As negotiators work to nail down an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, misgivings have grown among some Trump administration officials and lawmakers that it will erode the United States’ ability to thwart attacks from there, US officials said. Their concerns collide with US President Donald Trump’s impatience to secure a deal to draw down 14,000 troops and end America’s longest war, allowing him to claim a foreign policy victory as he campaigns for re-election in 2020. On Thursday, Trump appeared to reflect some of his aides’ caution, telling Fox News Radio that US troops would initially be reduced https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-trump/trump-u-s-will-maintain-presence-in-afghanistan-even-if-deal-reached-with-taliban-idUSKCN1VJ1R8 to 8,600, and “then we make a determination from there as to what happens.” Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US diplomat, has led nine rounds of talks with Taliban leaders on ending a conflict triggered by the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States that were hatched by al Qaeda from what was then Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. In return for the US drawdown, the Taliban would renounce ties with al Qaeda and guarantee Afghanistan would not be used to plot operations against the United States or its allies. They also would open talks on a political settlement with the Afghan government, opposition parties and civil society. US officials say a US withdrawal would be “conditions-based” and would stop if the Taliban reneged on the agreement. However, some US officials, commanders and lawmakers neither trust the Taliban and its elite operations arm, the Haqqani network, to break with al Qaeda nor believe they can keep their ally from plotting attacks, US officials and regional experts said. “We cannot just wish these wars away unfortunately,” said Republican Representative Michael Waltz, a former Green Beret officer who commanded US special forces in Afghanistan. “They will follow us home.” “Even if you believe Taliban assurances (of) denying safe haven to al Qaeda, I don’t see how they even have the capability to do so,” said Waltz, a House of Representatives Armed Services Committee member. A State Department spokeswoman said the United States was not taking the Taliban on trust. “We’re well aware of the history of the Taliban, including the Haqqani network and its complicated history with al Qaeda, which is exactly why any deal, if one is reached, will be so stringently monitored and verified,” she said. “The agreement we’re working on is not based on trust.” Secrecy Among the factors unsettling US officials is the secrecy with which details of negotiations has been held, the fact that they have not been hashed out among the affected US agencies and uncertainty as to whether Trump himself has read the proposed agreement. Weighing on Waltz, other lawmakers and some US officials is the 2011 US troop withdrawal from Iraq. In 2014, the Islamic State militant group seized swathes of Iraq and Syria, forcing US troops to redeploy. Those critical about the Afghanistan talks included Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, according to knowledgeable sources. Bolton was initially not invited to an Aug. 16 meeting at Trump’s New Jersey golf club where the president was briefed on Khalilzad’s negotiations, sources told Reuters. Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney then invited Bolton because his exclusion was seen as a highly unusual slight and because Trump likes hearing a wide array of voices, said one source.