stalled.
Diplomats with the group, know as the QCG, have
expressed the hope that the Taliban's refusal to talk is a leverage
tactic, and that Pakistan would be able to bully and cajole the
insurgent movement's leaders resident in Pakistan into changing their
decision not to participate.
It certainly would be characteristic of Afghan politics if that were to happen. However, the existing situation in Afghanistan provides no incentive whatsoever for the Taliban to negotiate with the Kabul-based government.
Engaging in talks at this point could prove disastrous for Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the Taliban chief, who has yet to fully impose his authority because of the decidedly dodgy circumstances in which he took power: There are many Taliban notables who remain furious that he concealed the May 2013 death of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the movement's founder and spiritual leader.
Mansour is seen as having been complicit in a conspiracy involving the Pakistani military and thus excessively susceptible to pressure from it.
Were Mansour to compromise on key pre-conditions to the talks, particularly the withdrawal of foreign troops, he would be risking the break-up of the Taliban, a fire that has already been lit by the rapid growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) franchise for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
READ MORE: The problem with Pakistan's foreign policy
That is why Mansour last week issued a statement calling for a concerted effort to win back estranged Taliban militants who have switched sides.
My sources in the Taliban's military operations
command structure say that his recent statement is a precursor to a
concerted campaign against ISIL Khorasan. The two sides have been
engaged in bloody clashes since November, but the fighting has been
localised, again reflecting Mansour's desire to bring home prodigal
sons, notably Mohammed Rasool, with the assistance of the Taliban's
religious scholars.
Therein lies a major motivation for global and regional powers, as represented in the QCG either directly or by delegation, to engage the Taliban as a legitimate political entity, rather than treating it as a terrorist organisation.
Indeed, the US has never classed the Taliban as anything but an armed insurgency and, despite increasing re-engagement in Afghanistan's hot spots, the Pentagon currently describes it as "hopefully, a partner in peace".
That is because the Taliban has the proven capacity to stabilise areas under its control, albeit through the imposition of a regime on the local populace that is less carrot and more stick.
Thus the odd spectacle currently on show in eastern Nangarhar province, where ISIL has been engaged by US air power and Afghan ground forces on one front, and by the Taliban on the other, with each meticulously staying out of the other's way because of their common interest.
When the Taliban takes on ISIL forces in a broader campaign, it will be interesting to watch for parallel US-Afghan military activity.
Despite the overwhelming numerical superiority of
the Afghan military, it has proved incapable of stopping the light
infantry of the Taliban from taking territory when it wants to.
The insurgents used only 2,000 fighters to seize the northern city of Kunduz last year. District by district, Afghan troops are being pulled back to urban centres in Helmand, in the south.
And the security chief of Ghazni, which neighbours Kabul, recently went on record to say that he would not be held responsible if the Taliban were to seize parts of the province, because his repeated requests for reinforcements have not been met.
That is reflective of the Taliban's strategy of stretching the military's resources so that its numerical advantage cannot be brought to bear.
READ MORE: Afghanistan and the Taliban need Pakistan for peace
The Taliban also have the advantage of not having to position fixed assets to maintain control of its turf: Usually, a battalion-strength detachment of mostly local fighters answerable to a shadow governor and provincial commander is all that is required. They are easily reinforced from adjacent provinces when required, yet hard to target because they refuse to be sitting ducks.
It certainly would be characteristic of Afghan politics if that were to happen. However, the existing situation in Afghanistan provides no incentive whatsoever for the Taliban to negotiate with the Kabul-based government.
Engaging in talks at this point could prove disastrous for Mullah Akhtar Mansour, the Taliban chief, who has yet to fully impose his authority because of the decidedly dodgy circumstances in which he took power: There are many Taliban notables who remain furious that he concealed the May 2013 death of Mullah Mohammed Omar, the movement's founder and spiritual leader.
Mansour is seen as having been complicit in a conspiracy involving the Pakistani military and thus excessively susceptible to pressure from it.
Were Mansour to compromise on key pre-conditions to the talks, particularly the withdrawal of foreign troops, he would be risking the break-up of the Taliban, a fire that has already been lit by the rapid growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) franchise for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
READ MORE: The problem with Pakistan's foreign policy
That is why Mansour last week issued a statement calling for a concerted effort to win back estranged Taliban militants who have switched sides.
| The US has never classed the Taliban as anything but an armed insurgency and, despite increasing re-engagement in Afghanistan's hot spots, the Pentagon currently describes it as 'hopefully, a partner in peace'. |
Therein lies a major motivation for global and regional powers, as represented in the QCG either directly or by delegation, to engage the Taliban as a legitimate political entity, rather than treating it as a terrorist organisation.
Indeed, the US has never classed the Taliban as anything but an armed insurgency and, despite increasing re-engagement in Afghanistan's hot spots, the Pentagon currently describes it as "hopefully, a partner in peace".
That is because the Taliban has the proven capacity to stabilise areas under its control, albeit through the imposition of a regime on the local populace that is less carrot and more stick.
Thus the odd spectacle currently on show in eastern Nangarhar province, where ISIL has been engaged by US air power and Afghan ground forces on one front, and by the Taliban on the other, with each meticulously staying out of the other's way because of their common interest.
When the Taliban takes on ISIL forces in a broader campaign, it will be interesting to watch for parallel US-Afghan military activity.
Taliban's strategy
Of course, that is a sideshow in a war in which the major protagonists are increasingly at each other's throats, because of the Taliban's one-year-old campaign to seize territory on all axes of the Afghan theatre, launched when the national security forces assumed frontline responsibility from NATO. |
| A Taliban fighter sits on his motorcycle adorned with a Taliban flag on a street in Kunduz, Afghanistan [AP] |
The insurgents used only 2,000 fighters to seize the northern city of Kunduz last year. District by district, Afghan troops are being pulled back to urban centres in Helmand, in the south.
And the security chief of Ghazni, which neighbours Kabul, recently went on record to say that he would not be held responsible if the Taliban were to seize parts of the province, because his repeated requests for reinforcements have not been met.
That is reflective of the Taliban's strategy of stretching the military's resources so that its numerical advantage cannot be brought to bear.
READ MORE: Afghanistan and the Taliban need Pakistan for peace
The Taliban also have the advantage of not having to position fixed assets to maintain control of its turf: Usually, a battalion-strength detachment of mostly local fighters answerable to a shadow governor and provincial commander is all that is required. They are easily reinforced from adjacent provinces when required, yet hard to target because they refuse to be sitting ducks.
Source: Al Jazeera
Comments
Post a Comment