US-Taliban deal may be close, but future of Afghanistan remains bleak

Encouraging comments from the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan on "significant progress" in talks with the Taliban heightened hopes for peace, but the envoy and experts on the region warned that major obstacles remain.

Even if a deal is reached, the battle-weary nation of 35 million people could be enveloped in a bloody civil war long after the Americans are gone.

Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad expressed optimism after talks in Qatar wrapped up over the weekend but said, "Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed." Monday, he told The New York Times that negotiators agreed on a "framework" for a plan aimed at ending the conflict that has crippled Afghanistan since the U.S. invasion more than 17 years ago.

Khalilzad said the Taliban committed to preventing Afghanistan from becoming a platform for international terrorists. The United States would begin withdrawing troops in return for a cease-fire – and the Taliban conducting talks directly with the Kabul government, something the militant group has refused to do.

The 14,000 U.S. troops remaining in the South Asian country advise the Afghan military and conduct counterterrorism operations. President Donald Trump has frequently questioned the value of  U.S. troop involvement.

Benjamin Hopkins, director of Asian Studies at George Washington University, said that the Taliban leadership is fully aware that Trump wants out – and that it cannot take control of the country so long as foreign troops remain.

"Recognizing this, the U.S. has been resistant to any deal withdrawing U.S. troops while the Taliban is still a militarily capable force," Hopkins said. "The thing that seems to have changed is President Trump’s desire to withdraw. ... Khalilzad is negotiating with that political reality in mind."

Vanda Felbab-Brown, author of "Aspiration and Ambivalence: Strategies and Realities of Counterinsurgency and State-Building in Afghanistan," said the most likely outcome of a U.S. exit would be civil war.

If the Taliban agrees to negotiate with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the militants will demand to keep their military force or integrate it into the Afghan military, Felbab-Brown said. That would put the United States in the position of subsidizing Taliban fighters.

The Taliban won't settle for "meager representation" in Parliament but will want control of ministries and power at the national level, she said.

"They will not disarm and go home," Felbab-Brown said. "The question is: Is there any deal that the Taliban is willing to stick by?"

Felbab-Brown and Hopkins said Ghani will not be pleased to see U.S. troops leave.  Ghani spoke to his nation Monday, inviting direct talks with the Taliban and assuring Afghans that no deal would be made without his participation.

Ghani has said that although no country wants foreign troops indefinitely, U.S. troops remain a crucial component for his country's stability. Hopkins suggested that U.S. officials might be planning a residual "security footprint" while withdrawing the public face of the deployment.

The latest talks "could be the beginning of something, but only if there is a major change in the interests and aims of the parties," Hopkins said. "And I don’t see the Taliban as the one moving here."

About 2,400 U.S. military personnel have died in Afghanistan – including one last week – since American forces launched the offensive against the Taliban weeks after the terrorism attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A Taliban car bomb attack last week killed at least 45 people, including dozens of Afghan intelligence officials.

Violence has been on the rise.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, a former Taliban official who is a member of the country's High Peace Council, expressed optimism about the talks but stressed that more discussions are needed in the coming weeks or months.

"Afghanistan's problem is not so simple that it can be solved in a day, week or month; it needs more time and more discussions," Mujahid told The Associated Press.

Felbab-Brown said she hopes that if the Taliban wins enough concessions, civil war could be averted.

"Civil liberties may fade, but maybe you will save thousands of lives," she said. "That is better than bloody civil war. But it is not a happy outcome."