Read on Twitter
1. Intra-Afghan talks that were supposed to begin in March are finally commencing in Doha. It is a historic but tall order. Dialogue takes time and past agreements on a much smaller scale have taken months as @LaurelMillerICG aptly points out: https://twitter.com/LaurelMillerICG/status/1304435103620378628.
2. Washington should encourage negotiations that address tough questions over temporary solutions. However, it is Afghans who must underwrite their own security & future. Troop withdrawals should not be held hostage by the inability of stakeholders to take compromise seriously.
3. It is unclear what precise role the US or regional stakeholders will have in these talks. Pakistan played a positive role in reinvigorating the dialogue process even if it has played the role of spoiler in the past. Stakeholders cannot be viewed in a one-dimensional light.
4. It's crucial that as stakeholders consider a solution they don't view U.S. military resources & lives as an inelastic commodity. I deployed to Uruzgan province in 2012 & cannot help but think about the casualties to secure districts that we assumed would inevitably be lost.
5. It is important to remember that Afghanistan extends beyond Kabul. Afghans in government & civil society who tirelessly fight for a more just & inclusive society should be supported. But support does not mean their policy prescriptions are objective or beyond scrutiny.
6. Some in Kabul may want a sustained US presence & spikes in violence during the US-Taliban talks are troubling. But the surge era, sustained airstrikes, & night raids were a nightmare for civilians in the provinces & did not make Afghanistan safer. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unama_poc_midyear_report_2020_-_27_july-.pdf
7. Too often Afghanistan is discussed in the framing of what responsibility the US owes the Afghan people? First, this prevents coherent analysis b/c it assumes that the US can engineer ground realities while enabling some Afghan elites to evade compromise & consensus building.
8. Second, a “responsibility” framing ignores the diversity of expectations among Afghans themselves, especially in the most violent provinces which is a point that was recently discussed by @and_huh_what & @Rob_Malley in https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/hold-your-fire-afghan-peace-talks.
9. Finally, the brunt of this war's suffering is endured by the Afghan people but a “responsibility” framing inherently ignores the effects of this conflict on the US political & social landscape. Normalization of torture & surveillance is one example: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/06/22/why-the-trump-administration-has-such-disdain-for-the-icc/
10. Advancing toward a political solution in Afghanistan & withdrawing troops doesn't mean Washington will “abandon” the region. It means the emergence of a more nuanced approach to development, terrorism, & conflict that is decoupled from “AfPak” & permanent deployments.
11. Congress will have to determine how to interact with and whether to provide aid to an Afghanistan in which the Taliban potentially operates as a legitimate political entity. The threat of transnational terrorists operating from the region will not evaporate.
12. But the status quo of the last two decades is unsustainable for all parties involved and intra-Afghan talks combined with an exit of US troops is a necessary step forward.
