The 3 U.S. negotiating errors that paved the way for the Taliban's return to power


The Taliban didn't regain control of Afghanistan overnight, and while their return to power was years in the making, the Trump administration's agreement with the group last year helped speed up the process, Lisa Curtis, the director of the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, writes for Foreign Affairs.
Curtis zeroed in on three errors the negotiation team, led by Zalmay Khalilzad, made out of "desperation to conclude a deal" and put an end to the decades-long U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The first, she writes, was believing the Taliban would eventually sit down with the Afghan government to hash out a long-term political settlement. This led Washington to exclude Kabul from their talks with the Taliban in Qatar, which Curtis argues "prematurely conferred legitimacy on the" insurgents.
The next mistake, in Curtis' opinion, was that the U.S. didn't "condition the pace of talks on Taliban violence levels." Negotiations continued even amid escalating violence on the ground in Afghanistan, and ultimately the Taliban only had to "reduce violence for six days before signing the agreement." Finally, Curtis believes the Trump administration was operating under "wishful thinking" that the Taliban was seriously interested in political negotiations instead of fighting their way back to power. The U.S., therefore, forced Afghan President Ashraf Ghani to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners without simultaneously securing a "commensurate concession" from the group.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
"The United States would have been far better off negotiating its withdrawal directly with the Afghan government, something that Ghani himself proposed in early 2019," Curtis writes. "By doing so, the United States would have avoided demoralizing its Afghan partners as Washington pulled back U.S. forces." Read about how Curtis thinks the Biden administration should deal with the Taliban going forward at Foreign Affairs.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Tim is a staff writer at The Week and has contributed to Bedford and Bowery and The New York Transatlantic. He is a graduate of Occidental College and NYU's journalism school. Tim enjoys writing about baseball, Europe, and extinct megafauna. He lives in New York City.
-
Ukraine-Russia: is peace deal possible after Easter truce?
Today's Big Question 'Decisive week' will tell if Putin's surprise move was cynical PR stunt or genuine step towards ending war
-
Is it safe to share state secrets with the US?
Today's Big Question Accidental top-level leak stokes security concerns from America's allies
-
Israeli air strikes in Gaza: why has ceasefire collapsed?
Today's Big Question Start of 'broader and more sustained military operation' denounced by domestic groups representing hostage families
-
Can Ukraine make peace with Trump in Saudi Arabia?
Talking Point Zelenskyy and his team must somehow navigate the gap between US president's 'demands and threats'
-
Ukraine: where do Trump's loyalties really lie?
Today's Big Question 'Extraordinary pivot' by US president – driven by personal, ideological and strategic factors – has 'upended decades of hawkish foreign policy toward Russia'
-
What will Trump-Putin Ukraine peace deal look like?
Today's Big Question US president 'blindsides' European and UK leaders, indicating Ukraine must concede seized territory and forget about Nato membership
-
Is Donald Trump behind potential Gaza ceasefire and will it work?
Today's Big Question Israel and Hamas are 'on the brink' of a peace deal and a hostage exchange, for which the incoming president may take credit
-
Experts call for a Nato bank to 'Trump-proof' military spending
Under The Radar A new lender could aid co-operation and save millions of pounds, say think tanks