Small Wars Journal

Is the Taliban Making a Pledge It Cannot Keep?

Is the Taliban Making a Pledge It Cannot Keep? By Tricia Bacon - Foreign Affairs

In Doha in late January, the United States and the Afghan Taliban agreed in principle to the contours of a peace deal. Under its terms, the Taliban would guarantee that Afghan territory will never be used by terrorists. The concession is critical to the United States, but while some commentators have heralded the Taliban’s promise as a major breakthrough, analysts have noted that the group has made, and failed to keep, similar assurances in the past. Questions remain about whether the Taliban is genuinely willing to break with al Qaeda—the very prospect at which the group balked back in 2001, prompting the United States to invade.

The terrorist landscape in South and Central Asia extends far beyond al Qaeda. The Taliban has been fighting the Islamic State’s affiliate in the region, the Islamic State in Khorasan (ISK), inflicting serious losses without succeeding in eradicating this rival. Since 2002, the Taliban-led insurgency in Afghanistan has been a unifying cause for militant organizations in the region. At least 18 terrorist groups operate in Afghanistan. The Taliban exercises some influence over the activities of 14 of them, providing entrée to the insurgency in exchange for manpower and expertise. These groups will expect a payoff in the event of a Taliban victory and will likely seek to continue using Afghan territory as a base for terrorist activities. If the Taliban proves unwilling or unable to prevent the country from becoming a free-for-all for militant organizations after the U.S. withdrawal, the United States, as well as Pakistan, India, and the Central Asian states, will be threatened…

Read on.

Comments

It is likely that our opponents -- both great nations and small and both state and non-state entities -- now see the world through the lines of the U.S. having been:

a.  Soundly defeated and, this,

b.  As relates to our century-long pursuit of our grand political objective of transforming the outlying states and societies of the world more along modern western lines.

(The 2017 Trump NSS for example -- given its embrace, instead, of such things as political, economic, social and value equality, diversity and sovereignty -- this can be seen, by our opponents, as [a] exactly our such formal surrender document and [b] exactly our such formal  acknowledgement of defeat.) 

Based on this such undestanding of our current situation:

a.  Our adversaries will take whatever advantage of us that they can, for example,

b.  By requiring that "peace agreements" be crafted more along their -- our enemies' -- terms.

(Herein, our enemies making whatever "pledges" that they might.)