President Trump’s weekend announcement of a halt to U.S. peace talks with Afghanistan’s Taliban—including a previously unannounced U.S. plan for a Camp David meeting to conclude that process—leaves the future of the Afghanistan peace process unclear. USIP’s Andrew Wilder, a longtime Afghanistan analyst, argues that, rather than declaring an end to the peace process, U.S. negotiators could use the setback as a moment to clarify the strategy, and then urgently get the peace process back on track before too much momentum is lost.

Citizens’ peace marches, here in Wardak province in 2018, have underscored Afghans’ longing to end 40 years of war—a step for which they have pressed both the Taliban and government, even as civilian losses have risen. (Jim Huylebroek/The New York Times)
Citizens’ peace marches, here in Wardak province in 2018, have underscored Afghans’ longing to end 40 years of war—a step for which they have pressed both the Taliban and government, even as civilian losses have risen. (Jim Huylebroek/The New York Times)

What does this mean? Is it clear that this ends the peace process? 

All peace processes have their ups and downs – and in my view this is clearly a down. At the same time, the very fact that talks had advanced to the point where President Trump could invite Taliban leaders and President Ghani to come to Camp David illustrates how much progress was made over the past year by Ambassador Khalilzad and his team. These talks created the most plausible opening for peace in Afghanistan since 2001. The basic elements of an agreement—a conditional drawdown of U.S. forces in return for the Taliban cracking down on terrorist groups and negotiating a cease-fire and political settlement with the Afghan government—are now clear. Whether talks revive in the near term or further in the future, any successful peace effort is likely to depend on these same core elements.

It is no secret that many in Washington and Kabul came out against the draft agreement over the past few weeks. Not having seen the final draft agreement it is hard to determine the merits or demerits of these critiques. The concerns raised, however, do not change certain realities on the ground in Afghanistan. First, after 18 years of war it’s clear that no side can end this conflict militarily anytime soon. Second, the Afghan state, and the Afghan National Security Forces in particular, are heavily dependent on the support of the U.S. and our NATO allies, and a precipitous withdrawal of U.S. military forces would likely lead to state collapse. So, unless the U.S. wants to continue an endless war or risk state collapse following a rapid troop withdrawal, achieving a durable and sustainable political settlement in Afghanistan remains by far the best policy option to secure U.S. interests in Afghanistan.

Stepping back from this weekend’s announcement, it is worth highlighting that through skillful diplomacy the U.S. had reached a moment of rare opportunity—strategic consensus among the U.S., China, Russia and our European allies, as well as all of Afghanistan’s neighbors, that an intra-Afghan political settlement that paved the way for a drawdown of U.S. and NATO forces was in everyone’s interest. The nearly universal support among Afghans for peace, even if major disagreements persist on how to achieve it, combined with the unprecedented regional and great-power support for a political settlement, is why there’s an urgent need to get the peace process back on track before this consensus reverts back to destructive hedging behavior.

So if there is a chance to keep a peace process on the rails, how does the United States maximize that chance?

The collapse of the Camp David meeting, a late proposal, does not inherently need to unravel the larger peace effort. In a best-case scenario, good diplomacy could conceivably turn this weekend’s events into stronger negotiating positions for the United States and the Afghan government. A key danger to the agreement was that the Taliban might believe U.S. troops would leave regardless of whether the Taliban met their own commitments. Trump’s willingness to pull back makes it harder to argue that the administration is “desperate for a deal;” the opportunity now is to reinforce that a deal will proceed only on the basis of strict conditionality.

President Trump’s announcement of his South Asia strategy in August 2017 stressed this point. He said, “Conditions on the ground — not arbitrary timetables — will guide our strategy from now on.” Secretary Pompeo reiterated it on Sunday talk shows over the weekend. He told NBC’s Meet the Press, “any reductions in our forces will be based on actual conditions” on the ground. This linkage between a troop drawdown and a larger peace deal among Afghans is the single most important ingredient for success.

What happens if the United States withdraws from Afghanistan anyway, without a deal?

The risk in withdrawing troops even without an agreement with the Taliban is that it would remove all U.S. leverage in peace negotiations, and it would seriously weaken the capacity of the Afghan government and security forces. This could lead to the collapse of the current Afghan state, and a return to the anarchy and civil war of the 1990s that gave birth to the Taliban in the first place, and ultimately to safe havens for terrorists to attack the United States. This is why we should hope the decision this weekend did not mark the end of the peace process, but rather an opportunity for a next phase in which it is clear that a U.S. troop drawdown is contingent on the peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Related Publications

Aiding Afghan Local Governance: What Went Wrong?

Aiding Afghan Local Governance: What Went Wrong?

Thursday, November 18, 2021

By: Frances Z. Brown

After 20 years of an ambitious, costly international state-building effort, the government of Afghanistan collapsed in the summer of 2021 in a matter of weeks. The Afghan security forces’ remarkably rapid defeat earned significant attention, but the Taliban victory over the internationally backed Afghan republic stemmed equally from deep-seated political and governance factors. Across all the facets of the Western state-building endeavor in Afghanistan, there is now an enormous need to assess how the international project fell so far short of its aims.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Global PolicyDemocracy & Governance

Key to Afghan Relief Efforts: Financial Engineering for Private Sector, Economy

Key to Afghan Relief Efforts: Financial Engineering for Private Sector, Economy

Wednesday, November 17, 2021

By: William Byrd, Ph.D.

The U.S. government needs to urgently prioritize saving Afghan lives, meeting basic human needs and stemming the free-fall of the Afghan economy. The unprecedented evacuation of some 100,000 people from Kabul airport in August demonstrated what clear objectives and a whole-hearted, government-wide focus can accomplish under the worst of conditions. While that scale of mobilization is not required now, a similar unity of effort and focus, this time on financial engineering, will be needed to deliver aid to the Afghan people and limit further economic damage in coming months.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Economics & Environment

Winter is coming in Afghanistan. Are the Taliban ready?

Winter is coming in Afghanistan. Are the Taliban ready?

Thursday, November 11, 2021

By: Adam Gallagher

Nearly three months after the Taliban’s rapid takeover, Afghanistan is descending toward one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises with an economy in freefall. As the harsh winter season looms, aid agencies have warned that over half the country’s population — a staggering 22.8 million people — will face acute food insecurity, including 3.2 million children under five. Now in power, the Taliban’s failure to deliver basic services is exacerbating this dire humanitarian situation. But immediate relief is a distant prospect as the Taliban deliberate on how to govern the country and the international community mulls over how to engage and pressure the fledgling government.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Democracy & GovernanceHuman Rights

How China Responds to Instability on Its Periphery: Lessons from Afghanistan and Myanmar

How China Responds to Instability on Its Periphery: Lessons from Afghanistan and Myanmar

Monday, November 1, 2021

By: Alison McFarland;  Andrew Scobell, Ph.D.

China’s timid rhetoric and underwhelming actions vis-à-vis recent political upheaval in two different neighboring countries belie the image of a confident and assertive Beijing. What explains this apparent paradox? Despite the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s outward bravado, combined with unprecedented expansion of China’s regional and global activities and presence, Xi Jinping and his Politburo colleagues remain wary when it comes to taking risks abroad. Certainly, when China believes its interests are being directly attacked, such as in recent disputes with Australia and India, the state has opted for riskier, more aggressive moves. But where Beijing is not a direct party to the conflict, caution can override its willingness to take action that would show its hand or put China in a situation where it is not guaranteed to avoid a messy exit, à la the United States in Afghanistan.

Global PolicyConflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications