Afghan people the losers in ‘talk and fight’ power plays
▶ Hundreds of troops, police and civilians die as the Taliban tries to force the US to the negotiation table
Three days of bloodshed – spurred by several attacks and an ongoing militant offensive – have shaken the internationally backed government in Kabul only weeks after an Eid ceasefire offered a glimmer of hope for a resolution to the country’s 17year conflict.
After battles across the country, Thursday’s assault on an intelligence agency training centre in Kabul was merely one more attack in a flurry that has drawn Ashraf Ghani’s western-backed government into a battle to not only defend the Afghan people but also the very population centres under its control.
Taliban militants struck at will across the country, storming parts of a key city and overrunning two military bases elsewhere. The violence appears to represent a willingness from the group to push the United States to the table in an effort to enter negotiations.
The death toll is thought to run to hundreds of troops, police and civilians, while 37 were also killed in the ISIS suicide bombing of a class for Shiite students studying for college entrance exams.
In the biggest Taliban attack, hundreds of fighters stormed parts of Ghazni, 120 kilometres south of Kabul, and spent five days in the city before they were forced out.
Taliban fighters attacked army bases in Faryab and Baghlan and dozens of soldiers were killed in each.
Mr Ghani’s government has appeared complacent and unable to cope, apparently failing to heed warnings of impending attacks and leaving isolated units to their doom.
Thomas Ruttig, of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, said the attacks, only weeks after it emerged the Taliban had met US envoys for preliminary talks in Qatar, appeared to be a jockeying for position in an extension to negotiations.
After America had said it wanted to put the Taliban under pressure before any talks, the militants said Ghazni instead put the pressure on Washington.
The bloodshed was the outcome of the policy the Taliban and US had decided on, he said – to talk and fight at the same time.
“I am afraid that is the logic of these kinds of wars and it does not necessarily mean that negotiations are impossible,” Mr Ruttig told The National.
The attacks may not even necessarily derail hopes of a repeat ceasefire for Eid Al Adha next week, the analyst said. But any ceasefire had less long-term significance than the US decision to meet the Taliban and start to discuss conditions for troop withdrawal. The Taliban appear unwilling to give up, and the past week showed they have a position of strength.
“That’s why they may be willing to talk because they see they have the upper hand at the moment,” Mr Ruttig said.
But the reality for both sides remained that neither could force a military victory. The past week’s fighting, followed by a withdrawal in Ghazni, showed the Taliban has “reach, they are strong, they have the initiative, but they cannot win”, he said.
While the Taliban have appeared strong, Mr Ghani’s government appeared weak, said Haroun Mir, an analyst in Kabul. Infighting among the ranks of the national unity government and micro-management by Mr Ghani’s office were paralysing the country.
“We know that the Taliban haven’t gained access to any game-changing weapons. They are only exploiting weakness within the Afghan government,” Mr Mir said.
The cold logic of fighting and talking means more attacks are likely as the Taliban tries to put itself in as strong a position as possible.
“By escalating the violence, the Taliban could be looking to gain an upper hand and negotiate from a stronger position,” said Hekmatullah Azamy, of Kabul’s Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies. Gen Ikramuddin Sare, police commander for the Baghlan-e-Markazi district where about 40 soldiers and police were killed on Wednesday, said he was still hopeful for a ceasefire.
“I am aware of how much my countrymen want a break in this constant fighting. We have been at war for almost 40 years (since the Soviet invasion) and I do agree that a ceasefire could be helpful,” he said.
“But I also feel that certain conditions need to be set for the Taliban. For instance, they shouldn’t be allowed to enter the cities carrying guns or other weapons. They also shouldn’t be allowed to carry their flags and they shouldn’t gather in large groups.”
But as Kabul on Thursday buried those killed in the suicide bombing, the prospect of peace negotiations and ceasefires seemed cruelly remote to many.
“Death to your ceasefire and death to your ghost peace talks,” a mourner said.
Following a slew of deadly terror attacks this week, peace in Afghanistan looks increasingly implausible. And four years after Nato troops departed, the country – which is contending with a bloody, two-pronged insurgency – finds itself at a watershed moment. Since last Friday, attacks have struck the city of Ghazni, a military base in Faryab province, a school in Kabul and most recently a training facility overseen by Afghanistan’s intelligence agency. Overall hundreds have died, among them dozens of students, offering a grim reminder that education and extremism are fundamentally at odds with one another. And while the nature and perpetrators of the attacks might be different – the school attack bore all the hallmarks of an ISIS bombing, while the Taliban is behind the Ghazni offensive – they all hint at a further deterioration of Afghanistan’s fragile security apparatus. And what hope is there for lasting peace when the architecture of the state appears so compromised by those who kill with impunity?
The timing of these attacks is not aleatory. The Afghan state and the Taliban are lurching towards a potential ceasefire to coincide with Eid next week. It follows a truce observed by both in June, which sparked genuine jubilation; the sight of rival fighters embracing raised hopes of a lasting resolution. But today, after a week of gratuitous bloodshed, a second Eid ceasefire seems unlikely. And with ISIS and the Taliban vying for violent supremacy, the situation has rarely seemed so precarious.
Some suggest the Taliban’s Ghazni onslaught, which lasted five days before US and Nato airstrikes repelled them, was an exercise in exerting dominance. Their intention, the theory goes, is to perpetrate large attacks, show their power, sow fear and discord and depart. It could imply that the group hopes to enter talks from a position of strength, suggesting a ceasefire could yet arise. But that is of little consolation to the residents of Ghazni, where communications and electricity networks were dismantled and where local hospitals ran out of body bags. Tadamichi Yamamoto, the UN’s special representative for Afghanistan, appealed on Wednesday for an end to the violence. Meanwhile, the UAE has “called upon the international community to close ranks and uproot the evil of terrorism”. When it comes to global mobilisation, Abu Dhabi’s pleas should be heeded.
But hope is quickly dissipating among Afghans. Their president Ashraf Ghani – studious and well-intentioned – has tried his utmost to instil a sense of order. But even his most ardent supporters would acknowledge he has struggled to fulfil that core responsibility. Today, recriminations are of little use. Instead we mourn the victims of this senseless cruelty and hope, still, that the essence of Eid – a time for rejoice and affection, rather than pain and mourning – can bring a semblance of stability to Afghanistan.