By Abdulkader Sinno

The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict.

In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory.

How did we get to this point – and what will be the consequences of such an agreement?

How did we get here?

As a longtime scholar of Afghanistan’s wars and conflict dynamics, I suggest beginning with a bit of history.

The current conflict began when the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11.

It was on Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot to attack the US. The Taliban, the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan in the wake of a bloody civil war, had given bin Laden and his supporters'&nbsp;shelter.

Two months into the US invasion, Taliban state institutions and defensive positions crumbled and the United States formed new state institutions led by Afghans who had fought the Taliban. The US maintained a limited force to fight and capture Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders but otherwise invested little in the Afghan economy or society.

It took the Taliban four years to reconstitute itself as an effective force of insurgents to fight the US and the Afghan government, and they became stronger every year after 2004. As I explain in my research, the United States and the coalition of 42 countries it formed to defeat the resurgent Taliban was poorly organised, abusive and mismanaged.

Since 2001, the US-led coalition has spent $1 trillion dollars and committed a peak of 140,000 troops and 100,000 contractors to an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban. More than 5,000 American soldiers and contractors were killed.

Today, a US force of 14,000 troops and massive US Airforce assets are helping maintain the defensive positions of an Afghan government that is widely considered as one of the most corrupt in the world.

The Taliban are making territorial gains and killing hundreds of regime troops each month, and feel that they are on the cusp of victory.

Militias that recruit from the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek minorities have rearmed in anticipation of the collapse of the regime in Kabul and fear of a coming civil war with the mostly Pushtun Taliban. Afghanistan is nearing an endgame.

What it means for the Taliban

An agreement between the Taliban and the US would be an impressive accomplishment for the Taliban. From their perspective, it would be their reward for fighting the world’s strongest military power to a stalemate.

They already were rewarded by getting to negotiate directly with the United States, as they have always requested, instead of the Afghan regime which they despise. If the negotiations are successful, they would also be getting precisely what they asked for: an American withdrawal.

In return, they are making a commitment to do something they would likely have done anyway. Al-Qaida’s attack on the US caused the Taliban to lose control of Afghanistan for years. They are not likely to risk having to pay that cost again once they regain control of Kabul, even if they don’t sign an agreement.

What it means for the US 
 
There is little hope for an outright US victory over the Taliban at this point.

The remaining force of 14,000 US troops is mostly meant to shore up Afghan state defences. It is too small to reverse momentum on the battlefield. An agreement and withdrawal would, therefore, be attractive for those who value less military spending and stress on the military, including General John Nicholson, the previous commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

The agreement, however, could undermine US reputation in ways big and small. The Obama and Trump administrations never reversed a 2002 Bush executive order that added the Taliban to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but they have simultaneously pleaded with them to negotiate in spite of claims that Washington does not negotiate with terrorists.

It also signals US weakness and inability to fight a dedicated force of insurgents. Militants elsewhere, including Islamic State leaders, could find this lesson instructive. I believe such an agreement may well be remembered as a turning point in America’s ability to successfully project its military power around the Muslim world.

An agreement could also signal that the US is an unreliable ally that abandons those who side with it. The United States is involved in numerous conflicts worldwide in places as diverse as Syria and Somalia, and many of its local allies would logically recalculate their own commitments after witnessing a US disengagement from Afghanistan.

What happens to the state

As I describe in my book “Organisations at War in Afghanistan,” governments tend to unravel quickly in Afghanistan when foreign support, both military and financial, ceases.

This is precisely what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and stopped their support to the Najib regime in the early 1990s. As I report in greater detail in my book, different regime militias and military units either disintegrated, joined their erstwhile Mujahideen opponents or became independent militias.

Similarly, today’s Afghan state officials at all levels have long hedged their bets by maintaining ties with the Taliban, their nominal opponents and minority militias. If history is any indication, we can expect that entire agencies and units will either fragment or collectively join any of several strongman-led ethnic militias when the rewards of working for the regime stop outweighing the risks of facing the Taliban. Some may even defect to the Taliban. This is expected behaviour in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan, where everyone is expected to have a hedging strategy for survival.

Once the state gets pulled in all directions, Afghanistan will likely degenerate into a civil war very similar to the one that the United States interrupted when it invaded in late 2001. Other countries, including Russia, Iran and India will choose sides to back. I estimate that the Taliban, with their dedicated Pakistani and Arab Gulf backers, will win that conflict, just like they almost did in 2001. We may very well reach a point where we see the 17-year American occupation as merely a futile, bloody and costly interruption of the Afghan civil war.

I consider a US-Taliban agreement to be no more than a face-saving measure to conclude a failed and costly American military intervention. If there is a useful lesson to be learned from this misadventure, it is that leaders of even the world’s mightiest military power need to reconsider the merits of a militarised foreign policy in the Muslim world. US military interventions are stoking resentment and inflaming a perpetual transnational insurgency across Muslim countries. If it doesn’t change its course, the US may very well suffer more defeats such as the one in Afghanistan and will cause even more hurt and damage in other countries along the way.

(Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University)

(This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-will-come-after-a-us-withdrawal-from-afghanistan-111036">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Abdulkader Sinno The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict. In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory.

By Abdulkader Sinno The United States and the Taliban may be nearing an agreement to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan after more than 17 years of conflict. In return, the Taliban would commit to refusing access to anti-American organisations such as Al-Qaida on its territory. How did we get to this point – and what will be the consequences of such an agreement? How did we get here? As a longtime scholar of Afghanistan’s wars and conflict dynamics, I suggest beginning with a bit of history. The current conflict began when the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan a few weeks after 9/11. It was on Afghan soil that Osama bin Laden hatched the plot to attack the US. The Taliban, the de facto rulers of much of Afghanistan in the wake of a bloody civil war, had given bin Laden and his supporters' shelter. Two months into the US invasion, Taliban state institutions and defensive positions crumbled and the United States formed new state institutions led by Afghans who had fought the Taliban. The US maintained a limited force to fight and capture Al-Qaida and Taliban leaders but otherwise invested little in the Afghan economy or society. It took the Taliban four years to reconstitute itself as an effective force of insurgents to fight the US and the Afghan government, and they became stronger every year after 2004. As I explain in my research, the United States and the coalition of 42 countries it formed to defeat the resurgent Taliban was poorly organised, abusive and mismanaged. Since 2001, the US-led coalition has spent $1 trillion dollars and committed a peak of 140,000 troops and 100,000 contractors to an unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Taliban. More than 5,000 American soldiers and contractors were killed. Today, a US force of 14,000 troops and massive US Airforce assets are helping maintain the defensive positions of an Afghan government that is widely considered as one of the most corrupt in the world. The Taliban are making territorial gains and killing hundreds of regime troops each month, and feel that they are on the cusp of victory. Militias that recruit from the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek minorities have rearmed in anticipation of the collapse of the regime in Kabul and fear of a coming civil war with the mostly Pushtun Taliban. Afghanistan is nearing an endgame. What it means for the Taliban An agreement between the Taliban and the US would be an impressive accomplishment for the Taliban. From their perspective, it would be their reward for fighting the world’s strongest military power to a stalemate. They already were rewarded by getting to negotiate directly with the United States, as they have always requested, instead of the Afghan regime which they despise. If the negotiations are successful, they would also be getting precisely what they asked for: an American withdrawal. In return, they are making a commitment to do something they would likely have done anyway. Al-Qaida’s attack on the US caused the Taliban to lose control of Afghanistan for years. They are not likely to risk having to pay that cost again once they regain control of Kabul, even if they don’t sign an agreement. What it means for the US There is little hope for an outright US victory over the Taliban at this point. The remaining force of 14,000 US troops is mostly meant to shore up Afghan state defences. It is too small to reverse momentum on the battlefield. An agreement and withdrawal would, therefore, be attractive for those who value less military spending and stress on the military, including General John Nicholson, the previous commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The agreement, however, could undermine US reputation in ways big and small. The Obama and Trump administrations never reversed a 2002 Bush executive order that added the Taliban to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, but they have simultaneously pleaded with them to negotiate in spite of claims that Washington does not negotiate with terrorists. It also signals US weakness and inability to fight a dedicated force of insurgents. Militants elsewhere, including Islamic State leaders, could find this lesson instructive. I believe such an agreement may well be remembered as a turning point in America’s ability to successfully project its military power around the Muslim world. An agreement could also signal that the US is an unreliable ally that abandons those who side with it. The United States is involved in numerous conflicts worldwide in places as diverse as Syria and Somalia, and many of its local allies would logically recalculate their own commitments after witnessing a US disengagement from Afghanistan. What happens to the state As I describe in my book “Organisations at War in Afghanistan,” governments tend to unravel quickly in Afghanistan when foreign support, both military and financial, ceases. This is precisely what happened after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan and stopped their support to the Najib regime in the early 1990s. As I report in greater detail in my book, different regime militias and military units either disintegrated, joined their erstwhile Mujahideen opponents or became independent militias. Similarly, today’s Afghan state officials at all levels have long hedged their bets by maintaining ties with the Taliban, their nominal opponents and minority militias. If history is any indication, we can expect that entire agencies and units will either fragment or collectively join any of several strongman-led ethnic militias when the rewards of working for the regime stop outweighing the risks of facing the Taliban. Some may even defect to the Taliban. This is expected behaviour in dangerous environments such as Afghanistan, where everyone is expected to have a hedging strategy for survival. Once the state gets pulled in all directions, Afghanistan will likely degenerate into a civil war very similar to the one that the United States interrupted when it invaded in late 2001. Other countries, including Russia, Iran and India will choose sides to back. I estimate that the Taliban, with their dedicated Pakistani and Arab Gulf backers, will win that conflict, just like they almost did in 2001. We may very well reach a point where we see the 17-year American occupation as merely a futile, bloody and costly interruption of the Afghan civil war. I consider a US-Taliban agreement to be no more than a face-saving measure to conclude a failed and costly American military intervention. If there is a useful lesson to be learned from this misadventure, it is that leaders of even the world’s mightiest military power need to reconsider the merits of a militarised foreign policy in the Muslim world. US military interventions are stoking resentment and inflaming a perpetual transnational insurgency across Muslim countries. If it doesn’t change its course, the US may very well suffer more defeats such as the one in Afghanistan and will cause even more hurt and damage in other countries along the way. (Abdulkader Sinno is Associate Professor of Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies, Indiana University) (This article was originally published on the Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US-Taliban deal is a face-saving measure to conclude a failed American military intervention

Describing the ongoing talks with the Taliban in Doha as an "incredibly complicated" negotiation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hoped that there is sufficient progress in the deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to move it further.

The United States was trying to "find pockets" where there was "sufficient agreement" that everyone could begin to move forward, Pompeo told a farmers' gathering in Iowa on Monday, at a time when Special US Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and his team was holding talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital.

"I have a team on the ground right now trying to negotiate with the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, trying to find a way to achieve an Afghanistan that's not at war, that's not engaged in violence, that doesn't present a threat to the United States of America, that will respect the fundamental basic rights for every Afghan citizen -- women, children -- across the full spectrum," he said.

Pompeo was responding to a question from farmers after his address at the "Future Farmers of America" event in Iowa.

"That is a complicated problem, and if you add in the regional players -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, all who have an interest in Afghanistan -- it's an incredibly complicated negotiation," he asserted.

At the same time, he said Khalilzad, who was leading American efforts in this regard, was on the ground, trying to "find pockets where there's sufficient agreement that everyone can begin to move forward, take all the various complex pieces and bring them together" to hopefully get an agreement.

Pompeo said the Afghan agreement would be "based on fundamental understandings about different interests and incentives" that the parties had so that this agreement would hold and stay.

"In this case, if we could do this, if we could pull off a resolution in Afghanistan, boy, the good that we could do for the world. I hope Ambassador Khalilzad makes progress," he said.

"I am hoping he (Khalilzad) makes enough progress and I can travel there in a couple weeks and help move it along a little bit myself," Pompeo said.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Describing the ongoing talks with the Taliban in Doha as an "incredibly complicated" negotiation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hoped that there is sufficient progress in the deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to move it further.

Describing the ongoing talks with the Taliban in Doha as an "incredibly complicated" negotiation, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has hoped that there is sufficient progress in the deliberations for him to travel in the next couple of weeks to move it further. The United States was trying to "find pockets" where there was "sufficient agreement" that everyone could begin to move forward, Pompeo told a farmers' gathering in Iowa on Monday, at a time when Special US Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and his team was holding talks with the Taliban in Qatar's capital. "I have a team on the ground right now trying to negotiate with the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, trying to find a way to achieve an Afghanistan that's not at war, that's not engaged in violence, that doesn't present a threat to the United States of America, that will respect the fundamental basic rights for every Afghan citizen -- women, children -- across the full spectrum," he said. Pompeo was responding to a question from farmers after his address at the "Future Farmers of America" event in Iowa. "That is a complicated problem, and if you add in the regional players -- Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, all who have an interest in Afghanistan -- it's an incredibly complicated negotiation," he asserted. At the same time, he said Khalilzad, who was leading American efforts in this regard, was on the ground, trying to "find pockets where there's sufficient agreement that everyone can begin to move forward, take all the various complex pieces and bring them together" to hopefully get an agreement. Pompeo said the Afghan agreement would be "based on fundamental understandings about different interests and incentives" that the parties had so that this agreement would hold and stay. "In this case, if we could do this, if we could pull off a resolution in Afghanistan, boy, the good that we could do for the world. I hope Ambassador Khalilzad makes progress," he said. "I am hoping he (Khalilzad) makes enough progress and I can travel there in a couple weeks and help move it along a little bit myself," Pompeo said.

Talks with Taliban an incredibly complicated negotiation: US Secretary of State Pompeo

The top US envoy for peace in Afghanistan met a senior Taliban leader in Qatar on Monday as the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/the-work-begins-us-taliban-arrive-in-doha-for-fresh-talks-199668"> two sides resumed talks to end 17 years of war </a>despite the insurgents' continued refusal to deal with the Kabul government.

Zalmay Khalilzad, named last year to lead the US peace effort, met Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and the movement's political chief, for the first time in Doha. Talks were expected to run for at least four days.

"Just finished a working lunch with Mullah Baradar and his team. The first time we've met. Now moving on to talks," Khalilzad tweeted.

Even with peace talks under way, the war in Afghanistan killed almost 4,000 civilians in 2018, including a record number of children, making it the single deadliest year for Afghan civilians since the United Nations began documenting casualties a decade ago.

Baradar arrived in Doha on Sunday, but sources said it was not clear whether he would attend all the meetings, which diplomats in Kabul said were expected to focus on clinching a ceasefire before the onset of warmer spring weather prompts an escalation of fighting, as in previous years.

The last round of talks ended in Qatar in January.

Baradar, a veteran fighter and figure of considerable influence within the Taliban, was released from a Pakistani jail last year. His appointment was widely seen as a fresh effort by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows.

Last week the Taliban said that Baradar had named a 14-member team for the talks and would not go to Qatar, but his plans changed on Sunday.

'Confusion'

"There was much confusion whether Mullah Baradar should travel to Qatar or not. Some of our people wanted him to go there but avoid participation in the peace talks. Others wanted him to go and supervise the peace talks," said a senior Taliban leader in Afghanistan.

American negotiators, who have held multiple rounds of talks with Taliban leaders since last year, want Baradar to attend the talks to be able to resolve key sticking points: the timing of a ceasefire and the possible withdrawal of foreign forces.

"What was the point of Baradar's release if he wants to stay away from the talks?" said a senior diplomat in Kabul, adding that US negotiators had to provide assurances to lift a travel ban on some Taliban leaders to get Baradar to travel to Qatar.

Last week, the United States and Russia agreed to explore options to revoke a UN travel ban on Taliban negotiators, one of the key demands of the group.

Taliban officials have so far rejected the Afghan government's offer to hold direct talks but Kabul is planning to hold a grand council of tribal elders and political leaders next month to discuss how to end the Taliban insurgency.

Sohail Shahin, a Taliban spokesman, said US and Taliban officials are expected to focus on the details of a framework deal reached in principle last month - American troops would withdraw from Afghanistan in return for a Taliban guarantee that Afghan territory would never be used by militants.

"The ceasefire is one of the big issues that will be discussed at the last stage of this round of peace talks," said Shahin. "We are optimistic about the ongoing talks which can end with good progress...It is possible that the Taliban do not refresh or announce their spring offensive."

The top US envoy for peace in Afghanistan met a senior Taliban leader in Qatar on Monday as the two sides resumed talks to end 17 years of war despite the insurgents' continued refusal to deal with the Kabul government.

The top US envoy for peace in Afghanistan met a senior Taliban leader in Qatar on Monday as the two sides resumed talks to end 17 years of war despite the insurgents' continued refusal to deal with the Kabul government. Zalmay Khalilzad, named last year to lead the US peace effort, met Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, a co-founder of the Taliban and the movement's political chief, for the first time in Doha. Talks were expected to run for at least four days. "Just finished a working lunch with Mullah Baradar and his team. The first time we've met. Now moving on to talks," Khalilzad tweeted. Even with peace talks under way, the war in Afghanistan killed almost 4,000 civilians in 2018, including a record number of children, making it the single deadliest year for Afghan civilians since the United Nations began documenting casualties a decade ago. Baradar arrived in Doha on Sunday, but sources said it was not clear whether he would attend all the meetings, which diplomats in Kabul said were expected to focus on clinching a ceasefire before the onset of warmer spring weather prompts an escalation of fighting, as in previous years. The last round of talks ended in Qatar in January. Baradar, a veteran fighter and figure of considerable influence within the Taliban, was released from a Pakistani jail last year. His appointment was widely seen as a fresh effort by the Taliban to emerge from the political and diplomatic shadows. Last week the Taliban said that Baradar had named a 14-member team for the talks and would not go to Qatar, but his plans changed on Sunday. 'Confusion' "There was much confusion whether Mullah Baradar should travel to Qatar or not. Some of our people wanted him to go there but avoid participation in the peace talks. Others wanted him to go and supervise the peace talks," said a senior Taliban leader in Afghanistan. American negotiators, who have held multiple rounds of talks with Taliban leaders since last year, want Baradar to attend the talks to be able to resolve key sticking points: the timing of a ceasefire and the possible withdrawal of foreign forces. "What was the point of Baradar's release if he wants to stay away from the talks?" said a senior diplomat in Kabul, adding that US negotiators had to provide assurances to lift a travel ban on some Taliban leaders to get Baradar to travel to Qatar. Last week, the United States and Russia agreed to explore options to revoke a UN travel ban on Taliban negotiators, one of the key demands of the group. Taliban officials have so far rejected the Afghan government's offer to hold direct talks but Kabul is planning to hold a grand council of tribal elders and political leaders next month to discuss how to end the Taliban insurgency. Sohail Shahin, a Taliban spokesman, said US and Taliban officials are expected to focus on the details of a framework deal reached in principle last month - American troops would withdraw from Afghanistan in return for a Taliban guarantee that Afghan territory would never be used by militants. "The ceasefire is one of the big issues that will be discussed at the last stage of this round of peace talks," said Shahin. "We are optimistic about the ongoing talks which can end with good progress...It is possible that the Taliban do not refresh or announce their spring offensive."

US, Taliban resume Afghan peace talks before spring fighting season

The US and the Taliban are to meet in Qatar for fresh talks Monday seeking an end to 17 years of grinding conflict in Afghanistan, with the stakes ratcheting higher as the spring fighting season approaches.

Marathon talks held in Doha last month have stoked hopes of a breakthrough after the two sides walked away with a "draft framework" that included a Taliban commitment to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terror groups.

It was the most substantial engagement by Washington with the militants since US forces ousted them from power in 2001.&nbsp;

But there is still no accord on a timetable for a US withdrawal or a ceasefire -- both major issues on which previous efforts have foundered.&nbsp;

This time Washington's special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who has spearheaded the months-long effort, is expected to face an expanded Taliban negotiating team headed by Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the Taliban's former deputy minister of foreign affairs.

Neither side has stated how long they expect the meetings to last or the details of what will be discussed.

Analysts say this round will likely see the Taliban push for the removal of its leaders from a UN travel blacklist, matched with pressure from the US for the militants to open a dialogue with the Afghan government.

"Both sides are going into this process with open minds and a sense of urgency as the weather gets warmer and fighting season draws closer," Graeme Smith, a consultant based with International Crisis Group, told AFP.

The Taliban have steadfastly refused to negotiate with Kabul, whom they dismiss as "puppets". They have also stated that, without a withdrawal timetable, further progress is "impossible".&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump's apparent eagerness to end America's longest war, the Afghan government's fear of being sidelined, and the coming of spring all weigh on the process. &nbsp; &nbsp;

"Eyes are on the Taliban to see if they are capable of compromising," said analyst Michael Semple.

"Can they come up with a sufficient compromise to agree to a formula for an intra-Afghan dialogue that absolutely involves the current Afghan government?"

Khalilzad, he added, "has stirred up the peace process in a way that nobody over the previous two decades had".

Pakistan's influence waning?&nbsp;

The gathering momentum has spurred fresh peace demonstrations and cautious hope in Afghanistan.

But there is also growing unease, with fears, the government is being pushed aside and that progress which many Afghans have paid for with their lives could yet be undone if the US rushes for the exits.

According to fresh UN figures released Sunday, more civilians were killed in the Afghan war in 2018 than during any other year on record -- with 3,804 people killed and another 7,189 wounded.

Women's groups and civil society organisations have warned that a speedy withdrawal or lenient deal with the Taliban could pave the way for a return of their repressive rule, or an even bloodier civil war.

Many watched in astonishment earlier this month as Taliban militants shared meals and prayers with Afghan political leaders, including presidential contender Mohammad Atta Noor and former president Hamid Karzai, in Moscow.

But not one representative from the current administration of President Ashraf Ghani was present at the informal talks, deepening the sense of anxiety.

Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also playing a role in negotiations, as Russia and China watch closely, and many observers fear regional disputes could yet derail the process.

Pakistan, which has long wielded influence over the militants and been seen as key to any peace push, has already suggested that soaring tensions with its nuclear arch-rival India could disrupt the talks.&nbsp;

But Taliban expert Rahimullah Yusufzai said this time around Pakistan's stance may be more chest-thumping bravado than an actual threat.

He said that with the US and the Taliban talking to each other directly, "I think Pakistan's role will not be that important now."

'Challenging' climate

The talks have been buttressed by heavy snowfall across Afghanistan, sharply reducing fighting and providing much-needed space for negotiations.

But Yusufzai warned that another bloody fighting season will likely kick off once the snow melts, as the Taliban seeks to maintain its momentum on the battlefield to maximise pressure at the negotiating table. &nbsp;

"I think they have to keep up the momentum until a ceasefire," he said.

Others warned that more bloodshed might undercut the fragile gains the talks have achieved so far.

"It will be more challenging to pursue peace in the months that come if the Taliban... resort to a large-scale spring offensive," said Semple.

The US and the Taliban are to meet in Qatar for fresh talks Monday seeking an end to 17 years of grinding conflict in Afghanistan, with the stakes ratcheting higher as the spring fighting season approaches.

The US and the Taliban are to meet in Qatar for fresh talks Monday seeking an end to 17 years of grinding conflict in Afghanistan, with the stakes ratcheting higher as the spring fighting season approaches. Marathon talks held in Doha last month have stoked hopes of a breakthrough after the two sides walked away with a "draft framework" that included a Taliban commitment to prevent Afghanistan from once again becoming a safe haven for international terror groups. It was the most substantial engagement by Washington with the militants since US forces ousted them from power in 2001. But there is still no accord on a timetable for a US withdrawal or a ceasefire -- both major issues on which previous efforts have foundered. This time Washington's special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, who has spearheaded the months-long effort, is expected to face an expanded Taliban negotiating team headed by Sher Mohammad Abbas Stanikzai, the Taliban's former deputy minister of foreign affairs. Neither side has stated how long they expect the meetings to last or the details of what will be discussed. Analysts say this round will likely see the Taliban push for the removal of its leaders from a UN travel blacklist, matched with pressure from the US for the militants to open a dialogue with the Afghan government. "Both sides are going into this process with open minds and a sense of urgency as the weather gets warmer and fighting season draws closer," Graeme Smith, a consultant based with International Crisis Group, told AFP. The Taliban have steadfastly refused to negotiate with Kabul, whom they dismiss as "puppets". They have also stated that, without a withdrawal timetable, further progress is "impossible". US President Donald Trump's apparent eagerness to end America's longest war, the Afghan government's fear of being sidelined, and the coming of spring all weigh on the process. "Eyes are on the Taliban to see if they are capable of compromising," said analyst Michael Semple. "Can they come up with a sufficient compromise to agree to a formula for an intra-Afghan dialogue that absolutely involves the current Afghan government?" Khalilzad, he added, "has stirred up the peace process in a way that nobody over the previous two decades had". Pakistan's influence waning? The gathering momentum has spurred fresh peace demonstrations and cautious hope in Afghanistan. But there is also growing unease, with fears, the government is being pushed aside and that progress which many Afghans have paid for with their lives could yet be undone if the US rushes for the exits. According to fresh UN figures released Sunday, more civilians were killed in the Afghan war in 2018 than during any other year on record -- with 3,804 people killed and another 7,189 wounded. Women's groups and civil society organisations have warned that a speedy withdrawal or lenient deal with the Taliban could pave the way for a return of their repressive rule, or an even bloodier civil war. Many watched in astonishment earlier this month as Taliban militants shared meals and prayers with Afghan political leaders, including presidential contender Mohammad Atta Noor and former president Hamid Karzai, in Moscow. But not one representative from the current administration of President Ashraf Ghani was present at the informal talks, deepening the sense of anxiety. Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are also playing a role in negotiations, as Russia and China watch closely, and many observers fear regional disputes could yet derail the process. Pakistan, which has long wielded influence over the militants and been seen as key to any peace push, has already suggested that soaring tensions with its nuclear arch-rival India could disrupt the talks. But Taliban expert Rahimullah Yusufzai said this time around Pakistan's stance may be more chest-thumping bravado than an actual threat. He said that with the US and the Taliban talking to each other directly, "I think Pakistan's role will not be that important now." 'Challenging' climate The talks have been buttressed by heavy snowfall across Afghanistan, sharply reducing fighting and providing much-needed space for negotiations. But Yusufzai warned that another bloody fighting season will likely kick off once the snow melts, as the Taliban seeks to maintain its momentum on the battlefield to maximise pressure at the negotiating table. "I think they have to keep up the momentum until a ceasefire," he said. Others warned that more bloodshed might undercut the fragile gains the talks have achieved so far. "It will be more challenging to pursue peace in the months that come if the Taliban... resort to a large-scale spring offensive," said Semple.

Fear and hoping: Expectations surge ahead of new US-Taliban talks

<a href="http://cms.wionews.com/south-asia/saudi-crown-prince-salmans-pakistan-visit-delayed-by-a-day-197704">Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman</a> is likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives during his visit to Pakistan starting on Sunday, Pakistani government sources said, part of efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's 17-year-old civil war.

Pakistan has been playing an increasingly vital role in the Afghanistan peace talks, which have been gathering momentum in recent months amid a growing US desire to pull out its troops.

Along with other Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia has been part of the peace negotiations and is seen to have some sway over the Afghan Taliban militants due to Riyadh's historical ties with the hardline Islamist group and the kingdom's religious clout as the birthplace of Islam.

Two senior Pakistani officials said the crown prince was likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives in Islamabad, where the militants, fighting to restore strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan after their 2001 ouster, say they are due to meet US representatives and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.

"Though it is top secret so far, there are strong indications representatives of the Afghan Taliban will meet Prince Salman during their visit of Pakistan on February 18," one of the Pakistani officials in Islamabad said.

A senior Taliban leader in Qatar said no decision had been made on whether they would meet the crown prince.

"Actually meeting Prince Salman is not in the plan so far but we can discuss it when we are in Islamabad," said the Taliban representative.

Pakistan's Foreign Office and Saudi Arabia's government did not respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The crown prince is expected to stay to leave Pakistan on Monday after signing a raft of investment agreements in the energy sector for more than $10 billion.

But his trip, which Islamabad is treating as the biggest state visit in years, risks being overshadowed by escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following a militant attack on Indian security forces in the disputed Kashmir region.

New Delhi says Pakistan had a hand in the attack by a militant group which is based on Pakistani soil, something Islamabad denies.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives during his visit to Pakistan starting on Sunday, Pakistani government sources said, part of efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's 17-year-old civil war.

Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives during his visit to Pakistan starting on Sunday, Pakistani government sources said, part of efforts to broker an end to Afghanistan's 17-year-old civil war. Pakistan has been playing an increasingly vital role in the Afghanistan peace talks, which have been gathering momentum in recent months amid a growing US desire to pull out its troops. Along with other Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia has been part of the peace negotiations and is seen to have some sway over the Afghan Taliban militants due to Riyadh's historical ties with the hardline Islamist group and the kingdom's religious clout as the birthplace of Islam. Two senior Pakistani officials said the crown prince was likely to meet Afghan Taliban representatives in Islamabad, where the militants, fighting to restore strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan after their 2001 ouster, say they are due to meet US representatives and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. "Though it is top secret so far, there are strong indications representatives of the Afghan Taliban will meet Prince Salman during their visit of Pakistan on February 18," one of the Pakistani officials in Islamabad said. A senior Taliban leader in Qatar said no decision had been made on whether they would meet the crown prince. "Actually meeting Prince Salman is not in the plan so far but we can discuss it when we are in Islamabad," said the Taliban representative. Pakistan's Foreign Office and Saudi Arabia's government did not respond to a Reuters request for comment. The crown prince is expected to stay to leave Pakistan on Monday after signing a raft of investment agreements in the energy sector for more than $10 billion. But his trip, which Islamabad is treating as the biggest state visit in years, risks being overshadowed by escalating tensions between India and Pakistan following a militant attack on Indian security forces in the disputed Kashmir region. New Delhi says Pakistan had a hand in the attack by a militant group which is based on Pakistani soil, something Islamabad denies.

Afghan Taliban likely to meet Saudi crown prince in Pakistan: Report

The Afghan Taliban on Tuesday announced a 14-member team of negotiators to continue peace talks with the United States, consisting of some new faces including a jailed leader of the Haqqani Network.

In a statement, the Taliban said "talks with the American sides (will) continue" and given "the importance of the issue,” its chief Hibatullah Akhundzada asked his deputy Mullah Baradar to appoint a new team of negotiators.

Sher Muhammad Abbas Stanekzai, who was the head of Taliban's political office in Qatar and has overseen a series of meetings with the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, will continue leading the negotiations with American diplomats along with another 13 members.

Among the new appointees is Anas Haqqani, a son of Haqqani Network founder Jalaluddin Haqqani, who died years ago due to unknown illness although his death was reported only last year.

The senior Haqqani was believed to have masterminded some of the deadliest attacks targeting the US and Afghan security forces and their interests in the last 17 years of war.

The Haqqani Network has pledged allegiance to the Taliban and is known to be coordinating its militant activities with the group.

Anas, a lesser-known figure in the Network now headed by his older brother Sirajuddin, was arrested in 2014 and remains in prison.

He was accused of directing the militant group's propaganda on social media and playing a crucial role in strategic decision-making and fundraising.

The Taliban on Tuesday renewed its demand for Anas’ release to enable him to be part of the team for talks.

"Anas Haqqani has been appointed as a member of the negotiating team but is still in prison. As he was a student (when he was arrested) and did not do any activity to lead to his imprisonment, therefore he should be released to start his new role as a member of negotiating team," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told EFE.

The names of four former Guantanamo Bay inmates are also on the list.

Previously, a 10-member Taliban team was handling the negotiations with the US for ending the Afghan conflict.

The new team was formed a day after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/acting-pentagon-chief-makes-surprise-baghdad-visit-196952">Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan</a> made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan and denied that he had received orders from President Donald Trump to reduce its US military presence in the war-torn country.

The pull-out of foreign troops from Afghanistan is one of the Taliban's key demands in peace negotiations with US officials.

The two sides have held multiple rounds of talks in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar amid opposition by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government, which insists on having a central role in the peace talks.

The Taliban has refused to engage with the government in Kabul.

The Afghan Taliban on Tuesday announced a 14-member team of negotiators to continue peace talks with the United States, consisting of some new faces including a jailed leader of the Haqqani Network.

The Afghan Taliban on Tuesday announced a 14-member team of negotiators to continue peace talks with the United States, consisting of some new faces including a jailed leader of the Haqqani Network. In a statement, the Taliban said "talks with the American sides (will) continue" and given "the importance of the issue,” its chief Hibatullah Akhundzada asked his deputy Mullah Baradar to appoint a new team of negotiators. Sher Muhammad Abbas Stanekzai, who was the head of Taliban's political office in Qatar and has overseen a series of meetings with the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad, will continue leading the negotiations with American diplomats along with another 13 members. Among the new appointees is Anas Haqqani, a son of Haqqani Network founder Jalaluddin Haqqani, who died years ago due to unknown illness although his death was reported only last year. The senior Haqqani was believed to have masterminded some of the deadliest attacks targeting the US and Afghan security forces and their interests in the last 17 years of war. The Haqqani Network has pledged allegiance to the Taliban and is known to be coordinating its militant activities with the group. Anas, a lesser-known figure in the Network now headed by his older brother Sirajuddin, was arrested in 2014 and remains in prison. He was accused of directing the militant group's propaganda on social media and playing a crucial role in strategic decision-making and fundraising. The Taliban on Tuesday renewed its demand for Anas’ release to enable him to be part of the team for talks. "Anas Haqqani has been appointed as a member of the negotiating team but is still in prison. As he was a student (when he was arrested) and did not do any activity to lead to his imprisonment, therefore he should be released to start his new role as a member of negotiating team," Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told EFE. The names of four former Guantanamo Bay inmates are also on the list. Previously, a 10-member Taliban team was handling the negotiations with the US for ending the Afghan conflict. The new team was formed a day after Pentagon chief Patrick Shanahan made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan and denied that he had received orders from President Donald Trump to reduce its US military presence in the war-torn country. The pull-out of foreign troops from Afghanistan is one of the Taliban's key demands in peace negotiations with US officials. The two sides have held multiple rounds of talks in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar amid opposition by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani's government, which insists on having a central role in the peace talks. The Taliban has refused to engage with the government in Kabul.

Taliban name jailed Haqqani Network leader among team of peace negotiators

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Sunday offered the Taliban the possibility of opening an office in Afghanistan but the proposal was swiftly spurned by the group that is determined to keep his government out of accelerating peace talks.

Ghani has expressed alarm at the Taliban shutting his administration out of negotiations with the United States as well as <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-government-slams-russia-for-allowing-un-blacklisted-taliban-to-attend-moscow-talks-196206">recent Moscow talks</a> with Afghan opposition politicians, and repeated earlier offers to give the group a secure official address to aid any future diplomacy between the two sides.

"If the Taliban want an office, I will give it to them in Kabul, Nangarhar or Kandahar by tomorrow," Ghani said while visiting the province of Nangarhar, a hotbed of insurgent violence on the border with Pakistan.

"We will bring a lasting and honourable peace to the country," he said.

Nangarhar is a stronghold of the Taliban, the hardline Islamist movement that now controls or contests districts across nearly half the country, more than 17 years since they were toppled from power.

Taliban officials in Moscow last week stressed the importance of a formal office among a string of demands that included the removal of Western sanctions and travel bans on Taliban members, prisoner releases and an end to "propaganda" against the group.

Taliban spokesman Sohail Shahin later told Reuters that the focus was international recognition of their existing site in Doha, Qatar.

On Sunday he said Ghani was trying to harm the peace efforts with his latest offer.

"Our demand about having an official political office is clear, we want that our office in Doha is recognised by the international community and the United Nations," Shahin said.

"By this, Ghani is trying to change the topic and harm the on-going peace efforts."

Taliban negotiators are due to meet US&nbsp;peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad for another round of talks in Qatar on February 25.

The talks are expected to centre around a ceasefire to end America's longest war and the withdrawal of foreign troops.

Some 14,000 US&nbsp;troops are based in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US&nbsp;forces also carry out counter-terrorism operations.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Sunday offered the Taliban the possibility of opening an office in Afghanistan but the proposal was swiftly spurned by the group that is determined to keep his government out of accelerating peace talks.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on Sunday offered the Taliban the possibility of opening an office in Afghanistan but the proposal was swiftly spurned by the group that is determined to keep his government out of accelerating peace talks. Ghani has expressed alarm at the Taliban shutting his administration out of negotiations with the United States as well as recent Moscow talks with Afghan opposition politicians, and repeated earlier offers to give the group a secure official address to aid any future diplomacy between the two sides. "If the Taliban want an office, I will give it to them in Kabul, Nangarhar or Kandahar by tomorrow," Ghani said while visiting the province of Nangarhar, a hotbed of insurgent violence on the border with Pakistan. "We will bring a lasting and honourable peace to the country," he said. Nangarhar is a stronghold of the Taliban, the hardline Islamist movement that now controls or contests districts across nearly half the country, more than 17 years since they were toppled from power. Taliban officials in Moscow last week stressed the importance of a formal office among a string of demands that included the removal of Western sanctions and travel bans on Taliban members, prisoner releases and an end to "propaganda" against the group. Taliban spokesman Sohail Shahin later told Reuters that the focus was international recognition of their existing site in Doha, Qatar. On Sunday he said Ghani was trying to harm the peace efforts with his latest offer. "Our demand about having an official political office is clear, we want that our office in Doha is recognised by the international community and the United Nations," Shahin said. "By this, Ghani is trying to change the topic and harm the on-going peace efforts." Taliban negotiators are due to meet US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad for another round of talks in Qatar on February 25. The talks are expected to centre around a ceasefire to end America's longest war and the withdrawal of foreign troops. Some 14,000 US troops are based in Afghanistan as part of a US-led NATO mission to train, assist and advise Afghan forces. Some US forces also carry out counter-terrorism operations.

Afghan president Ghani offers Taliban local office, group desire Doha instead

By Michael Semple

When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days. Instead, the two sides talked for six days. By the end of the week, many Afghans hoped there might even be a ceasefire announcement.

Eventually, an exhausted Khalilzad flew to Kabul, to brief the Afghan government and political leaders that there was progress but no final deal. Members of the Taliban told researchers working with me that the negotiators were cautiously optimistic. They had concluded that a peace deal might actually be attainable.

But, in the following days, contradictory narratives circulated among the Taliban about what peace might look like, and the price they were prepared to pay for it. These narratives provided a timely reminder that preparing an armed movement to embrace an end to the violent conflict is an immense political challenge, for the leaders of that movement, for mediators and for the battlefield enemies.

A victory narrative

The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are predominantly millennials and many carry phones and post on Facebook. They took up the positive tone and celebrated the prospect that the war would end and peace would come. Theirs was an uncomplicated message, with no political caveats.&nbsp;

This was a remarkable development as, until now, Taliban popular discourse had typically portrayed “peace” as a foreign conspiracy to undermine the legitimate jihad.

As an indicator of the Taliban mood, on the day after Khalilzad’s departure, an audio of a tarana, or ballad, was widely circulated on WhatsApp. It articulates a narrative of victory, envisaging a Taliban army, in their signature white turbans, sweeping across the country.

Taliban veterans described to me a gulf in perceptions, with uninformed juniors thinking the war is about to end, while senior figures know that there is no deal.

According to the Taliban victory narrative, by agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban, the Americans have accepted that they have been defeated in Afghanistan and just want to extricate their troops safely. Because the Afghan government in Kabul is entirely dependent on external support, the Taliban can easily topple it. Hardliners push this victory narrative to argue they don’t even need any further negotiations, as the Americans are bound to leave anyway.

Meanwhile, in their official internal briefings to the fighters, circulated as audio messages over WhatsApp that I have heard, Taliban spokesmen maintained a calculated ambiguity, compatible with both the victory narrative and that of a negotiated peace. The spokesmen confirmed in these messages that the Taliban delegation had discussed withdrawal of foreign troops, which is the main Taliban demand. But they denied reports that there had been any agreement on a ceasefire or to include the Afghan government in talks, both of which contradict the victory narrative. And they confirmed that talks would resume after consultation with the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, based in Pakistan.

How to compromise

The dilemma underlying these contrasting Taliban narratives concerns the legitimacy and necessity of compromise at the end of a war. The potential peace deal taking shape in Afghanistan would involve a ceasefire, a negotiation about the future of governance among the Afghan parties and an incremental withdrawal of US troops.

For the Taliban, even this simple framework represents a compromise. Until now, they have pledged to fight until the last foreign troops leave, refused to negotiate with the Afghan government and ruled out any power-sharing arrangement.

After the Doha round of talks in January, the Taliban negotiators seem ready to contemplate some degree of compromise, but have had to refer to the leadership – whose decision-making is deliberately opaque. My ongoing research into Taliban political culture indicates that the leadership has assembled a long list of arguments against the very notion of a negotiated settlement.

They feel compromise is unnecessary because the US will inevitably withdraw its troops before the 2020 US election, with or without a deal. The Taliban leadership is also concerned that hint of a compromise would undermine the jihadi spirit which motivates their troops. A compromise could split the movement or make it impossible to resume the conflict if a deal fell apart. They also fear appearing to betray the blood of the martyrs sacrificed in the hope of total victory.

The Taliban has championed the idea of an emirate as a political system vesting all power and authority with their supreme leader. Power-sharing would amount to a renunciation of this idea of emirate. Less spoken about, but historically a key consideration for the Taliban leadership, is the issue of jihadi solidarity. Any deal would mean renunciation of the al-Qaeda relationship. Almost two decades ago, the then Taliban emir, Mullah Omar, refused to give up Osama bin Laden to the Americans. Breaking solidarity with al-Qaeda and fellow mujahideen would still be a bitter pill for a Taliban leader.

Different pressures

The leadership’s final argument is one around pressure. The Taliban embraced talks because they felt under political pressure from Pakistan and countries in the region to sit down. The leadership may calculate that, by showing up for talks, they have done enough to mitigate that pressure and that blaming the US for the lack of a deal may be an acceptable outcome.

Whether there is now any real progress towards peace depends, in large part, on how these arguments are resolved within the Taliban movement. That the leadership has acknowledged that its representatives are engaged in serious talks is a significant step forward. But the leadership itself has not yet embraced compromise, nor has it taken any steps to prepare the movement for a settlement short of total victory.

The default position for the Taliban leadership would be to let talks drag on for a while and then double down on the strategy of jihad until victory by launching a spring offensive. However, what has changed since Khalilzad launched his peace initiative in October 2018 is that more Taliban have come to contemplate an end to the war and even some senior figures have concluded that this can only be achieved by compromise.

Afghanistan is still probably a long way away from a peace deal. But the shift in Taliban calculus is a helpful foundation for the next stage of peacemaking. 
&nbsp; 
(Michael Semple is Visiting Research Professor, Queen's University Belfast)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/afghanistan-the-tensions-inside-the-taliban-over-recent-us-peace-talks-110734">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

 
&nbsp;

By Michael Semple When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days.

By Michael Semple When members of the Taliban’s Political Commission in Doha sat down with US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad on January 21, talks were expected to last only a couple of days. Instead, the two sides talked for six days. By the end of the week, many Afghans hoped there might even be a ceasefire announcement. Eventually, an exhausted Khalilzad flew to Kabul, to brief the Afghan government and political leaders that there was progress but no final deal. Members of the Taliban told researchers working with me that the negotiators were cautiously optimistic. They had concluded that a peace deal might actually be attainable. But, in the following days, contradictory narratives circulated among the Taliban about what peace might look like, and the price they were prepared to pay for it. These narratives provided a timely reminder that preparing an armed movement to embrace an end to the violent conflict is an immense political challenge, for the leaders of that movement, for mediators and for the battlefield enemies. A victory narrative The Taliban fighters in Afghanistan are predominantly millennials and many carry phones and post on Facebook. They took up the positive tone and celebrated the prospect that the war would end and peace would come. Theirs was an uncomplicated message, with no political caveats. This was a remarkable development as, until now, Taliban popular discourse had typically portrayed “peace” as a foreign conspiracy to undermine the legitimate jihad. As an indicator of the Taliban mood, on the day after Khalilzad’s departure, an audio of a tarana, or ballad, was widely circulated on WhatsApp. It articulates a narrative of victory, envisaging a Taliban army, in their signature white turbans, sweeping across the country. Taliban veterans described to me a gulf in perceptions, with uninformed juniors thinking the war is about to end, while senior figures know that there is no deal. According to the Taliban victory narrative, by agreeing to negotiate with the Taliban, the Americans have accepted that they have been defeated in Afghanistan and just want to extricate their troops safely. Because the Afghan government in Kabul is entirely dependent on external support, the Taliban can easily topple it. Hardliners push this victory narrative to argue they don’t even need any further negotiations, as the Americans are bound to leave anyway. Meanwhile, in their official internal briefings to the fighters, circulated as audio messages over WhatsApp that I have heard, Taliban spokesmen maintained a calculated ambiguity, compatible with both the victory narrative and that of a negotiated peace. The spokesmen confirmed in these messages that the Taliban delegation had discussed withdrawal of foreign troops, which is the main Taliban demand. But they denied reports that there had been any agreement on a ceasefire or to include the Afghan government in talks, both of which contradict the victory narrative. And they confirmed that talks would resume after consultation with the Afghan Taliban’s leadership, based in Pakistan. How to compromise The dilemma underlying these contrasting Taliban narratives concerns the legitimacy and necessity of compromise at the end of a war. The potential peace deal taking shape in Afghanistan would involve a ceasefire, a negotiation about the future of governance among the Afghan parties and an incremental withdrawal of US troops. For the Taliban, even this simple framework represents a compromise. Until now, they have pledged to fight until the last foreign troops leave, refused to negotiate with the Afghan government and ruled out any power-sharing arrangement. After the Doha round of talks in January, the Taliban negotiators seem ready to contemplate some degree of compromise, but have had to refer to the leadership – whose decision-making is deliberately opaque. My ongoing research into Taliban political culture indicates that the leadership has assembled a long list of arguments against the very notion of a negotiated settlement. They feel compromise is unnecessary because the US will inevitably withdraw its troops before the 2020 US election, with or without a deal. The Taliban leadership is also concerned that hint of a compromise would undermine the jihadi spirit which motivates their troops. A compromise could split the movement or make it impossible to resume the conflict if a deal fell apart. They also fear appearing to betray the blood of the martyrs sacrificed in the hope of total victory. The Taliban has championed the idea of an emirate as a political system vesting all power and authority with their supreme leader. Power-sharing would amount to a renunciation of this idea of emirate. Less spoken about, but historically a key consideration for the Taliban leadership, is the issue of jihadi solidarity. Any deal would mean renunciation of the al-Qaeda relationship. Almost two decades ago, the then Taliban emir, Mullah Omar, refused to give up Osama bin Laden to the Americans. Breaking solidarity with al-Qaeda and fellow mujahideen would still be a bitter pill for a Taliban leader. Different pressures The leadership’s final argument is one around pressure. The Taliban embraced talks because they felt under political pressure from Pakistan and countries in the region to sit down. The leadership may calculate that, by showing up for talks, they have done enough to mitigate that pressure and that blaming the US for the lack of a deal may be an acceptable outcome. Whether there is now any real progress towards peace depends, in large part, on how these arguments are resolved within the Taliban movement. That the leadership has acknowledged that its representatives are engaged in serious talks is a significant step forward. But the leadership itself has not yet embraced compromise, nor has it taken any steps to prepare the movement for a settlement short of total victory. The default position for the Taliban leadership would be to let talks drag on for a while and then double down on the strategy of jihad until victory by launching a spring offensive. However, what has changed since Khalilzad launched his peace initiative in October 2018 is that more Taliban have come to contemplate an end to the war and even some senior figures have concluded that this can only be achieved by compromise. Afghanistan is still probably a long way away from a peace deal. But the shift in Taliban calculus is a helpful foundation for the next stage of peacemaking. (Michael Semple is Visiting Research Professor, Queen's University Belfast) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US peace talks: The tensions within Taliban

In the last few years the term ‘last helicopter’ has been synonymous with US withdrawal of its remaining rump military and civil elements from any expeditionary deployment abroad.

It originated with the final stages of the US pullout from Saigon, reportedly from atop the US embassy building by helicopter, at the end of the Vietnam War.

That is why when reports poured in last week of a possible US-Taliban deal over a full US pullout from Afghanistan, the first thoughts reflected on the potential of the last helicopter flying away from Kabul and ending the 17-year US involvement in that country.

The question is whether such an eventuality is anywhere near fructification.

The US, Taliban, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan (the last three being the only ones, which recognised the once existent Taliban government) have over the last few months been negotiating a possible deal, which will allow a full US pullout from its involvement in Afghanistan.

“Meetings here were more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues,” Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, tweeted after six days of talks with the Taliban in Qatar in which Saudi Arabia and UAE were not present. Presence of some Pakistani representation remains unconfirmed.

The Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) led by President Ashraf Ghani is marked by its absence at the supposed conflict termination talks, primarily because of Taliban objections. It is too early to make any big deductions from the leaked and stated results, which appear at best tentative.

But the fact that some progress has been made in the six days of negotiations at Qatar is obvious because, at the end of it, Zalmay Khalilzad headed to Kabul for discussions with President Ashraf Ghani.

There are several issues that remain sticking points. It starts with the absence of the NUG itself, as the Taliban refuses to talk with its representatives, possibly out of fear of revealing weaknesses and legitimising an entity it opposes tooth and nail.

Ashraf Ghani has made genuine and sincere efforts to be a part of the negotiations. The Taliban also knows that the NUG’s absence will force the US to remain uncertain.

The Taliban is deeply suspicious of US intent. As a non-state entity, it is difficult to negotiate with, as it is not bound by conventions and rules; there can be no certainty that the Taliban will honour an accord in total.

The presence of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE is the guarantee that the US seeks for implementation of a negotiated settlement.

It appears that the two sides may have agreed to a framework deal, which may then lead to a more committed intra-Afghan dialogue. The relative seriousness of the Taliban commitment to talks is reflected by the presence of Baradar Akhund, now considered as the virtual deputy in the Taliban hierarchy.

What probably will hold back the talks from progressing to a breakthrough level is the Taliban strategy of continuing to fight while negotiating. The US, hamstrung by a 17-year-old costly war, is unable to urge the Taliban to enter a ceasefire before talks.

It does remind one of a similar situation existing in the Indo-Pak environment, where the Indian government has steadfastly refused to talk with Pakistan that backs proxy terror against it.

The Taliban possibly appreciates that the greater its domination of the security environment, the more it can squeeze from the US. In fact, there could be expectations of a renewed annual spring offensive in 2019, which usually results in a large number of casualties to the Afghan security forces that have been on an average losing 7,000-8,000 men annually in the last few years.

Conceptually, US strategy has harped on operations being fought and led by Afghans themselves, but it has consistently refused to adequately arm them with weapons considered appropriate to stem the Taliban’s frequent offensives.

A full US withdrawal without adequate safeguards of a better armed and equipped Afghan security forces, is the surest opening to civil war with only one anticipated end.

The other issue on which the talks would be focused on is the duration for a complete withdrawal. A progressive drawdown will give President Donald Trump the political leverage he seeks and yet continue the support to the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the NUG.

The US can make a quick exit without an agreement and leave behind a mess, which will only aid in advancing the interests of organisations such as ISIS that remains perched somewhere observing the situation and ready to exploit the slightest opportunity. It could then be a repeat of the conflict termination witnessed in Iraq with resultant chaos and emergence of the ISIS.

Daniel Coats, US Director of National Intelligence, has expressed his apprehensions about the situation in South Asia due to the upcoming Indian and Afghanistan elections and in particular, has reflected on the relative insecurity of nuclear resources within Pakistan.

The duration till May 2019 and a little beyond is being considered by the international community as a period of uncertainty.

With the state of Pakistan’s economy and its reluctance to rein in all extremist elements, the underlying message in Coats’reflections also points to the possibility of turbulence within Pakistan.

This, in the light of intended US withdrawal, is likely to be viewed as advantage Taliban.

India finds itself out of the mainstream parleys and Pakistan has thrived in driving uncertainty by first calling for Indian involvement (recall Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmud Qureshi’s earlier statement about the need for India to be a part of the negotiations) and then working against the same.

In the light of this, should India open some form of engagement with the Taliban to develop options for a post-US Afghanistan? Prudence does point towards following such a course, but given the current strong position the Taliban finds itself in, it is uncertain whether it will wish to upset the cards, all of which seems to be falling in its favour.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-last-copter-from-afghanistan-2715735">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

In the last few years the term ‘last helicopter’ has been synonymous with US withdrawal of its remaining rump military and civil elements from any expeditionary deployment abroad.

In the last few years the term ‘last helicopter’ has been synonymous with US withdrawal of its remaining rump military and civil elements from any expeditionary deployment abroad. It originated with the final stages of the US pullout from Saigon, reportedly from atop the US embassy building by helicopter, at the end of the Vietnam War. That is why when reports poured in last week of a possible US-Taliban deal over a full US pullout from Afghanistan, the first thoughts reflected on the potential of the last helicopter flying away from Kabul and ending the 17-year US involvement in that country. The question is whether such an eventuality is anywhere near fructification. The US, Taliban, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan (the last three being the only ones, which recognised the once existent Taliban government) have over the last few months been negotiating a possible deal, which will allow a full US pullout from its involvement in Afghanistan. “Meetings here were more productive than they have been in the past. We made significant progress on vital issues,” Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special representative for Afghan reconciliation, tweeted after six days of talks with the Taliban in Qatar in which Saudi Arabia and UAE were not present. Presence of some Pakistani representation remains unconfirmed. The Afghan National Unity Government (NUG) led by President Ashraf Ghani is marked by its absence at the supposed conflict termination talks, primarily because of Taliban objections. It is too early to make any big deductions from the leaked and stated results, which appear at best tentative. But the fact that some progress has been made in the six days of negotiations at Qatar is obvious because, at the end of it, Zalmay Khalilzad headed to Kabul for discussions with President Ashraf Ghani. There are several issues that remain sticking points. It starts with the absence of the NUG itself, as the Taliban refuses to talk with its representatives, possibly out of fear of revealing weaknesses and legitimising an entity it opposes tooth and nail. Ashraf Ghani has made genuine and sincere efforts to be a part of the negotiations. The Taliban also knows that the NUG’s absence will force the US to remain uncertain. The Taliban is deeply suspicious of US intent. As a non-state entity, it is difficult to negotiate with, as it is not bound by conventions and rules; there can be no certainty that the Taliban will honour an accord in total. The presence of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE is the guarantee that the US seeks for implementation of a negotiated settlement. It appears that the two sides may have agreed to a framework deal, which may then lead to a more committed intra-Afghan dialogue. The relative seriousness of the Taliban commitment to talks is reflected by the presence of Baradar Akhund, now considered as the virtual deputy in the Taliban hierarchy. What probably will hold back the talks from progressing to a breakthrough level is the Taliban strategy of continuing to fight while negotiating. The US, hamstrung by a 17-year-old costly war, is unable to urge the Taliban to enter a ceasefire before talks. It does remind one of a similar situation existing in the Indo-Pak environment, where the Indian government has steadfastly refused to talk with Pakistan that backs proxy terror against it. The Taliban possibly appreciates that the greater its domination of the security environment, the more it can squeeze from the US. In fact, there could be expectations of a renewed annual spring offensive in 2019, which usually results in a large number of casualties to the Afghan security forces that have been on an average losing 7,000-8,000 men annually in the last few years. Conceptually, US strategy has harped on operations being fought and led by Afghans themselves, but it has consistently refused to adequately arm them with weapons considered appropriate to stem the Taliban’s frequent offensives. A full US withdrawal without adequate safeguards of a better armed and equipped Afghan security forces, is the surest opening to civil war with only one anticipated end. The other issue on which the talks would be focused on is the duration for a complete withdrawal. A progressive drawdown will give President Donald Trump the political leverage he seeks and yet continue the support to the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the NUG. The US can make a quick exit without an agreement and leave behind a mess, which will only aid in advancing the interests of organisations such as ISIS that remains perched somewhere observing the situation and ready to exploit the slightest opportunity. It could then be a repeat of the conflict termination witnessed in Iraq with resultant chaos and emergence of the ISIS. Daniel Coats, US Director of National Intelligence, has expressed his apprehensions about the situation in South Asia due to the upcoming Indian and Afghanistan elections and in particular, has reflected on the relative insecurity of nuclear resources within Pakistan. The duration till May 2019 and a little beyond is being considered by the international community as a period of uncertainty. With the state of Pakistan’s economy and its reluctance to rein in all extremist elements, the underlying message in Coats’reflections also points to the possibility of turbulence within Pakistan. This, in the light of intended US withdrawal, is likely to be viewed as advantage Taliban. India finds itself out of the mainstream parleys and Pakistan has thrived in driving uncertainty by first calling for Indian involvement (recall Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mahmud Qureshi’s earlier statement about the need for India to be a part of the negotiations) and then working against the same. In the light of this, should India open some form of engagement with the Taliban to develop options for a post-US Afghanistan? Prudence does point towards following such a course, but given the current strong position the Taliban finds itself in, it is uncertain whether it will wish to upset the cards, all of which seems to be falling in its favour. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Last copter from Afghanistan: Taliban chooses to continue fighting while negotiating with the US

According to the reports, the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban negotiator Maulana Abdul Ghani Baradar negotiated a deal in Doha for the withdrawal of foreign troops from war-ravaged Afghanistan within 18 months.&nbsp;

This week, the US Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, warned about the possibility of an increase in the attacks by Taliban, Daesh/IS, TTP, and Al-Qaeda on the Afghan state and foreign forces.

At this moment, nobody is certain about the future of political uncertainty and peace process in Afghanistan. However, it seems that US President Donald Trump is quite right in his analysis of the Af-Pak policy. The US has given more than $33.4 billion to Pakistani army for the war on terror in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

On the contrary, the Pakistani army facilitated the safe passage of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora mountains, Afghanistan to a residential army colony in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

In order to take leverage of the strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Pakistani army formally established diplomatic relations with the Taliban and helped Saudi Arabia and UAE to tie formal diplomatic relations with the Taliban.&nbsp;

Pakistani army did not hesitate to invite China against the US strategic interests in this region too. &nbsp;

Afghanistan has been always considered geopolitical chessboard, where the US, Afghan state, Taliban, the Pakistani army, and regional powers like Iran, India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE are involved. In post-9/11 scenarios, despite several rounds of Afghan general elections, neither the roots of robust democracy took place nor did the Afghan national army and Afghan national police succeeded in taking back Taliban-controlled areas.

With the active support from Pakistani army, the Taliban not just survived over the years but also attacked the foreign forces and Afghan army bases in the last 17 years. According to Afghanistan deputy defence minister Hilaluddin Helal, there are currently 21 terrorist organisation with the strength of around 50200 militants, where Taliban is the biggest with 38000 militants. However, Daesh/IS has more than 2000 militants, which includes 70 per cent Pakistani, 6 per cent Uzbekistani, 4 per cent Chechens and 3 per cent Arabs.&nbsp;

Indeed, the Pakistani army is over joyous in the aftermath of the withdrawal of foreign forces and increased legitimacy of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it would be highly premature to celebrate their political mileage at this moment because Afghan state, Afghan national army and Afghan police forces are still in place with the support of the US and regional players (Iran, India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE) in the peacebuilding efforts and infrastructure development process in Afghanistan. &nbsp;

The history tells us that the Pakistani army relationship with Taliban has been full of ups and down. Some of the major incidents include the Taliban refusal to protect the Bamiyan Buddha and furthermore, it never agreed to recognise the Durand line between Afghanistan and North-West Frontier Pakistan - &nbsp;a colonial legacy indeed. The Taliban opened a political office in Doha, participated in a conference in Moscow, and above all is cultivating relationships with regional powers including Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia, China and the US. &nbsp;

In the long run, the Afghan economy will rely on the foreign aid and official developmental assistance by the regional powers. In order to boost bilateral trade with Afghanistan, many regional countries started air cargo transportation, while the Chabahar port will facilitate alternative trade routes to Afghanistan.

Consequently, the bilateral trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan has reached the lowest level in the last 17 years. Pakistan’s external financing has significantly dropped by over 60 per cent in the shape of loans and grants from July, 2018 to December, 2018, under the leadership of prime minister Imran Khan.&nbsp;

According to the UK-based advisory service Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the real GDP growth to average 2.9 per cent per year from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The economic success story of Bangladesh proves that the root of Pakistani macroeconomic problems is not economic, but predominantly Pakistani army’s obsession with strategic and military adventurism under which terrorism is an instrument to exploit the so-called strategic depth in the Afghan theatre.&nbsp;

In short, harbouring and sponsoring terrorist groups has always been a policy of the successive selected governments under the diktat of Pakistan army.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The Pakistani army has been a common source of concern for both Afghanistan and India. In order to understand its dominance in the Pakistani political system, one needs to remember that the Pakistani army has ruled for more than 33 years out of 70 years. Pakistani defence allocation in general budget constitutes over 34 per cent without any audit and scrutiny.&nbsp;

Indeed, the Pakistani army is more a&nbsp;problem rather than the solution. Therefore, Indian interests in Afghanistan are two-fold, directed towards Afghan led-peace process on the one hand, while reducing the abilities of the Pakistani army to operate cross-border terrorism on the other.

Indeed, regional powers have a common concern with regards to Daesh/IS, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), and Taliban. In the growing face of any one of these terrorist groups in the Afghan, the theatre would bring a whole new level of action and reactions. On these backdrops, one needs to ask these critical questions: How to build an inclusive, pluralistic Afghan state, whose future hinges on democracy, economic development and human rights? Can Taliban and Afghan state devise a mechanism to work together? In the absence of foreign forces, how effective the Pakistani army would be in Afghan state affairs? &nbsp;

India’s Afghanistan policy is oriented towards Afghan-led, Afghan-controlled, Afghan-owned peace process, which in reality will be a true representative of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Since 2002, India has given over $3 billion foreign aid to Afghanistan.&nbsp;

In order to strengthen the Afghan army, India has promised to give four Mi-25 attack helicopters before July, 2019. India has built roads, schools. Dams (Salma dam and proposed Shahtoot dam), and even Afghan parliament. Indian developmental assistance can be summarised in five categories - infrastructure development, economic development, humanitarian assistance, connectivity and capacity building projects.&nbsp;

In conclusion, perhaps the best possible Indian approach to the Afghan crisis lies in the combination of both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. India-Central Asia-Afghan trilateral meet and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) can be very effective platforms to strengthen the Afghan state. &nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

According to the reports, the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban negotiator Maulana Abdul Ghani Baradar negotiated a deal in Doha for the withdrawal of foreign troops from war-ravaged Afghanistan within 18 months.

According to the reports, the US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and Taliban negotiator Maulana Abdul Ghani Baradar negotiated a deal in Doha for the withdrawal of foreign troops from war-ravaged Afghanistan within 18 months. This week, the US Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, warned about the possibility of an increase in the attacks by Taliban, Daesh/IS, TTP, and Al-Qaeda on the Afghan state and foreign forces. At this moment, nobody is certain about the future of political uncertainty and peace process in Afghanistan. However, it seems that US President Donald Trump is quite right in his analysis of the Af-Pak policy. The US has given more than $33.4 billion to Pakistani army for the war on terror in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the Pakistani army facilitated the safe passage of Osama bin Laden from Tora Bora mountains, Afghanistan to a residential army colony in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In order to take leverage of the strategic depth in Afghanistan, the Pakistani army formally established diplomatic relations with the Taliban and helped Saudi Arabia and UAE to tie formal diplomatic relations with the Taliban. Pakistani army did not hesitate to invite China against the US strategic interests in this region too. Afghanistan has been always considered geopolitical chessboard, where the US, Afghan state, Taliban, the Pakistani army, and regional powers like Iran, India, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, UAE are involved. In post-9/11 scenarios, despite several rounds of Afghan general elections, neither the roots of robust democracy took place nor did the Afghan national army and Afghan national police succeeded in taking back Taliban-controlled areas. With the active support from Pakistani army, the Taliban not just survived over the years but also attacked the foreign forces and Afghan army bases in the last 17 years. According to Afghanistan deputy defence minister Hilaluddin Helal, there are currently 21 terrorist organisation with the strength of around 50200 militants, where Taliban is the biggest with 38000 militants. However, Daesh/IS has more than 2000 militants, which includes 70 per cent Pakistani, 6 per cent Uzbekistani, 4 per cent Chechens and 3 per cent Arabs. Indeed, the Pakistani army is over joyous in the aftermath of the withdrawal of foreign forces and increased legitimacy of the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it would be highly premature to celebrate their political mileage at this moment because Afghan state, Afghan national army and Afghan police forces are still in place with the support of the US and regional players (Iran, India, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE) in the peacebuilding efforts and infrastructure development process in Afghanistan. The history tells us that the Pakistani army relationship with Taliban has been full of ups and down. Some of the major incidents include the Taliban refusal to protect the Bamiyan Buddha and furthermore, it never agreed to recognise the Durand line between Afghanistan and North-West Frontier Pakistan - a colonial legacy indeed. The Taliban opened a political office in Doha, participated in a conference in Moscow, and above all is cultivating relationships with regional powers including Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia, China and the US. In the long run, the Afghan economy will rely on the foreign aid and official developmental assistance by the regional powers. In order to boost bilateral trade with Afghanistan, many regional countries started air cargo transportation, while the Chabahar port will facilitate alternative trade routes to Afghanistan. Consequently, the bilateral trade between Afghanistan and Pakistan has reached the lowest level in the last 17 years. Pakistan’s external financing has significantly dropped by over 60 per cent in the shape of loans and grants from July, 2018 to December, 2018, under the leadership of prime minister Imran Khan. According to the UK-based advisory service Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the real GDP growth to average 2.9 per cent per year from 2018-19 to 2022-23. The economic success story of Bangladesh proves that the root of Pakistani macroeconomic problems is not economic, but predominantly Pakistani army’s obsession with strategic and military adventurism under which terrorism is an instrument to exploit the so-called strategic depth in the Afghan theatre. In short, harbouring and sponsoring terrorist groups has always been a policy of the successive selected governments under the diktat of Pakistan army. The Pakistani army has been a common source of concern for both Afghanistan and India. In order to understand its dominance in the Pakistani political system, one needs to remember that the Pakistani army has ruled for more than 33 years out of 70 years. Pakistani defence allocation in general budget constitutes over 34 per cent without any audit and scrutiny. Indeed, the Pakistani army is more a problem rather than the solution. Therefore, Indian interests in Afghanistan are two-fold, directed towards Afghan led-peace process on the one hand, while reducing the abilities of the Pakistani army to operate cross-border terrorism on the other. Indeed, regional powers have a common concern with regards to Daesh/IS, Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Al-Qaeda, East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), and Taliban. In the growing face of any one of these terrorist groups in the Afghan, the theatre would bring a whole new level of action and reactions. On these backdrops, one needs to ask these critical questions: How to build an inclusive, pluralistic Afghan state, whose future hinges on democracy, economic development and human rights? Can Taliban and Afghan state devise a mechanism to work together? In the absence of foreign forces, how effective the Pakistani army would be in Afghan state affairs? India’s Afghanistan policy is oriented towards Afghan-led, Afghan-controlled, Afghan-owned peace process, which in reality will be a true representative of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. Since 2002, India has given over $3 billion foreign aid to Afghanistan. In order to strengthen the Afghan army, India has promised to give four Mi-25 attack helicopters before July, 2019. India has built roads, schools. Dams (Salma dam and proposed Shahtoot dam), and even Afghan parliament. Indian developmental assistance can be summarised in five categories - infrastructure development, economic development, humanitarian assistance, connectivity and capacity building projects. In conclusion, perhaps the best possible Indian approach to the Afghan crisis lies in the combination of both bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. India-Central Asia-Afghan trilateral meet and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) can be very effective platforms to strengthen the Afghan state. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

India’s Afghanistan policy: What needs to be done

Afghanistan is investigating reports that at least 16 civilians including women and children were killed in an air strike in southern Helmand province, the defence ministry said in a statement Friday.

The reports come as civilian deaths from air strikes have risen sharply in the past year after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-may-offer-fta-to-pakistan-to-assist-in-ending-afghan-war-report-192453">Afghan and US forces</a> intensified their aerial bombardment of Taliban and Islamic State group militants.&nbsp;

Afghan forces backed by US air power were conducting counter-terrorism operations in Sangin district late Wednesday when the air strike was carried out, the ministry and NATO said.

"Some reports have been published that civilians were killed and wounded, and the defence ministry formed a delegation to conduct a serious investigation into the civilian casualties," the ministry statement said.

NATO's Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan said the "large Afghan-led, multi-day operation... supported by US advisors and coalition air strikes" was ongoing, and that it was still looking into the claims.

But the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said the reports of civilian casualties, including children, were "credible", and that it was also investigating.

"I have got reports from the residents of the area where the strike took place. Sixteen people -- ten children, four women, two men, all civilians -- were killed," Afghan senator Hashim Alkozay told AFP.

Helmand provincial governor Mohammad Yasin said the strike "also hit an adjacent civilian house".

"A number" of Afghans were killed and wounded, he added.

The strike came as Taliban representatives were meeting with US officials in Qatar this week, with four straight days of discussion raising expectations as both sides seek a way out of the 17-year Afghan conflict.

Civilians continue to pay a disproportionate price in the fighting.

UNAMA says the number of Afghan civilians killed by aerial bombings from January until October 2018 reached a record high of 313, with a further 336 wounded.

The figures represent an increase of 39 per cent compared to the same time period in 2017.&nbsp;

UNAMA data shows that in total, 2,798 civilians were killed and 5,252 wounded in the first ten months of 2018.&nbsp;

The Taliban are responsible for about half of the civilian casualties, with the remaining deaths attributed to the Islamic State group and coalition strikes, according to the report.

UNAMA is due to publish its full-year report on civilian casualties in 2018 next month.

Afghanistan is investigating reports that at least 16 civilians including women and children were killed in an air strike in southern Helmand province, the defence ministry said in a statement Friday.

Afghanistan is investigating reports that at least 16 civilians including women and children were killed in an air strike in southern Helmand province, the defence ministry said in a statement Friday. The reports come as civilian deaths from air strikes have risen sharply in the past year after the Afghan and US forces intensified their aerial bombardment of Taliban and Islamic State group militants. Afghan forces backed by US air power were conducting counter-terrorism operations in Sangin district late Wednesday when the air strike was carried out, the ministry and NATO said. "Some reports have been published that civilians were killed and wounded, and the defence ministry formed a delegation to conduct a serious investigation into the civilian casualties," the ministry statement said. NATO's Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan said the "large Afghan-led, multi-day operation... supported by US advisors and coalition air strikes" was ongoing, and that it was still looking into the claims. But the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said the reports of civilian casualties, including children, were "credible", and that it was also investigating. "I have got reports from the residents of the area where the strike took place. Sixteen people -- ten children, four women, two men, all civilians -- were killed," Afghan senator Hashim Alkozay told AFP. Helmand provincial governor Mohammad Yasin said the strike "also hit an adjacent civilian house". "A number" of Afghans were killed and wounded, he added. The strike came as Taliban representatives were meeting with US officials in Qatar this week, with four straight days of discussion raising expectations as both sides seek a way out of the 17-year Afghan conflict. Civilians continue to pay a disproportionate price in the fighting. UNAMA says the number of Afghan civilians killed by aerial bombings from January until October 2018 reached a record high of 313, with a further 336 wounded. The figures represent an increase of 39 per cent compared to the same time period in 2017. UNAMA data shows that in total, 2,798 civilians were killed and 5,252 wounded in the first ten months of 2018. The Taliban are responsible for about half of the civilian casualties, with the remaining deaths attributed to the Islamic State group and coalition strikes, according to the report. UNAMA is due to publish its full-year report on civilian casualties in 2018 next month.

Afghanistan investigates civilian deaths in air strike in southern province

The Taliban attack on an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/over-100-security-personnel-killed-in-taliban-attack-in-afghanistan-defence-ministry-source-191848">Afghan intelligence base</a> on Monday in which dozens were killed is among the deadliest since the fall of the group's regime in 2001.

Here is a summary of the deadliest attacks, which have all occurred after 2007:

2018

December 24: An hours-long bomb and gun attack on a Kabul government compound kills at least 43 people. The Taliban denies responsibility.

November 20: A suicide bomber blows himself up among religious scholars inside a Kabul wedding hall, killing at least 55 people and wounding 94 others.

April 22: An Islamic State bomber kills 57 people, including women and children, and wounds more than 100, all civilians, outside a voter registration centre amid preparations for legislative elections in October.

September 11: A suicide attack on Afghans protesting the appointment of a local police chief in the eastern province of Nangarhar kills at least 68 people and wounds another 165.&nbsp;

January 27: An ambulance packed with explosives detonates in a crowded street in the heart of Kabul, killing more than 100 people, mostly civilians. The attack is claimed by the Taliban.

2017

October 17: Two separate Taliban suicide and gun attacks on police and soldiers leave 80 dead and scores wounded.

The deadliest, which claims 60 lives, is on a police compound in the city of Gardez in Paktia province where militants disguised as police detonate bomb-filled vehicles that clear the way for gunmen to enter.&nbsp;

Another 15 security officials and five civilians are killed in a separate ambush in the neighbouring province of Ghazni.

May 31: More than 150 people are killed and hundreds wounded when a massive truck bomb rips through Kabul's diplomatic quarter, shattering windows hundreds of metres away.

April 21: Taliban militants in soldiers' uniforms enter a military base in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and open fire on unarmed troops at close range in the mosque and dining hall. At least 135 are killed.

March 8: Gunmen disguised as doctors storm Afghanistan's largest military hospital in Kabul in a six-hour attack claimed by the Islamic State. The official death toll is 50 but security sources and survivors say it exceeds 100.

2016

July 23: Twin explosions rip through crowds of Shiite Hazaras in Kabul, killing at least 85 people. It marks the first major Islamic State assault on the capital.

April 19: A truck bomb followed by a shootout leaves 64 people dead and nearly 350 injured in central Kabul in a Taliban-claimed attack.

2011

December 6: An attack in Kabul targeting the Shiite minority on the holy day of Ashura kills 80 people. A second attack in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif kills another four. The Taliban deny responsibility.

2008

July 7: 60 people, including two Indian diplomats and two Indian guards, are killed in a suicide car bombing on the Indian embassy in the capital. The Taliban say they were not involved.

February 17: 140 boys and men, including more than 50 auxiliary police officers, are killed in a suicide attack among a crowd at a dogfight in the southern city of Kandahar. The Taliban deny responsibility.

2007

November 6: 79 people are killed, including 59 children and six parliamentarians, in a suicide attack on a delegation of VIPs visiting a sugar factory in Pul-i-Khumri north of Kabul. The Taliban deny involvement. 
&nbsp;

The Taliban attack on an Afghan intelligence base on Monday in which dozens were killed is among the deadliest since the fall of the group's regime in 2001. Here is a summary of the deadliest attacks, which have all occurred after 2007: 2018 December 24: An hours-long bomb and gun attack on a Kabul government compound kills at least 43 people.

The Taliban attack on an Afghan intelligence base on Monday in which dozens were killed is among the deadliest since the fall of the group's regime in 2001. Here is a summary of the deadliest attacks, which have all occurred after 2007: 2018 December 24: An hours-long bomb and gun attack on a Kabul government compound kills at least 43 people. The Taliban denies responsibility. November 20: A suicide bomber blows himself up among religious scholars inside a Kabul wedding hall, killing at least 55 people and wounding 94 others. April 22: An Islamic State bomber kills 57 people, including women and children, and wounds more than 100, all civilians, outside a voter registration centre amid preparations for legislative elections in October. September 11: A suicide attack on Afghans protesting the appointment of a local police chief in the eastern province of Nangarhar kills at least 68 people and wounds another 165. January 27: An ambulance packed with explosives detonates in a crowded street in the heart of Kabul, killing more than 100 people, mostly civilians. The attack is claimed by the Taliban. 2017 October 17: Two separate Taliban suicide and gun attacks on police and soldiers leave 80 dead and scores wounded. The deadliest, which claims 60 lives, is on a police compound in the city of Gardez in Paktia province where militants disguised as police detonate bomb-filled vehicles that clear the way for gunmen to enter. Another 15 security officials and five civilians are killed in a separate ambush in the neighbouring province of Ghazni. May 31: More than 150 people are killed and hundreds wounded when a massive truck bomb rips through Kabul's diplomatic quarter, shattering windows hundreds of metres away. April 21: Taliban militants in soldiers' uniforms enter a military base in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif and open fire on unarmed troops at close range in the mosque and dining hall. At least 135 are killed. March 8: Gunmen disguised as doctors storm Afghanistan's largest military hospital in Kabul in a six-hour attack claimed by the Islamic State. The official death toll is 50 but security sources and survivors say it exceeds 100. 2016 July 23: Twin explosions rip through crowds of Shiite Hazaras in Kabul, killing at least 85 people. It marks the first major Islamic State assault on the capital. April 19: A truck bomb followed by a shootout leaves 64 people dead and nearly 350 injured in central Kabul in a Taliban-claimed attack. 2011 December 6: An attack in Kabul targeting the Shiite minority on the holy day of Ashura kills 80 people. A second attack in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif kills another four. The Taliban deny responsibility. 2008 July 7: 60 people, including two Indian diplomats and two Indian guards, are killed in a suicide car bombing on the Indian embassy in the capital. The Taliban say they were not involved. February 17: 140 boys and men, including more than 50 auxiliary police officers, are killed in a suicide attack among a crowd at a dogfight in the southern city of Kandahar. The Taliban deny responsibility. 2007 November 6: 79 people are killed, including 59 children and six parliamentarians, in a suicide attack on a delegation of VIPs visiting a sugar factory in Pul-i-Khumri north of Kabul. The Taliban deny involvement.

Deadliest attacks in Afghanistan since 2007

The Taliban killed more than 100 members of the <a href="http://cms.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-kill-12-in-car-bomb-attack-on-military-base-officials-191737">Afghan security forces</a> inside a military compound in central Maidan Wardak province on Monday, a senior defence official said.

"We have information that 126 people have been killed in the explosion inside the military training centre, eight special commandoes are among the dead," said a senior official in the defence ministry in Kabul, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The official said the assault began on Monday morning when the attackers rammed a car full explosives through a military checkpoint and detonated the vehicle inside the campus of the National Directorate of Security (NDS) forces training centre in Maidan Shahr, the capital of Maidan Wardak province.

Two gunmen entered the campus right after the explosion and shot at many Afghan soldiers before being gunned down during the clashes.

Defence ministry officials said the Taliban had used US-made armoured Humvee vehicles captured from Afghan forces as a car bomb in order to breach the military fortifications.

A second source residing in Maidan Wardak province said more than 100 members of National Directorate of Security (NDS) were killed in the complex attack.

"I have been in touch with the NDS official in the province and they told me that over 100 members of the NDS were killed in the big explosion," the former provincial official said.

Sharif Hotak, a member of the provincial council in Maidan Wardak said he saw bodies of 35 Afghan forces in the hospital.

"Many more were killed. Several bodies were transported to Kabul city and many injured were transferred to hospitals in Kabul," said Hotak, adding that "the government was hiding the accurate casualty figures to prevent a further dip in morale of the Afghan forces."

"The explosion was very powerful. The whole building has collapsed," he said.

Government officials in Maidan Wardak and Kabul declined to comment when asked if they were obscuring the death toll.

Two senior officials in the interior ministry said the exact casualty figures was not being disclosed to prevent unrest within the armed forces.

"I have been told not to make the death toll figures public. It is frustrating to hide the facts," said a senior interior ministry official in Kabul.

A senior NDS official in Kabul said at least 50 people were killed or wounded in the complex attack.

Abdurrahman Mangal, spokesman for the provincial governor in Maidan Wardak said 12 people were killed and 12 were injured when the car bomb exploded near the Afghan special forces unit.

President Ashraf Ghani's office in a statement said the "enemies of the country" had carried out an attack against NDS personnel in Maidan Shahr. "They killed and wounded a number of our beloved and honest sons."

In recent years the Afghan government has stopped releasing detailed casualty figures. Last year Ghani has said 28,000 Afghan police officers and soldiers have been killed since 2015, breaking the longstanding suppression on casualty data.

Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility for the attack. Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the hardline Islamic militant group said they have killed 190 people in the complex attack.

Last week, Taliban fighters set off a car bomb outside a highly fortified compound killing at least five people and wounding more than 110 Afghans and expatriates in the capital, Kabul.

The Taliban killed more than 100 members of the Afghan security forces inside a military compound in central Maidan Wardak province on Monday, a senior defence official said.

The Taliban killed more than 100 members of the Afghan security forces inside a military compound in central Maidan Wardak province on Monday, a senior defence official said. "We have information that 126 people have been killed in the explosion inside the military training centre, eight special commandoes are among the dead," said a senior official in the defence ministry in Kabul, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official said the assault began on Monday morning when the attackers rammed a car full explosives through a military checkpoint and detonated the vehicle inside the campus of the National Directorate of Security (NDS) forces training centre in Maidan Shahr, the capital of Maidan Wardak province. Two gunmen entered the campus right after the explosion and shot at many Afghan soldiers before being gunned down during the clashes. Defence ministry officials said the Taliban had used US-made armoured Humvee vehicles captured from Afghan forces as a car bomb in order to breach the military fortifications. A second source residing in Maidan Wardak province said more than 100 members of National Directorate of Security (NDS) were killed in the complex attack. "I have been in touch with the NDS official in the province and they told me that over 100 members of the NDS were killed in the big explosion," the former provincial official said. Sharif Hotak, a member of the provincial council in Maidan Wardak said he saw bodies of 35 Afghan forces in the hospital. "Many more were killed. Several bodies were transported to Kabul city and many injured were transferred to hospitals in Kabul," said Hotak, adding that "the government was hiding the accurate casualty figures to prevent a further dip in morale of the Afghan forces." "The explosion was very powerful. The whole building has collapsed," he said. Government officials in Maidan Wardak and Kabul declined to comment when asked if they were obscuring the death toll. Two senior officials in the interior ministry said the exact casualty figures was not being disclosed to prevent unrest within the armed forces. "I have been told not to make the death toll figures public. It is frustrating to hide the facts," said a senior interior ministry official in Kabul. A senior NDS official in Kabul said at least 50 people were killed or wounded in the complex attack. Abdurrahman Mangal, spokesman for the provincial governor in Maidan Wardak said 12 people were killed and 12 were injured when the car bomb exploded near the Afghan special forces unit. President Ashraf Ghani's office in a statement said the "enemies of the country" had carried out an attack against NDS personnel in Maidan Shahr. "They killed and wounded a number of our beloved and honest sons." In recent years the Afghan government has stopped releasing detailed casualty figures. Last year Ghani has said 28,000 Afghan police officers and soldiers have been killed since 2015, breaking the longstanding suppression on casualty data. Taliban insurgents claimed responsibility for the attack. Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the hardline Islamic militant group said they have killed 190 people in the complex attack. Last week, Taliban fighters set off a car bomb outside a highly fortified compound killing at least five people and wounding more than 110 Afghans and expatriates in the capital, Kabul.

Over 100 security personnel killed in Taliban attack in Afghanistan: Defence ministry source

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.'&nbsp;

This was tom-tommed as a big shift from the government of India's long-standing policy that the peace process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled and with the participation of the government in Kabul. It made a splash because the Taliban was talking to the US ahead of the latter's plan to pull out from its 17-year-long military engagement in Afghanistan which has cost over a trillion dollars and claimed tens of thousands of lives besides turning it into a terrorist hub.&nbsp;

However, General Rawat was only taking forward the ball set rolling exactly two months before. The policy shift was already public by November 8, when two former diplomats, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan went to Russia for the Moscow format of talks on the Afghan peace process. Technically, Sinha and Raghavan did not represent Government of India (GoI) – their participation was “non-official”, in Track II mode. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Raghavan, who was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan, is Director-General of the GoI think tank, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Sinha, a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was Ambassador to Afghanistan. There was nothing really unofficial about their non-official presence in the Moscow format of talks where the Taliban and Afghanistan's High Peace Council delegations were also present.&nbsp;

By the time General Rawat stood up to say his piece, official India had already held at least one round of non-official talks. Just a day before General Rawat spoke, the Taliban had called off talks with the US as they did not want the Afghan government to be in the talks. The Taliban did this a day before the fourth round of talks with US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. &nbsp;

Besides the US, Russia and China, the Taliban's old supporters, namely, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were also back in the game as stakeholders in the peace process. Iran also joined the game. It went claimed “influence” over the Taliban and offered to use that influence in India's favour.&nbsp;

In the nearly two decades since the Taliban hosted the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar -- when external affairs minister Jaswant Singh went to Taliban territory to get the hostages released in return for two Pakistani terrorists – GoI has also developed lines to the Taliban. &nbsp;

It is obvious that the Taliban holds the whip hand in the Afghan peace process. It is set on talking to the US – on its own terms – because the US is the occupation force to be sent packing. US General Austin Miller's narrow escape from the October 18 shooting, which killed Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq among others in a room, seems to have convinced the Americans that they can no longer continue their military occupation. This is underscored by the perception that the Taliban “allowed” General Miller to “escape” – to let the US know that they can pick their targets when they choose to. &nbsp;

With the US bowing to the Taliban's terms, others, including India, cannot risk lagging behind. The Taliban's tough talk and a tougher line on talking terms is suspected to be based on the covert support of some powerful country. That apart, there is a growing perception, including in New Delhi, that the Taliban is involved in many behind-the-scene engagements; and, these are what enable it to call the shots. &nbsp;

Thus, negotiating India's place in the peace process is as much a diplomatic and strategic minefield as Afghanistan was during the worst phase of America's war in that country.&nbsp;

&nbsp; 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.

To all appearances, India's Chief of Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat set the cat among the pigeons in the second week of January when he advocated that India should talk to the Taliban “without preconditions” in the interest of peace and stability in the region.' This was tom-tommed as a big shift from the government of India's long-standing policy that the peace process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, Afghan-controlled and with the participation of the government in Kabul. It made a splash because the Taliban was talking to the US ahead of the latter's plan to pull out from its 17-year-long military engagement in Afghanistan which has cost over a trillion dollars and claimed tens of thousands of lives besides turning it into a terrorist hub. However, General Rawat was only taking forward the ball set rolling exactly two months before. The policy shift was already public by November 8, when two former diplomats, Amar Sinha and TCA Raghavan went to Russia for the Moscow format of talks on the Afghan peace process. Technically, Sinha and Raghavan did not represent Government of India (GoI) – their participation was “non-official”, in Track II mode. Raghavan, who was India's High Commissioner to Pakistan, is Director-General of the GoI think tank, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). Sinha, a former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, was Ambassador to Afghanistan. There was nothing really unofficial about their non-official presence in the Moscow format of talks where the Taliban and Afghanistan's High Peace Council delegations were also present. By the time General Rawat stood up to say his piece, official India had already held at least one round of non-official talks. Just a day before General Rawat spoke, the Taliban had called off talks with the US as they did not want the Afghan government to be in the talks. The Taliban did this a day before the fourth round of talks with US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. Besides the US, Russia and China, the Taliban's old supporters, namely, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan were also back in the game as stakeholders in the peace process. Iran also joined the game. It went claimed “influence” over the Taliban and offered to use that influence in India's favour. In the nearly two decades since the Taliban hosted the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in Kandahar -- when external affairs minister Jaswant Singh went to Taliban territory to get the hostages released in return for two Pakistani terrorists – GoI has also developed lines to the Taliban. It is obvious that the Taliban holds the whip hand in the Afghan peace process. It is set on talking to the US – on its own terms – because the US is the occupation force to be sent packing. US General Austin Miller's narrow escape from the October 18 shooting, which killed Kandahar police chief General Abdul Raziq among others in a room, seems to have convinced the Americans that they can no longer continue their military occupation. This is underscored by the perception that the Taliban “allowed” General Miller to “escape” – to let the US know that they can pick their targets when they choose to. With the US bowing to the Taliban's terms, others, including India, cannot risk lagging behind. The Taliban's tough talk and a tougher line on talking terms is suspected to be based on the covert support of some powerful country. That apart, there is a growing perception, including in New Delhi, that the Taliban is involved in many behind-the-scene engagements; and, these are what enable it to call the shots. Thus, negotiating India's place in the peace process is as much a diplomatic and strategic minefield as Afghanistan was during the worst phase of America's war in that country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What lies behind the Taliban's tough line

Against the backdrop of the retrenching United States, which is whittling down its commitments and retreating inward, the country ‘s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, has arrived in Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top civil and military officials.&nbsp;

Khalilzad is expected to seek Islamabad’s help to convince the Taliban to return to the negotiating table to end the seventeen-year-old Afghan war. One context to “suing for peace”, so to speak, in Afghanistan, is the United States’ withdrawal from Syria and laying conditions in the Middle East that suggest that the country is taking recourse to what is called “offshore balancing” in the region.

The major inference that can be drawn here is that the United States no longer wants to be the world’s “policeman” or, in other words, hegemon. The country is gradually veering toward quasi-isolationism and focusing on what the Trump administrations deems its “core interests”.&nbsp;

This, in the main, explains to a large extent the United States’ Syrian withdrawal and attempts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. The country no longer has the appetite to take on militarily a resurgent Taliban which now appears to hold the aces in Afghanistan 
&nbsp; 
In the equations that accrue from conditions that obtain in the region and in the United States, Pakistan assumes significance, given the country’s influence and leverage over the Taliban. The question is: will the United States’ new approach work?

The answer lies in the realm of probabilities. That the Taliban is a force to reckon with now is to state the obvious. But, from a military perspective, and a hypothetical negotiating scenario, given its primacy in the conflict and the fact that the United States, a “wounded hegemon” wants to retreat against the backdrop of a review of its foreign policy and diminishing absorptive capacity for war, why would Taliban’s &nbsp;strategists want to negotiate? There is no reason for them to do so because, in one way or the other, its “winner take all for the Taliban”.

It is here that Pakistan’s role becomes important yet again.&nbsp;

The country is in the midst of a balance of payments crisis which has far-reaching consequences and implications for its economy. The CPEC has run into assorted troubles and is not yielding the desired returns at the moment. Amidst this economic uncertainty and grave issues thereof, Pakistan has to turn to the IMF and thereby the United States. The conundrums and dilemmas that flow from this condition might make Pakistan amenable to use its influence over the Taliban to negotiate with the United States. If this scenario comes to pass, then the Taliban might yield and even form the next government in Afghanistan.

From a grand geopolitical perspective, this would constitute a defeat for the United States whose animating premise to attack Afghanistan after September 11 was to “cleanse” the country of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But, now with Taliban ascendant, and the United States seeking to negotiate with it, the country has obviously failed in its objectives. 
 
Against this backdrop, what general lessons can be drawn both about foreign policy and security?

First, foreign policy is about or should be about aligning means with ends. The United States, after September 11, in its “wars of choice” in Afghanistan and Iraq, driven by unipolarity induced hubris, appeared to elide over this cardinal insight. The misalignment between means and ends meant that it got involved in open-ended, long drawn-out wars from which it is attempting a messy exit. Complemented by structural trends and developments, these wars and other thematic issues have led to a different system polarity wherein China, Russia and the United States are the major contenders in international relations and politics. The United States is neither alone at the pinnacle of power nor does it have the ability to convert power into influence.&nbsp;

All this has implications for and on Afghanistan. The jostling and jockeying between China, Russia and the United States will, in all likelihood, mean that Afghanistan will become an arena for these powers. Or, in other words, the country, also known as the “graveyard of empires” is all set for a “new Great Game”. This, more than anything else, will be the abiding legacy of the blighted country. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Against the backdrop of the retrenching United States, which is whittling down its commitments and retreating inward, the country ‘s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, has arrived in Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top civil and military officials.

Against the backdrop of the retrenching United States, which is whittling down its commitments and retreating inward, the country ‘s special envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, has arrived in Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top civil and military officials. Khalilzad is expected to seek Islamabad’s help to convince the Taliban to return to the negotiating table to end the seventeen-year-old Afghan war. One context to “suing for peace”, so to speak, in Afghanistan, is the United States’ withdrawal from Syria and laying conditions in the Middle East that suggest that the country is taking recourse to what is called “offshore balancing” in the region. The major inference that can be drawn here is that the United States no longer wants to be the world’s “policeman” or, in other words, hegemon. The country is gradually veering toward quasi-isolationism and focusing on what the Trump administrations deems its “core interests”. This, in the main, explains to a large extent the United States’ Syrian withdrawal and attempts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. The country no longer has the appetite to take on militarily a resurgent Taliban which now appears to hold the aces in Afghanistan In the equations that accrue from conditions that obtain in the region and in the United States, Pakistan assumes significance, given the country’s influence and leverage over the Taliban. The question is: will the United States’ new approach work? The answer lies in the realm of probabilities. That the Taliban is a force to reckon with now is to state the obvious. But, from a military perspective, and a hypothetical negotiating scenario, given its primacy in the conflict and the fact that the United States, a “wounded hegemon” wants to retreat against the backdrop of a review of its foreign policy and diminishing absorptive capacity for war, why would Taliban’s strategists want to negotiate? There is no reason for them to do so because, in one way or the other, its “winner take all for the Taliban”. It is here that Pakistan’s role becomes important yet again. The country is in the midst of a balance of payments crisis which has far-reaching consequences and implications for its economy. The CPEC has run into assorted troubles and is not yielding the desired returns at the moment. Amidst this economic uncertainty and grave issues thereof, Pakistan has to turn to the IMF and thereby the United States. The conundrums and dilemmas that flow from this condition might make Pakistan amenable to use its influence over the Taliban to negotiate with the United States. If this scenario comes to pass, then the Taliban might yield and even form the next government in Afghanistan. From a grand geopolitical perspective, this would constitute a defeat for the United States whose animating premise to attack Afghanistan after September 11 was to “cleanse” the country of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. But, now with Taliban ascendant, and the United States seeking to negotiate with it, the country has obviously failed in its objectives. Against this backdrop, what general lessons can be drawn both about foreign policy and security? First, foreign policy is about or should be about aligning means with ends. The United States, after September 11, in its “wars of choice” in Afghanistan and Iraq, driven by unipolarity induced hubris, appeared to elide over this cardinal insight. The misalignment between means and ends meant that it got involved in open-ended, long drawn-out wars from which it is attempting a messy exit. Complemented by structural trends and developments, these wars and other thematic issues have led to a different system polarity wherein China, Russia and the United States are the major contenders in international relations and politics. The United States is neither alone at the pinnacle of power nor does it have the ability to convert power into influence. All this has implications for and on Afghanistan. The jostling and jockeying between China, Russia and the United States will, in all likelihood, mean that Afghanistan will become an arena for these powers. Or, in other words, the country, also known as the “graveyard of empires” is all set for a “new Great Game”. This, more than anything else, will be the abiding legacy of the blighted country. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US-Taliban talks: Great game redux in Afghanistan

The Taliban claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/blast-rocks-eastern-kabul-district-report-190276">car bomb attack </a>near a heavily fortified foreign compound in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, that killed at least four people a day earlier.

More than 90 people were also wounded in the attack near the Green Village compound, which houses several international companies and charities, in eastern Kabul.

Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Islamist militant group, said Taliban fighters were responsible for the attack in which he claimed dozens of foreign and Afghan security forces were killed and wounded.

"Five attackers, including the suicide bomber driving an explosives-laden vehicle, were involved in the attack," Mujahid said in a statement.

The Taliban often inflate casualty figures in attacks against Afghan government or foreign targets.&nbsp;

The latest attack came as Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special peace envoy for Afghanistan, tours the region for meetings aimed at bringing an end to a war that has dragged on for more than 17 years.

Fighting has not subsided even as the talks intensify, with the Taliban and other insurgent groups carrying out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting security forces and government officials. Civilians, however, almost invariably bear the brunt of most attacks.

The Taliban claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a car bomb attack near a heavily fortified foreign compound in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, that killed at least four people a day earlier.

The Taliban claimed responsibility on Tuesday for a car bomb attack near a heavily fortified foreign compound in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, that killed at least four people a day earlier. More than 90 people were also wounded in the attack near the Green Village compound, which houses several international companies and charities, in eastern Kabul. Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Islamist militant group, said Taliban fighters were responsible for the attack in which he claimed dozens of foreign and Afghan security forces were killed and wounded. "Five attackers, including the suicide bomber driving an explosives-laden vehicle, were involved in the attack," Mujahid said in a statement. The Taliban often inflate casualty figures in attacks against Afghan government or foreign targets. The latest attack came as Zalmay Khalilzad, the US special peace envoy for Afghanistan, tours the region for meetings aimed at bringing an end to a war that has dragged on for more than 17 years. Fighting has not subsided even as the talks intensify, with the Taliban and other insurgent groups carrying out near-daily attacks, mainly targeting security forces and government officials. Civilians, however, almost invariably bear the brunt of most attacks.

Afghan Taliban claim responsibility for Kabul car bomb attack

The Taliban discussed Afghanistan's "post-occupation situation" with Iran in their latest meeting, the group said Tuesday, as Tehran makes a more concerted and open push for peace ahead of a possible US drawdown.

The remarks come after Iran confirmed Monday that the Taliban had visited Tehran for the second round of talks in just a few days that are aimed at ending the 17-year conflict.

The Taliban delegation discussed with Iran "the post-occupation situation, restoration of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region", the militants said in a statement posted on social media and emailed to journalists.

It signals growing confidence among the Taliban for US troops to pull out of Afghanistan, after US officials last month told various media outlets that President Donald Trump had decided to slash the number of boots on the ground.

There have been reports in the past of talks between Iran and the Taliban, but they have typically been denied by Tehran.

Tehran's peace push will be viewed with concern by hawks in Washington, who fear that Trump's planned withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan will cede regional influence to Iran.

The Taliban also met with the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the United Arab Emirates earlier in December as part of a flurry of diplomatic efforts to end the war.

But the Taliban refused to meet a delegation from Afghanistan. The group said Saturday its representatives would not meet "with those of the Kabul administration" at the next meeting expected to be held in Saudi Arabia later this month.

Iran's deputy foreign ministry Abbas Araghchi will travel to Afghanistan in the next two weeks, the foreign ministry said, without giving further details.

Iran and Afghanistan share a nearly 600-mile (960-kilometre) border and have had a complex relationship in recent years.

Tehran has long supported its co-religionists in Afghanistan, the Shia Hazara minority, who were violently persecuted by the Taliban during its rule in the 1990s.

Iran worked alongside the United States and Western powers to help drive out the Taliban after the US-led invasion in 2001.

But there have been allegations, from Western and Afghan sources, that Iran's Revolutionary Guards have in recent years established ties with the Taliban aimed at driving out US forces from Afghanistan.

The remarks come after Iran confirmed Monday that the Taliban had visited Tehran for the second round of talks in just a few days that are aimed at ending the 17-year conflict.

The Taliban discussed Afghanistan's "post-occupation situation" with Iran in their latest meeting, the group said Tuesday, as Tehran makes a more concerted and open push for peace ahead of a possible US drawdown. The remarks come after Iran confirmed Monday that the Taliban had visited Tehran for the second round of talks in just a few days that are aimed at ending the 17-year conflict. The Taliban delegation discussed with Iran "the post-occupation situation, restoration of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region", the militants said in a statement posted on social media and emailed to journalists. It signals growing confidence among the Taliban for US troops to pull out of Afghanistan, after US officials last month told various media outlets that President Donald Trump had decided to slash the number of boots on the ground. There have been reports in the past of talks between Iran and the Taliban, but they have typically been denied by Tehran. Tehran's peace push will be viewed with concern by hawks in Washington, who fear that Trump's planned withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan will cede regional influence to Iran. The Taliban also met with the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the United Arab Emirates earlier in December as part of a flurry of diplomatic efforts to end the war. But the Taliban refused to meet a delegation from Afghanistan. The group said Saturday its representatives would not meet "with those of the Kabul administration" at the next meeting expected to be held in Saudi Arabia later this month. Iran's deputy foreign ministry Abbas Araghchi will travel to Afghanistan in the next two weeks, the foreign ministry said, without giving further details. Iran and Afghanistan share a nearly 600-mile (960-kilometre) border and have had a complex relationship in recent years. Tehran has long supported its co-religionists in Afghanistan, the Shia Hazara minority, who were violently persecuted by the Taliban during its rule in the 1990s. Iran worked alongside the United States and Western powers to help drive out the Taliban after the US-led invasion in 2001. But there have been allegations, from Western and Afghan sources, that Iran's Revolutionary Guards have in recent years established ties with the Taliban aimed at driving out US forces from Afghanistan.

Afghan Taliban says 'post-occupation situation' discussed with Iran

Taliban fighters killed more than 20 Afghan security forces in simultaneous raids on a provincial capital and district in northern Afghanistan, an official said Tuesday, as the city braced for further violence.

Hundreds of militants were outside Sar-e-Pul city, which provincial governor spokesman Zabihullah Amani said was at risk of falling to the Taliban if reinforcements were not sent.&nbsp;

The Taliban have stepped up attacks on security forces across the country, slaughtering police and soldiers in record numbers, as the threat of a US drawdown complicates American-led efforts to end the 17-year conflict.

"The enemy is still amassing forces outside the city," Amani told AFP.

"We have deployed all the forces available in the city, but no reinforcements have arrived from outside so far.

"The people inside the city are very worried."

Taliban fighters launched the attacks on Sar-e-Pul and neighbouring Sayad district on Monday night, which Amani said were aimed at seizing control of several oil wells on the outskirts of the city.&nbsp;

At least 21 local forces, including police and intelligence, were killed and another 23 wounded in the attacks, Amani said.

"They have attacked the city many times in the past, but this time the threat is more serious," he said.

A security official, who spoke to AFP on the condition of anonymity, put the death toll slightly lower at between 15 and 20 members of local forces.&nbsp;

Kabul-based interior ministry deputy spokesman Nasrat Rahimi confirmed there had been casualties, but would not provide details.&nbsp;

He said reinforcements had been deployed to Sar-e-Pul and dismissed concerns that the provincial capital was at risk of falling to the insurgents.&nbsp;

The Taliban confirmed the attacks, saying their fighters had captured three checkpoints and killed or wounded 50 members of the security forces.

Afghanistan's largest militant group made significant territorial gains in 2018, including overrunning Ghazni city -- a few hours' drive from Kabul -- which they held for several days before being pushed back with the help of US airpower.&nbsp;

At the time, officials said Ghazni remained in government hands. But residents told AFP that the insurgents were in the streets, burning buildings and targeting civilians. &nbsp;

The Taliban's increased aggression on the battlefield coincided with a flurry of diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing the group to the negotiating table.

In recent days, Taliban representatives have met with Iran, as Tehran makes a more concerted and open push for peace ahead of a possible US drawdown.&nbsp;

The Taliban delegation discussed with Iran "the post-occupation situation, restoration of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region", the militants said in a statement posted on social media and emailed to journalists on Tuesday.

It signals a growing confidence among the Taliban that US troops will pull out of Afghanistan, after US officials last month told various media outlets that President Donald Trump had decided to slash the number of boots on the ground.

Hundreds of militants were outside Sar-e-Pul city, which provincial governor spokesman Zabihullah Amani said was at risk of falling to the Taliban if reinforcements were not sent.

Taliban fighters killed more than 20 Afghan security forces in simultaneous raids on a provincial capital and district in northern Afghanistan, an official said Tuesday, as the city braced for further violence. Hundreds of militants were outside Sar-e-Pul city, which provincial governor spokesman Zabihullah Amani said was at risk of falling to the Taliban if reinforcements were not sent. The Taliban have stepped up attacks on security forces across the country, slaughtering police and soldiers in record numbers, as the threat of a US drawdown complicates American-led efforts to end the 17-year conflict. "The enemy is still amassing forces outside the city," Amani told AFP. "We have deployed all the forces available in the city, but no reinforcements have arrived from outside so far. "The people inside the city are very worried." Taliban fighters launched the attacks on Sar-e-Pul and neighbouring Sayad district on Monday night, which Amani said were aimed at seizing control of several oil wells on the outskirts of the city. At least 21 local forces, including police and intelligence, were killed and another 23 wounded in the attacks, Amani said. "They have attacked the city many times in the past, but this time the threat is more serious," he said. A security official, who spoke to AFP on the condition of anonymity, put the death toll slightly lower at between 15 and 20 members of local forces. Kabul-based interior ministry deputy spokesman Nasrat Rahimi confirmed there had been casualties, but would not provide details. He said reinforcements had been deployed to Sar-e-Pul and dismissed concerns that the provincial capital was at risk of falling to the insurgents. The Taliban confirmed the attacks, saying their fighters had captured three checkpoints and killed or wounded 50 members of the security forces. Afghanistan's largest militant group made significant territorial gains in 2018, including overrunning Ghazni city -- a few hours' drive from Kabul -- which they held for several days before being pushed back with the help of US airpower. At the time, officials said Ghazni remained in government hands. But residents told AFP that the insurgents were in the streets, burning buildings and targeting civilians. The Taliban's increased aggression on the battlefield coincided with a flurry of diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing the group to the negotiating table. In recent days, Taliban representatives have met with Iran, as Tehran makes a more concerted and open push for peace ahead of a possible US drawdown. The Taliban delegation discussed with Iran "the post-occupation situation, restoration of peace and security in Afghanistan and the region", the militants said in a statement posted on social media and emailed to journalists on Tuesday. It signals a growing confidence among the Taliban that US troops will pull out of Afghanistan, after US officials last month told various media outlets that President Donald Trump had decided to slash the number of boots on the ground.

Taliban kill 21 Afghan security forces, threaten city: Official

Iran said Monday that the Afghan Taliban have visited Tehran for a second round of peace talks in just a few days aimed at bringing an end to 17 years of conflict.

Iran has made a more concerted and open push for peace in neighbouring Afghanistan since US President Donald Trump indicated there would be a significant withdrawal of American troops.

"Yesterday (Sunday), a delegation of Taliban were in Tehran and lengthy negotiations were held with Iran's deputy foreign minister... (Abbas) Araghchi," said spokesman Bahram Ghasemi at a televised press conference on Monday.

That came just days after Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, visited Kabul and told reporters that talks had been held with the Taliban in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"The Islamic Republic has always been one of the primary pillars of stability in the region and cooperation between the two countries will certainly help in fixing Afghanistan's security issues of today," Shamkhani told the conservative Tasnim news agency.&nbsp;

There have been reports in the past of talks between Iran and the Taliban, but they have typically been denied by Tehran.

Ghasemi said Iran's priority was "to help facilitate negotiations between Afghan groups and the country's government."

The current peace push will be viewed with concern by hawks in Washington, who fear that Trump's planned withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan will cede regional influence to Iran.&nbsp;

An American official told AFP on December 21 that Trump had decided to pull out "roughly half" of the 14,000 US forces from Afghanistan, but the White House has yet to confirm the widely-publicised move.

Senior Republican senator Lindsey Graham met with Trump on Sunday and urged him to delay any withdrawal from Syria to make sure "Iran doesn't become the big winner of our leaving."&nbsp;

Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan, told ABC: "Iran has increased influence across the region now. If you pull American influence out, you're likely to have greater instability."

'Peace development'

The Taliban also met with the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the United Arab Emirates earlier in December, but have so far refused to meet a delegation from Afghanistan.

Araghchi will travel to Afghanistan in the next two weeks, Ghasemi said, without giving further details.

"Considering our long border with Afghanistan and the cultural and historical ties, and our important role in the region's stability, the Islamic Republic was interested... to enter and play a more important role in peace development in Afghanistan," the spokesman added.

Iran and Afghanistan share a nearly 600-mile border, and have had a complex relationship in recent years.&nbsp;

Tehran has long supported its co-religionists in Afghanistan, the Shia Hazara minority, who were violently persecuted by the Taliban during its rule in the 1990s.&nbsp;

Iran worked alongside the United States and Western powers to help drive out the Taliban after the US-led invasion in 2001.

But there have been allegations, from Western and Afghan sources, that Iran's Revolutionary Guards have in recent years established ties with the Taliban aimed at driving out US forces from Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Iran said Monday that the Afghan Taliban have visited Tehran for a second round of peace talks in just a few days aimed at bringing an end to 17 years of conflict.

Iran said Monday that the Afghan Taliban have visited Tehran for a second round of peace talks in just a few days aimed at bringing an end to 17 years of conflict. Iran has made a more concerted and open push for peace in neighbouring Afghanistan since US President Donald Trump indicated there would be a significant withdrawal of American troops. "Yesterday (Sunday), a delegation of Taliban were in Tehran and lengthy negotiations were held with Iran's deputy foreign minister... (Abbas) Araghchi," said spokesman Bahram Ghasemi at a televised press conference on Monday. That came just days after Ali Shamkhani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, visited Kabul and told reporters that talks had been held with the Taliban in Afghanistan. "The Islamic Republic has always been one of the primary pillars of stability in the region and cooperation between the two countries will certainly help in fixing Afghanistan's security issues of today," Shamkhani told the conservative Tasnim news agency. There have been reports in the past of talks between Iran and the Taliban, but they have typically been denied by Tehran. Ghasemi said Iran's priority was "to help facilitate negotiations between Afghan groups and the country's government." The current peace push will be viewed with concern by hawks in Washington, who fear that Trump's planned withdrawal of troops from Syria and Afghanistan will cede regional influence to Iran. An American official told AFP on December 21 that Trump had decided to pull out "roughly half" of the 14,000 US forces from Afghanistan, but the White House has yet to confirm the widely-publicised move. Senior Republican senator Lindsey Graham met with Trump on Sunday and urged him to delay any withdrawal from Syria to make sure "Iran doesn't become the big winner of our leaving." Stanley McChrystal, the former commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan, told ABC: "Iran has increased influence across the region now. If you pull American influence out, you're likely to have greater instability." 'Peace development' The Taliban also met with the United States, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the United Arab Emirates earlier in December, but have so far refused to meet a delegation from Afghanistan. Araghchi will travel to Afghanistan in the next two weeks, Ghasemi said, without giving further details. "Considering our long border with Afghanistan and the cultural and historical ties, and our important role in the region's stability, the Islamic Republic was interested... to enter and play a more important role in peace development in Afghanistan," the spokesman added. Iran and Afghanistan share a nearly 600-mile border, and have had a complex relationship in recent years. Tehran has long supported its co-religionists in Afghanistan, the Shia Hazara minority, who were violently persecuted by the Taliban during its rule in the 1990s. Iran worked alongside the United States and Western powers to help drive out the Taliban after the US-led invasion in 2001. But there have been allegations, from Western and Afghan sources, that Iran's Revolutionary Guards have in recent years established ties with the Taliban aimed at driving out US forces from Afghanistan.

Iran says Afghan Taliban were in Tehran for peace talks

The Taliban warned the United States Thursday it would face the same fate as the Soviet Union in the 1980s if it did not leave Afghanistan, as Washington considers slashing troop numbers.

In a taunting message sent on the 39th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of the war-torn country, the Taliban said US forces faced "humiliation" and could "learn a great deal" from the experience of their Cold War foe.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849"> offers to release Afghan Taliban captives, jobs in return of ceasefire</a>

The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, ending a decade-long occupation and precipitating a bloody civil war and the emergence of the Taliban.

"Take heed from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and abandon thoughts of testing the mettle of the already proven Afghans," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement in English, Dari and Pashto.

Mujahid said any future relations between the Taliban and the United States should be based on "sound diplomatic and economic principles" rather than conflict.

The Taliban have not formally responded to the news that Trump had decided to withdraw roughly half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

But a senior commander told AFP that the group was "more than happy". The Taliban have long insisted on the withdrawal of foreign troops as a condition for engaging in peace talks.

The White House has so far not confirmed the widely-publicised move that left foreign diplomats and Afghan officials in Kabul stunned and dismayed.&nbsp;

It came last week as US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met with the Taliban in Abu Dhabi, part of efforts to bring the militants to the negotiating table with Kabul.

That was the latest in a series of meetings between US officials and representatives of the Talian that began in the summer.

There are fears Trump's decision could undermine Khalilzad's negotiating position, embolden the Taliban, and further erode morale among Afghan forces, which are suffering record losses.

The Taliban warned the United States Thursday it would face the same fate as the Soviet Union in the 1980s if it did not leave Afghanistan, as Washington considers slashing troop numbers.

The Taliban warned the United States Thursday it would face the same fate as the Soviet Union in the 1980s if it did not leave Afghanistan, as Washington considers slashing troop numbers. In a taunting message sent on the 39th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of the war-torn country, the Taliban said US forces faced "humiliation" and could "learn a great deal" from the experience of their Cold War foe. Also read: US offers to release Afghan Taliban captives, jobs in return of ceasefire The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, ending a decade-long occupation and precipitating a bloody civil war and the emergence of the Taliban. "Take heed from the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and abandon thoughts of testing the mettle of the already proven Afghans," Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement in English, Dari and Pashto. Mujahid said any future relations between the Taliban and the United States should be based on "sound diplomatic and economic principles" rather than conflict. The Taliban have not formally responded to the news that Trump had decided to withdraw roughly half of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan. But a senior commander told AFP that the group was "more than happy". The Taliban have long insisted on the withdrawal of foreign troops as a condition for engaging in peace talks. The White House has so far not confirmed the widely-publicised move that left foreign diplomats and Afghan officials in Kabul stunned and dismayed. It came last week as US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad met with the Taliban in Abu Dhabi, part of efforts to bring the militants to the negotiating table with Kabul. That was the latest in a series of meetings between US officials and representatives of the Talian that began in the summer. There are fears Trump's decision could undermine Khalilzad's negotiating position, embolden the Taliban, and further erode morale among Afghan forces, which are suffering record losses.

Taliban urge US to exit Afghanistan or face Soviet-style defeat

As the world powers including Russia, Iran are holding talks with Taliban leaders to seek a way out of the Afghan conflict, the United States has outlined a plan to carry out confidence-building measures to persuade the rebels to join the peace process.

According to&nbsp;sources, the US has assured the Taliban a safety network including job opportunities for the insurgents after they pull out from the war-torn country.

Under the plan, the US wants the Taliban to opt for a ceasefire in return for the release of their captive leaders.&nbsp;

The US also assured to delist some Taliban leaders as part of their confidence-building measures. It will also unfreeze their accounts and remove travel restrictions.

The report also said that the US has requested Pakistan to get Taliban on the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in his second trip to Pakistan thanked Pakistan's leadership for playing their role in the Afghan peace talks.

After the US request, Taliban chief reportedly has done major changes in their team which negotiated with Washington and other stakeholders in Abu Dhabi.

Earlier this month, Taliban held talks with US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in the United Arab Emirates. The talks were aimed at renewing the Afghan peace process and eventually winding down America's longest war which began in 2001 with US invasion.

The Taliban controls vast amounts of Afghanistan's territory and are causing significant Afghan troop casualties. 
&nbsp;

Under the plan, the US wants the Taliban to opt for a ceasefire in return for the release of their captive leaders.

As the world powers including Russia, Iran are holding talks with Taliban leaders to seek a way out of the Afghan conflict, the United States has outlined a plan to carry out confidence-building measures to persuade the rebels to join the peace process. According to sources, the US has assured the Taliban a safety network including job opportunities for the insurgents after they pull out from the war-torn country. Under the plan, the US wants the Taliban to opt for a ceasefire in return for the release of their captive leaders. The US also assured to delist some Taliban leaders as part of their confidence-building measures. It will also unfreeze their accounts and remove travel restrictions. The report also said that the US has requested Pakistan to get Taliban on the negotiating table. Meanwhile, US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in his second trip to Pakistan thanked Pakistan's leadership for playing their role in the Afghan peace talks. After the US request, Taliban chief reportedly has done major changes in their team which negotiated with Washington and other stakeholders in Abu Dhabi. Earlier this month, Taliban held talks with US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad in the United Arab Emirates. The talks were aimed at renewing the Afghan peace process and eventually winding down America's longest war which began in 2001 with US invasion. The Taliban controls vast amounts of Afghanistan's territory and are causing significant Afghan troop casualties.

US offers to release Afghan Taliban captives, jobs in return of ceasefire

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849"> outlines </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849">plan</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-outlines-plan-to-confidence-building-measures-with-afghan-taliban-offers-safety-network-to-rebels-186849"> to confidence-building measures with Afghan Taliban; offers safety network to rebels</a>

As the world powers including Russia, Iran are holding talks with Taliban leaders to seek a way out of the Afghan conflict, the United States has outlined a plan to carry out confidence-building measures to persuade the rebels to join the peace process.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-debate-centre-says-dont-use-a-political-prism-opposition-wants-bill-to-go-to-parliament-panel-186835">Triple talaq debate: Centre says don't use a political prism, </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-debate-centre-says-dont-use-a-political-prism-opposition-wants-bill-to-go-to-parliament-panel-186835">opposition</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-debate-centre-says-dont-use-a-political-prism-opposition-wants-bill-to-go-to-parliament-panel-186835"> wants </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-debate-centre-says-dont-use-a-political-prism-opposition-wants-bill-to-go-to-parliament-panel-186835">bill</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/triple-talaq-debate-centre-says-dont-use-a-political-prism-opposition-wants-bill-to-go-to-parliament-panel-186835"> to go to parliament panel</a>

Asserting that the triple talaq bill is about "Insaaniyat aur insaaf", the government on Thursday said the legislation should not be weighed on the scales of politics while a united opposition strongly demanded that it should be referred to a joint select committee of Parliament, dubbing its provisions "unconstitutional".

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/britain-voices-grave-concerns-over-chinas-huawei-186842">Britain voices 'grave' concerns over China's Huawei</a>

British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has warned of his "very deep concerns" about Chinese technology giant Huawei being involved in the use of 5G on Britain's mobile network, &nbsp;The Times reported Thursday.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/bangladesh-election-campaign-marred-by-violence-ends-with-opposition-fearing-unfair-voting-186839">Bangladesh: Violent election campaign ends with opposition fearing unfair voting</a>

Bangladesh's deadly election campaign entered a final full day Thursday with followers of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina parading in the streets while her opponents insisted the vote would not be free and fair.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kartarpur-corridor-high-point-of-diplomacy-for-imran-khan-government-pakistan-186836">Kartarpur corridor 'high point of diplomacy' for Imran Khan government: Pakistan</a>

Pakistan on Thursday described the Kartarpur corridor as the "high point of diplomacy" for the Imran Khan government while admitted that there was "no progress" on the contentious issues with India.

&nbsp;

US outlines plan to confidence-building measures with Afghan Taliban; offers safety network to rebels As the world powers including Russia, Iran are holding talks with Taliban leaders to seek a way out of the Afghan conflict, the United States has outlined a plan to carry out confidence-building measures to persuade the rebels to join the peace process. Triple talaq debate: Centre says don't use a political prism, opposition wants bill to go to parliament panel Asserting that the triple talaq bill is about "Insaaniyat aur insaaf", the government on Thursday said the legislation should not be weighed on the scales of politics while a united opposition strongly demanded that it should be referred to a joint select committee of Parliament, dubbing its provisions "unconstitutional". Britain voices 'grave' concerns over China's Huawei British Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson has warned of his "very deep concerns" about Chinese technology giant Huawei being involved in the use of 5G on Britain's mobile network, The Times reported Thursday. Bangladesh: Violent election campaign ends with opposition fearing unfair voting Bangladesh's deadly election campaign entered a final full day Thursday with followers of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina parading in the streets while her opponents insisted the vote would not be free and fair. Kartarpur corridor 'high point of diplomacy' for Imran Khan government: Pakistan Pakistan on Thursday described the Kartarpur corridor as the "high point of diplomacy" for the Imran Khan government while admitted that there was "no progress" on the contentious issues with India.

News brief: Big stories of the day

The death last week of the Taliban's senior leader in southern Afghanistan in a US&nbsp;air strike highlights a surge in operations amid pressure to coax the increasingly confident insurgents to accept talks to end the 17-year war.

As US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad makes a fresh round of visits to Afghanistan and neighbouring countries this week and resumes meetings with Taliban representatives, military operations have spiked sharply across the country.

The aim, say Afghan and US officials, is to build as strong a position as possible for the hoped-for start of peace talks with the Taliban.

Khalilzad told US broadcaster PBS last week that he was "in a hurry" to secure an agreement with the Taliban, ideally ahead of presidential elections scheduled for April 20.

While US officials have avoided talk of deadlines, the new urgency has raised fears among many in the Afghan government that the United States seeks a quick way out of its longest war.

"The United States basically wants a dignified withdrawal," said one senior Afghan government official who is in near-daily contact with US diplomats working on the peace process.

"Progress towards peace remains elusive," the Pentagon Lead Inspector General told Congress in the latest report last month, as civilian and military casualties grow and just 65 percent of the population lives under government control.

Large Taliban forces have this year overrun the western city of Farah and the central city of Ghazni, fuelling perceptions that the insurgents, estimated to number 60,000 fighters, are winning.

To regain the initiative, Gen. Scott Miller, who arrived as commander of US forces in Afghanistan in September, has pushed Afghan forces to go on the offensive, backed by US Special Forces and air strikes.

One such strike killed Abdul Manan, the Taliban's shadow governor for Helmand province, on Saturday.

Defence ministry spokesman Ghafoor Ahmad Javed said 161 air strikes in the past two weeks by Afghanistan's own fledgling air force were part of operations which he estimated had killed hundreds of Taliban fighters.

"They've lost many commanders and suffered lots of casualties, they've lost training centres and economic support centres including narcotics," he said.

"When they're under pressure, they know they can't get anywhere without the peace process."

The death of two US Special Forces soldiers and an airman in a roadside bomb blast near Ghazni last week also highlighted the Americans' increasingly active role.

"There is more fighting now than a few weeks ago," said Samilhullah, a resident of Ghazni, overrun this year by thousands of Taliban fighters in one of their biggest operations in years.

"I see many American and Afghan forces in my village and everyday there are sounds of explosions, gunfire and helicopters flying around."

Dangers

The approach was designed to complement the diplomatic push toward opening negotiations with the Taliban, said Colonel Dave Butler, the spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan.

"We're near a political settlement," he added. "If the Taliban want to keep fighting, we will fight and ensure that they feel the pressure."

The US military has dropped more munitions in air strikes this year than any other full year since the height of the US presence in 2011, seeking to bolster Afghan forces reeling from what officials say are unsustainable losses.

Afghan and Western officials have warned that a hasty withdrawal of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan would lead to a collapse in understrength Afghan forces, which have been suffering 600 deaths on average every month since 2015.

The Taliban, who have refused to deal with the Afghan government, calling it an illegitimate "puppet" regime, have struck an increasingly confident tone in official statements, declaring this week that the US was "on the brink of defeat".

However, Taliban representatives have also acknowledged some progress in talks with Khalilzad, focusing on the withdrawal of international forces, the release of prisoners and lifting curbs on international travel by Taliban officials.

"There are certain secrets of our meeting with him which we don't want to disclose, as the United States is trying to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible," one Taliban official who has been involved in the Qatar talks told Reuters last month.

Trump's recent letter to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, urging him to help the process, underlines the importance the issue has garnered in Washington.

But both Western and Afghan officials are keenly aware that US President Donald Trump has long been sceptical of the Afghanistan mission, and had to be persuaded to beef up US forces there as part of the South Asia strategy announced last year.

While the discussions continue, diplomats in Kabul joke about the "Tweet of Damocles" hanging over the engagement, a reference to Trump's penchant for surprise announcements on social media. 
&nbsp;

"There is a real sense that the diplomatic and military effort has to be seen to be producing results quite soon, otherwise the White House may simply lose patience," said one Western diplomat in Kabul.

The death last week of the Taliban's senior leader in southern Afghanistan in a US air strike highlights a surge in operations amid pressure to coax the increasingly confident insurgents to accept talks to end the 17-year war.

The death last week of the Taliban's senior leader in southern Afghanistan in a US air strike highlights a surge in operations amid pressure to coax the increasingly confident insurgents to accept talks to end the 17-year war. As US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad makes a fresh round of visits to Afghanistan and neighbouring countries this week and resumes meetings with Taliban representatives, military operations have spiked sharply across the country. The aim, say Afghan and US officials, is to build as strong a position as possible for the hoped-for start of peace talks with the Taliban. Khalilzad told US broadcaster PBS last week that he was "in a hurry" to secure an agreement with the Taliban, ideally ahead of presidential elections scheduled for April 20. While US officials have avoided talk of deadlines, the new urgency has raised fears among many in the Afghan government that the United States seeks a quick way out of its longest war. "The United States basically wants a dignified withdrawal," said one senior Afghan government official who is in near-daily contact with US diplomats working on the peace process. "Progress towards peace remains elusive," the Pentagon Lead Inspector General told Congress in the latest report last month, as civilian and military casualties grow and just 65 percent of the population lives under government control. Large Taliban forces have this year overrun the western city of Farah and the central city of Ghazni, fuelling perceptions that the insurgents, estimated to number 60,000 fighters, are winning. To regain the initiative, Gen. Scott Miller, who arrived as commander of US forces in Afghanistan in September, has pushed Afghan forces to go on the offensive, backed by US Special Forces and air strikes. One such strike killed Abdul Manan, the Taliban's shadow governor for Helmand province, on Saturday. Defence ministry spokesman Ghafoor Ahmad Javed said 161 air strikes in the past two weeks by Afghanistan's own fledgling air force were part of operations which he estimated had killed hundreds of Taliban fighters. "They've lost many commanders and suffered lots of casualties, they've lost training centres and economic support centres including narcotics," he said. "When they're under pressure, they know they can't get anywhere without the peace process." The death of two US Special Forces soldiers and an airman in a roadside bomb blast near Ghazni last week also highlighted the Americans' increasingly active role. "There is more fighting now than a few weeks ago," said Samilhullah, a resident of Ghazni, overrun this year by thousands of Taliban fighters in one of their biggest operations in years. "I see many American and Afghan forces in my village and everyday there are sounds of explosions, gunfire and helicopters flying around." Dangers The approach was designed to complement the diplomatic push toward opening negotiations with the Taliban, said Colonel Dave Butler, the spokesman for US forces in Afghanistan. "We're near a political settlement," he added. "If the Taliban want to keep fighting, we will fight and ensure that they feel the pressure." The US military has dropped more munitions in air strikes this year than any other full year since the height of the US presence in 2011, seeking to bolster Afghan forces reeling from what officials say are unsustainable losses. Afghan and Western officials have warned that a hasty withdrawal of the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan would lead to a collapse in understrength Afghan forces, which have been suffering 600 deaths on average every month since 2015. The Taliban, who have refused to deal with the Afghan government, calling it an illegitimate "puppet" regime, have struck an increasingly confident tone in official statements, declaring this week that the US was "on the brink of defeat". However, Taliban representatives have also acknowledged some progress in talks with Khalilzad, focusing on the withdrawal of international forces, the release of prisoners and lifting curbs on international travel by Taliban officials. "There are certain secrets of our meeting with him which we don't want to disclose, as the United States is trying to leave Afghanistan as soon as possible," one Taliban official who has been involved in the Qatar talks told Reuters last month. Trump's recent letter to Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, urging him to help the process, underlines the importance the issue has garnered in Washington. But both Western and Afghan officials are keenly aware that US President Donald Trump has long been sceptical of the Afghanistan mission, and had to be persuaded to beef up US forces there as part of the South Asia strategy announced last year. While the discussions continue, diplomats in Kabul joke about the "Tweet of Damocles" hanging over the engagement, a reference to Trump's penchant for surprise announcements on social media. "There is a real sense that the diplomatic and military effort has to be seen to be producing results quite soon, otherwise the White House may simply lose patience," said one Western diplomat in Kabul.

Afghan peace push backed by surge in air strikes, operations

The Taliban in Afghanistan have not yet shown any sign they are serious about ending their 17-year insurgency despite US efforts to push a fresh peace process, the country's de facto prime minister has said.

Abdullah Abdullah, who serves as "chief executive" of the unity government in Kabul, struck a far more sceptical tone about the prospects of a deal than his political rival, President Ashraf Ghani, and his Western counterparts.

Ghani said earlier this month it was "not a question of if, but when" an agreement would be reached with the Taliban, while the US envoy to the country even raised the possibility of a breakthrough before presidential elections in April.

"Recently there are renewed efforts in terms of the international community and especially the US," Abdullah told AFP during a wide-ranging interview in Paris that also covered his own political ambitions.

"We are not judging it too prematurely, but I would say that our experience as of now has been that they (the Taliban) have not shown any intention to get seriously engaged in the peace negotiations," he added.

The comment on Wednesday came after the latest atrocity targeting civilians in Kabul when a bomber killed 55 people at a banquet hall at a ceremony to mark the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed.

Abdullah, a political veteran of the fight against Soviet forces in the 1980s and Taliban rule in the 90s, called it "beyond comprehension."&nbsp;

Beleaguered Afghan security forces are also suffering an unprecedented level of casualties across the country where the Taliban and the Islamic State group are stepping up attacks.

Returning to Kabul on Thursday after a three-day trip to France, Abdullah said he expected to be briefed fully about the latest round of talks between US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban, which are believed to have taken place in Qatar last week.

Whatever the outcome, he argued that Afghanistan should hold its presidential election as scheduled next April despite a recent upsurge in violence and suggestions from some that it should be delayed.

"My idea is to stick to the timing, make it work, because it's part of the system and legitimacy of the system depends on the elections," he said.&nbsp;

"At the same time, continue the efforts on peace with full vigour."&nbsp;

He downplayed any suggestion of a pre-election breakthrough with the Taliban.

"It will be very surprising if that happens, but should it happen ... That would be welcomed by the people of Afghanistan," he added.

Abdullah has kept up suspense about his own political ambitions after twice running for president in 2009 and 2014 in campaigns that ended bitterly amid accusations of fraud.

After being beaten in 2014 by Ghani, Abdullah agreed to become prime minister of the unity government in a US-brokered deal -- but the rivalry between the two men continues.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

"I will actively be involved one way or another, but I have not made that final decision," Abdullah said when asked if he would run in 2019.

Looking ahead to next April's vote, Abdullah was candid about the lack of progress made in correcting the weaknesses in Afghanistan's fraud-plagued electoral system.

He said he was "disappointed" by parliamentary elections in October, which were marred by a shambolic rollout of new biometric polling technology and missing or incomplete voter lists.

"Our expectations for the parliamentary elections and the conduct of them was much higher, and the people's expectations were much higher," he said.

There were thousands of complaints lodged against the Independent Electoral Commission, although four million voters did defy the security worries to turn out and cast a ballot.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;

The unity government had pledged to tackle problems that have repeatedly undermined faith in Afghan elections since the US-led invasion in 2001 overthrew the Taliban government in Kabul.

But Abdullah suggested that these efforts, like in other areas, have been hit by the fractious nature of decision-making in the multi-party government.

"It was the commitment of the unity government in 2014... That we will start implementing reforms. We started very late. Why did we do that?" he asked.

Abdullah's defeats in 2009 and then again in 2014 -- when he won the first round but slumped to a surprise defeat in the second -- led to political crises which threatened to unravel the country's fragile political system.

Should observers fear another tainted poll?&nbsp;

"There were a lot of lessons from the parliamentary elections. Should we and other relevant institutions deal with them thoroughly and seriously we can have and we should have better elections than in 2014," he said.

The Taliban in Afghanistan have not yet shown any sign they are serious about ending their 17-year insurgency despite US efforts to push a fresh peace process, the country's de facto prime minister has said.

The Taliban in Afghanistan have not yet shown any sign they are serious about ending their 17-year insurgency despite US efforts to push a fresh peace process, the country's de facto prime minister has said. Abdullah Abdullah, who serves as "chief executive" of the unity government in Kabul, struck a far more sceptical tone about the prospects of a deal than his political rival, President Ashraf Ghani, and his Western counterparts. Ghani said earlier this month it was "not a question of if, but when" an agreement would be reached with the Taliban, while the US envoy to the country even raised the possibility of a breakthrough before presidential elections in April. "Recently there are renewed efforts in terms of the international community and especially the US," Abdullah told AFP during a wide-ranging interview in Paris that also covered his own political ambitions. "We are not judging it too prematurely, but I would say that our experience as of now has been that they (the Taliban) have not shown any intention to get seriously engaged in the peace negotiations," he added. The comment on Wednesday came after the latest atrocity targeting civilians in Kabul when a bomber killed 55 people at a banquet hall at a ceremony to mark the birthday of the Prophet Mohammed. Abdullah, a political veteran of the fight against Soviet forces in the 1980s and Taliban rule in the 90s, called it "beyond comprehension." Beleaguered Afghan security forces are also suffering an unprecedented level of casualties across the country where the Taliban and the Islamic State group are stepping up attacks. Returning to Kabul on Thursday after a three-day trip to France, Abdullah said he expected to be briefed fully about the latest round of talks between US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and the Taliban, which are believed to have taken place in Qatar last week. Whatever the outcome, he argued that Afghanistan should hold its presidential election as scheduled next April despite a recent upsurge in violence and suggestions from some that it should be delayed. "My idea is to stick to the timing, make it work, because it's part of the system and legitimacy of the system depends on the elections," he said. "At the same time, continue the efforts on peace with full vigour." He downplayed any suggestion of a pre-election breakthrough with the Taliban. "It will be very surprising if that happens, but should it happen ... That would be welcomed by the people of Afghanistan," he added. Abdullah has kept up suspense about his own political ambitions after twice running for president in 2009 and 2014 in campaigns that ended bitterly amid accusations of fraud. After being beaten in 2014 by Ghani, Abdullah agreed to become prime minister of the unity government in a US-brokered deal -- but the rivalry between the two men continues. "I will actively be involved one way or another, but I have not made that final decision," Abdullah said when asked if he would run in 2019. Looking ahead to next April's vote, Abdullah was candid about the lack of progress made in correcting the weaknesses in Afghanistan's fraud-plagued electoral system. He said he was "disappointed" by parliamentary elections in October, which were marred by a shambolic rollout of new biometric polling technology and missing or incomplete voter lists. "Our expectations for the parliamentary elections and the conduct of them was much higher, and the people's expectations were much higher," he said. There were thousands of complaints lodged against the Independent Electoral Commission, although four million voters did defy the security worries to turn out and cast a ballot. The unity government had pledged to tackle problems that have repeatedly undermined faith in Afghan elections since the US-led invasion in 2001 overthrew the Taliban government in Kabul. But Abdullah suggested that these efforts, like in other areas, have been hit by the fractious nature of decision-making in the multi-party government. "It was the commitment of the unity government in 2014... That we will start implementing reforms. We started very late. Why did we do that?" he asked. Abdullah's defeats in 2009 and then again in 2014 -- when he won the first round but slumped to a surprise defeat in the second -- led to political crises which threatened to unravel the country's fragile political system. Should observers fear another tainted poll? "There were a lot of lessons from the parliamentary elections. Should we and other relevant institutions deal with them thoroughly and seriously we can have and we should have better elections than in 2014," he said.

Afghan Taliban not serious about peace, says government chief

Representatives from the Taliban met an Afghan government delegation in Saudi Arabia this week to discuss security ahead of next month's parliamentary elections and a limited prisoner release, three Taliban officials said.

The meeting comes less than a month before voters are due to go to the polls on October 20 to elect a new Afghan parliament, a process which has been hampered by fears of attacks on polling stations and campaign rallies.

Ensuring the election passes off smoothly and without violence has been a top priority for the Afghan government and its international partners.

"They requested us to help them conduct peaceful elections," said one of the Taliban leaders.

"The Afghan delegation has agreed with us on the release of prisoners," he said, adding that some prisoners facing minor charges had already been released and officials had divided up others into three categories, depending on their importance, for future release.

Both President Ashraf Ghani's office and the US&nbsp;State Department declined to comment. No comment was available from Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban's main spokesman.

The Taliban, who regard the internationally recognised Afghan government as an illegitimate regime imposed by foreign powers, have generally insisted on negotiating only with the United States but there have been regular unofficial contacts.

Earlier this year, Washington dropped its refusal to talk with the Taliban, saying the United States would be willing to participate in Afghan-led peace talks and US and Taliban delegations met for talks in Doha, Qatar, in July.

The meeting in Saudi Arabia came after plans for another meeting with American officials broke down over US&nbsp;demands for a three-month ceasefire, the Taliban representatives said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Some of our senior people were not in the favour of holding talks with the Afghan government as until now we were calling them puppets and refused to meet them," said one senior Taliban leader in Qatar.

"But our proposed meeting with the Americans failed to take place due to certain reasons," he said.

The officials said US&nbsp;demands for a ceasefire was something the leadership could not agree to. As a result, no formal meeting was held although there were informal contacts.

"Our agreement for holding the meeting was only to discuss prisoner exchange and the removal of our people from the UN black list so they can travel," said one senior Taliban leader from the movement's political office in Qatar.

Representatives from the Taliban met an Afghan government delegation in Saudi Arabia this week to discuss security ahead of next month's parliamentary elections and a limited prisoner release, three Taliban officials said.

Representatives from the Taliban met an Afghan government delegation in Saudi Arabia this week to discuss security ahead of next month's parliamentary elections and a limited prisoner release, three Taliban officials said. The meeting comes less than a month before voters are due to go to the polls on October 20 to elect a new Afghan parliament, a process which has been hampered by fears of attacks on polling stations and campaign rallies. Ensuring the election passes off smoothly and without violence has been a top priority for the Afghan government and its international partners. "They requested us to help them conduct peaceful elections," said one of the Taliban leaders. "The Afghan delegation has agreed with us on the release of prisoners," he said, adding that some prisoners facing minor charges had already been released and officials had divided up others into three categories, depending on their importance, for future release. Both President Ashraf Ghani's office and the US State Department declined to comment. No comment was available from Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban's main spokesman. The Taliban, who regard the internationally recognised Afghan government as an illegitimate regime imposed by foreign powers, have generally insisted on negotiating only with the United States but there have been regular unofficial contacts. Earlier this year, Washington dropped its refusal to talk with the Taliban, saying the United States would be willing to participate in Afghan-led peace talks and US and Taliban delegations met for talks in Doha, Qatar, in July. The meeting in Saudi Arabia came after plans for another meeting with American officials broke down over US demands for a three-month ceasefire, the Taliban representatives said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "Some of our senior people were not in the favour of holding talks with the Afghan government as until now we were calling them puppets and refused to meet them," said one senior Taliban leader in Qatar. "But our proposed meeting with the Americans failed to take place due to certain reasons," he said. The officials said US demands for a ceasefire was something the leadership could not agree to. As a result, no formal meeting was held although there were informal contacts. "Our agreement for holding the meeting was only to discuss prisoner exchange and the removal of our people from the UN black list so they can travel," said one senior Taliban leader from the movement's political office in Qatar.

Taliban meets Afghan officials in Saudi Arabia ahead of election: Report

The Afghan Taliban denounced "American occupying forces" for attacking their Voice of Shariah radio station in the central province of Ghazni, but the United States denied the charge and said Afghan air force planes had targeted a broadcasting tower.

The "Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate" will "not show restraint regarding such evil enemy actions any more", the Taliban said of Sunday's attack which they said involved five US aircraft.

"The claimants of democracy and freedom of speech exposed their true nature and showed that they have absolutely no respect for the views, voice and media of their opposition," the Taliban, who have hit media targets themselves in the past, said in a statement.

"They only use the slogans of 'freedom of speech' to force their own views, culture and colonial agendas on foreign nations."

In 2016, seven Tolo TV employees were killed by a Taliban suicide attacker who rammed a car bomb into a bus driving them home from the station. The Taliban had warned earlier that they considered journalists legitimate targets.

A spokesman for the NATO-led Resolute Support mission said the Taliban statement "speaks volumes with regards to the capabilities" of the Afghan air force.

"It was two Afghan Air Force A-29s (not five US aircraft) that conducted the strike on a Taliban radio broadcasting tower (not radio station) on June 10," Lieutenant-Colonel Martin O'Donnell said.

The Taliban, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster at the hands of US-led troops, announced a surprise ceasefire over the Eid al-Fitr holiday beginning at the end of this week, but said attacks against foreign forces would continue.

Earlier, the government announced a truce for the end-of-Ramadan holiday.

US President Donald Trump in August unveiled a more hawkish military approach to Afghanistan under the Resolute Support mission, including a surge in air strikes, aimed at forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

The Taliban, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster at the hands of US-led troops, announced a surprise ceasefire over the Eid al-Fitr holiday beginning at the end of this week.

The Afghan Taliban denounced "American occupying forces" for attacking their Voice of Shariah radio station in the central province of Ghazni, but the United States denied the charge and said Afghan air force planes had targeted a broadcasting tower. The "Mujahideen of Islamic Emirate" will "not show restraint regarding such evil enemy actions any more", the Taliban said of Sunday's attack which they said involved five US aircraft. "The claimants of democracy and freedom of speech exposed their true nature and showed that they have absolutely no respect for the views, voice and media of their opposition," the Taliban, who have hit media targets themselves in the past, said in a statement. "They only use the slogans of 'freedom of speech' to force their own views, culture and colonial agendas on foreign nations." In 2016, seven Tolo TV employees were killed by a Taliban suicide attacker who rammed a car bomb into a bus driving them home from the station. The Taliban had warned earlier that they considered journalists legitimate targets. A spokesman for the NATO-led Resolute Support mission said the Taliban statement "speaks volumes with regards to the capabilities" of the Afghan air force. "It was two Afghan Air Force A-29s (not five US aircraft) that conducted the strike on a Taliban radio broadcasting tower (not radio station) on June 10," Lieutenant-Colonel Martin O'Donnell said. The Taliban, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster at the hands of US-led troops, announced a surprise ceasefire over the Eid al-Fitr holiday beginning at the end of this week, but said attacks against foreign forces would continue. Earlier, the government announced a truce for the end-of-Ramadan holiday. US President Donald Trump in August unveiled a more hawkish military approach to Afghanistan under the Resolute Support mission, including a surge in air strikes, aimed at forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

'American occupying forces' attacked Voice of Shariah radio station: Taliban

Pakistan should become a "trading nation'' rather than a ''warrior nation" while ensuring it does not turn into China's pawn, Islamabad's former envoy to the US, Husain Haqqani, has said.

In an interview to PTI, Haqqani said Pakistan also needs to take a call on what is more important? supporting terror suspect Hafiz Saeed or gaining international credibility and respect.

Amid the consolidation of the already-robust Sino-Pak ties, Haqqani, who served as ambassador to the US from 2008 to 2011, stressed Pakistan should not go from being dependent on the US to rely on China and must refrain from becoming a "Chinese pawn".

Pakistan needs to build a self-sustaining economy, he said, warning Islamabad of the pitfalls of aligning with a major power.

Haqqani, who was in India last week for the launch of his new book 'Reimagining Pakistan: Transforming a Dysfunctional Nuclear State', said the country needs to "re-think its overall direction", including in the economic sector.

Pakistan&nbspshould become a "trading nation rather than a warrior nation" and start thinking about geo-economics rather than geostrategy, said the 61-year-old former diplomat and author of 'Pakistan Between Mosque and Military' and 'India v Pakistan: Why Can't We Just Be Friends', among other books.

"Trying to take advantage of its strategic location by allowing itself to be used by one major power or another has brought Pakistan to the present situation and if we continue to play the same game, the result is not going to be very different in the future, he said.

While Islamabad should seek good relations with Beijing, "there is no reason why Pakistan should become a Chinese pawn in the mistaken belief" that this would somehow make it a power in its own right, he said when asked if Pakistan's dependence on China could prove counterproductive.

His remarks assume significance as in January, the US had suspended more than $1.15 billion security assistance to Pakistan, accusing it of harbouring terror groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Afghan guerilla group Haqqani Network.

After US President Donald Trump had lashed out at Pakistan earlier this year for providing "safe havens" to terrorists, China had defended Islamabad, saying the world community should acknowledge its all-weather ally's "outstanding contribution" to counter terrorism.

Asked if America's tougher stance against terror would push Islamabad into a robust military alliance with Beijing, Haqqani said the more America and India came close, the more Pakistan would try to strengthen its ties with China.

"But, for Pakistan's own sake, it would be useful to have relationships with multiple partners. Dependence on the US did not prove useful for Pakistan in the 50s and 60s dependence on China will not necessarily be the key to Pakistan's progress in the 21st century," said Haqqani,

who lives in the US, where he is Senior Fellow and Director for South and Central Asia at the Washington-based Hudson Institute.

Haqqani was removed as Pakistan's envoy to the US for his alleged role in what is known as the Memogate controversy, which revolved around a memorandum seeking help from the Obama administration after the killing of Osama bin Laden to avert a military takeover of the civilian government in his country.

Asked if the suspension of American aid had brought about a change in Pakistan's attitude, Haqqani said the establishment had not changed its world view and was still hoping that logistical and other considerations would make the Trump administration soften its stance.

On the possibility of power blocs being formed in the region, he said a "new Cold War" in which Pakistan aligns with China and India with the United States was not going to be positive for South Asia.

"I think that aligning with one major power against another is not the recipe for economic growth and success for a country like Pakistan," said Haqqani, who also served as the Pakistani envoy to Sri Lanka from 1992 to 1993.

The former diplomat, who is often critical of the Pakistani military, rued that the power structure in the country had not changed fundamentally and national security and foreign policy remained in the hands of the Army.

Pakistan has made distinctions between terror groups that have acted against it and those that have acted outside the country, and that distinction had not worked to its advantage, he said.

Islamabad's insistence on "mainstreaming terrorists" rather than marginalising them was going to be counter-productive for the country, he held.

Haqqani also said the Kashmir issue could be put on the back burner to build normal Indo-Pak relations.

"It is also a reality that the problem of Kashmir has not been solved in 70 years. And if Pakistan insists on solving the Kashmir problem before moving forward on normal relations with India, then it may have to wait for another 70 years," he said.

Haqqani said Pakistan also needs to take a call on what is more important? supporting terror suspect Hafiz Saeed or gaining international credibility and respect

Pakistan should become a "trading nation'' rather than a ''warrior nation" while ensuring it does not turn into China's pawn, Islamabad's former envoy to the US, Husain Haqqani, has said. In an interview to PTI, Haqqani said Pakistan also needs to take a call on what is more important? supporting terror suspect Hafiz Saeed or gaining international credibility and respect. Amid the consolidation of the already-robust Sino-Pak ties, Haqqani, who served as ambassador to the US from 2008 to 2011, stressed Pakistan should not go from being dependent on the US to rely on China and must refrain from becoming a "Chinese pawn". Pakistan needs to build a self-sustaining economy, he said, warning Islamabad of the pitfalls of aligning with a major power. Haqqani, who was in India last week for the launch of his new book 'Reimagining Pakistan: Transforming a Dysfunctional Nuclear State', said the country needs to "re-think its overall direction", including in the economic sector. Pakistan&nbspshould become a "trading nation rather than a warrior nation" and start thinking about geo-economics rather than geostrategy, said the 61-year-old former diplomat and author of 'Pakistan Between Mosque and Military' and 'India v Pakistan: Why Can't We Just Be Friends', among other books. "Trying to take advantage of its strategic location by allowing itself to be used by one major power or another has brought Pakistan to the present situation and if we continue to play the same game, the result is not going to be very different in the future, he said. While Islamabad should seek good relations with Beijing, "there is no reason why Pakistan should become a Chinese pawn in the mistaken belief" that this would somehow make it a power in its own right, he said when asked if Pakistan's dependence on China could prove counterproductive. His remarks assume significance as in January, the US had suspended more than $1.15 billion security assistance to Pakistan, accusing it of harbouring terror groups such as the Afghan Taliban and Afghan guerilla group Haqqani Network. After US President Donald Trump had lashed out at Pakistan earlier this year for providing "safe havens" to terrorists, China had defended Islamabad, saying the world community should acknowledge its all-weather ally's "outstanding contribution" to counter terrorism. Asked if America's tougher stance against terror would push Islamabad into a robust military alliance with Beijing, Haqqani said the more America and India came close, the more Pakistan would try to strengthen its ties with China. "But, for Pakistan's own sake, it would be useful to have relationships with multiple partners. Dependence on the US did not prove useful for Pakistan in the 50s and 60s dependence on China will not necessarily be the key to Pakistan's progress in the 21st century," said Haqqani, who lives in the US, where he is Senior Fellow and Director for South and Central Asia at the Washington-based Hudson Institute. Haqqani was removed as Pakistan's envoy to the US for his alleged role in what is known as the Memogate controversy, which revolved around a memorandum seeking help from the Obama administration after the killing of Osama bin Laden to avert a military takeover of the civilian government in his country. Asked if the suspension of American aid had brought about a change in Pakistan's attitude, Haqqani said the establishment had not changed its world view and was still hoping that logistical and other considerations would make the Trump administration soften its stance. On the possibility of power blocs being formed in the region, he said a "new Cold War" in which Pakistan aligns with China and India with the United States was not going to be positive for South Asia. "I think that aligning with one major power against another is not the recipe for economic growth and success for a country like Pakistan," said Haqqani, who also served as the Pakistani envoy to Sri Lanka from 1992 to 1993. The former diplomat, who is often critical of the Pakistani military, rued that the power structure in the country had not changed fundamentally and national security and foreign policy remained in the hands of the Army. Pakistan has made distinctions between terror groups that have acted against it and those that have acted outside the country, and that distinction had not worked to its advantage, he said. Islamabad's insistence on "mainstreaming terrorists" rather than marginalising them was going to be counter-productive for the country, he held. Haqqani also said the Kashmir issue could be put on the back burner to build normal Indo-Pak relations. "It is also a reality that the problem of Kashmir has not been solved in 70 years. And if Pakistan insists on solving the Kashmir problem before moving forward on normal relations with India, then it may have to wait for another 70 years," he said.

Don't be warrior nation or China pawn: ex-envoy Haqqani to Pakistan

The Afghan government on Thursday accused Pakistan of air strikes in the Afghan province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan, causing "huge financial damage".

The tension comes ahead of a scheduled visit to Kabul on Friday by Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, when he and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani are expected to discuss cooperation in stopping militant attacks.

Pakistani jets dropped four bombs on Wednesday evening in Kunar's Dangam district, according to a statement from Afghanistan's ministry of foreign affairs. It did not elaborate on the damage and made no mention of any casualties.

"Afghanistan warns that continuing violations of international norms ... will have further consequences on the relations between the two countries," the ministry said.

Pakistan's foreign ministry and military did not respond to requests for comment.

Afghanistan's Western-backed government has long accused Pakistan of harbouring Afghan Taliban insurgents, a charge that Islamabad denies.

Islamabad, in turn, accuses Afghanistan of not doing enough to eradicate Pakistani Taliban militants, many of whom are based in Afghanistan and mostly carry out attacks inside Pakistan.

The tension comes ahead of a scheduled visit to Kabul on Friday by Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, when he and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani are expected to discuss cooperation in stopping militant attacks

The Afghan government on Thursday accused Pakistan of air strikes in the Afghan province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan, causing "huge financial damage". The tension comes ahead of a scheduled visit to Kabul on Friday by Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, when he and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani are expected to discuss cooperation in stopping militant attacks. Pakistani jets dropped four bombs on Wednesday evening in Kunar's Dangam district, according to a statement from Afghanistan's ministry of foreign affairs. It did not elaborate on the damage and made no mention of any casualties. "Afghanistan warns that continuing violations of international norms ... will have further consequences on the relations between the two countries," the ministry said. Pakistan's foreign ministry and military did not respond to requests for comment. Afghanistan's Western-backed government has long accused Pakistan of harbouring Afghan Taliban insurgents, a charge that Islamabad denies. Islamabad, in turn, accuses Afghanistan of not doing enough to eradicate Pakistani Taliban militants, many of whom are based in Afghanistan and mostly carry out attacks inside Pakistan.

Afghanistan accuses Pakistan of air strikes ahead of leaders' talks

The United States<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-seeks-real-action-from-pakistan-on-taliban-haqqani-network-36116"> has ruled out the possibility of </a>&quot;hot pursuit&quot; to pursue the Taliban into Pakistan.

Lt Col Mike Andrews, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-drone-strike-kills-taliban-deputy-commander-3-haqqani-network-militants-32314">spokesman for the Department of </a>Defence said &quot;US military forces will remain within the borders of Afghanistan only.&quot;

The Pentagon official said US&nbsp;forces do not have the &quot;authority&quot;&nbsp;to cross over to Pakistan from the Afghan border.

&quot;To be clear, US military authorities are within the borders of Afghanistan only. We have no authority to go into Pakistan. If there is a way to get that authority, but that would certainly be the exception and not the norm and would not be,&quot; Lt Col Mike Andrews said.

Pakistan is under increasing pressure by the US to track down and eliminate the Taliban militants in its territory including the Haqqani Network, a strategy laid down by President Trump.

&quot;Say, for example, we have troops in contact and then the Taliban militants go across the border. They are clearly inside Pakistan then. There&#39;s no change with regards to respecting the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan,&quot; Andrews declared.

&quot;If the Taliban reside in Pakistan and we are able to provide safety and support and to help secure districts and provinces within the borders of Afghanistan, I think that that is a tradeoff that we&#39;re willing to make,&quot; Andrews said, adding, &quot;Because it&#39;s not necessarily about these people over in Pakistan, its about the Afghan people.&quot;

 
<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wYsp78vek4k" width="560"></iframe> 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Lt Col Mike Andrews, spokesman for the Department of Defence said "US military forces will remain within the borders of Afghanistan only."

The United States has ruled out the possibility of "hot pursuit" to pursue the Taliban into Pakistan. Lt Col Mike Andrews, spokesman for the Department of Defence said "US military forces will remain within the borders of Afghanistan only." The Pentagon official said US forces do not have the "authority" to cross over to Pakistan from the Afghan border. "To be clear, US military authorities are within the borders of Afghanistan only. We have no authority to go into Pakistan. If there is a way to get that authority, but that would certainly be the exception and not the norm and would not be," Lt Col Mike Andrews said. Pakistan is under increasing pressure by the US to track down and eliminate the Taliban militants in its territory including the Haqqani Network, a strategy laid down by President Trump. "Say, for example, we have troops in contact and then the Taliban militants go across the border. They are clearly inside Pakistan then. There's no change with regards to respecting the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan," Andrews declared. "If the Taliban reside in Pakistan and we are able to provide safety and support and to help secure districts and provinces within the borders of Afghanistan, I think that that is a tradeoff that we're willing to make," Andrews said, adding, "Because it's not necessarily about these people over in Pakistan, its about the Afghan people."

US military won't cross border from Afghanistan into Pak to pursue Taliban: Pentagon

The Afghan Taliban has accepted to join the peace dialogue initiated by the President Ashraf Ghani.&nbsp;

According to media reports, Afghanistan&#39;s Herat provincial council chairman Kamran Alizai said the talks were held with the militant group regarding the same and in return, the Taliban set pre-conditions such as securing employment on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project.

&quot;The armed group (Taliban) said they will join the peace process if employed on the TAPI project. They will also ensure the project&#39;s security,&quot; said Alizai.

The group&#39;s move was welcomed by Herat governor Mohammad Asif Rahimi and assured to provide them with employment opportunities after they join the peace process.

&quot;The door is open, the offer has been made to all the anti-government armed groups,&quot; Rahimi said.

This comes after a group of 10 insurgents also joined the peace process in support of the TAPI project.

Meanwhile, Pakistan also supported Ghani&#39;s initiative, in what was seen as the first possible breakthrough in the thawing of frosty ties between Kabul and Islamabad.

The TAPI is an under-construction pipeline which will transport natural gas starting from the Galkynysh Gas Field in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.&nbsp;

The pipeline expected to be operational by 2019.

Taliban has set pre-conditions before joining the talks

The Afghan Taliban has accepted to join the peace dialogue initiated by the President Ashraf Ghani. According to media reports, Afghanistan's Herat provincial council chairman Kamran Alizai said the talks were held with the militant group regarding the same and in return, the Taliban set pre-conditions such as securing employment on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) gas pipeline project. "The armed group (Taliban) said they will join the peace process if employed on the TAPI project. They will also ensure the project's security," said Alizai. The group's move was welcomed by Herat governor Mohammad Asif Rahimi and assured to provide them with employment opportunities after they join the peace process. "The door is open, the offer has been made to all the anti-government armed groups," Rahimi said. This comes after a group of 10 insurgents also joined the peace process in support of the TAPI project. Meanwhile, Pakistan also supported Ghani's initiative, in what was seen as the first possible breakthrough in the thawing of frosty ties between Kabul and Islamabad. The TAPI is an under-construction pipeline which will transport natural gas starting from the Galkynysh Gas Field in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. The pipeline expected to be operational by 2019.

Afghan Taliban accepts President Ghani's peace dialogue

Pakistan need not kill or capture militants such as members of the Haqqani network that use its territory to launch attacks in Afghanistan but could push them across the border instead, a senior US&nbsp;official said on Friday.

Evicting the militants would put them at risk of attack from Afghan and US&nbsp;forces trying to keep Afghanistan from becoming a launching pad for strikes on the West more than 16 years after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

The United States is pressuring Pakistan to cease providing sanctuary - which it denies giving - to Islamist militants unleashing chaos in neighboring Afghanistan.

On January 4, Washington said it would suspend some security aid to Islamabad to get it to end support for the Afghan Taliban and the allied Haqqani network whose attacks in Afghanistan have killed US, Afghan, and other forces.

The senior US&nbsp;official said in an interview that since the aid suspension - which US&nbsp;officials later said could affect as much as about $2 billion - the United States has not seen any sustained Pakistani effort against the militants.

In the latest US-led push to spur Pakistani action, a global money-laundering watchdog decided to put the country back on its terrorist financing watch list, a Pakistani government official and a diplomat told Reuters in Islamabad.

The US&nbsp;official dismissed suggestions pressure from Washington may backfire and suggested that Pakistan might start by taking smaller, tactical steps, including forcing such groups into Afghanistan before the spring fighting season begins.

&quot;I don&rsquo;t think Pakistan is feeling its oats. I think it`s feeling pressure,&quot; said the US&nbsp;official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. &quot;We have their attention.&quot;

The official said the United States did not have a specific timeline to assess Pakistani cooperation and would be looking to see if Islamabad would take &quot;tactical steps&quot; such as &quot;actions against ... (the) Haqqanis, pushing them across the border.

&quot;They don&rsquo;t have to arrest them or kill them ... just get them into Afghanistan, disrupt some of the infrastructure that exists, make it harder for them,&quot; the official added. &quot;We are about two months away from the fighting season, so now is the time to do some of this.&quot;

Some in the US&nbsp;government doubt Pakistan will comply.

In a February 13 statement to Congress, US&nbsp;Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said Pakistan would maintain &quot;its ties with militant groups, restricting counter-terrorism cooperation&quot; with the United States.

Pakistan need not kill or capture militants such as members of the Haqqani network that use its territory to launch attacks in Afghanistan but could push them across the border instead, a senior US official said on Friday

Pakistan need not kill or capture militants such as members of the Haqqani network that use its territory to launch attacks in Afghanistan but could push them across the border instead, a senior US official said on Friday. Evicting the militants would put them at risk of attack from Afghan and US forces trying to keep Afghanistan from becoming a launching pad for strikes on the West more than 16 years after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington. The United States is pressuring Pakistan to cease providing sanctuary - which it denies giving - to Islamist militants unleashing chaos in neighboring Afghanistan. On January 4, Washington said it would suspend some security aid to Islamabad to get it to end support for the Afghan Taliban and the allied Haqqani network whose attacks in Afghanistan have killed US, Afghan, and other forces. The senior US official said in an interview that since the aid suspension - which US officials later said could affect as much as about $2 billion - the United States has not seen any sustained Pakistani effort against the militants. In the latest US-led push to spur Pakistani action, a global money-laundering watchdog decided to put the country back on its terrorist financing watch list, a Pakistani government official and a diplomat told Reuters in Islamabad. The US official dismissed suggestions pressure from Washington may backfire and suggested that Pakistan might start by taking smaller, tactical steps, including forcing such groups into Afghanistan before the spring fighting season begins. "I don’t think Pakistan is feeling its oats. I think it`s feeling pressure," said the US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have their attention." The official said the United States did not have a specific timeline to assess Pakistani cooperation and would be looking to see if Islamabad would take "tactical steps" such as "actions against ... (the) Haqqanis, pushing them across the border. "They don’t have to arrest them or kill them ... just get them into Afghanistan, disrupt some of the infrastructure that exists, make it harder for them," the official added. "We are about two months away from the fighting season, so now is the time to do some of this." Some in the US government doubt Pakistan will comply. In a February 13 statement to Congress, US Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats said Pakistan would maintain "its ties with militant groups, restricting counter-terrorism cooperation" with the United States.

Pakistan could evict, rather than kill, militants: US official

afghan-taliban

Afghan Taliban, News on Afghan Taliban, stories on Afghan Taliban, articles on Afghan Taliban, Afghan Taliban stories at Wion, Afghan Taliban news, Afghan Taliban latest news

afghan taliban