The US should not keep troops in Afghanistan after May

The war in Afghanistan is proving to be the most complicated of dichotomies the US and its allies have ever found themselves in. As soon as Joe Biden took oath as the new president of the US, he threw a couple of agreements signed by his predecessor into the trash bin. 

But Afghanistan is the hardest foreign policy choice the US has to make. Jake Sullivan, Biden’s top security adviser, has told Afghan officials that the new administration wants to review the Doha deal made in February last year by the Trump administration, according to which, NATO troops will have to be withdrawn from Afghanistan by May 2021. 

But the negatives, if the US keeps the troops beyond May, outweigh the positives.

Many observers note that a residual US presence will put the necessary pressure on the Taliban to mend their ways of violence and insurgency. But the most important of questions still remains: Is the military use of force an end in itself or a means to an end? Will the means serve its purpose or aggravate the ongoing war?

There isn’t much difference between Trump and Biden’s desire to withdraw from Afghanistan, but the recent announcements indicate that there is surely a major difference in strategies. Revisiting the deal has its positives and negatives. The Afghan government was largely excluded from the deal, giving the Taliban the opportunity to leverage its position in Intra-Afghan talks, which makes the deal unrepresentative of all Afghan sides. On the other hand, the NATO presence and US military and financial support to the Afghan government can be used as a license by Kabul to refuse to reach a compromise with the Taliban.

The fragile goodwill between Taliban and US is now hanging by a thread as Taliban recently killed 21 Afghan troops and threatened a ‘dangerous escalation’ if the US breaches the deal.

Naila Mehsud

Ever since the US-Taliban deal in Doha, the latter has shown a significant change in its approach to how it views western powers. They have also largely refrained from attacking NATO forces, targeting mainly Afghan troops. But the indication of an amendment in the deal has already irritated the Taliban a great deal. The fragile goodwill between Taliban and US is now hanging by a thread as Taliban recently killed 21 Afghan troops and threatened a ‘dangerous escalation’ if the US breaches the deal.

If the Biden administration plans on keeping 2,500 troops beyond May 2021, that number is too little to make any drastic difference in either helping the Afghan government or fighting a resurgence of militancy. But it is surely, at least symbolically, large enough to put an end to any kind of trust that there is between Taliban and US. Besides, over the years, the size and influence of the Kabul administration has shrunk while that of the Taliban has only expanded multiple-fold.

It is highly unlikely that Taliban will agree to any kind of amendment in the deal, owing to their history of conceding strategy. The US doesn’t have many options. If they keep remaining troops beyond May, it will lead to a strong surge in violence that can put them in direct confrontation with the Taliban. If they send more troops, it only takes all the peace efforts backwards.

Taliban are stronger than ever in numbers and influence. They control swathes of land and fighting them will only keep the US further stuck in a war that yields no benefit. 

The Kabul administration is too weak to be relied upon for partnership to fight the Taliban. NATO allies have to practice caution, more than ever, for any further disruption on the field will not only instigate the Taliban but also bring out a surge in other hard-liner groups such as Daesh.

The US can play the role of that of a facilitator for intra-Afghan talks. It can use its influence to take on board states that can play an important role in bridging the gap between Taliban and the Afghan government. Because looking back at history, Taliban’s BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) will be to continue to fight. They thrive on chaos. And coalition partners don’t want to spend another 20 years being part of a war that doesn’t suit their goals. 

*Naila Mahsud is a Pakistani political and International relations researcher, with a focus on regional politics and security issues. Twitter: @MahsudNaila