KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) – The top US general has held unannounced talks with Taliban peace negotiators in the Persian Gulf to urge a reduction in violence in Afghanistan, even while senior US officials in Kabul warns intensified Taliban attacks endanger nascent militant group peace talks with the Afghan government.
Army General Mark A. Milley, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, met for about two hours with Taliban negotiators in Doha, Qatar, on Tuesday and flew to Kabul on Wednesday to discuss the peace process with the president. Afghan Ashraf Ghani.
Milley’s meetings took place in the midst of a further downing of American troops, although under current U.S. policy, a total reprimand depends on the Taliban reducing attacks across the country.
“The most important part of the discussions I had with both the Taliban and the Afghan government was the need for an immediate reduction in violence,” Milley told three reporters, including one from The Associated Press. who accompanied him to Qatar and Afghanistan. “Everything else depends on that.”
According to the fundamental rules established by Milley for security reasons, the journalists traveling with him agreed not to report any of the conversations until he had left the region. It was Milley’s second unannounced meeting with the Taliban negotiating team; the first, in June, also in Doha, had not been reported so far.
Although Milley did not report any progress, his Taliban meetings represent a remarkable milestone: the top American general is face to face with representatives of the group that ruled Afghanistan until he was ousted 19 years ago but in the early stages of what was America’s longest war. . Milley did three service tours in Afghanistan, the first in 2003 and the last in 2013-14.
Army General Scott Miller, the top commander of U.S. forces and the coalition in Afghanistan, said Wednesday in an interview at his military headquarters in Kabul that the Taliban have intensified attacks on forces. Afghans, especially in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, and against roads and other infrastructure.
“My assessment is that it puts the peace process at risk: the greater the violence, the greater the risk,” Miller said. Miller meets at least once a month with Taliban negotiators as part of Washington’s effort to move forward in a peace process.
In the same interview, Ross Wilson, the U.S. diplomat in Kabul, said he also sees a growing risk of Taliban violence. He said it has created an “unbearable burden” for the Afghan armed forces and society at large.
In the so-called Doha agreement signed last February by the United States and the Taliban, the administration of President Donald Trump agreed to the gradual withdrawal of US troops, which would be reduced to zero by May 2021 if the terms of the agreement are met. One condition is the reduction of Taliban violence, which leads to a ceasefire across the country. The Taliban also agreed to start peace negotiations with the Afghan government, which are at an early stage.
The Taliban have demanded an end to U.S. airstrikes, which have been carried out since February only in support of Afghan forces under attack by the Taliban.
Miller said he was saddened by what he called the Taliban’s deliberate campaign to damage roads, bridges and other infrastructure as part of the militants’ effort to limit the Afghan government’s ability to bolster its troops.
“Military commanders on the ground are now starting to do things that do not favor peace talks, reconstruction and stability,” Miller said, adding, “It is clear that the Taliban are using violence as leverage” against the Afghan government.
Miller said he is executing Trump’s order to reduce U.S. forces from 4,500 to 2,500 on Jan. 15, just days before Joe Biden vowed to be Trump’s successor. Miller said troop levels are now about 4,000 and will reach 2,500 targets in time.
Biden has not said publicly whether he will continue with the withdrawal or how he will proceed with the Doha agreement negotiated by Trump’s peace envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad.
Biden has not set out a detailed plan for Afghanistan, but has made it clear that he prefers a small U.S. military footprint and limited targets. He has acknowledged that he disagreed with then-President Barack Obama’s decision in December 2009 to greatly raise the level of troops in hopes of forcing the Taliban to the peace table.
“I think we should just have troops there to make sure it’s impossible for … ISIS or al-Qaeda to restore its position,” Biden told CBS News in February.
Trump has argued for withdrawing completely from Afghanistan, but in November he was persuaded to reduce the force to 2,500 and to continue the current counter-terrorism missions and to train and advise Afghan forces.
Some believe that the weakening of U.S. forces in the coming weeks could lead to renewed Taliban gains on the battlefield and a weakening of the Afghan government’s position at the peace table.
Stephen Biddle, a defense policy expert for the Foreign Affairs Council and a professor of international relations at Columbia University, says the main contribution of U.S. forces at this stage is more than political, not military.
“In military terms, war is a stagnation that is slowly declining,” Biddle said in congressional testimony last month. “The US presence may slow the rate of decline on the sidelines, but we cannot reverse it unless a major reinforcement is made that seems highly unlikely. This means that if the war continues, the Taliban will end up triumphing regardless of plausible variations. in the size or nature of the engagement of American troops. “
Milley’s visit comes in the twentieth year of a war initially aimed at overthrowing the Taliban regime, expelling al-Qaeda from the country and laying the groundwork for a global “war on terror.” It became something more ambitious but less well defined and became much more expensive in blood and treasure.
Looking back on the stalled war, Milley earlier this month proclaimed that the United States and its coalition partners had achieved “a minimum of success.”
___
This story has been corrected to show that the name of the defense policy expert is Stephen, not Steven.