General Dan Christman | Afghanistan End Game? - MadMadWorld final 

Nearly $1 trillion in expenditures and over 2000 U.S. Soldier and Marine lives lost have starkly defined the U.S.’s involvement in Afghanistan since October 2001. But announcements last month by both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper suggest that involvement may be radically redefined. The path ahead was set a week ago and formalized in the signing of a press-described “peace deal” two days ago. 

In a nutshell, what U.S. Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has produced is a phased approach to an Afghanistan end-game that tests Taliban seriousness: 

  • The first step was the seven-day “reduction in violence” agreement with the Taliban that began on February 22nd; success there set the conditions for the signing of the peace deal on February 29th in Doha, Qatar.
  • If monitors continue to confirm the reduction, direct talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government are set to commence this week.
  • This follow-on phase will include a 135-day drawdown of U.S. forces from a current level of 13,000 to roughly 8500. According to press reports, it will allow the U.S. to continue to target Al-Qaeda and affiliated extremist organizations inside Afghanistan while the Taliban “renounces” those same groups. 

So, what should one look for over the coming weeks, as a validation that these steps represent a significant turn in the seemingly endless Afghan tragedy?

  • Most obviously, a continuation of the reduction in Taliban terror. It’s easy to imagine rogue tribal leaders from the Afghan government or the Taliban working to undermine this promising start.
  • But more important to the potential long-term success of the peace initiative, Pakistan buy-in!
    • Few analysts have commented on this critical element of the deal — David Ignatius of the Washington Post being the principal exception. But Pakistan, because of the uniqueness of its 1947-drawn borders, sees Afghanistan as its “strategic depth.” 
    • Until rapprochement with India emerges — unlikely any time soon — Pakistan will view any move in Afghanistan through an India-centric prism. It’s why, as Ignatius wrote, we need to offer Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan significant Incentives to support the peace deal – like a trade agreement with Washington.

Of course, the real tragedy would be yet another collapse of a peace initiative. It's easy for example to see in that instance an impulse by the president to order the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops currently committed to Afghanistan, to fulfill what he sees as a campaign pledge. 

  • No one doubts what would happen next: a collapse of the Kabul government and open space for terrorist organizations of all stripes to reconstitute, train, and again directly threaten Western security interests. 

Bottom line? Two peace plans have been floated over the last month by the Trump administration: the “Peace to Prosperity” plan, to resolve the Israeli- Palestinian conflict; and now the first step toward what could be a comprehensive deal to end America’s involvement in Afghanistan. 

  • There is greater cause for optimism for the second effort. The Kushner plan stands no chance. But thanks largely to the indefatigable efforts of Zalmay Khalilzad, there is now a glimmer of hope for a badly fractured country that has consumed so much of America’s treasure.
  • It is dangerous any time to declare that “peace is at hand.” But what Trump’s special envoy and team have produced is the best chance in nearly 19 years to end U.S. involvement in a conflict that has come to define the term “endless war.”