Daily Times

As per international sources and the US Military assessment, “The Taliban appears to have the ‘strategic momentum’ in their sweeping offensives across Afghanistan, but their victory is far from assured.” This was noted by the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley.

As a result of this “strategic momentum,” the Taliban have gained control over about half of the 400 provinces. Elaborating further, the US general ascribed the early Taliban military victories to their superior “leadership” and the “will” to fight:” two decisive factors in military conflicts that determine the outcome in any battlefield. The military history–of both immediate and distant past–bears witness to this undeniable fact. According to many analysts, the US withdrawal from Afghanistan is ascribed to its deficit in leadership and unwillingness to fight. Thus, the global military power is compelled to negotiate a safe passage with the very “enemy,” which they had come to fight and destroy in the first place in 2001 in the wake of the 9/11 tragedy.

The Afghan government, led by President Ashraf Ghani, enjoys international recognition and claims of having over 200,000 armed personnel. Further, the US has already donated sophisticated military weapons and ammunition as well as helicopter gunship for its assistance. Still, it seems to have withdrawn to cities, including the capital city, Kabul, and other provincial capitals and is largely unwilling to engage and check the Taliban military advances. The biggest military setback for the Afghanistan government forces has been their inability to protect the strategically vital border crossings.

Taliban’s victories, if translated in military terminology, would be termed as the military siege of the Kabul government

They allowed the Taliban to achieve early victories and take control of the strategic border crossings with Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Pakistan. In fact, these victories, if translated in military terminology, would be termed as the military siege of the Kabul government. They can no longer receive supplies from land routes. Any military or non-military supplies would have to come via air which has its own risks and costs. From the beginning of the negotiations between the Taliban and the US, the former has been able to pursue the strategy of “talk-talk -fight-fight.” In fact, this strategy has worked very well for the Taliban.

Sharing the negotiation table with the former occupier and the global military power enhanced their international stature and demonstrated their diplomatic skills. Meanwhile, blitzkrieg victories at the battlefield, which they have been dominating for months now, have helped them build their image as an indefatigable and almost invincible adversary. Their proven ability to deal with lawbreakers and local criminals with an iron hand help them earn public support and approval town after town in a tribal society, where the power and authority still come from the barrel of the gun.

With all these political and military advantages, the Taliban seem to seek a peaceful settlement out of the present quagmire for several reasons. It requires international acceptance as a legitimate stakeholder and a legitimate representative of the Afghan people when finally they hold the keys of Kabul. However, if they chose to do it alone, they could face military and political alliance, made up of the erstwhile Northern Alliance, warlords like Rashid Dostum, armed and funded by India, US/ Western countries and their Gulf allies. What has sustained the Taliban military advances is the absence of any air cover to Afghan Troops, to which they had become so used that they could not withstand the military onslaught of war-hardened Taliban and surrendered or crossed over to bordering countries for asylum/ refuge.

The Taliban could also lose Afghan public support, since the general Afghan population has no stomach for another civil war, due to their extremely poor economy and the unwillingness of the neighbouring countries to accept Afghan refugees. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has indicated his Government’s unwillingness to open its borders for refugee influx in case the Taliban try to take over Kabul by force; triggering a civil war, which could in turn force the Afghan population to flee war zones.

Pakistan, Iran China and other central Asian countries Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan as well as Russia and the World community at large are united in opposing any new wave of civil war, and further melting of Afghan State writ, which would create space for the resurgence of non-state actors, including the ISS and Al-Qaida, in Afghanistan.

The statement by the US General Mark Miller of the impending military advances is a warning of the possible military takeover of Kabul by the Taliban. The question is will the US and other global power centres with a stake in Afghanistan be forced to take some measures including providing military and more crucially air support to the Afghan Government forces to help them defend themselves from the advancing Taliban militants and save Afghanistan from another bloodbath. If all stakeholders remain engaged positively a civil war is not necessarily inevitable.

Ambassador GR Baluch The writer is former Ambassador of Pakistan to Vietnam