US president made it clear, that even though his administration is in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-proper-wall-never-got-built-i-will-get-it-built-says-trump-during-state-of-the-union-address-195465">talks with the Taliban</a> for the pact to bring stability in the country, US troops are not going to fully leave the south Asian country.

Speaking during his second <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-proper-wall-never-got-built-i-will-get-it-built-says-trump-during-state-of-the-union-address-195465">State of the Union address (SOTU)</a>, Trump said, "In Afghanistan, my administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. And we will indeed focus on counterterrorism."

Sounding cautious, he said,"We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement" but "we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace" and "the other side would like to do the same thing."

This will come as a relief for New Delhi that sees complete withdrawal as increasing Pakistan's influence in Kabul, which Islamabad has been trying since decades.

During US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's India visit, New Delhi had made it clear that it has security and economic interest in the country and called Washington to safeguard existing political and constitutional structure in the country.

Earlier on Tuesday, US secretary of state, Michael Pompeo spoke with Afghan President Ghani and reaffirmed American commitment "to achieving a lasting peace in Afghanistan."

In a statement released by the US state department, it was said that the "Secretary underscored Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad’s role in facilitating an inclusive peace process."

Pompeo also focused on intra-Afghan dialogue in which Afghan govt can sit together with the Taliban for a political settlement. The state department said that the secretary "emphasized the importance of an intra-Afghan dialogue and the role of a ceasefire in ending the violence and creating the conditions for the Afghan government, other Afghan leaders and the Taliban to sit together and negotiate a political settlement"

US president made it clear, that even though his administration is in talks with the Taliban for the pact to bring stability in the country, US troops are not going to fully leave the south Asian country.

US president made it clear, that even though his administration is in talks with the Taliban for the pact to bring stability in the country, US troops are not going to fully leave the south Asian country. Speaking during his second State of the Union address (SOTU), Trump said, "In Afghanistan, my administration is holding constructive talks with a number of Afghan groups, including the Taliban. As we make progress in these negotiations, we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. And we will indeed focus on counterterrorism." Sounding cautious, he said,"We do not know whether we will achieve an agreement" but "we do know that after two decades of war, the hour has come to at least try for peace" and "the other side would like to do the same thing." This will come as a relief for New Delhi that sees complete withdrawal as increasing Pakistan's influence in Kabul, which Islamabad has been trying since decades. During US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's India visit, New Delhi had made it clear that it has security and economic interest in the country and called Washington to safeguard existing political and constitutional structure in the country. Earlier on Tuesday, US secretary of state, Michael Pompeo spoke with Afghan President Ghani and reaffirmed American commitment "to achieving a lasting peace in Afghanistan." In a statement released by the US state department, it was said that the "Secretary underscored Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad’s role in facilitating an inclusive peace process." Pompeo also focused on intra-Afghan dialogue in which Afghan govt can sit together with the Taliban for a political settlement. The state department said that the secretary "emphasized the importance of an intra-Afghan dialogue and the role of a ceasefire in ending the violence and creating the conditions for the Afghan government, other Afghan leaders and the Taliban to sit together and negotiate a political settlement"

Will reduce troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism in Afghanistan: Trump in State of the Union address

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

With the rapidly <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/talks-hosted-by-russia-will-not-help-in-the-peace-process-afghanistan-194573">developing situation in Afghanistan</a>, India had made it clear to US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was on his maiden Delhi visit last month that it doesnt favor any interim arrangements&nbsp;and reminded him about its deep economic and security interest in the south Asian country.&nbsp;

In the recent Taliban-US talks, there have been calls of an<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/trump-says-afghanistan-talks-proceeding-well-194171"> interim administration and many </a>expect if a peace pact is agreed, Kabul might see an interim government.

India while understanding Washington's keenness to withdraw from Afghanistan, called for safeguarding the existing political and constitutional structure.

Zalmay after his New Delhi visit, later visited Afghanistan, China and Pakistan.

New Delhi, which is constructing number of infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, informed Zalmay that continuation of its projects depends on how the situation evolves in Afghanistan.

With a development assistance of $3 billion, India is Afghanistan's largest doner. It is also connecting Afghanistan via Chabahar port and the India-Afghanistan air corridor which was launched in 2017. It had built the Afghan parliament and India-Afghan friendship dam in Herat and is currently constructing 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram, 220kV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a 220/110/20 kV sub-station at Chimtala.&nbsp;

Top sources have told Wion, that India might not be visible but is acting in its security interest and doesnt see any reason for acting in haste.&nbsp;

India continues to work behind the scenes and is in touch with Moscow, Tehran, Bejing and all the central Asian countries regarding the situation in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

Recently India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj visited&nbsp;Samarkand in Uzbekistan and took part in the first India-Central Asia dialogues in which the situation in Afghanistan was discussed.

Inside Afghanistan also India is in touch with Pashtun leaders and other Afghan leaders. Sources in Afghanistan have confirmed, that barring Taliban, New Delhi is engaged with everyone.

Afghan Nation Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and former Afghan President Hamid Karzai were in Delhi recently.&nbsp;

In 2018, at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys - former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and ex-Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present in the meet.

Last week, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar in his weekly briefing had said, "We will participate in all formats of talks which could bring peace and security in that region."

Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "It is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate".

With the rapidly developing situation in Afghanistan, India had made it clear to US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was on his maiden Delhi visit last month that it doesnt favor any interim arrangements and reminded him about its deep economic and security interest in the south Asian country.

With the rapidly developing situation in Afghanistan, India had made it clear to US special envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad who was on his maiden Delhi visit last month that it doesnt favor any interim arrangements and reminded him about its deep economic and security interest in the south Asian country. In the recent Taliban-US talks, there have been calls of an interim administration and many expect if a peace pact is agreed, Kabul might see an interim government. India while understanding Washington's keenness to withdraw from Afghanistan, called for safeguarding the existing political and constitutional structure. Zalmay after his New Delhi visit, later visited Afghanistan, China and Pakistan. New Delhi, which is constructing number of infrastructure projects in Afghanistan, informed Zalmay that continuation of its projects depends on how the situation evolves in Afghanistan. With a development assistance of $3 billion, India is Afghanistan's largest doner. It is also connecting Afghanistan via Chabahar port and the India-Afghanistan air corridor which was launched in 2017. It had built the Afghan parliament and India-Afghan friendship dam in Herat and is currently constructing 218 km road from Zaranj to Delaram, 220kV DC transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul and a 220/110/20 kV sub-station at Chimtala. Top sources have told Wion, that India might not be visible but is acting in its security interest and doesnt see any reason for acting in haste. India continues to work behind the scenes and is in touch with Moscow, Tehran, Bejing and all the central Asian countries regarding the situation in Afghanistan. Recently India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj visited Samarkand in Uzbekistan and took part in the first India-Central Asia dialogues in which the situation in Afghanistan was discussed. Inside Afghanistan also India is in touch with Pashtun leaders and other Afghan leaders. Sources in Afghanistan have confirmed, that barring Taliban, New Delhi is engaged with everyone. Afghan Nation Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib and former Afghan President Hamid Karzai were in Delhi recently. In 2018, at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys - former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and ex-Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present in the meet. Last week, the ministry of external affairs spokesperson Raveesh Kumar in his weekly briefing had said, "We will participate in all formats of talks which could bring peace and security in that region." Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "It is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate".

During US special envoy Khalilzad's visit, India dismissed idea of interim government in Afghanistan

Russia will host the Taliban and Afghan politicians <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/will-participate-in-all-formats-of-talks-that-bring-peace-india-on-afghan-peace-process-194136">opposed to President Ashraf Ghani </a>on Tuesday, Russian and Taliban sources said, promoting its role of power broker in what a US official called an attempt to "muddle" the US-backed peace process.

Moscow snubbed the Afghan government, sources said, to ensure the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kabul-control-slips-in-afghanistan-amid-us-talks-with-taliban-194042"> participation of the Taliban</a> who refuse to hold talks with Ghani's representatives to end the 17-year-old Afghan war, branding them puppets of the United States.

"Senior Taliban leaders and prominent Afghan politicians will travel to Moscow for a day-long summit. At this sensitive stage, it was best to not have Afghan government officials at the table," said a Russian official on condition of anonymity.

The Russian embassy in Kabul was not available for comment.

The Moscow talks underline the increasing role Russia is playing in Afghanistan, decades after Soviet forces withdrew from the country, with business investment plans, diplomatic and cultural outreach and small military support for the central government.

They also come as the Afghan government is struggling to recover control of districts lost to the Taliban.

The latest quarterly report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted that the control of Afghanistan's territory and population "became somewhat more contested (and) Afghan government control or influence continued to decline".

The news of Russia hosting Ghani's critics, including former President Hamid Karzai who believes Russia can play a decisive role in ending America’s longest war, has angered Kabul and US officials.

"Russia is again trying to muddle the US-backed peace process and the political situation of Afghanistan," said a senior US official, adding that Russia's repeated overtures towards the Taliban and Ghani's critics proved its determination to belittle the government.

Prominent outspoken critics of Ghani, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Mohammad Ismail Khan and Atta Mohammad Noor, who fought against the Soviets after their 1979 invasion, will travel to Moscow.

Sohail Shahin, a spokesman for the Taliban political office in Qatar, said a delegation led by Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, a senior political leader, would travel to Moscow for what he said would be a two-day meeting.

Last November, Moscow hosted a multilateral summit to try to find ways to end the war, drawing delegates from a body appointed by the Western-backed government, the Taliban and officials from a dozen nations, including the United States.

Analysts said Russia wants to maintain good relations with the Taliban, who are fighting to restore strict Islamic rule after their 2001 ouster.

"Russia knows that Ghani's government was established with American support that is why they are not giving importance to it," said Wadir Safi, a political science professor at Kabul University.

"The Moscow meeting can cause hurdles to the ongoing peace talks if it is not in close cooperation with the US peace efforts."

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in January her country welcomed Washington’s peace initiative, but US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad’s attempts to convince the Taliban to sit down to talks with the Kabul government have failed.

The United States has some 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission and a separate counter-terrorism effort largely directed at groups such as al Qaeda and Islamic State.

The next round of peace talks between Khalizad and the Taliban's newly appointed political leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is scheduled for Qatar on February 25th.

Russia will host the Taliban and Afghan politicians opposed to President Ashraf Ghani on Tuesday, Russian and Taliban sources said, promoting its role of power broker in what a US official called an attempt to "muddle" the US-backed peace process.

Russia will host the Taliban and Afghan politicians opposed to President Ashraf Ghani on Tuesday, Russian and Taliban sources said, promoting its role of power broker in what a US official called an attempt to "muddle" the US-backed peace process. Moscow snubbed the Afghan government, sources said, to ensure the participation of the Taliban who refuse to hold talks with Ghani's representatives to end the 17-year-old Afghan war, branding them puppets of the United States. "Senior Taliban leaders and prominent Afghan politicians will travel to Moscow for a day-long summit. At this sensitive stage, it was best to not have Afghan government officials at the table," said a Russian official on condition of anonymity. The Russian embassy in Kabul was not available for comment. The Moscow talks underline the increasing role Russia is playing in Afghanistan, decades after Soviet forces withdrew from the country, with business investment plans, diplomatic and cultural outreach and small military support for the central government. They also come as the Afghan government is struggling to recover control of districts lost to the Taliban. The latest quarterly report by the US Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction noted that the control of Afghanistan's territory and population "became somewhat more contested (and) Afghan government control or influence continued to decline". The news of Russia hosting Ghani's critics, including former President Hamid Karzai who believes Russia can play a decisive role in ending America’s longest war, has angered Kabul and US officials. "Russia is again trying to muddle the US-backed peace process and the political situation of Afghanistan," said a senior US official, adding that Russia's repeated overtures towards the Taliban and Ghani's critics proved its determination to belittle the government. Prominent outspoken critics of Ghani, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Mohammad Ismail Khan and Atta Mohammad Noor, who fought against the Soviets after their 1979 invasion, will travel to Moscow. Sohail Shahin, a spokesman for the Taliban political office in Qatar, said a delegation led by Mohammad Abbas Stanekzai, a senior political leader, would travel to Moscow for what he said would be a two-day meeting. Last November, Moscow hosted a multilateral summit to try to find ways to end the war, drawing delegates from a body appointed by the Western-backed government, the Taliban and officials from a dozen nations, including the United States. Analysts said Russia wants to maintain good relations with the Taliban, who are fighting to restore strict Islamic rule after their 2001 ouster. "Russia knows that Ghani's government was established with American support that is why they are not giving importance to it," said Wadir Safi, a political science professor at Kabul University. "The Moscow meeting can cause hurdles to the ongoing peace talks if it is not in close cooperation with the US peace efforts." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in January her country welcomed Washington’s peace initiative, but US special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad’s attempts to convince the Taliban to sit down to talks with the Kabul government have failed. The United States has some 14,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led Resolute Support mission and a separate counter-terrorism effort largely directed at groups such as al Qaeda and Islamic State. The next round of peace talks between Khalizad and the Taliban's newly appointed political leader, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, is scheduled for Qatar on February 25th.

Russia to host Taliban, Afghan politicians opposed to President Ghani: Sources

India has said it is "closely following the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/kabul-control-slips-in-afghanistan-amid-us-talks-with-taliban-194042">developments related to peace</a> and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan which have been undertaken by different stakeholders" and it will participate in "all formats of talks" which could "bring peace and security in the region."

Reacting to a question on recent developments in Afghan peace process, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said,"India supports efforts which can achieve an inclusive political settlement. In this context, it is an important presidential election in Afghanistan which takes place as per schedule."

Last week after the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-not-stay-longer-than-necessary-in-afghanistan-nato-chief-193642">United States-Taliban talks in Doha</a>, it was announced that both sides may soon come up with a pact that may see American forces leave Afghanistan after 17 years.

While reiterating its official stand on the Afghan peace process, Kumar said, "We continue to support Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled process."

In 2018 at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys-- former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present at the meet.

Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "it is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate".

India doesn't engage with the Taliban as an official policy. Russia is again planning another Moscow format talks on Afghanistan with the presence of Taliban which India expects it will be invited.&nbsp;

Raveesh also highlighted the issue of terror emanating from neighbouring countries without taking names and said: "we also feel that for enduring peace and stability in Afghanistan terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries need to be eliminated."

According to the US intelligence community report terror attacks in Afghanistan and India may increase due to Islamabad's resistance to act on terror groups on its territory.

India has said it is "closely following the developments related to peace and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan which have been undertaken by different stakeholders" and it will participate in "all formats of talks" which could "bring peace and security in the region.

India has said it is "closely following the developments related to peace and reconciliation efforts in Afghanistan which have been undertaken by different stakeholders" and it will participate in "all formats of talks" which could "bring peace and security in the region." Reacting to a question on recent developments in Afghan peace process, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said,"India supports efforts which can achieve an inclusive political settlement. In this context, it is an important presidential election in Afghanistan which takes place as per schedule." Last week after the United States-Taliban talks in Doha, it was announced that both sides may soon come up with a pact that may see American forces leave Afghanistan after 17 years. While reiterating its official stand on the Afghan peace process, Kumar said, "We continue to support Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled process." In 2018 at the Moscow talks on Afghanistan, India participated "non-officially" and sent two former envoys-- former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha and former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan TCA Raghavan. Taliban was also present at the meet. Asked if "participation in all formats" means even if Taliban is present, MEA spokesperson said, "it is speculative. It depends from meeting to meeting. Let us see for which meetings we are being invited and then we will take a decision as to what level and what capacity we participate". India doesn't engage with the Taliban as an official policy. Russia is again planning another Moscow format talks on Afghanistan with the presence of Taliban which India expects it will be invited. Raveesh also highlighted the issue of terror emanating from neighbouring countries without taking names and said: "we also feel that for enduring peace and stability in Afghanistan terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries need to be eliminated." According to the US intelligence community report terror attacks in Afghanistan and India may increase due to Islamabad's resistance to act on terror groups on its territory.

Will participate in all formats of talks that bring peace: India on Afghan peace process

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

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks.

White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue.''

But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks.

The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks.

He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo."

Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat"

It's interesting to add that Abu Dhabi had also hosted US-Taliban talks.&nbsp;

UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries.

The Afghan peace talks are expected to pave way for American troops to leave the country after 17 years. Stakes seem to be high and experts say dealing with Taliban will require a lot of patience.&nbsp;

India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Amar Sinha reacting to US Taliban Pact told WION, "We have seen only the outlines of a framework agreement and have also heard US Special Representative say that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed". &nbsp;But we all know "the devil &nbsp;is in the details."

Speaking to WION, Michael Kugelman South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Centre said, "It’s a big deal because it represents the first formal attempt to chart a way forward. There have been many meetings between the US and Taliban in the past, but not until now have they formally pledged to address each other’s demands. Could all this progress come crashing down? Certainly. At the end of the day, if the Taliban doesn’t like what’s on the table, it could easily break off the dialogue and fully redirect its attention to the battlefield. That’s why the talks that take place in the coming days will need to be carried out carefully."

India is cautiously watching the developments but so far hasn't reacted. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib was in Delhi in early January.

India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj met the Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Samarkand, Uzbekistan a few weeks ago on the sidelines of first India Central Asia dialogue.&nbsp;

Talking about India, Kugelman said, "For India, these talks are a reminder that its say in Afghanistan’s future, at least for now, is limited. India is a key regional player. But for now, it is left on the outside looking in and hoping that the result, whatever it is, doesn’t risk further instability for its Afghan friend."

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again.

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as the Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue.'' But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks. The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks. He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo." Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat" It's interesting to add that Abu Dhabi had also hosted US-Taliban talks. UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries. The Afghan peace talks are expected to pave way for American troops to leave the country after 17 years. Stakes seem to be high and experts say dealing with Taliban will require a lot of patience. India's former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Amar Sinha reacting to US Taliban Pact told WION, "We have seen only the outlines of a framework agreement and have also heard US Special Representative say that "nothing is agreed till everything is agreed". But we all know "the devil is in the details." Speaking to WION, Michael Kugelman South Asia senior associate at The Wilson Centre said, "It’s a big deal because it represents the first formal attempt to chart a way forward. There have been many meetings between the US and Taliban in the past, but not until now have they formally pledged to address each other’s demands. Could all this progress come crashing down? Certainly. At the end of the day, if the Taliban doesn’t like what’s on the table, it could easily break off the dialogue and fully redirect its attention to the battlefield. That’s why the talks that take place in the coming days will need to be carried out carefully." India is cautiously watching the developments but so far hasn't reacted. The Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib was in Delhi in early January. India's external affairs minister Sushma Swaraj met the Afghan foreign minister Salahuddin Rabbani in Samarkand, Uzbekistan a few weeks ago on the sidelines of first India Central Asia dialogue. Talking about India, Kugelman said, "For India, these talks are a reminder that its say in Afghanistan’s future, at least for now, is limited. India is a key regional player. But for now, it is left on the outside looking in and hoping that the result, whatever it is, doesn’t risk further instability for its Afghan friend."

Priority is to end Afghan war, peace negotiations will continue: White House

Afghans harboured tentative hopes Sunday that talks between the US and Taliban leaders could end decades of conflict, despite fears an American withdrawal might unleash even more violence.

American negotiators and the Taliban said Saturday the two sides had made substantial progress in the most recent round of talks in Qatar, promising to meet again to continue seeking a deal that could pave the way for official peace negotiations.

The length and apparent progress in the ongoing talks are unprecedented, signalling that both Washington and the Taliban might see a path forward.

Hopes were rising on Twitter. "We r feeling the breeze of #peace coming," tweeted Afghan user Haris Sherzad.

Civilians in Kabul, who have paid a disproportionate price in casualties since the US invasion of 2001, were more cautious.&nbsp;

"I don't believe the Taliban will make peace," Kabul resident Rajab Ali told AFP.

"But if we have peace it will be so great. There is nothing better than peace," he added.&nbsp;

The goal of the talks is ostensibly to find a way to bring the Taliban to the table for official peace negotiations with Kabul. However, the militants steadfastly refuse to engage with the government, which has yet to release any statement on the talks after complaining of being cut out of the process.

Meanwhile, the US has expressed a clear desire to end its longest war.&nbsp;

"This will be peace between the Taliban and US, not the people of Afghanistan," wrote Facebook user Jamshid Ayoubi. "We will be left alone to the mercy of extremists once again."&nbsp;

Kabul residents said a deal between the militants and the government was vital to bringing an end to 17 years of bloodshed. &nbsp;

"It will never be stable if Taliban and the government keep fighting each other and killing Afghans," resident Sharbatullah told AFP.

'Time for us to leave'

The Taliban are widely believed to want to return to power and reimpose their own strict interpretation of sharia law. &nbsp;

They have shown no interest in sharing power with the current government in Kabul, and already have the upper hand on the battlefield, where Afghan forces are taking what experts have described as "unsustainable" losses.

Earlier this week President Ashraf Ghani revealed that some 45,000 Afghan security forces have been killed since he took power in September 2014 -- a staggering rate of more than 28 every day.

If Washington exits before a peace deal is in place there are fears the already-plummeting morale of Afghan security forces will shatter and that they will break along ethnic lines, igniting a full-scale civil war or even usher in a new era of Taliban rule.

"A hasty withdrawal of foreign troops will be interpreted as a victory for the Taliban and other religious extremists across the region," warned one Facebook user, Hamed Haidari.

"Time for us to leave this country. You will see extremists flood the country once again."

"Darker days await Afghanistan," wrote user Ashraf Sultani. &nbsp;

"Once the US is out, the Taliban will issue a fatwa for continuation of their war, and the country will plunge into another bloody civil war again."

Afghans harboured tentative hopes Sunday that talks between the US and Taliban leaders could end decades of conflict, despite fears an American withdrawal might unleash even more violence.

Afghans harboured tentative hopes Sunday that talks between the US and Taliban leaders could end decades of conflict, despite fears an American withdrawal might unleash even more violence. American negotiators and the Taliban said Saturday the two sides had made substantial progress in the most recent round of talks in Qatar, promising to meet again to continue seeking a deal that could pave the way for official peace negotiations. The length and apparent progress in the ongoing talks are unprecedented, signalling that both Washington and the Taliban might see a path forward. Hopes were rising on Twitter. "We r feeling the breeze of #peace coming," tweeted Afghan user Haris Sherzad. Civilians in Kabul, who have paid a disproportionate price in casualties since the US invasion of 2001, were more cautious. "I don't believe the Taliban will make peace," Kabul resident Rajab Ali told AFP. "But if we have peace it will be so great. There is nothing better than peace," he added. The goal of the talks is ostensibly to find a way to bring the Taliban to the table for official peace negotiations with Kabul. However, the militants steadfastly refuse to engage with the government, which has yet to release any statement on the talks after complaining of being cut out of the process. Meanwhile, the US has expressed a clear desire to end its longest war. "This will be peace between the Taliban and US, not the people of Afghanistan," wrote Facebook user Jamshid Ayoubi. "We will be left alone to the mercy of extremists once again." Kabul residents said a deal between the militants and the government was vital to bringing an end to 17 years of bloodshed. "It will never be stable if Taliban and the government keep fighting each other and killing Afghans," resident Sharbatullah told AFP. 'Time for us to leave' The Taliban are widely believed to want to return to power and reimpose their own strict interpretation of sharia law. They have shown no interest in sharing power with the current government in Kabul, and already have the upper hand on the battlefield, where Afghan forces are taking what experts have described as "unsustainable" losses. Earlier this week President Ashraf Ghani revealed that some 45,000 Afghan security forces have been killed since he took power in September 2014 -- a staggering rate of more than 28 every day. If Washington exits before a peace deal is in place there are fears the already-plummeting morale of Afghan security forces will shatter and that they will break along ethnic lines, igniting a full-scale civil war or even usher in a new era of Taliban rule. "A hasty withdrawal of foreign troops will be interpreted as a victory for the Taliban and other religious extremists across the region," warned one Facebook user, Hamed Haidari. "Time for us to leave this country. You will see extremists flood the country once again." "Darker days await Afghanistan," wrote user Ashraf Sultani. "Once the US is out, the Taliban will issue a fatwa for continuation of their war, and the country will plunge into another bloody civil war again."

Afghans hope for peace but fear bloodshed as US, Taliban talk

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

Ahead of a new round of peace talks with the US, Taliban has summoned its political envoys to Pakistan for an internal summit with its leaders in Pakistan.&nbsp;

The Taliban's key political leadership is in Pakistan for a conference even as the US is making fresh moves towards bringing the terror group to the negotiating table.

A six-member Taliban team landed in Pakistan on Monday evening on the directives of Taliban chief Haibatullah Akhunzada.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump yesterday wrote a letter to Imran Khan asking for help in Afghan peace talks.&nbsp;

Sources say the team from the Taliban's Doha office will hold consultations with Taliban leaders in the country ahead of a possible new round of talks with the US to initiate a peace process in Afghanistan.&nbsp;

The development comes even as a US diplomat heading America's peace moves with the terror group is in the country.&nbsp;

Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief US diplomat leading the peace process is in Pakistan as part of his eight-nation tour.&nbsp;

Khalilzad has already spoken to senior Taliban officials as he tries to bring them to the negotiating table.

The Taliban leaders' visit to Pakistan also comes close on the heels of Trump's letter to prime minister Imran Khan seeking his country's help to end the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan.

Trump has in the past berated the Pakistani leadership for failing the u.S. In Afghanistan. Last month, he slammed Islamabad, saying Pakistan had not done &nbsp;"a damn thing" for the US.&nbsp;

Ahead of a new round of peace talks with the US, Taliban has summoned its political envoys to Pakistan for an internal summit with its leaders in Pakistan. The Taliban's key political leadership is in Pakistan for a conference even as the US is making fresh moves towards bringing the terror group to the negotiating table.

Ahead of a new round of peace talks with the US, Taliban has summoned its political envoys to Pakistan for an internal summit with its leaders in Pakistan. The Taliban's key political leadership is in Pakistan for a conference even as the US is making fresh moves towards bringing the terror group to the negotiating table. A six-member Taliban team landed in Pakistan on Monday evening on the directives of Taliban chief Haibatullah Akhunzada. US President Donald Trump yesterday wrote a letter to Imran Khan asking for help in Afghan peace talks. Sources say the team from the Taliban's Doha office will hold consultations with Taliban leaders in the country ahead of a possible new round of talks with the US to initiate a peace process in Afghanistan. The development comes even as a US diplomat heading America's peace moves with the terror group is in the country. Zalmay Khalilzad, the chief US diplomat leading the peace process is in Pakistan as part of his eight-nation tour. Khalilzad has already spoken to senior Taliban officials as he tries to bring them to the negotiating table. The Taliban leaders' visit to Pakistan also comes close on the heels of Trump's letter to prime minister Imran Khan seeking his country's help to end the two-decade-long conflict in Afghanistan. Trump has in the past berated the Pakistani leadership for failing the u.S. In Afghanistan. Last month, he slammed Islamabad, saying Pakistan had not done "a damn thing" for the US.

Six-member Taliban team in Pakistan ahead of peace talks with US