Bounty claim clouds US endgame in Afghanistan
Allegations Russia paid Taliban militants to kill US and NATO troops is making big political waves in America
by MK Bhadrakumar
As expected, the controversy over Russia’s alleged bounties for killing American and NATO troops in Afghanistan is steadily snowballing.
The New York Times has come out with more leaks such as bank transfers to the Taliban from accounts identified with Russian military intelligence, and hawala transactions, as well as the Afghan government’s assistance to US intelligence to zero in on the Russian-Taliban nexus.
Meanwhile, the US Congress has seized of the matter, possibly triggering another “Russiagate.” The Democrats are on the warpath. Top White House aides are briefing the Senate Intelligence Committee.
The Times also featured an op-ed on this topic by former US national security adviser Susan Rice, who is widely mentioned as a possible vice-presidential running mate on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s ticket in the November elections. Rice tore into President Donald Trump and his key aides.
To be sure, the controversy will seriously impact the endgame in Afghanistan. The first sign of it appeared on Tuesday when US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo held a videoconference with the Taliban’s deputy head and chief negotiator at Doha, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.
The White House readout said Pompeo discussed with the Taliban leader the implementation of the Doha pact of February on the Afghan peace process and “made clear the [US] expectation for the Taliban to live up to their commitments, which include not attacking Americans.”
Evidently, the White House is directly warning the Taliban against any attacks on US troops. An Associated Press report cited Taliban spokesman Suhail Shaheen as tweeting that Pompeo and Baradar also “discussed ways of moving … forward” the implementation of the Doha pact.
The White House is anxious that the intra-Afghan peace talks should take place without further delay so the US troop withdrawal can be announced. There were reports recently that a decision to withdraw another 4,000 American troops out of the 8,600-strong contingent is under consideration.
In the light of the present controversy over alleged Russian bounty killings and given the likelihood of congressional hearings, Trump will be keen to withdraw all troops summarily from Afghanistan. The US special representative for reconciliation with the Taliban, Zalmay Khalilzad, has also reached Doha for discussions with Mullah Baradar.
All in all, the series of Times reports since June 26 has compelled the White House to kickstart the intra-Afghan peace talks somehow, where a complete ceasefire tops the agenda of discussion. The Times reports significantly weaken the United States’ capacity to influence the outcome of the intra-Afghan peace talks.
The US stands badly isolated in the region. The controversy over alleged bounty killings has upset Moscow and in turn makes it impossible to carry forward any US-Russian cooperation and coordination over the intra-Afghan peace talks, as was envisaged earlier.
At the same time, US-China tensions are spinning out of control and Washington is no longer in a position to leverage Beijing’s cooperation in the Afghan peace process. Similarly, Washington is on a collision course with Tehran after Pompeo’s appearance at the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday to table formally the US proposal seeking an extension of the UN embargo on arms supplies to Iran.
Russia and China have made it clear that they will veto any such US resolution, which, in turn, may lead to Pompeo pressing a claim to invoke the snapback clause of the Iran nuclear deal to kill the 2015 agreement. Heightened tensions can be expected between Washington and Tehran in the weeks and months ahead.
With Russia, China and Iran on a path of confrontation with the US, the burden falls entirely on the Trump administration to carry forward the Afghan peace process. The United States’ reliance on Pakistan becomes more critical than ever before.
Clearly, the initiative is slipping out of the Americans’ hands to script their exit strategy in Afghanistan. To be sure, the Taliban will negotiate from a position of strength. Mullah Baradar reportedly made humiliating demands to Pompeo during the videoconference this week.
Given the unfriendly mood in the three key regional capitals – Moscow, Tehran and Beijing – Washington may be left with no choice now but to cut loose and make its way for the exit door as quickly as possible. Trump will not risk a prolonged stay for the troops in Afghanistan.
Curiously, there is an eerie similarity to the Afghan situation around the Geneva Accords of April 1988 between Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the US and the Soviet Union serving as guarantors.
The Geneva Accords had envisaged a matrix of several elements – principally, a bilateral agreement between Islamabad and Kabul on the principles of mutual good neighborly relations; a declaration on international guarantees, signed by the Soviet Union and the US; and a Pakistani-Afghan agreement on the interrelationships for the settlement of the Afghan situation as such, which was witnessed by the Soviet Union and the US.
It was an impressive peace agreement but it was stillborn, and its only positive outcome was that Moscow faithfully (and eagerly) observed the agreement’s provisions for the timetable of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The Soviet contingent completed the withdrawal on February 15, 1989.
The intra-Afghan peace talks will also be taking place in a dismal setting involving two intransigent protagonists – the Afghan government and the Taliban – and two “guarantors” – the US and Pakistan – pursuing different priorities. Again, the only positive outcome of the intra-Afghan peace talks might be that they will have put an end to the two-decade-old American occupation of Afghanistan.
This article was produced in partnership by Indian Punchline and Globetrotter, a project of the Independent Media Institute, which provided it to Asia Times.
MK Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat.
We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully InformedIn fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming educated opinion. In addition, to get a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media, please read our Policies and Disclosures.
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT. About VT - Comment Policy
You have to remember that back in the 1980s the US was giving the Afghan resistance, which became the Taliban, as much as $630 million per year… to kill Russian soldiers. Amazing how the United States of Amnesia conveniently leaves that fact out of this current brouhaha. Putin must be smiling and shaking his head.
Tommy, they have only one way short memory working. How many Soviets were killed by Stingers… So ..
It is not good to say such things, but i don’t care about the US military there. I care more about that American pilot, who died recently in airplane crash of F-16 from S.Carolina. Condolences to his family ;(
Comments are closed.