The past week has been quite eventful. Pakistan released Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, one of the founding leaders of the Taliban movement, after eight years of incarceration while the US released five top Taliban leaders from the Guantanamo detention facility. According to the Voice of America (VOA), five senior Afghan Taliban leaders, who were swapped for the freedom of an American hostage in 2014, have been ‘reactivated’ and made part of the Islamist insurgency’s Qatar-based ‘political office’ holding peace talks with the United States. Taliban spokesman also confirmed the release of Mullah Baradar and five Guantanamo detenus. It is becoming evident that the US has started engaging Taliban in a much-organized way. Before this, the US would have loathed the idea of talking to the Taliban directly, and would always advise the Taliban to hold talks with the government in Kabul. This was the known policy of the Obama administration that instituted a surge and then drawdown of troops in Afghanistan in a strange manner. It announced a surge of the American troops for 18 months (2010-12), which the analysts describe as a big blunder. It gave ample time and resources to the Taliban to plan and recapture districts they lost to the American troops. Even the Americans admit now that the Taliban have established direct writ on 40 percent of Afghanistan and are contesting another 30 percent. In such a scenario when Taliban are ruling a substantive part of the country, Trump administration’s readiness to hold direct talks with the Taliban is a significant development ever since the religious militia was dislodged from power in November 2001. The Trump administration is now holding face-to-face talks with those Taliban who have been international pariahs for the past 17 years. Taliban initially figured on the 1267 List of the UN Security Council (which was later changed by the UN Security Council to 1989 List, exclusively meant for the Taliban) to be brought to the book. Being a lone superpower, the US easily changed the definition of terrorists. Taliban are now considered inward looking fundamentalists with no international agenda. However, just a few years ago the same Taliban were identified with the Al-Qaida, and the whole world not only despised the ‘ragtag militia’ but also ostracized them. But the politics is a dynamic phenomenon; yesterday’s enemies can become today’s interlocutors. Multiple reasons may have prompted the US to directly engage with the Taliban. First, after 17 years of war, longest in the American history, the situation on the ground has only worsened for the US-led NATO coalition and the government in Kabul while Taliban have emerged as a resilient and formidable force. In his first interview to the NBC after taking over as the NATO commander in Afghanistan yesterday, General Scott Miller minced no words in urging the need for a political solution to the Afghan problem. Being a lone superpower, the US easily changed the definition of terrorists. Taliban are now considered inward looking fundamentalists with no international agenda. However, just a few years ago the same Taliban were identified with the Al-Qaida, and the whole world not only despised the ‘ragtag militia’ but also ostracized them Second, the US realized that all neighbours of Afghanistan-Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia-are in talks with the Taliban which has isolated the US. The neighbours of Afghanistan clearly desire a political solution in which Afghans may be allowed to resolve their problems without external interference. It is also becoming clear that the Ashraf Ghani government cannot be sustained through military means for a longer period, a fact acknowledged by the Afghan President. Lack of credible political parties has further compounded the problem in creating a party-based political system in the country rather than relying on tribal loyalties. Third, military engagement in Afghanistan has become a wasteful expenditure costing American exchequer $ 45 billion per annum, while in the past 17 years the US has lost $ 900 billion with hardly any tangible results. Continuation of the war in prevailing conditions is unlikely to tilt the balance in America’s favour. Fourth, while Pakistan was blamed for hobnobbing with the Taliban, it must have dawned upon the US that they were betting on the wrong horse whether it was Hamid Karzai or Ashraf Ghani who lacked the capabilities to bring about political stability in the country. The country remains hostage to the warlords’ misrule who together with drug barons are the major stakeholders in the war economy, and thrive on its instability. Fifth, there is a growing fatigue amongst the NATO and other allies who have started complaining about the longevity of the conflict with diminishing returns. Moreover, President Trump’s emphasis that the NATO partners should contribute more to the NATO budget has received cold and, at times, angry responses from the member states. The foregoing reasons call for a pragmatic approach by the US to find a solution for a way-out not only for the withdrawal of the US-led coalition troops from Afghanistan but also a reasonably stable setup in Afghanistan. How such a setup is going to emerge in the country is a million dollar question, especially, when the country is divided on tribal and ethnic lines and political activities meant to bring good governance are in short supply. Interestingly, while the US and Afghanistan’s neighbours are supportive of reconciliation with the Taliban, India, an ardent supporter of the erstwhile Northern Alliance is the only external power opposed to such reconciliation. This would not augur well for Afghanistan as India has so far been using Afghanistan and some of its leaders to malign Pakistan, in addition to using the Afghan soil against Pakistan. India or the US, for their own interests, may blame Pakistan of supporting the Taliban, but they conveniently ignore the stark reality in Afghanistan; both Taliban and the present dispensation in Afghanistan are kissing cousins in terms of following a conservative agenda. Both prostrate five times a day to prove their Muslim credentials and both are culprits in committing grave human rights violations. Therefore, while reconciliation may be welcomed, we should be aware of the tribal dogmas in the country which would require persistent engagement for the evolution of a political system to satisfy this multi-ethnic society. The writer is a former ambassador Published in Daily Times, November 3rd 2018.