What we know about Trump's DEAL with the Taliban before leaving office

www.cfr.org...

What did the United States and the Taliban agree to?

Following nine rounds of discussions, negotiators signed a peace agreement in February 2020 that addresses four main issues:

Cease-fire. Negotiators agreed to a temporary reduction in violence and said that a lasting cease-fire among U.S., Taliban, and Afghan forces will be part of intra-Afghan negotiations.


Withdrawal of foreign forces. The United States agreed to reduce its number of troops in the country from roughly 12,000 to 8,600 within 135 days. If the Taliban follows through on its commitments, all U.S. and other foreign troops will leave Afghanistan within fourteen months. Experts have cautioned that pulling troops out too quickly could be destabilizing.


Intra-Afghan negotiations. The Taliban agreed to start talks with the Afghan government in March 2020. Throughout the negotiating process, the Taliban had resisted direct talks with the government, calling it an American puppet. But the Taliban has more recently indicated that talks are possible, with deputy Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani writing in a New York Times op-ed, “If we can reach an agreement with a foreign enemy, we must be able to resolve intra-Afghan disagreements through talks.”


Counterterrorism assurances. The United States invaded Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001, attacks largely to eliminate the threat of terrorism, so it seeks to halt terrorist activities in the country, including by al-Qaeda and the self-proclaimed Islamic State. As part of the agreement, the Taliban guaranteed that Afghanistan will not be used by any of its members, other individuals, or terrorist groups to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.

originally posted by: HiddenIdentity
www.cfr.org...

Amazing thread! Absolutely one of the best ATS has to offer these days!

ETA: thanks for adding content and not just a link.

a reply to: HiddenIdentity

while your OP needs much more meat and potatoes, this from the article stands out just a bit:

Experts have cautioned that pulling troops out too quickly could be destabilizing.

So the more this looks to be a good thing, the more it looks like it was just executed in the worst possible way, and Trump was working on doing it correctly. I wonder how many lives were saved with the cease fire? (human lives, not just American)

I do wish you would edit the OP and put some quotes and an opinion there, so it doesn't get trashed. It's good info.

a reply to: HiddenIdentity

Looks like Trump had the right idea with a gradual pull out at least.

"Never Underestimate Joe's Ability To F**k Things Up!"
--Barack Obama

a reply to: MykeNukem

There was no 'right plan'. Unless we intended on staying for more than one generation to let the Taliban breed itself out of existence while simultaneously getting a bunch of backwards tribal numpties to accept democracy this whole thing was doomed to failure from October 2001.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think the current conversation, since Trump has been blamed for this, is that it appears this is something He had more correct than not. he wanted us out, we all agree on that, and he did a gradual removal, while first arranging a cease fire so we didn't have to keep shooting on our way out.

But as I have said about this a few times now, if Trump was president, and he did this bad of a job, he would be at fault, and would be getting all the scorn. He isn't president, didn't order this massive withdraw without a plan, and isn't to blame for Biden's mismanagement. IMHO

originally posted by: MykeNukem
a reply to: HiddenIdentity

Looks like Trump had the right idea with a gradual pull out at least.

Stormy agrees.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: MykeNukem

There was no 'right plan'. Unless we intended on staying for more than one generation to let the Taliban breed itself out of existence while simultaneously getting a bunch of backwards tribal numpties to accept democracy this whole thing was doomed to failure from October 2001.

The right plan was to never go over there to begin with. Some people you just can't reach.

But yeah... It was doomed to failure for a myriad of reasons. There was no way we were going to change that mindset in less than a generation and you can't send in people to do a job, then tie their hands.The pull out could've been handled much better but that likely would have only delayed the inevitable.

originally posted by: network dude
I think the current conversation, since Trump has been blamed for this...

And he rightly deserves some blame along with his predecessors. Is this now on Joe's dime? Yeah. But people who want to dump the entire fiasco on him are usually way too partisan to have meaningful conversations with.

a reply to: HairForceOne

Totally agree.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: MykeNukem

There was no 'right plan'. Unless we intended on staying for more than one generation to let the Taliban breed itself out of existence while simultaneously getting a bunch of backwards tribal numpties to accept democracy this whole thing was doomed to failure from October 2001.

No doubt, it's been a hopeless cause from the beginning.

If they wanted democracy or something better it's their time to shine.

I think they could have pulled out better though, like, get everyone out as discreetly as possible before making media announcements. I accept that there was no “good” way to do it, really.

Well see what happens now? They're probably going to become a full on Terrorist State, if people don't want freedom.

originally posted by: MykeNukem
If they wanted democracy or something better it's their time to shine.

And not enough of them did which is why a bunch of theocratic cavemen can now be back in charge of this Asian jerkwater nation.

a reply to: network dude

But as I have said about this a few times now, if Trump was president, and he did this bad of a job, he would be at fault, and would be getting all the scorn. He isn't president, didn't order this massive withdraw without a plan, and isn't to blame for Biden's mismanagement. IMHO

Are you kidding??? If Trump was president and did the same thing Biden has done he would have been impeached (7) times since just last Friday! Every Target store in America would be smoldering twisted ashen wreckage, every liquor store looted and Nancy Pelosi would have had twelve aneurisms and an orgasm!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
I think the current conversation, since Trump has been blamed for this...

And he rightly deserves some blame along with his predecessors. Is this now on Joe's dime? Yeah. But people who want to dump the entire fiasco on him are usually way too partisan to have meaningful conversations with.

I can't speak for everyone, but I will say, Joey isn't the planning guy, just the guy who (supposedly) gives orders. There are people who's job it is to plan and execute the orders given. So this isn't something Joe did wrong, it's something Joe managed wrong.

Much like if you told a group of sales guys to go sell some water to a guy dying of thirst, and they came back without a sale, you would be pissed, it wouldn't be your fault they failed, but you would still end up holding the bag and having everyone wonder why you didn't get this done correctly.

The buck stops with him.

Blame Trump for not doing the same thing, disingenuous. Blame Trump for continuing the war, I suppose, although he spend some time trying to end it the right way, as this OP explains. But some folks see red, some orange.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: MykeNukem
If they wanted democracy or something better it's their time to shine.

And not enough of them did which is why a bunch of theocratic cavemen can now be back in charge of this Asian jerkwater nation.

I'm just hoping those theocrats don't get too organized and use their new found freedom from the west to start a caliphate or something crazy.

Either way, they seem to go right back to tyranny as soon as they can. Like Egypt did with the MB. Can't force freedom, not even 'Muricah.

Should be interesting to see what turn of events takes place, it's always unpredictable over there.

a reply to: HiddenIdentity
Since this was an interview from last night where Trump, in his own words, speaks to the OP.
This video should be a prerequisite.

deputy Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani writing in a New York Times op-ed, “If we can reach an agreement with a foreign enemy, we must be able to resolve intra-Afghan disagreements through talks.”

This sounds like Trump and Pompeo got the message across and now Taliban leaders are seeing the value of negotiating. Currently the Taliban are testing Biden and his team.
The CFR is an organization that despises Trump because he is their biggest threat. The CFR is the same group that had Biden talk about how he forced the firing of a prosecutor we all know-well that was a CFR event.
www.cfr.org...

originally posted by: network dude
I can't speak for everyone, but I will say, Joey isn't the planning guy, just the guy who (supposedly) gives orders. There are people who's job it is to plan and execute the orders given. So this isn't something Joe did wrong, it's something Joe managed wrong.

Much like if you told a group of sales guys to go sell some water to a guy dying of thirst, and they came back without a sale, you would be pissed, it wouldn't be your fault they failed, but you would still end up holding the bag and having everyone wonder why you didn't get this done correctly.

I don't disagree.

Blame Trump for not doing the same thing, disingenuous. Blame Trump for continuing the war, I suppose, although he spend some time trying to end it the right way, as this OP explains. But some folks see red, some orange.

I do disagree with this, it still would have ended with the Taliban in charge, it was inevitable. The Afghanis are corrupt and tribal, they aren't interested in democracy.

a reply to: network dude

Whatever, and who ever.

American citizens and our allies deserved our protection.

This tuned into a total disgrace on what honor the USA had left. If it had any at all.

The MIC makes much more money with long-term policing and occupation than outright destruction and capitulation. Not that the American public would have had the stomach for an all-out war, but it was never the plan or intention. Not that we could have pulled it off anyway, those mountainous tribes against a home combatant who has now had 50 plus years of experience fighting the traditional military, when it got too hot they would melt across the border into Pakistan.

It morphed into just a money pit and troop grinder.

Much like our health care system is just about treatment money machine and not curing, the MIC is about occupying money machine and not defeating.