MOSCOW (Pakistan Point News / Sputnik - 29th February, 2020) As the US and the Taliban group are expected to put aside their differences and end the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan on Saturday, analysts told Sputnik that, though the hope for peace remains, the Taliban may gain influence by taking the credit of the US troops withdrawal, while Washington may still retain its residual presence on the ground even after official pullout.
After months of diplomatic regrouping, the negotiators from the United States and the Taliban are meeting in Doha, Qatar for the historic accord. The accord presupposes the timetable of the US withdrawing some of its 13,000 troops in the country, and the Taliban group pledging to cut ties with all extremist groups and preventing the territories of Afghanistan from becoming militant havens. The agreement is also expected to open the door to the negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government for a permanent ceasefire deal.
As the deal looms, there are some fears that the agreement may be called off at any minute, Kanishkan Sathasivam, a professor of international relations in the Department of Political Science at Salem State University, told Sputnik, adding that he was "cautiously optimistic" about the upcoming deal.
"This is the kind of initiative that can easily blow up even at the very last minute over some detail. I would put the odds at 50-50 the deal is successfully signed. Then, if it is signed, the odds become a little bit better that it will hold, at least for a short while. But the long-term prospects are also very difficult," he told Sputnik.
Sathasivam also drew attention to the fact that the agreement would be sealed only between the United States and the Taliban group, without any other factions.
"Other major players, on all sides, are not a party to the deal, for example, other militant and terrorist groups, the various political groups currently part of the political system in Kabul, and even neighboring states like Pakistan and Iran. Any one of these other actors could decide they want to blow up the deal by taking some sort of detrimental action before the signing itself or during the ceasefire period," he added.
So far, both the US and the Taliban agreed to reduce violence ahead of the signing of the agreement, and the initiative seems to be working as there are fewer incidents, involving the US troops, the Taliban and the local population. According to Dr. Marvin G. Weinbaum, the Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan Studies at the middle East Institute, the sides seem to be fulfilling the promises and there was no reason for not signing of the accord.
"The US and Kabul government had not clearly stated what would be enough of a reduction of violence to be acceptable. Aside from a number of relatively minor security incidents, there seems at this point no reason for the signing not to go ahead. The fact that it was never characterized as a 'ceasefire,' provides ample opportunity to conclude that there has been compliance," he told Sputnik.
As the deal is approaching, questions arise whether the Taliban group will make concessions by totally denouncing Al-Qaeda (terrorist group outlawed in Russia), the US arch-enemy, and breaking all ties with the group, which still operates in the country.
"Washington had for long articulated and reiterated three conditions for talks with the Taliban: respect for the Afghan constitution; renouncing arms and denouncing Al Qaeda. Today its emphasis is pre-dominantly on the third pillar but the Taliban's commitment to even this may be questionable," Raghav Sharma, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at O. P. Jindal Global University, told Sputnik.
As proof, he made a reference to the statement of Gen. Austin Scott Miller, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, who said back in 2019 that Al-Qaeda group was operational across different parts of Afghanistan.
"The Taliban on their part do realise that they require pan-Afghan legitimacy to rule and would have to make themselves more palatable to some of the countries neighbours should they wish to end their exclusive dependence on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The question is how far would they be willing to go in this regard? These factors will be crucial in determining the red lines that oddly have to respected by all parties to the conflict," he said.
According to Sharma, much will also depend on the how the intra-Afghan dialogue process which follows the signing of the deal is handled.
"The [intra-Afghan] process [which will follow the agreement] would have to be inclusive and must be receptive too and reflective off the changed socio-political realities in Afghanistan," he said.
The deal may, however, lead the Taliban gaining strength and influence in the region, Vahan Dilanyan, an independent analyst of political and security issues, former assistant to Armenia's prime minister, suggested while speaking to Sputnik.
"Acknowledging that the US hands are somewhat tied ahead of the 2020 [presidential] election, the Taliban would use the time to further consolidate and increase influence over the territory and population of the country," he said.
According to Dilanyan, "through highlighting the withdrawal dimension in the 'deal packaging,'" the group would position itself as the one "having managed on expelling the foreign forces from the Afghan land."
"This 'campaign' would also be aimed at sufficing the passion of those Taliban fighters and supporters who hold maximalist positions or are more inclined to fight than to talk," he said.
"It is also not excluded that the Taliban's image would grow, while the activation of the affiliates of IS [Islamic State terrorist group, banned in Russia] and Al Qaeda, and others may decrease."
The upcoming deal comes amid significant political context in both the US and Afghanistan. US President Donald Trump has recently started his 2020 presidential campaign, while Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has been recently proclaimed the country's president amid the hotly contested presidential elections season.
"With the signing of the peace deal, President Trump makes good on his election promise of pulling America out of all foreign wars, the merits of such a deal notwithstanding. It allows him to engage in what he believes are appropriate optics to his domestic audience in the run up to the 2020 Presidential re-election campaign," Sharma told Sputnik.
He suggested that the deal would be closely watched by the Ghani administration. According to Sharma, the fact that Kabul has been long kept out of the talks thus far shows "the perceived 'balance of power' on the ground."
"The signing of the deal bestows recognition on the Taliban as a legitimate politico-military entity, something it has long striven to achieve, whilst casting the elected government into the margins. The constant political bickering that plagued the Afghan National Unity government and the current standoff between Ghani and his electoral rivals has only further undermined the standing of the Afghan political process in place since 2004," he said.
US TROOPS LIKELY TO RETAIN RESIDUAL PRESENCE ON GROUND
The upcoming agreement stipulates withdrawing within 135 days some 8,600 troops out of current 13,000 stationed in Afghanistan right now. The war, which lasts nearly 19 years and which can be called the longest war in US modern history, has already cost the lives of some 2,400 US servicemen and $900 billion, according to the US data.
Then-President George Bush announced sending first troops to Afghanistan back in 2001. His successor Barack Obama continued the tactic, and in 2010, the number of US servicemen in the conflict-stricken country peaked at 100,000. After the US elimination of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, the US started to reduce the number of troops, yet not as fast as expected.
"We're really serving, not as a military force, as we are the police force. They have to police their own country," Trump said earlier this week during his visit to India.
Asked whether Washington would remain in Afghanistan, Sharma suggested that the US troops were likely "to retain a residual presence on the ground."
"I do not foresee the US military undertaking any active combat missions, but instead their role would be confined to reconnaissance and limited counter-terror operations," he said, adding that the US military advisers would be very likely to be stationed in Afghanistan for some time to come.
Sharma added that none of the regional powers, including China, "which has had a growing interest and footprint" in Afghanistan were "in a position to fill in the US's shoes militarily."
Amalendu Misra, a senior lecturer in the Department of politics, Philosophy and Religion at Lancaster University, told Sputnik that the US was more likely to sign a peace deal, according to the conditions set by the Taliban group.
"Washington is desperate to withdraw from Afghanistan if there is a face-saving formula on offer. It simply does not have the appetite to prolong its two-decade-long futile presence in this war-torn nation," he said.
According to Misra, Washington has no choice but "undertake a fast troops withdrawal" in the event of signing the accord.
"The departure of the US would create a power vacuum in the region that would be filled by Pakistani military sponsored elements in the short term and radical Islamist of one kind or the other in the long run. It will be apocalyptic," he said.
REDUCTION OF VIOLENCE LEADING TO REDUCTION OF OPIUM PRODUCTION?
While the US troops' withdrawal remains top on the agenda, there are still questions about the fight with poppy cultivation in Afghanistan which has been the leader of the illegal opium production since 2001.
According to Sharma, narcotics have long been "a source for funding of an assortment of non-state actors operating in the region" and the reduction of violence may contribute to the reduction of opium cultivation in the conflict-torn nation.
"The reduction in the level of violence will create enabling conditions to work towards a reduction in opium cultivation provided this is done in collaboration with a host of other processes such as: strengthening border controls; targeting markets where there is demand, as most of the Afghan opiates end up in foreign markets such as Iran, Pakistan, Russia among others; provision of sustainable alternative livelihoods to farmers in the agricultural sector and strengthening of law and order enforcement in the country," he said.
According to the White House, continued poppy cultivation and opium production complicate Kabul's ability to maintain the rule of law. According to the recent data, some 160,000 hectares of land in Afghanistan were used for poppy production. While the data showed a poppy production decrease compared to 2018, the numbers still remain high for the Central Asian nation.
