Posted on 12/9/2012
Writers Alex Esterik van Linschoten and Felix Cohen have argued that Washington’s decision to include and marginalize the Afghan Haqqani network poses a major threat to the prospect of a political settlement there, knowing that this is the only way to find a solution to the conflict in Afghanistan.
The two writers questioned the appropriateness of the decision, saying in a joint op-ed published by The New York Times today that Washington and its allies have learned a lot in Afghanistan over the past decade, “but some of the basics remain confusing and obscured by prevailing patterns of thinking.”
They noted that designating a group as a terrorist would not only be a firm declaration that it is the enemy, but would also limit America’s future policy options. They said that it is possible to remove any group from the list, but it is very difficult.
Suggested stories
2 item listEnd of list
The two authors, who previously published a joint book titled “The Enemy We Made: The Myth of the Taliban-Al Qaeda Merger in Afghanistan,” added that the inclusion of the Haqqani network distances it from the broader Taliban insurgency, making it difficult to reach a comprehensive settlement.
A decision detrimental to reconciliation
According to them, decisions made today will shape and limit future policies. For example, in 2002-2004, some senior Taliban leaders sought reconciliation and cooperation with the Afghan government and the international community, but rejecting their efforts and listing the Haqqani network as a terrorist organization now will prevent it from coming to the negotiating table. The decision is also seen by the Taliban as evidence of the insincerity of the Americans, and will therefore be anathema to those who oppose a reconciliation approach.
| Since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, American policy has sometimes depended on an overestimation of the West’s ability to understand the situation in Afghanistan, which has led to poor decisions and ineffective initiatives that are often self-defeating. |
They explained that the Haqqani network has carried out major “jihadist” operations against US forces in Afghanistan and has also tried to carry out attacks abroad and that its image is not good, but they say that it cannot engage in the reconciliation process and that it is an ideologically stubborn enemy that needs to be revised.
Hakan is not rigid
The writers noted that the head of the US Department of Defense Intelligence Agency, Michael T. Flynn said in 2010 that the leader of the Haqqani network, Jalaluddin Haqqani, was “totally saved” and open to reconciliation, and that the former commander of British special air forces described Haqqani as “a possible ground pragmatist in Afghanistan”. agreement”.
The two writers continued to provide evidence of the network’s openness to a reconciliation approach, such as meetings between network leaders and Afghan, American and Western officials last year in Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi.
overestimations
They said that since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001, American policy has sometimes depended on overestimations of the West’s ability to understand the situation in Afghanistan, which has led to bad decisions and ineffective initiatives that are often self-defeating.
The writers went on to say that the current war relies heavily on the use of drones and night raids in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “but these tactics will increase extremism and hostility against America and the West” and that the intense targeting of older Taliban leaders in Afghanistan has led to the emergence of a new generation of more extremist leaders.
They added that blacklisting the Haqqani network would only harm America’s relationship with Pakistan and reduce Pakistan’s ability to play a constructive role (or remain neutral) in any reconciliation process.
The two writers concluded the article by saying that the only way to end the war is to adopt a political process that includes the Haqqani network, and the first requirement for that is to achieve some sort of ceasefire.
