was not invited to the Doha talks, so this part of the talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban has virtually stopped. That is why the Taliban are pursuing military operations to put pressure on the Afghan and US governments to come to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, neither the Afghan government has the power to eliminate the Taliban, nor does the Taliban see itself achieving this goal. Meantime, Taliban members believe that the current government is subservient and should be overthrown. Now, in a situation where it is not possible to achieve a certain goal, the parties must inevitably move towards compromise, which means; Flexibility in the positions of the parties, deviation from the demands and reaching a common point of view.

It seems that this compromise may not be possible soon, but in some point in the future, Afghanistan’s problem must finally end through negotiation and the entry of various forces into the power structure; Otherwise, there is no prospect of one side overcoming the other, just as the Americans have not been able to eliminate the Taliban in recent years.

The ambiguity is that the United States faces two issues; the first is the view of Donald Trump and the second is the view of the US military on this issue. Trump initially called for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, but the political structure of the United States prevented him from doing so; because the United States has incurred huge costs in Afghanistan that cannot be easily removed. Eventually, if this is to be implemented, the United States will have to symbolically maintain its bases and part of its forces in Afghanistan. This is a vision that can be expected given the agreements reached with the Taliban.

But if there is no peace between the Afghans and if the Taliban continue to be a threat to the Afghan government, then the US withdrawal strategy may be halted and the United States may continue to be present and confront the Taliban. These are the dynamic ups and downs that exist in Afghanistan; In other words, there is peace somewhere in Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the heart of this peace there are conflicts that have created a kind of fear and hope in Afghanistan. Hope means that dialogue will lead to peace, and fear means that developments and conflicts will continue.

The United States and the Taliban entered into peace talks because neither of them achieved its goal. The two sides failed to eliminate another on Afghan soil. Such a result was reached after 19 years for both sides, which, of course, ended in negotiations.

The United States has made commitments to the Taliban that are difficult to fulfil, because the Afghan government has to fulfil them, and that is difficult for them. When action is taken to revise the country’s constitution, the law has been the product of months of bargaining and differing views. Now, if it is to be reconsidered, the question arises as to whether radical Taliban ideas can enter this structure.

Here civil movements such as the women’s movement and other liberal forces that do not simply tolerate a revision of the Afghan constitution; so the issue is very complex, and from domestic small actors to players in the international arena with conflicting interests are involved.

However, there is a possibility for non-participation and saying “no” to the Taliban and in this respect, Taliban’s position can be weakened; but the reality is that this force must eventually be absorbed into the power structure or continue to be aggressive. This dilemma must be resolved for the people and the government of Afghanistan, which depends on their decision to choose one of these options on the table.

Finally, Afghanistan has traditionally been a showcase in the conflict. This country is a place of display of internal and external powers and has historically received the attention of the great powers due to its geographical location; so the partial reason for the continuation of the conflicts goes back to this issue.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

LATEST CONTENT

Implicit Decree “Preventing Attack on Rafah” – ICJ Decision in South Africa vs. Israel Lawsuit

Strategic Council Online- Opinion: On February 12, the South African government once again appealed to The International Court of Justice (ICJ) to demand the indication of new measures in light of statements made by the Israeli prime minister’s office on the necessity of a military incursion into the Rafah region in the Gaza Strip and in light of subsequent operations conducted thereafter.

How to Make the Most of the Provisional Order of the International Court of Justice

Strategic Council Online – Note: The recent provisional order indicated by the International Court of Justice on the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) – if used astutely – could constitute a “turning point” in the struggle of civil advocates and governments committed to the Palestinian cause. Before this decision, two other significant legal instruments had been produced at the highest levels of the United Nations concerning Israel, but unfortunately – despite their remarkable potential – neither was adequately exploited by pro-Palestine governments – including the “Palestinian Authority” – due to lassitude in some instances, unwarranted prudence in others, or even the fear that engaging the Israeli regime in any manner on a formal stage could wrongly be construed as its “recognition.”
Reza Nasri – International Jurist

Predictable Scenarios in US Elections and Iran’s Approach

Strategic Council Online- Opinion: While the Gaza crisis and Israel’s inhuman behavior in dealing with the people of the Strip cast a shadow over all international issues and has become the biggest challenge facing the world community, the type and nature of America’s relationship with the Israeli regime and the impact of its actions on the global level and in different regions have also made the upcoming US elections a key and important issue in 2024.
Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri – university professor

An Analysis of Recent Saudi Statement about Normalization of Relations with the Zionist Regime

Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on Middle East affairs says Saudi Arabia’s recent statement stands for two issues, which indicates Riyadh’s compliance with US policies. The first issue is that Saudi Arabia has supported the two-state plan with Washington’s backing. In contrast, the Palestinians and Resistance Axis countries have strong reservations about the two-state scheme.

France and the European Union seek to challenge Russia’s role in the South Caucasus

Strategic Council Online—Interview: The former ambassador of Iran to the Republic of Azerbaijan said that the positions of the European Union’s foreign policy in support of Armenia and opposition to the Republic of Azerbaijan are in the context of challenging Russia’s role in the developments in the South Caucasus and also in the continuation of Europe’s conflict with Russia over Ukraine.

Changing the Political Scene of the Ukraine War

Strategic Council Online: An expert on European issues said: The war of attrition in Ukraine has caused Russia and the supporters of Ukraine to sharpen their tone towards each other in the political arena. to show that they are still determined to advance their goals in the war.

Loading

Últimas publicaciones

Implicit Decree “Preventing Attack on Rafah” – ICJ Decision in South Africa vs. Israel Lawsuit

Strategic Council Online- Opinion: On February 12, the South African government once again appealed to The International Court of Justice (ICJ) to demand the indication of new measures in light of statements made by the Israeli prime minister’s office on the necessity of a military incursion into the Rafah region in the Gaza Strip and in light of subsequent operations conducted thereafter.

How to Make the Most of the Provisional Order of the International Court of Justice

Strategic Council Online – Note: The recent provisional order indicated by the International Court of Justice on the “Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel) – if used astutely – could constitute a “turning point” in the struggle of civil advocates and governments committed to the Palestinian cause. Before this decision, two other significant legal instruments had been produced at the highest levels of the United Nations concerning Israel, but unfortunately – despite their remarkable potential – neither was adequately exploited by pro-Palestine governments – including the “Palestinian Authority” – due to lassitude in some instances, unwarranted prudence in others, or even the fear that engaging the Israeli regime in any manner on a formal stage could wrongly be construed as its “recognition.”
Reza Nasri – International Jurist

Predictable Scenarios in US Elections and Iran’s Approach

Strategic Council Online- Opinion: While the Gaza crisis and Israel’s inhuman behavior in dealing with the people of the Strip cast a shadow over all international issues and has become the biggest challenge facing the world community, the type and nature of America’s relationship with the Israeli regime and the impact of its actions on the global level and in different regions have also made the upcoming US elections a key and important issue in 2024.
Dr. Mohammad Mehdi Mazaheri – university professor

An Analysis of Recent Saudi Statement about Normalization of Relations with the Zionist Regime

Strategic Council Online – Interview: An expert on Middle East affairs says Saudi Arabia’s recent statement stands for two issues, which indicates Riyadh’s compliance with US policies. The first issue is that Saudi Arabia has supported the two-state plan with Washington’s backing. In contrast, the Palestinians and Resistance Axis countries have strong reservations about the two-state scheme.

France and the European Union seek to challenge Russia’s role in the South Caucasus

Strategic Council Online—Interview: The former ambassador of Iran to the Republic of Azerbaijan said that the positions of the European Union’s foreign policy in support of Armenia and opposition to the Republic of Azerbaijan are in the context of challenging Russia’s role in the developments in the South Caucasus and also in the continuation of Europe’s conflict with Russia over Ukraine.

Changing the Political Scene of the Ukraine War

Strategic Council Online: An expert on European issues said: The war of attrition in Ukraine has caused Russia and the supporters of Ukraine to sharpen their tone towards each other in the political arena. to show that they are still determined to advance their goals in the war.

Loading