Imtiaz Gul
Have Afghan Taliban conceded permanent US Forces’ presence in the country?
Has the radical militia agreed to work in tandem with the American CIA, which they have condemned all these years?
The answer to both is yes, if a Time magazine exclusive story were true; it claims one of the secret annexes, contains an agreement on “long-term counterterrorism force (in Afghanistan) numbering 8,600 U.S. troops, down from the current 13,000.”
But, crucially, its leaders will not agree in public to the U.S. demand to keep counterterrorism forces in Afghanistan, says the Time exclusive story.
Another annex addresses how the CIA will operate in future in Taliban-controlled areas, the magazine says.
Two other annexes require Taliban to denounce terrorism and violent extremism, as well as agree to a monitoring mechanism to see if “all sides are honouring the semi-truce while talks between warring Afghan parties proceed.”
This reads like explosive stuff; the Taliban commitment for seven-day reduction in violent attacks on U.S. and Afghan troops is already underway. The U.S. will, in return, withdraw much its forces from the country according to an agreed timeline but will retain 8,600 troops spread over at least three bases.
If all the past stated positions by Moscow, Tehran, Beijing and Islamabad were any indicator, none of them favors permanent US presence in Afghanistan.
Top ranking civil and military officials of these countries have all through cautioned against “hasty total pull-out” but made it clear that permanent US military and CIA presence is undesirable, also evident in the following comments on February 12 by the Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova.
“The US leaders claim that they have been fighting terrorism in Afghanistan for over 18 years as well as building a democratic Afghan state. As we know, Washington has failed to achieve any of these goals…… The United States and its allies have exhausted the limits of their presence in Afghanistan. It is high time to withdraw the international military contingent from the country. The people of Afghanistan themselves should sit down at the negotiating table and determine the destiny of their own state because no one else can do this for them.”
Even the Taliban repeatedly reiterated not to accept a “single foreign soldier on our soil,” but now appear to have compromised their stated opposition to US forces.
Why would then either of the aforementioned countries agree to American “listening and observation posts” next door?
So, are we in for another intense geo-political context even if the US signs the hyped-up peace deal after efforts of over an yer?
And most importantly, who will negotiate with the Taliban – as the entire opposition continues to question the legitimacy of President Ashraf Ghani and are avers to him leading the talks with the Taliban.
Extremely intense and suspenseful days ahead after the apparent concession by Taliban to the US to retain its forces permanently in Afghanistan.
