Last Wednesday, President Trump’s Tweeter message sprang a surprise for everyone when he said that all U.S. forces?in Afghanistan should return home before the end of the year. American defense establishment displayed its annoyance by refusing to comment on president’s announcement and tersely asked the newsmen to refer such queries to the White House. Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, declined to endorse President Trump’s announcement stating that the agreement reached with Afghan and Taliban officials to leave Afghanistan was “conditioned based”, and that the United States would “responsibly” end the war. A few hours before President Trump’s announcement his national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, said the United States intended to reduce its troop levels in Afghanistan from 5,000 to 2,500 by early 2021.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg while commenting on President Trump’s announcement opined that NATO’s presence in Afghanistan was a “conditions-based approach.” “We will make decisions based on the conditions on the ground, because we think it is extremely important to continue to be committed to the future of Afghanistan, because it is in our interest to preserve the long-term security of Afghanistan,” he said and added: We decided to go into Afghanistan together; we will make decisions on future adjustments together, and when the time is right, we will leave together”.
Not surprisingly, within few hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement Taliban welcomed it. A Taliban statement said: “The Islamic Emirate (Taliban) is also committed to the contents of the agreement and hopes for good and positive relations with all countries, including the U.S., in the future,”.
The fresh fighting may be a precursor to the ensuing tussle for power between the government forces and Taliban should the dialogue between the two breakdowns
The Afghan government, has not immediately offered any direct reaction to Trump’s tweet. However, Afghan army chief General Yasin Zia reportedly told newsmen on Thursday that in the past six months, local security forces have conducted all ground operations against insurgents across Afghanistan implying that they could live without the US. However, Dr. Abdullah-Abdullah, the head of the Afghan government’s peacemaking process, was more pragmatic in his reaction when he told reporters during his visit to India that it was early for an official response to Trump’s statement. He added: “But eventually we as Afghans should be prepared for any eventuality. There is no doubt that there will be consequences by the decisions made by (our) international partners all together. But it is our responsibility to work together and find a way to live in peace”.
From Dr. Abdullah’s statement it was obvious that ruling circles in Afghanistan felt nervous at the idea of US troops departure from the country, especially at a time when intra-Afghan dialogue have not made any headway. It is apprehended that in the absence of an agreement between the Taliban and Government the country may plunge into civil war which would be a repeat of chaos that Afghanistan witnessed after the withdrawal of Soviet troops (1989) followed by the fall ofNajibullah government (1992). Subsequent events leading to the ascension of Taliban (1996-2001) and 9/11 only added to the vows of the country and its hapless people.
President Trump’s sudden announcement may have multiple implications. First, President Trump’s announcement may be an election ploy to please his constituents and garner support for his elections. Second, Trump withdrawing from Afghanistan by the end of the year could limit options for a Biden administration if the Democratic nominee wins in November. Former Vice President Joe Biden has said he would withdraw most troops, but leave a small contingent of special forces there to continue conducting counterterrorism operations.Third,it may be a warning to the Ashraf Ghani government and Taliban to conclude their dialogue expeditiously. Fourth, some Afghan commentators believe that an early withdrawal of US troops would tip the scale in Taliban’s favour on the battlefield; additionally, it may weaken government’s negotiating position against the Taliban.
While intra-Afghan dialogue is still limping towards an agreed agenda including ceasefire, a major source of concern expressed by many analysts is that failure of intra-Afghan dialogue would not only mean continuation of violence but also drastic reduction of foreign assistance, especially from the US.Since the fall of Taliban in 2001, international community spent billions of dollars into Afghanistan. The US has spent $130 billion todate to make it the largest donor in size and scope; in 2019 it provided $5 billion to sustain Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF).
Naturally, such a substantive assistance may not continue if Taliban and government forces continue the war. Secretary of State Pompeo while addressing the inaugural session of intra-Afghan dialogue in Doha had warned the both that the “size and scope” of future US assistance depended on their “choices and conduct” going forward. Not only that, at a minimum Afghanistan needs $11-12 billion per annum to run its affairs which includes $5 billion for ANDSF and $3.5 billion for civil administration. Afghan government generates only $2.5 billion from its resources which is hardly 25% of the total expenditure of the country.
As regards revenues from the illicit drug trade, amounting to approximately $5 billion, the major beneficiaries are government officials, warlords and Taliban. This source of income is not accounted for in the country’s revenues but it feeds on the war economy. This is the source of money which should be of great concern to all the stakeholders in the war-ravaged Afghanistan. Through this money, internal spoilers in cahoots with their external supporters could keep the country destabilized.According to daily The Diplomat, the World Bank has estimated that”Afghanistan will need continued international support after a political settlement, of roughly $6 billion to $8 billion a year in international grants between 2020 and 2024.” However, if war continues in the country international assistance to Afghanistan may dry up.
For President Trump, it may be an election strategy to announce US troop withdrawal to please his voters but overall impact of this decision may have serious consequences for Afghanistan and its neighbours. Soon after the announcement there has been fierce fighting between the government forces and Taliban for the control of Lashkargah, the capital of Helmand province with the dubious distinction of being the largest opium producing province of the country which has previously been a zone of contest between Taliban andthe US/UK forces. The fresh fighting may be a precursor to the ensuing tussle for power between the government forces and Taliban should the dialogue between the two breakdowns.A flare up in fighting between the two sides or other warlords would tantamount to heavy influx of Afghans to the neighbouring states including Pakistan-certainly not a an optimistic scenario for the future.
The writer is former ambassador and a Senior Research Fellow at IPRI