The Times –
The Taliban bomb-maker and I smiled earnestly at one another as we sat together, drinking tea and talking, each with one ear cocked to the window in case the sudden rush of footsteps denoted that one of us had double-crossed the other. Yet as minutes stretched to hours we relaxed, enabling him to turn his full attention to the single subject that above any other grips Afghanistan this summer: peace.
The man was an unlikely dove. Code-named “Nasir”, 38, while in his twenties he had trained as a suicide bomber. Noticing his intelligence and toughness, his Taliban teachers retrained him as a bomb-maker and he eventually went on to become an operations commander overseeing bomb attacks and suicide missions in southern Afghanistan and Kabul.
Although violence has resumed across parts of Afghanistan since last month’s three-day truce over Eid expired, the aftermath of the ceasefire suggests that the country has been given a rare window of opportunity for negotiation that could open the door to ending 40 years of war.
The Taliban recognize this moment for what it is; as do the Afghan government and the US. Last week The New York Times confirmed that the White House had ordered its top diplomats to seek direct talks with the Taliban as a way of bump-starting the negotiation process.
Now serving as an adviser to the Taliban’s headquarter organization, the Quetta Shura, Nasir attended a number of key meetings in the run-up to Eid in which the Taliban discussed how to shape their policies and negotiating positions with regard to potential peace talks. His insight was thus invaluable. Crucially, he admitted the Taliban understood that their principle demand — the full withdrawal of US and Nato forces from Afghanistan — could only occur in gradual stages parallel to an overall peace agreement verified by international monitors, rather than it being a precondition to peace talks, as the Taliban have often publicly stated.
“The Taliban want peace,” he said. “But we know now also, having seen the great hopes of the Afghan people for an end to this war, how angry the people will be with any faction — Afghan or foreign — who they see as failing their hopes for peace.” This was no contrived remark. The public delight at the Eid ceasefire made it far more remarkable in itself than merely being an exercise in obeying orders to hold fire.
Though joy was muted in northern areas of the country with more to fear from the Taliban, the displays of jubilation elsewhere were overwhelming. Moreover, the level of fraternization between Taliban fighters and Afghan soldiers came as a profound shock to commanders on both sides. The combatants did not merely stop shooting, but left their positions to embrace, weep and pray together. “The reaction to the ceasefire exceeded our expectations,” the bomber said. “I myself could not help but weep with emotion.”
No less remarkable than the football matches held at Christmas across no man’s land in 1914, the Eid fraternization caused the leadership of both sides to sit up sharply. It gets hard to fight a war when the soldiers and people lose interest in it. Civil war has a life span dependent on the emotional commitment of the populace to fight one another. When that drains, wars grind to a halt. In Afghanistan now, war is a dirty word.
Translating this into a coherent set of peace talks will require a multi-tiered effort by many parties. But there are no other good options at this stage of the Afghan conflict. The number of civilian casualties hit a record high in the first six months of this year, according to UN figures released last week. Meanwhile Afghan security forces are losing on average 6,000 a year, which is twice the number of all US, British and Nato troops killed in the country over 17 years. The Taliban are suffering egregious casualties too. In the absence of peace talks, and in the event of any premature pullout by the 15,000 US and Nato forces there (including 1,100 British soldiers), the war could become much worse.
Islamic State is now an entrenched part of the conflict, and has killed hundreds of Afghans in Kabul this year alone. Uncontained, a free fall conflict in Afghanistan could revert the country to the apocalyptic state it experienced in its 1992-2001 civil war. Speaking to The Times a fortnight ago, General John Nicholson, the commander of the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan, warned of a potential Syria scenario in this event.
The key to exploiting this rare opportunity for peace talks lies in bold concessions, dexterous diplomacy, and a patient and enduring commitment to a long and complex process. If the Taliban get a whiff of a capricious early pullout by the US, or Washington cannot meaningfully commit to the discussion of a withdrawal, then the moment will be lost.
To seize the chance a number of major steps must be taken. The Americans must put the issue of a foreign troop withdrawal from Afghanistan explicitly on the table, albeit with a timeline conditional to an overall agreement between the Kabul government and the Taliban. The Taliban in turn must be prepared to talk directly with the government of President Ghani, rather than only with the Americans, as they have previously requested.
Mostly it is fools who start a war. Only the brave and wise can end one. The Eid truce gave the Afghan people a rare chance to show what they thought of peace. Now is the time for the leadership of all involved to respect those sentiments. Those who disappoint the Afghan people will do so at their peril.
