US signs peace deal with the Taliban.

[Breccia]

Isn't standard operating procedure when the US "leaves" they cut down to a few thousand [military] "advisors"?

I would say especially in this case. One, the deal was for a troop draw down over time. I think it was 3,000 of the 12,000 or so leaving by election -- enough that Trump could parade a Fake Win (how do you @ a multi-name user like Low Hanging Fruit?) but not enough to actually reduce Middle East troop level below where he started. Two, the Afghani government is likely understandably concerned that, if the US up and vanished, the Taliban would murder them all. Leaving behind a few convenient hostages means the Taliban would have to think twice about bombing random buildings.

- - - Updated - - -

Liz Cheney says U.S.-Taliban peace deal raises concerns like Iran nuclear deal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*deep breath*

Okay, I'm better.

Representative Liz Cheney, the No. 3 Republican in the House, reiterated her criticism of the historic peace agreement between the United States and Taliban, saying the deal raises concerns akin to those she had about the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal.


Cheney said during a House Armed Services Committee hearing Tuesday that she reviewed classified documents sent to Capitol Hill related to the peace deal signed Saturday and lamented that the full agreement and relevant information did not have mechanisms Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said would be included.

"What we have seen with this agreement now concerns me as much as the Iranian nuclear deal did, now that I have seen the documents and now that there seems to be still no verification mechanism by which we are going to enforce any of the so-called Taliban promises," Cheney said.

The Wyoming Republican said the U.S. is making a "number of concessions" to the Taliban under the agreement signed in Doha, Qatar, on Saturday.

Cheney said she was "pleased" to hear Pompeo say over the weekend that lawmakers would be able to see the full terms of the deal. In an interview on "Face the Nation," he said the agreement included a mechanism to ensure the Taliban is meeting its obligations and that the group agreed to renounce al Qaeda. But after reading the additional documents in a secure facility Tuesday morning, Cheney said they "do not include in them the things that Secretary Pompeo said they would."

"I've read the documents and my concerns remain," she said. "I'm not going to talk about what's in the documents, a number of them are classified, as you know, but the documents that have been sent to the Hill do not include those things."

Cheney, the House Republican Conference chair, also suggested that the Trump administration is shielding the full agreement from the American people.

"The documents have been seen by the Taliban, so I believe that the American people deserve to know what agreement has been entered into our name with the terrorists who harbored those killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11," she said.

Bolded and red for "why aren't more people outraged by this?"

Anyhow, yes: after all the time Trump spent railing about the Iran Nuclear Deal, a deal he unilaterally ended, not only did he write something up that was just like it, he did it with worse people and also violated it in five days with a motherfucking air strike.

Trump is a failure and a hypocrite. And even his own party is starting to call him out on it.

[Martymark]

War bad.
Peace good.

Therefore this is good.

[Orbitus]

War bad.
Peace good.

Therefore this is good.

But it literally didn't happen. He had an "agreement" for all over 36 or so hours, and it failed. Now they are doing airstrikes again.

While it would have been a good thing, if he actually did it, but he didn't do it. Just another thing Trump has failed at.

[Easo]

Let's be fair at one thing - airstrikes happened because talibs attacked Afghanistan forces. USA did not commence the attack, they did.
Of course... it was pretty much guaranteed that the talibs would attack regardless, so... It all is a very pointless "peace process".

[zorkuus]

War bad.
Peace good.

Therefore this is good.

But there is no peace. Have you been living under a rock the past days?

[caervek]

US launches air strikes against the Taliban.

"How many days was that?"

I heard this on the radio earlier and I gotta say I'm impressed it only took the USA five days to violate the agreement :P

I mean nobody really expected the Trump administration would keep it's word on anything, but five days to break a deal that was years in the making xD

*EDIT*

I just read a European news article that said this airstrike was because the Trump administration genuinely didn't realise that the agreement they signed allowed the Taliban to continue fighting other Afghan forces, and so they thought the Taliban had already broken the deal. They didn't even read the thing /facepalm

[D Luniz]

War bad.
Peace good.

Therefore this is good.

"I convinced you to stop shooting while I reload" isnt peace

[Breccia]

I just read a European news article that said this airstrike was because the Trump administration genuinely didn't realise that the agreement they signed allowed the Taliban to continue fighting other Afghan forces, and so they thought the Taliban had already broken the deal.

First of all, please link that, even if it's not in English. I'd appreciate it!

Second of all, I mean, who expects Trump to uphold a contract he signed anyhow? The Taliban are many things, but they're are definitely worldly. They know who Trump is and what his words and actions indicate.

[Rukh]

Jesus christ. This is looking like the most Trump deal ever. Of all Trump deals, this is the Trumpiest.

[mvaliz]

I just wanted to write in and say how I was on a 1 week forum vactation... and in that time, we seemingly "Signed a peace deal" with the Taliban and then "Totally Broke the peace deal" with the Taliban.

Un-fucking-believable. >_<

[Omega10]

First of all, please link that, even if it's not in English. I'd appreciate it!

Second of all, I mean, who expects Trump to uphold a contract he signed anyhow? The Taliban are many things, but they're are definitely worldly. They know who Trump is and what his words and actions indicate.

Here is a libertarian anti-war take on it.

https://news.antiwar.com/2020/03/04/...ys-peace-deal/

The article is short, so here it is:

The long-awaited US peace deal in Afghanistan was signed with the Taliban on Saturday. On Wednesday, US warplanes carried out an airstrike on Taliban forces, the first attack since the peace.

US officials are presenting this as a “defensive” measure, even though the Taliban had made it a point not to attack foreign troops since the deal was signed, and rather were attacking Afghan government forces over an existing disagreement about prisoner exchanges.

The Taliban targeted in the US strike were in the process of attacking a government checkpoint, and a US spokesman said the Taliban were not abiding by a commitment to reduce attacks on the Afghans.

This is a problem because the US had committed to the Afghan government releasing 5,000 prisoners as part of this, and when the Ghani government reneged on that, the Taliban reneged on the violence reduction. The Taliban has offered talks, but only talks about the prisoner release.

When the Taliban announced this position on Monday, the US suggested they were going to stay in the peace deal so long as the Taliban wasn’t attacking them. Now, it seems the US has changed its mind, and will be attacking the Taliban, calling it defense, and pretending that the Taliban are the ones threatening the peace.

The gist of the article is: The Taliban agreed to reduce the number of attacks on Afghan government forces. But, the Afghan government seemed to renege on a pledge to release 5,000 presumably Taliban prisoners. So the Taliban responded to this by launching a series of attacks on apparently a lot of Afghan government (but apparently no foreign) forces. The US took this "not reducing the number of attacks on Afghan forces" as a betrayal of the treaty and resumed bombing the Taliban.

Who knows what is really true. Getting into war is easy. Getting out is not so easy.

The article has a link. The US position is that the Taliban launched quite a few attacks.

https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/us-fo...ry?id=69383035

The airstrike was conducted as a "defensive" measure as Taliban fighters were "actively attacking" an Afghan government checkpoint, Colonel Sonny Legget, the spokesman for American forces in Afghanistan, said.
ADVERTISEMENT

Taliban forces carried out 43 attacks on Afghan government checkpoints on March 3, despite their promises to the international community to reduce levels of violence, the spokesman said.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is a libertarian anti-war take on it.

https://news.antiwar.com/2020/03/04/...ys-peace-deal/

The article is short, so here it is:



The gist of the article is: The Taliban agreed to reduce the number of attacks on Afghan government forces. But, the Afghan government seemed to renege on a pledge to release 5,000 presumably Taliban prisoners. So the Taliban responded to this by launching a series of attacks on apparently a lot of Afghan government (but apparently no foreign) forces. The US took this "not reducing the number of attacks on Afghan forces" as a betrayal of the treaty and resumed bombing the Taliban.

Who knows what is really true. Getting into war is easy. Getting out is not so easy.

The article has a link. The US position is that the Taliban launched quite a few attacks.

https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/us-fo...ry?id=69383035

The Hill supports some of these conclusions.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4...-mixed-results

Here is an excerpt from that article.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Wednesday the United States has seen “mixed” results in the first days of a peace deal with the Taliban.

Esper’s comments to the Senate Armed Services Committee come after the U.S. military conducted its first airstrike since the Trump administration signed the deal, which U.S. Forces Afghanistan said was a response to a Taliban attack on an Afghan military checkpoint.

“The results so far have been mixed,” Esper said. “The Taliban are honoring their piece in terms of not attacking U.S. and coalition forces but not in terms of sustaining the reduction in violence.”

The deal does not commit the Taliban to continue a reduction in violence, which it adhered to as a confidence-building measure in the week leading up to signing the agreement.

The insurgents said Monday they were no longer bound by the reduction in violence and would resume their offensive operations against the Afghan government.

[Easo]

Wait wait, are some people here trying to paint the talibs as not breaking the peace because Afghanistan troops do not count in the peace agreement, just international ones?

[Omega10]

Wait wait, are some people here trying to paint the talibs as not breaking the peace because Afghanistan troops do not count in the peace agreement, just international ones?

The deal with the US apparently allows the Taliban to fight its war against the Afghan government. Defense Secretary Esper is one of the "some people" that are painting the talibs as not breaking the peace agreement... except that the deal is that they have to be "in terms of sustaining the reduction in violence". Esper is not expecting a complete absence of Taliban attacks on the Afghan government... just fewer of them.

And he kind of left out the fact that the US apparently promised the Taliban that the Afghan government would release 5,000 prisoners. This did not happen. So the Talibans responded by attacking too many Afghan outposts, in the minds of the US, which led the US to use air power to presumably protect a few of these outposts.

[Breccia]

the Afghan government seemed to renege on a pledge to release 5,000 presumably Taliban prisoners.

Thanks for this. I will say, I was unaware the Afghan government made that pledge -- they seem to be saying they never agreed to that.

[Omega10]

Thanks for this. I will say, I was unaware the Afghan government made that pledge -- they seem to be saying they never agreed to that.

Well, from what little information I have, it seems that it was the US that agreed that the US would... convince? the Afghan government to release the prisoners. So technically, the Afghan government seems to be correct. So my statement seems to be incorrect the way I wrote it (my apologies). On the other hand, there is no real good one sentence way to write it (though that is a poor excuse - writing excessively large amounts of text never stopped me before!).

To be fair to the Afghan government... well the US is leaving them to their own devices. Either the Afghan government can stand on its own two feet or it can't. They are fighting for their own survival.

For all the dramatic headlines, it seems like not much has changed. Three sides fighting to not lose face, and in a couple of weeks it will all be forgotten. I think the Taliban has the upper hand once we leave, but I would not count the Afghan government out.

After we left Vietnam, it took roughly 2 generations for Vietnam to become a prosperous fairly free country. If we leave Afghanistan and don't interfere too much afterwards (and no one else does either), then I think that they will become a fairly normal and prosperous country by around 2060 or so. Expecting a quicker recovery seems unrealistic to me.

- - - Updated - - -

Secretary of State Pompeo seems to be 100% behind the peace deal.

https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/pom...spite-setbacks

No confirmation about the exact details of the prisoner release were made, but Pompeo did say that there was a need "to discuss the prisoner releases".

Here is the text:

US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo, during a press briefing on Thursday night, called the violence of the last couple of days "unacceptable," but he said that the US would continue to push the peace process forward. He mentioned the need to discuss the prisoner releases and said that US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was in Kabul at the moment, to move things along.

The point is to get Afghans "together," said Pompeo, and he urged Afghans not "squander" this opportunity.

Along with the violence, Pompeo was also critical of the "posturing" of all sides that was preventing steps from being taken towards the intra-Afghan talks, as laid out by the US-Taliban Agreement signed in Doha on Saturday, and mentioned in the Afghan-US declaration announced in Kabul on the same day.

In explaining the posturing, Pompeo said "both sides think they have leverage," but he urged the warring parties to not only consider "narrow interests" but the interests of "all Afghan people."

Pompeo said the US will continue to "press all sides to stop posturing" and to "start a practical discussion about prisoner releases--knuckle-down and prepare for upcoming intra-Afghan negotiations."

He mentioned that he has seen senior Taliban leadership working hard in past incidents to reduce violence, and mentioned the recent calls between President Trump and Mullah Baradar, the deputy leader of the Taliban.

"Violence must be reduced immediately for the peace process to move forward," said Pompeo, but despite the recent setbacks the US is undeterred:

"We note that the road ahead will be difficult. We expected it. We were right," he said. "The president's guidance has been unmistakably clear. We are going to do everything we can to assist the Afghan people at saving Afghan lives, taking down violence in Afghanistan and the region while making sure every moment that we protect the homeland."

I would like to add my own personal opinion on this:

Although this peace deal is advertised as "the Trump peace deal", it seems that for the most part the military is behind this deal. Pompeo's remarks, as quoted in this article, are not just a little diplomatic and positive, they are remarkably diplomatic and remarkably positive.

And Pompeo has most definitely given the Taliban a great deal of respect with these remarks. It can be debated whether or not this is a good thing. But I don't think he would have gone out on such a limb if he did not have much support from the military community.

[draynay]

On the other hand, there is no real good one sentence way to write it (though that is a poor excuse - writing excessively large amounts of text never stopped me before!).

You could say "The US signed a deal* with terrorists to betray the Afghan government."

Of course brevity escapes when we get to the asterisk

*-standard Trump deal where we damage out international standing and get nothing in return

[Ihavewaffles]

Well since usa is in bed with saudis n al qaida in yemen, a deal with the taliban that are a lesser evil, doesn't seem out of place.

[Breccia]

Well since usa is in bed with saudis n al qaida in yemen, a deal with the taliban that are a lesser evil, doesn't seem out of place.

I think you'll find most people who are against a deal with the Taliban, aren't big fans of the Saudis, either. To remove all doubt, MBS showed us the true colors of Saudi governing and I think there's a real reason to find the door.

Oh, and you seem to suggest the US is working with al-Qaeda. I'm calling bullshit on that one. There is a difference between "picking a side that one of your enemies has picked" versus "actually negotiating with them instead of the government of the country".

You're welcome to look for proof that either Trump, or Obama (nothing before 2010 matters in context), directly worked with al-Qaeda. I don't think you'll find it, but please cite it if you do. I won't be holding my breath. Until then, no, siding with the Taliban is not "a lesser evil". It's just evil.

[Ihavewaffles]

I think you'll find most people who are against a deal with the Taliban, aren't big fans of the Saudis, either. To remove all doubt, MBS showed us the true colors of Saudi governing and I think there's a real reason to find the door.

Oh, and you seem to suggest the US is working with al-Qaeda. I'm calling bullshit on that one. There is a difference between "picking a side that one of your enemies has picked" versus "actually negotiating with them instead of the government of the country".

You're welcome to look for proof that either Trump, or Obama (nothing before 2010 matters in context), directly worked with al-Qaeda. I don't think you'll find it, but please cite it if you do. I won't be holding my breath. Until then, no, siding with the Taliban is not "a lesser evil". It's just evil.

As if directly changes anything, look to ur allies..al qaida is ground forces for saudi-arabia in yemen, n ur allied with the saudis, even provide satellite intell for their air strikes...makes u complicit in their war crimes..

Here's Joe Biden talking about ur allies behavior in iraq/syria... (he later had to apologize for speaking truth..can't have that)

This clip is why i'd rather have him than bernie be president, people like joe n trump will let things slip that establishment spineless weasels will never utter..

Btw as of now ur media is calling al-sham (al-nusra = al qaida) & co for "rebels" cuz Russia bombs them...I swear, if Russia had caught Bin Laden, USA would find something wrong with that too..

[Breccia]

al qaida is ground forces for saudi-arabia in yemen, n ur allied with the saudis,

"Directly" changes plenty. And I can't help but notice you didn't find any sources.

Trump is directly negotiating with terrorists. There is no middleman.