TRUMPING THE TALIBAN

The peace talks have looked increasingly like a surrender plan

By The Editorial Board

The Wall Street Journal
September 8, 2019

President Trump on Saturday canceled talks with the Taliban, and let’s hope for the sake of American security that it’s a long suspension. The talks have looked increasingly like the Paris peace talks of the Vietnam era in which the enemy negotiates a U.S. withdrawal as it prepares for a complete military victory.

Mr. Trump tweeted that he cancelled talks sponsored by the U.S. and scheduled for Sunday at Camp David because the Taliban killed 12 people, including American Sergeant First Class Elis Angel Barreto Ortiz, in an attack on Thursday. “What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?” Mr. Trump asked.

But that’s what the Taliban have been doing throughout more than a year of negotiations. They practice terror while they talk. They have refused to commit to more than a token cease-fire while slaughtering civilians and the Afghan police and defense forces.

The urge to find a political solution to the long Afghan war is understandable, and U.S. negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad knows the players. But the details of the “agreement in principle” that Mr. Khalilzad says he has reached with the Taliban are reason for concern. They look more like cover for U.S. withdrawal than an agreement for stability or peace.

The tentative agreement calls for a first phase when the U.S. would reduce its troops in the country to 8,600 from 14,000 as the Taliban negotiates with the Afghan government. The U.S. would withdraw completely at a future date, with the strong implication that this would be in time for Election Day 2020.

Any timetable plays into the hands of the Taliban, which faces no election calendar. The Taliban have also refused to agree to elections or to support the Afghan constitution, and Mr. Khalilzad has not insisted on either. The Taliban want to restore the Islamic Emirate they had before 9/11, in which religious leaders have the final say on all matters. Women would once again be denied education, and minority rights would not be protected.

Mr. Khalilzad says the Taliban have agreed not to allow sanctuaries for Islamic State or al Qaeda, but this is hard to credit. Islamic State is operating in Taliban-controlled territory limited only by U.S. military attack. President George W. Bush gave the Taliban a chance to turn over al Qaeda after 9/11, but it refused. Why would it do so now after the U.S. departs?

The abiding U.S. interest in Afghanistan is to prevent the re-establishment of a sanctuary from which jihadists could plan attacks. That’s best done in concert with Afghan allies on the ground who are already doing nearly all of the anti-terror fighting. This forward deployment of modest U.S. forces, combined with allies on the ground, is a major reason the U.S. homeland hasn’t been successfully attacked by foreign terrorists since 9/11.

Critics who complain about “forever wars” overlook that the U.S. has had troops deployed in Europe since World War II and in Korea since the armistice of 1953. These deployments have helped to keep the peace with limited American casualties. This kind of long-term deployment should be possible in Afghanistan, perhaps with reductions as the Afghan forces gain in experience and firepower.

There is no domestic political clamor for the U.S. to withdraw all troops, especially with casualties low. The political harm for Mr. Trump would be far greater if a pullout triggered the collapse of the Afghan government and a humanitarian tragedy. A revived terrorist sanctuary in Afghanistan would also erase the political benefit for Mr. Trump from destroying the ISIS caliphate in Syria. The jihadist movement world-wide would declare a great victory.

Hard as it may be to accept, the fight against Islamic terrorism will be a multi-generational struggle around the world. Better to stay on offense on their turf than to retreat to playing defense on America’s. And far better to have Muslim allies fighting by our side in their countries than to plan pre-emptive or reprisal attacks from the air and far away. The Clinton years showed us that pinprick missile attacks alone do not stop al Qaeda.

Mr. Trump might be tempted to resume talks with the Taliban, but he should be in no hurry. The Taliban have been thinking amid Mr. Khalilzad’s mediations that they have the U.S. on the run. Mr. Trump’s show of backbone will make them think twice. You can’t have a successful peace negotiation if one side has no interest in peace.