[Salon] Tangling with the Taliban



How engaging with Afghanistan's new leaders can advance U.S. goals, military spending in global context, the only reason to fight China, and more.

  TANGLING WITH THE TALIBAN  

The Taliban is hanging on to power in Afghanistan. It serves U.S. interests to engage.

U.S. Airmen assigned to the 821st Contingency Response Group make their way to a C-17 Globemaster III on Travis Air Force Base, California, August 14, 2021. The U.S. Air Force, in support of the Department of Defense, moved forces into Afghanistan to facilitate the evacuation. [Photo: Wikimedia Commons]
Two years after the chaotic but necessary U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, the country is no one's idea of a success story—neither for Washington’s two-decade nation-building fiasco nor for the Taliban, which established some semblance of a state after the American exit.

As DEFP Fellow Daniel R. DePetris details at Newsweek, Afghanistan is in acute crisis, and dealing with the Taliban will be a difficult but unavoidable task for Washington for the foreseeable future.
 

Two years with the Taliban

  • "Afghanistan has become one of the world's worst humanitarian crises, with more than 28 million people—two-thirds of the population—in urgent need of humanitarian assistance." [HRW]
     
  • "The women in Afghanistan are being slowly erased from society, from life, from everything," said Afghan women's rights activist Mahbouba Seraj. [CNN / Jessie Yeung et al.]
     
  • The Taliban is responsible for "at least 218 extrajudicial killings" of former members of the U.S.-backed Afghan government, the U.N. reported Tuesday, contra a promise of amnesty. [NYT / Richard Pérez-Peña]
     
  • "Afghanistan's gross domestic product has contracted by 35 percent since 2021, with near universal poverty level," and "91 percent of Afghan households surveyed said food was their top priority." [Newsweek / DePetris]

The task for Washington

  • "No country has officially recognized the Taliban government as legitimate," DePetris notes. But, in practice, "foreign embassies are still operating on Afghan soil." [Newsweek / DePetris]
     
  • These dealings with the Taliban aren't ideal, but they're inevitable—and sometimes effective in pursuit of U.S. security goals:
     
    • For example, the Taliban pledged to keep Afghanistan from being used as a base for anti-U.S. terror attacks, and "there hasn't been a single anti-U.S. terrorist operation emanating from Afghanistan since August 2021."
       
    • "The U.S. will have no choice but to continue to collaborate with the Taliban to ensure those commitments are implemented over the long-term."
       
    • And remember, prudent diplomacy doesn't preclude targeted counterterror operations. [Newsweek / DePetris]
       
  • Moreover, as DePetris explored at greater length in an explainer for DEFP, "any U.S. attempts to harm the Taliban economically will harm the Afghan people."
     
    • Removing U.S. sanctions on Afghanistan could improve humanitarian conditions in for ordinary Afghans. [DEFP / DePetris]
       
    • Washington should also unfreeze Afghan assets which it has held since the 2021 withdrawal, as the freeze has badly damaged the Afghan economy but failed to shift Taliban behavior. [The Critic / Bonnie Kristian]
       
    • Sanctions can always snap back, "but for now, the U.S. should cooperate" on counterterrorism and to "reduce the suffering of Afghans." [DEFP / DePetris]
       
  • U.S. interaction with the Taliban could include formal diplomatic recognition, as former Afghan Ambassador Javid Ahmad and former CIA officer Douglas London argue at Foreign Policy—but as DePetris observes, Washington doesn't have to make a decision on that point to productively engage.


This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail (Mailman edition) and MHonArc.