When Was the Agreement with the Taliban Signed

The war in Afghanistan reflects, in a way, the American experience in Vietnam. In both cases, a superpower relied heavily on the brute force and life of its youth, and then walked away with seemingly little to show. The agreement sets out the commitments expected by the Taliban to prevent terrorism, including a commitment to renounce al-Qaeda and prevent this group or any other Afghan soil from using it to plan attacks against the United States or its allies. While the agreement required the Taliban to stop attacking U.S. and coalition forces, it did not explicitly require them to expel al-Qaeda or stop attacks on the Afghan army. However, there are a number of obstacles that can prevent the full implementation of the agreement. On the one hand, the Afghan government did not participate in the negotiations. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani does not support many parts of the agreement and has spoken out against taking the next steps needed to move the peace process forward. This includes the release of Taliban prisoners, which he has not done so far, although he has proposed a more modest release. More than 1,200 miles away, at the time of the signing, another senior U.S. official, Defense Secretary Mark T.

Esper, was in Kabul with Afghan officials to ease the Afghan government`s concerns. Together with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, they issued a statement reaffirming the United States` commitment to support the Afghan military. Retaliation against al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies was the trigger for the US invasion. But it is an emerging sense of futility that has perhaps been best demonstrated by the US acceptance of relatively small concessions by the Taliban in the deal, which has motivated successive governments` efforts to find a way out. Andrew Accuse`s deal with Epstein released In accordance with the deal, the U.S. initially reduced its military presence from 12,000 to about 8,600 troops and closed several bases in June. Any further military withdrawal should be conditional on the Taliban fulfilling their obligations. The Pentagon recently announced a further reduction to 2,500 troops before President-elect Biden took office. Given that the agreement contains various steps that the Afghan government should take, their non-participation in the talks has created an obstacle to future negotiations and angered Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and other Afghan officials. In particular, the United States agreed in the agreement that by March 10, 2020, up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners would be released by the Afghan government as “trust builders” between the Taliban and the Kabul government, and that the Taliban would release 1,000 prisoners held at the same time.

However, the prisoners are being held by the Afghan government, not the United States. Since the Afghan government was not part of the agreement, it has no obligation to release Taliban prisoners it considers terrorists. This puts on hold the next stage of negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government. Since the talks began in late 2018, Afghan officials have feared that the Taliban have prevented them from participating. They feared that Mr. Trump does not abruptly withdraw his troops without obtaining conditions they saw as crucial, including a reduction in violence and a promise by the Taliban to negotiate in good faith with the government. Why it matters: Blinken, who appears before the House Foreign Relations Committee on Monday and the Senate Foreign Ministry on Tuesday, is the first senior Biden official to testify after the chaotic retreat on Afghanistan. Tempers flared during the first session when House Republicans accused Blinken of lying and demanded his resignation. Lord. Khalilzad, the veteran diplomat who led U.S. peace efforts and was himself from Afghanistan, has long insisted that the U.S. is not seeking a withdrawal agreement, but “a peace agreement that would allow withdrawal.” In Wednesday`s debate, Sir Keir focused on the lack of planning for the withdrawal, rather than saying he had been against it, saying: “No one believes that Britain and our allies could have stayed in Afghanistan indefinitely or that Britain could have fought alone.” Countries on Afghanistan`s borders, including Pakistan, which serves as a base for Taliban leaders, may feel excluded from the talks and mobilize resistance against them.

In addition, the terrorist threat is still present, with more than twenty terrorist groups operating in the country, according to Afghan officials. Many groups are linked to the Taliban or al-Qaeda, and the resurgence of the Islamic State is worrying. In January of this year, Shadow Secretary of Defense John Healey called on the administration to work with the new Biden administration to “ensure that any withdrawal is determined by conditions on the ground and does not risk new terrorist threats.” Even in the description of al-Qaeda in the agreement, the Taliban refused to accept the word “terrorist.” The language emphasizes the Taliban`s commitment to prevent future attacks, not the regrets of the past. President-elect Biden and his administration will have to take a close look at the behavior of the Taliban, which so far appears to be in violation of their obligations under the February agreement. A hasty withdrawal when the Taliban have close ties to terrorist groups is very risky. The United States and the Taliban signed a peace agreement, a turning point in the 18-year war in Afghanistan. Read the full story. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday strongly defended the Biden administration`s withdrawal from Afghanistan, insisting it was “time to end america`s longest war” and praising the evacuation of Kabul as “extraordinary.” Why it matters: The agreement has been re-examined to lay the foundation for the United States…