Rise to Peace blog

Afghanistan Strategy
 by Ahmad Mohibi

Afghanistan: An Exit Strategy Is Not a Strategy

Afghanistan: An Exit Strategy Is Not a Strategy

The US secretary of Defense Mark Espers traveled to Afghanistan this Sunday on unannounced trip weeks after the US special envoy for the Afghan peace and reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, met with Taliban in Pakistan to eventually resume the peace talks.

Esper told reporters that the US will reduce its troops to 8,600 and withdrawal will take place in case of a peace agreement with the Taliban. The United States currently has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan. This is significantly less than the 130,000 troops that were stationed there in 2009 as part of broader counter-insurgency operations. 

“The aim is to still get a peace agreement at some point, a political agreement. That is the best way forward,” said Esper.

In early September, President Donald Trump declared the Afghan Peace Talks ‘dead.’ This decision unfolded when Trump allegedly planned a secret Camp David meeting with the Taliban. It was then abruptly canceled because the Taliban committed acts of terror that killed 12 in Afghanistan, including an American soldier. While the US left the negotiating table and then re-entered, the Taliban met with Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and China; major adversaries of the US. It is best for the US to resume peace talks to ensure America’s global leadership and national security.

What’s Next?

Taliban’s intention of violence has not changed at all —and they have repeatedly targeted populated areas of the cities including schools and mosque, like yesterday’s mosque suicide bombing that killed 62 in Nangarhar province. In July of 2019, at the Doha peace conference, the Taliban agreed to reduce violence by withholding attacks on religious centers, schools, hospitals, educational centers, bazaars, water dams, and workplaces.

Hopes for a resumption of the talks between the US and the Taliban were sparked when a Taliban delegation met with Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in Islamabad last month. This was a potential step towards discussion between the US, Afghans, and the Taliban, but no decision has been made yet. 

American forces provide a reliable partnership in the path towards Afghan stability, therefore the United States should not step away from its presence in Afghanistan, even in the instance that a cohesive agreement is reached between the Taliban and pertinent regional actors. A framework such as this is essential to ensure that Afghanistan does not turn into a battleground for terrorism as it was between the 1980s and 1990s.

The Taliban refuses to compromise their demands, such as their desired institution of the patriarchal Islamic Emirate characterized by strict social and cultural policies based on man-made principles and radical ideologies. 

This form of governance is not religiously endorsed as it is incongruent with the Muslim society and strong Islamic beliefs inherent in Afghanistan. For instance, Islam does not prohibit girls from attending school, nor does it call for the slaughter of innocent civilians. The Taliban engages in both.

Afghans do not want to lose the achievements of the last 18 years and that is their proverbial ‘red line.’ The Taliban have not openly expressed at any point — even during any of the high-level meetings— any of their visions of an ideal Afghanistan or how they would cooperate with fellow citizens to achieve prosperity. 

All the Taliban has done is repeatedly assert demands for the withdrawal of foreign troops. In their terms, they argue to ‘end the foreign occupation in Afghanistan.’

It is imperative that the US understands what is at stake if they decide to leave Afghanistan. Important questions arise: Will the Taliban remain loyal to their promises? Will there be a guaranteed agreement that the Taliban will no longer harbor terrorism? These are some of the main challenges in the Afghan peace process that resulted in the suspension of the talks. 

Numerous elements are at play since Afghans do not want a life in a bleak regime devoid of good fortune; the US does not want al-Qaeda and terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base, and the Taliban does not want a US presence.

Everyone is currently waiting for the votes to be counted and finalized in the recent Afghan presidential election prior to any conclusion. Important players await to learn the winner and if Afghanistan will go into crisis. 

It is only proper that the United States provide a peace deal for the sake of the future of Afghanistan. This remains the sole solution available to American policymakers as an assurance that the last 18 years of post-9/11 intervention were not spent in vain. Further, the current global political atmosphere commands that the United States adapt its commitments within Afghanistan and focus greater attention towards the East. China continues its ascendence and an ever-stronger India are taking their places on the world stage. In the case that Washington chooses to leave Afghanistan, another regional power may quickly supplant their former position and advance to this strategic location. 

Peace talks can play a pivotal role in America’s shifting foreign policy priorities. Though there are opportunities to be had, the United States should not rush the negotiation process for the sake of a deal ahead of the 2020 presidential election. 

The advancement of democratic processes and norms in the fragile nation-state, as well as a guarantee that any government charged with the future of Afghanistan and its people are held to account in the face of human rights abuses and governmental shortcomings, are key priorities that must be upheld. This is an identifiable challenge that is sure to be realized as Afghanistan’s central government in Kabul seeks to rebuild and strengthen itself in the wake of a 4th Presidential election. 

American values must not be sacrificed at the negotiation table also. Girls and women must be protected so that they are provided with the opportunity to succeed in Afghanistan’s economic, social and cultural institutions. 

The ability of girls and women to attend school, enter the labor market, and contribute to the societal success of Afghanistan should be of the utmost importance to all vital stakeholders. This has not been the view of Taliban leaders, but this particular belief must be strongly resisted if Afghanistan is to move past the challenges and strife of past decades towards a new, vibrant and more peaceful future. 

Afghanistan presents a complex situation on many levels, therefore it is important to employ both hard power and diplomatic approaches. Negotiations should only be engaged with those Taliban factions that want to negotiate while military pressure must be applied to those factions unwilling to lay down their weapons. Additionally, Afghan soldiers must continue to be trained and provided with badly needed heavy weaponry and air support. 

American interests must do all they can to support transparent elections in Afghanistan. A strong leader elected in a free and fair manner will contribute to a sense of legitimacy that is required for Afghan citizens to respect the leadership in Kabul.

Finally, it is essential that US policymakers pressure Pakistan and Iran in a variety of manners so that they stop harboring and funding the Taliban. All of these measures combined can lead to a long-term ceasefire and the inception of continued prosperity in Afghanistan.

Ahmad Mohibi is the founder of Rise to Peace. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi

David Saul Acosta, Research Fellow at Rise to Peace and a graduate student at Harvard. Follow him on Twitter at @davidsaulacosta

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
Turkey
 by Zaina Dkaidek

Turkey’s Offensive in Syria Risks the Region’s Stability

For some time, President Trump sought an opportunity to withdraw United States troops from northeastern Syria. He considers regional security issues to be the responsibility of local actors, and thus no longer saw any purpose to remain after the defeat of Daesh.

Trump began the extraction of an estimated 100 to 150 military personnel from the 1,000 US troops stationed in the area despite the perception that this decision could leave the region vulnerable.

The withdrawal of troops provides a little motive for the US to continue its alliance with the People’s Protection Units (YPG). These Syrian Kurdish Forces —along with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) — have been instrumental in the fight against Daesh. With the US abandoning them, it gave Turkey the green light to enter Syria.

Why is Turkey moving into Syria?

Only days after President Trump ordered the retreat, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan commenced a ground offensive. The intent of the operation is to clear the Kurdish militias holding the territory in northern Syria. Erdogan planned this action for the last two years, with the end goal of a designated “safe zone” to house at least 2 of the 3.6 million Syrian refugees living on Turkish soil.

Nonetheless, the Kurds explain that Turkey’s actions are risking all the gains made against Daesh. For example, the Kurdish forces have thousands of Daesh prisoners, including fighters and their families, under their control. If a conflict occurs, it is unclear if they will have to withdraw to battle the Turkish forces. The prisoners could escape, and liberated cities could fall back to Daesh.

The green area on the map is the “safe zone” that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is attempting to create.

What does this mean for the region’s stability?

Trump’s decision and Turkey’s subsequent assault could result in dire consequences to regional stability. The reemergence of Daesh remains a significant security threat in the wake of this offensive. As SDF deploys forces into northern Syria to battle Turkey, this will leave other parts of the country vulnerable. In recent months, there have already been instances of erratic attacks from the Daesh prison cells as well as tensions rising between the SDF and local Arab tribes.

According to the SDF, there are over 12,000 suspected Daesh members housed across seven prisons, with at the very least 4,000 of them being foreign nationals. These prisons are scattered across the country, but at least two camps — Roj and Ain Issa — are located inside the “safe zone.”

According to the White House, these camps will become Turkey’s responsibility; however, chances of a smooth handover from Kurdish forces to Turkey are unlikely. This situation could potentially lead to hundreds of escapes of alleged Daesh fighters and sympathizers.

Another possibility is an increase of Russian influence in the region, and consequently, the consolidation of the Assad regime. The United States will renounce an essential aspect of its sway in Syria without receiving any concessions in return from the government. Therefore, Russia will be able to extend its influence over Syria’s future.

It is likely that the Kremlin will forge a closer relationship with the SDF, as they search for new allies during the conflict. Damascus could spread its jurisdiction over Syria’s territory and potentially increase control over the country’s oil fields as well as other crucial economic resources.

Finally, the humanitarian aspect of the Turkish operation will likely be catastrophic. The United Nations claims that many of the 758,000 residents along the Syrian border were displaced at least once from conflict. Further action from Turkey could only exacerbate the situation.

It can cause civilians to seek refuge in Arab-majority areas south of the border, or in Iraq, which is currently undergoing violent protests throughout the nation. Also, Erdogan’s plan to relocate over a million Syrian refugees to the “safe zone” could cause further instability by dramatically changing the ethnic composition of the region.

Overall, the decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria based on an erroneous assumption that the Islamic State has been wholly eradicated may only fuel the group’s resurgence. There are already signs of Daesh regrouping, with no changes to its ideology, and with most of its operating structure intact. Therefore, US troops leaving the region will only lead to them reemerging as a threat.

For this reason, Group of Seven (G7) countries must attempt to shift Erdogan’s advances through economic means or political pressure to avoid further instability in the region. Also, for the US to continue to have reliable allies along with some influence over the Middle East, they must not abandon the YPG by withdrawing all troops from northern Syria.

in MENA / Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
Turkey
 by Suleyman Ozeren

Turkey’s Military Incursion into Northeastern Syria Poses Many Risks to Regional Stability

President Trump’s decision to outsource the mission to fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) to Turkey caught many observers off guard. In fact, allowing the Turkish military to carry out a military incursion in northeastern Syria has faced strong reactions in Washington D.C. and around the world. President Trump, who saw little justification in keeping the United States’ military in Syria after his declaration of victory against ISIL, gave a green light to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to realize its long-awaited ‘safe zone’ in the area.

Having two major goals, Turkey aims to prevent the Kurds — Democratic Union Party (PYD) and the People’s Protection Units (YPG) — from having autonomy in Syria and resettle 1-2 million refugees in the safe zone. This is an especially complex political situation because Ankara considers the YPG as a terrorist organization under the guidance of the PKK, a far-left political entity with a contentious reputation internationally.

The initial plan is to establish a safe zone that will be 30 km (18 miles) and a length of 480 km (298 miles) that will allow resettlement of up to 2 million Syrians refugees who have been in Turkey. But according to Erdogan, the safe zone could be extended to Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor which could host the Syrian refugees in Europe as well.

As ambitious as it sounds, the plan has received little support from any country, including the United States, European Union (EU) member states, and several Middle Eastern countries. In the United States, except for Trump’s consent, the entire US Congress and most of the administration oppose the incursion.

Erdogan is attempting to balance numerous diplomatic interests in the Syrian conflict. For example, he proposes to the United States that Turkey could claim leadership of fight against ISIL while offering the Europeans a path to ease their burden of hosting refugees. He also proposed building hundreds of thousands of homes for the refugees in the safe zone which could boost the Turkish economy. So, it was supposed to be a ‘win-win’ for everyone.

The military incursion embodies several risks. For example, fighting between the Turkish military and the Kurds in Syria could create more refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP) in northeastern Syria. Particularly if the incursion will be extended and prolonged, this will force thousands of people to leave their homes which could mean that Iraq, Turkey, and eventually Europe could see another influx of refugees. Even more concerning is the idea that the safe zone would be used for resettlement of up to three million refugees. While there are Arab-majority areas in northern Syria, resettling Arab refugees in the area could lead other ethnic tensions and possible conflict between Arabs and Kurds.

Second, the Kurdish Worker’s Party (PKK) could carry out attacks in Turkey which could create another chaotic situation. While PKK has allocated several of its militants in the Syrian conflict, with sensational attacks, PKK could ignite a nationalist backfire against the Kurds given the emotional and heated psychological climate in the country. If the incursion leads to even a small-scale uprising in Turkey, the PKK would engage in opportunistic attacks. If the conflict between Turkey and the Kurds endures, Kurds in other countries, including Iran and Iraq, could rally around the Syrian Kurds. Contrary to what Erdogan and his government are trying to do, the operation could consolidate the Kurds in such a way that it could have several consequences for Turkey.

Fourth, feeling betrayed by the United States, the PYD would reach out to Damascus to seek closer relationship with Russia and the Assad regime which also would strengthen the Iranian influence over the Syrian Kurds. Syrian Kurds would rather have the Assad regime forces patrolling the Turkey-Syria border in the northern Syria than the Turkish military and Turkey-backed forces.

For Russia, the Turkish military incursion presents new opportunities. According to Moscow, while Turkey has a right to address its security concerns, it also should respect to the territorial integrity of Syria. In Russia’s view, Turkish military incursion can be tolerated as long as the Turkish military presence will not be prolonged. In other words, Russia sees Turkey’s move as an opportunity.

On the one hand, Turkey’s unilateral action contradicts with Moscow’s support for the territorial integrity of Syria and upsets the regime in Damascus. On the other hand, Russia sees the incursion as another opportunity to weaken the Western Alliances in which Turkey had been an important actor. Erdogan’s recent foreign policy decisions since the July 15, 2016 coup attempt have favored Russia in that Turkey aligned with Russia on many issues, including the Astana process; a series of initiatives and plans aimed to end the Syrian civil war.

Iran could benefit from the United States’ decision to pull out of critical areas in northeastern Syria too. This action provides Tehran with significant political capital to expand and deepen its area of influence in the entire Middle East.

Fifth, the region could witness another resurgence of ISIL. Recent experience in the region demonstrated that whenever there is ethnic and religious tension or a conflict, ISIL benefited from it. More importantly, Turkey’s record on fighting against ISIL is far from encouraging. Throughout the Syrian conflict, Ankara had turned a blind eye to the foreign terrorist fighters who have used Turkey as a transit country. Grave allegations that the Turkish government has provided extremist groups with weapons and other ammunitions discourage any expectations about the capability and willingness of the government to handle the ISIL threat in the region properly.

While in the short term the military incursion is helping Erdogan to consolidate popular support in Turkey, in the long term it could weaken his position both domestically and internationally. Already facing a lot of criticism and potential sanctions by the United States, if Erdogan cannot deliver the intended outcome of the operation, the military incursion could be very costly for him and Turkey.

Editor’s Note: Suleyman Ozeren, the Director of the Middle East and North Africa Counterterrorism program at Rise to Peace, provides comprehensive analysis of the many repercussions of the ongoing Turkish military operation in northeastern Syria. It is especially important to consider conditions on the ground and the consequences faced by average civilians in the wake of recent developments. Shifts in the regional balance of power in the Middle East are connected to the quality of life for many people, therefore this topic must be seriously discussed.

Suleyman Ozeren, Ph.D. is the Director of the Middle East and North Africa Counterterrorism program at Rise to Peace, He is also an Adjunct Faculty and a research scholar at the at George Mason University. Follow him on twitter at @docsozeren

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments
Taliban
 by Ahmad Mohibi

A revival of peace talks between the US and the Taliban

A revival of peace talks between the US and the Taliban

Taliban co-founder Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, his chief negotiator and a team of 12 influential members recently engaged in meetings with the United States’ geopolitical adversaries. In less than a month, they have met with the regional powers of Iran, Russia, China and now, Pakistan, in efforts to secure their political and military support ahead of negotiations with the United States. The backing of regional powers could potentially lead to a favorable political solution for their organization and cause.

As noted, these encounters are closely timed alongside the resumption of peace talks between the United States and the Taliban in Islamabad, Pakistan. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Special envoy for Afghanistan peace and reconciliation, is currently in Pakistan to meet with Pakistani officials and government heads as the Trump administration looks to restart the negotiation process on a positive note.

Negotiations between the United States and the Taliban were placed on hold last month after a Taliban-coordinated attack killed a US soldier. The goal of renewed diplomatic discourse is to overcome the political setbacks of recent months and salvage the possibility of a political settlement for the Taliban in a new, modern and democratic Afghanistan.

President Trump remains confident in his relationship with Imran Khan, Prime Minister of Pakistan, and in the ability of the Pakistani government to play a positive and productive role in the negotiations between the United States and Talibani stakeholders.

Recently, the two leaders were able to hold a joint meeting at the United Nations as the global community gathered in New York City for the 74th General Assembly (UNGA). Khan expressed that “Stability in Afghanistan means stability in Pakistan.” At UNGA, President Trump echoed similar sentiments in his statement, “With that goal in mind, my administration is also pursuing the hope of a brighter future in Afghanistan.”

The political environment has somewhat shifted since talks stalled. Negotiations are set to resume in the immediate aftermath of Afghanistan’s fourth Presidential Election; an election that was often debated in intra-Afghan dialogue prior to reaching a prospective deal.

Despite the fact that the 60,000-strong Taliban were outnumbered by security forces, Afghan voters still feared the threats issued by the Taliban. The Afghan presidential election produced a dismal turnout as only 2.2 million out of 9.6 million registered voters cast ballots.

Following a ceasefire in June of 2018, the United States opened lines of communication with the Taliban in an effort to end the Afghan conflict through a negotiated settlement by way of intra-Afghan dialogues.

The US and Taliban met nine times and an agreement was reached between them at the last meeting held in August 2019. If the agreement was bilaterally approved, the US would withdraw its 14,000 forces from Afghanistan over a timeline and the Taliban would have participated in the elections. Additionally, the Taliban would have agreed to no longer harbor terrorists in their controlled territories and cut ties with al-Qaeda.

A negotiated settlement is in the best interest of Afghanistan given the situation that Afghans remain hopeful for peace, yet remain in fear for their lives. The noticeable low voter turnout depicts this. “I did not vote because I did not want to get killed,” said a 25-year-old shopkeeper in District 11 of Kabul City to a Rise to Peace researcher.

Conditions of negotiation and set agreements must be implemented in the case that peace talks are to be restored between the Taliban and the US. It is unfair to discuss peace in Doha while innocent civilians continued to be killed in Afghanistan because the Taliban feel emboldened enough to carry out such attacks whilst engaged in negotiations. This type of manipulation and plays for power are futile as they will instill hate and fear among Afghans instead.

Over 84 percent of Afghans believed President Trump’s decision to call off peace talks with the Taliban was correct. This number must be placed into context because a similar number of respondents believed that negotiations were in the best interest of the country prior to a series of deadly Taliban attacks. Public opinion shifted due to the Taliban’s barbaric attacks on congested areas, therefore Trump’s decision became well-regarded.

It must be acknowledged that the past four peace agreements over the last four decades with different actors and regimes were unsuccessful in all regards. Rather, they triggered further violence and war that undoubtedly created the contemporary situation — an unstable Afghanistan with over 22 terrorist groups operating across its territory that pose a serious threat to the national security of Afghanistan, the region and the rest of the world.

Peace is on the agenda for every candidate and political leader in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, but its achievement remains problematic. Historically speaking, Afghans create their own impediments to peace, such as difficulties in accepting defeat, aversion to power-sharing and an unwillingness to compromise.

Afghans are the key to a peaceful Afghanistan; therefore, all parties must be dedicated to that unitive goal. For instance, Ashraf Ghani, the incumbent Afghan president, expressed cynicism towards the peace talks and citizens viewed this skepticism as a “thirst for power.” At the same time, the Taliban accepted the US offer to negotiation, took it for granted and engaged in attacks against innocent civilians that just in one week over 500 people were killed in Afghanistan.

A lack of cohesive rhetoric and actions is undoubtedly apparent; thus Afghanistan remains in a perpetual state of disorder.

Finally, it must be expressed that previous examples and this most recent case are prime examples of how selfishness and a lack of compromise can lead to crisis. The United States and the greater international community are greatly invested in efforts to aid Afghans to achieve peace, but Afghans need to contribute to the goal as well. Those in leadership positions must compromise and factions of Afghan society should cooperate towards the objectives of national unity, peace, and prosperity.

Conflict based upon ethnic allegiances — such as identification as Tajik or Pashtun, rather than Afghan — will foment civil grievances and extinguish any hopes for peace.

Ahmad Mohibi is the founder of Rise to Peace. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi

in Ahmad Mohibi / Rise to Peace blog 2 comments
Afghanistan
 by Rise to Peace

Afghanistan election: A huge victory for the Afghan forces

As the vote-counting commenced, it brought about the end of election day in Afghanistan. The precarious security situation and the struggling economy seemed to be on top of the minds of voters. The Taliban made every effort over the last few weeks to ensure this election would not be a peaceful affair.

More than 72,000 security personnel were deployed to 49,402 polling booths nationwide. The threat of attacks remained on Afghan voters’ minds, but some said they were determined to go out and vote.

Despite efforts to ensure the election ran smoothly, including the use of equipment such as biometric fingerprint readers and better training for poll workers, 445 polling stations remained closed due to security concerns. Chaotic disruptions at polling stations and scare tactics from Taliban forces led to fear and anxiety across the country’s electorate.

“I did not vote because I did not want to get killed,” said a 25-year-old shopkeeper in District 11 of Kabul City.

The increased security presence did not prevent all manifestations of violence. TOLOnews reported over 260 incidents and that 90 of them were a direct attack on polls. In a single attack, at least 17 people were wounded when a bomb exploded outside a polling station in the southern city of Kandahar hours after the polls opened.

As Abdul Qadir Sediqi, a Reuters correspondent in Afghanistan correctly states, the election was “a major test of the Western-backed government’s ability to protect democracy.” As the votes continue to be counted, Afghans cautiously await news to find out who their next president will be, and if this leader can improve the security situation.

Local officials in Helmand said that voter turnout was weak. The presence of the Taliban in the province prevented citizens from casting their votes in at least five districts. There were also multiple reports from provincial officials in the north of Afghanistan that stated insurgents fired mortars on the city of Kunduz in attempts to interfere with the casting of ballots.

Ghulam Rabani Rabani, a council member for Kunduz province, stated on election day that the Taliban “are attacking Afghan security forces in two locations outside the city, in running gun battles.” He confirms civilian casualties, but couldn’t immediately provide a number.

In Baghlan, a province frequently attacked by the Taliban, 12 polls remained closed due to their threats. Fewer people voted at open polling stations as the Taliban fired several mortars to disrupt the electoral process. Further, security was especially tight in northern Afghanistan, particularly in Kunduz due to a recent attack by the Taliban. However, telecommunication networks were down in Badakhshan, Takhar and some areas of Kunduz province until September 30.

Furthermore, only 225 people voted in Zabul province because of the strong insurgency presence and the lack of civic engagement. The telecommunication networks were disrupted or completely down intermittently. Afghanistan Independent Election Commission (AIEC) stated it lost contact with 901 of the country’s 5,373 polling centers.

On top of this, the Taliban threatened to close highways and disrupt polls. Nevertheless, despite a few claims of Taliban activity on the Kandahar-Kabul highway in Zabul province, they were unable to disrupt the election drastically.

The Afghanistan National Security Forces scored a marked success as they prevented any major terrorist attack in a country where various terrorist groups operate and the Taliban controls over 60% of the territory. Their actions proved their capabilities to defend Afghan citizens.

Security concerns, election fraud, and a lower voter turnout can easily be depicted as backsliding in Afghanistan, however, the presidential elections of 2019 were a positive step compared to previous events. Elections in 2009 and 2014 may have produced higher turnout, but they were hampered by mass corruption, fraudulent votes, and deadlier attacks.

in Rise to Peace blog 0 comments