The Biden administration suspects the Taliban are not honoring the terms of a landmark agreement with the United States, a pact that calls for the withdrawal of all remaining U.S. forces in Afghanistan.
“That agreement also imposes a set of considerable conditions on the Taliban,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Friday during an event hosted by the United States Institute of Peace. “So what we’re doing right now is taking a hard look at the extent to which the Taliban are in fact complying … and in that context, we will make decisions about our force posture and our diplomatic strategy going forward.”
Sullivan’s apparent skepticism may come as a relief to Afghan officials who fear the diminution of NATO combat capabilities in the country under the terms of the Trump administration’s deal with the Taliban, which sets a May 1 deadline for the complete withdrawal of American forces. The phased drawdown of U.S. troops was offered in exchange for talks between the Taliban and the U.S.-backed central government in Kabul, but violence has surged throughout the negotiating period, stoking the fears of Afghan officials.
“If Taliban realize that they can prevail [through] violence, they will not let go,” Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said during an Aspen Security Institute event on Friday. “And some of their supporters, unfortunately, are equally in that illusionary world.”
Afghan leaders feel an incentive to retain the immediate support of American troops beyond any point that suits U.S. interests. Some analysts have surmised that Ghani has selfish reasons for undercutting the talks. Yet, his latest comments aligned with the “nagging fear” described by retired Army Gen. David Petraeus, who suggested the ongoing withdrawal already has lowered the American troop presence to a level that risks a calamitous civil war.
“The drawdown of U.S. forces to below half the number that [Army Gen. Scott Miller, who commands U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan] reportedly previously assessed was the minimum needed could prove inadequate in assisting and enabling the Afghan National Security Forces when the fighting season resumes after winter, and could result, in a worst-case, in a crumbling of the ANSF,” Petraeus said to Ghani. “And then lead, eventually, to the kind of civil war that we saw in the 1990s after the collapse of the Afghan government supported by the Soviets after their own departure.”
The new U.S. president and Petraeus have a history of disagreement about Afghan war strategy. As vice president, Biden opposed President Barack Obama’s decision to accept Petraeus’ recommendation to “surge” U.S. troops into the country in 2009. Yet, Sullivan implied that Biden wouldn’t continue the troop withdrawal if his team concluded that Taliban officials are negotiating in bad faith.
“That agreement also imposes a set of considerable conditions on the Taliban, and three, in particular, stand out to us,” Sullivan said. “The first is that they, in a bona fide and sustainable way, cut ties with terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. Second is that they meaningfully reduce levels of violence and contribute towards ceasefires. And the third is that they participate in a real way, not a fake way, in negotiations with the Afghan government.”
The Biden team’s skepticism about the implementation of the deal didn’t erode their confidence in the lead U.S. negotiator for the pact, Zalmay Khalilzad. Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced this week that he will retain Khalilzad as his point-man for the peace talks.
“What the previous administration did in terms of setting up and supporting negotiations between the stakeholders in Afghanistan toward a just, durable political settlement to that conflict — that basic frame is something that we very much support,” Sullivan said.
“And we want to support negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban and others to get to that just and sustainable outcome — in addition to looking at the U.S.-Taliban agreement and what it means for our forces going forward,” he added.
