It didn’t take long after the release of the four-page U.S.-Taliban agreement for critics and skeptics to pop up and scream “surrender!” at the top of their lungs. Former national security adviser John Bolton did his usual schtick, calling the deal that U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad devoted a year and a half to negotiating a giant ruse. Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s former national security adviser, wasn’t far behind, portraying the agreement as if it were the 21st-century version of the Munich Agreement. Bloomberg columnist Eli Lake was none too pleased either, comparing Saturday’s signing ceremony to the “dishonorable surrender” of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords.
The opponents are loud and certain of themselves, asserting the United States gave the Taliban legitimacy by icing out the Afghan government and using the Taliban’s formal name, the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan,” in the agreement. Yet none of them can articulate an alternative that is viable or one the American public would support. Other than more military pressure on Taliban positions, stronger red-lines at the negotiating table, and a stiffer backbone — all of which would simply extend America’s participation in the war — the haters are completely at a loss and can’t do much other than Monday morning quarterback.
Most are either blind to the realities of the conflict, too set in their ways to envision anything that doesn’t conform with their outlook, or genuinely subscribe to the fanciful idea that more bombing will result in better terms for the U.S.
Here’s the deal: After nearly 19 years, 2,448 U.S. troop fatalities (7 U.S. troops have died since January), $750 billion in taxpayer money (not including all of the borrowing, inflation, and medical costs for soldiers who have returned home with life-altering injuries), and no light at the end of the tunnel, the American public see no reason to stay mired in a civil war that has lasted for four decades. There is no victory in Afghanistan, only more lost lives, more resources thrown down the toilet, and more distraction from issues that really matter to U.S. national security.
There is no such thing as a perfect agreement. The U.S.-Taliban deal unveiled on Saturday is no exception. Despite proclamations from Taliban negotiators that they are committed to implementing their end of the bargain and will take talks with the Afghan government seriously, it’s just as likely that the movement will drag things out over the next 14 months until all U.S. troops leave. The release of 5,000 Taliban prisoners will be a bitter pill for Kabul to swallow, even if the Afghan government receives 1,000 of its own soldiers in return. Some Afghans are upset with the arrangement, worried that the diplomatic process could collapse before the intra-Afghan negotiations reach even a skeleton agreement.
For the U.S., however, how Afghanistan’s civil war shakes out is far less important than whether Washington can protect their country from international terrorism. The Afghan civil war doesn’t necessarily determine the likelihood of a terrorist attack. In fact, as medieval as the Taliban can be, the group has no interest in seeing international terrorists congregate in the territory it controls. The movement knows firsthand what can happen if they prowl around with jihadists — the ensuing punishment from the U.S. military would be swift and powerful. Indeed, Taliban officials need no reminders that it was their association with Osama bin Laden that cost it its emirate. Nor is partnering with terrorists conducive to the Taliban’s goal of escaping its pariah status and keeping the international community involved financially.
President Trump will hear more complaining in the next 24 hours. He should not heed those complaints. Proceed with the long-awaited withdrawal from Afghanistan accordingly.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
