The Afghan peace talks: Feasible, or futile?

Originally published at Washington Examiner

Last week, the Taliban carried out a series of deadly attacks throughout Afghanistan, leaving over 500 dead and dozens wounded. Although a peace offer remains on the table, the Taliban are on the move, destroying any hope for peace and reconciliation.

The Ghazni attack was an embarrassment for the Afghan government and the international community. It revealed one of the most critical security challenges for the Afghan and U.S. security forces. The Taliban have 20,000 to 40,000 active fighters and control roughly 43 percent of Afghan territory. They maintain a feared presence across the entire country, and international support for law and order against them is starting to dwindle.

One day, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani announced a conditional cease-fire with the Taliban to honor the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. The next day, the Taliban responded with rockets while Ghani was discussing the importance of the cease-fire live on national television. Although the Taliban remained silent, the United States, Iran, Pakistan, and international community praised the cease-fire.

In July, the U.S. held direct talks with the Taliban in Qatar to facilitate a negotiated settlement with the Afghan government, despite the Taliban’s rejection of peace talks offered by former President Hamid Karzai and President Ashraf Ghani. Their willingness to sit down with the U.S. to mediate a peace agreement is suspiciously a display to keep all foreign military presence out of Afghanistan, thereby leaving the country completely vulnerable to their extremist control.

The Taliban’s vision is to replace the current government with the Islamic Emirate and oust the U.S. from Afghanistan. Both the Afghan and American governments acknowledged the Taliban as a political party to end the 17 years of war. The Taliban will continue to fight in order to fatigue Afghan and international forces, and challenge the authority of the Afghan government, while presenting themselves as a stronger adversary.

Yet, the Taliban are not self-governing and do not have a strong leadership. Some elements of the Taliban are willing to negotiate, but not all. One group makes peace, the other group attacks. They have been divided and fragmented, particularly after the death of their leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, in 2015.

Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour was chosen as the new leader, but he was confronted by several adversaries, including Mullah Rasoul, Abdul Manan Niazi, and Mullah Mansour Dadullah, who were all influential forerunners of the Taliban group. When Mullah Akhtar Mansour was killed in an American drone strike in 2016, Haibutalah Akhund Zada was elected to be new leader, but there is an ongoing struggle to establish a unified leadership. It is possible to make peace with Haibutllah, but Mullah Manan Niazi and his followers, who operate in the Western region of Afghanistan and are backed by Iran, are unwilling to negotiate. While Haibatullah wants peace, Niazi declares an extension of the jihad until foreign troops leave Afghanistan.

Given the peace offers and historical events in Afghanistan, the Afghan government and the Taliban could work on a unified people-centric government because the Afghan government is unable to wipe out the Taliban and the Taliban are incapable of taking over Afghanistan and creating the Islamic Emirate they want.

Although the Taliban continue to fight, both the Afghan and American governments should continue to hold talks with the faction of the Taliban who are intent on a negotiated settlement and compromise with the Taliban’s foremost demands: Shared central government, modifications of the Afghan constitution regarding social and religious matters, such as Sharia, social norms, and the withdrawal of foreign forces. It’s more likely that a conferred reconciliation can lead to a permanent cease-fire with the Taliban, but if the Taliban continues to enjoy the safe havens and support from Pakistan, they will endure the fight with unstipulated demands.

The U.S. and international partners have two roles moving forward in Afghanistan. One is to support the Afghans through capacity-building, educational programs and economic efforts so that the indigenous people can rebuild their resiliency against extreme regimes that jeopardize the national security of Afghanistan. Next, they must facilitate and support a negotiated settlement by blocking foreign fighters and state-sponsors of terrorism from interfering in the Afghan peace talks.

Peace talks with the Taliban will not bring an absolute peace in Afghanistan. A portion of the Taliban, along the 21 other insurgent groups such as the Islamic State, the Haqqani Network, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and other foreign fighters, will continue to fight in Afghanistan. But peace is still possible, even if the path is complex and controversial. It requires an ongoing determination and commitment with peace as the end goal rather than control, power, or an agreement based on exclusively monetary considerations.

Ahmad Mohibi is the founder of Rise to Peace. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi


Originally published at Asian Affairs Magazine 

Ahmad Mohibi offers a prognosis for peace in a nation sick from prolonged conflict and corruption

After 17 years of war, Afghanistan is on life-support. It is plagued with chronic violence, corruption, political divergence and proxy wars. The international community is running out of ideas on how to how to handle the situation, although the US Administration continues to commit troops to the region.

One suggestion is to open negotiations with the Taliban, the insurgent group which attacks the current government of Afghanistan and longs to see American soldiers defeated. This year, there have been developments towards negotiations involving the Taliban. According to some reports, they could form part of the peace process going forward. But that does not reduce the threat they currently pose.

In August, the Taliban carried out a series of deadly attacks throughout Afghanistan, leaving over 500 people dead. Taliban forces held Ghazni over five long days before an Afghan-US coalition removed them.


The Afghan case is complicated and has competing diagnoses. The origins of the disease can be traced back to the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union that spilled into Afghanistan, creating a perfect host for terrorist groups such al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

The conflict retains a strong international dimension. Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran all pump life into the Taliban, while America tries to contain them.

Pakistan has been a barrier to peace in Afghanistan

There is resentment within Afghanistan at the extensive role other countries play in their nation’s affairs, often providing the weapons which fuel the devastating war. Many Afghans believe that their nation has turned into a frontline of proxy wars and terrorism because of its strategic location and its abundance of natural resources. They also tend to blame their neighbours – in particular Pakistan – for making things worse.


Pakistan has long been a barrier to peace in Afghanistan. A dispute over land, the Durand Line Agreement, is an ongoing source of conflict among the competing political interests and may not have a near-term resolution.

And Pakistan has been a motherland for the Taliban, from the creation of the insurgency in the 1990s to now. Hospitals in Pakistan treat wounded Taliban soldiers and in border regions, the state has held funerals for Pakistani fighters.

However, Pakistan now has the opportunity to take firm action to close terrorist safe-havens and shut down the religious schools or madrasas which breed fundamentalist Taliban fighters. Pakistan’s new prime minister, Imran Khan, has called for a resolution to the Afghan war through a political dialogue which includes the Taliban. He has promisedAfghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, that he will visit Kabul soon.


Another pressure point is Iran, a Muslim nation which shares a language, religion and border with Afghanistan. Iran considers the United States as its enemy. It has therefore been playing a destructive game of politics in Afghanistan and supports hardline Taliban factions which oppose peace talks. If Russia, Pakistan, Iran and the United States could unite in a common goal of stamping out terrorism, the prospects of peace in Afghanistan would improve.


Although the future of Afghanistan will depend on the way it is treated by foreign actors, peace also needs to rise to the top of the domestic agenda.

Pashtuns claim to be Afghanistan’s largest ethnic majority and therefore claim the right to rule the nation

Afghans suffer from prolonged ethnic conflict that has resulted in devastating civil wars. Afghanistan – renamed from Khurasan – has roughly 14 ethnic groups, the two largest being Tajik and Pashtun. Although there is no accurate data as to which is the largest ethnic group, Pashtuns claim to be the majority and therefore claim the right to rule the nation. Other ethnic groups, such as the Tajiks, Hazaras and Uzbeks, have historically attempted to gain power by placing one of their own clan on the presidential throne.

Hatred among the political leaders of the different ethnic groups has spread like a disease through their communities. Discrimination and racism continue from generation to generation. It is like an open pot that any insects can dig in and feed themselves. To bring peace in Afghanistan, Afghans must learn from their mistakes and work as one for the national interest.


The international community can foster change by supporting more education, helping with infrastructure redevelopment and monitoring the progress against corruption and social injustice. This would empower Afghans to build resilience against the groups which jeopardise their national security.

Ultimately, though, the future of Afghanistan depends on its people. Good governance, transparent elections, economic development, education and ethnic harmony all lie along the path to peace. Afghans must realise that discrimination is ruining the nation, corruption is feeding terrorism, division is breaking the values of what it means to be an Afghan. When they recognise those challenges and commit to overcome them, they can begin taking some faltering steps towards a lasting peace.

Ahmad Mohibi is Founder and Director of Counter-terrorism at Rise to Peace, a non-profit organization, and a national security expert. He is a published author, journalist and news commentator on TOLONews, and an alumnus of George Washington University and George Mason University.
Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi

The 40-year Afghan War and the Everlasting Hope for Peace

Today marks the 40-year anniversary of the Afghan civil war. A country at war for four decades, Afghans continue to have faith that peace is possible.

The people are tenaciously hopeful, but for how long, given the unstable environment and competing for socio-political agendas? Terrorism continues to rise, and the democratic process is under fire. Just last week, more than 60 men, women, and children in Kabul and Baghlan province were killed in the voters’ registration attack. The following chronological framework of the Afghan Civil War may provide some perspective into this complex country turmoil and its psyche.

Outside the presidential palace gate (Arg) in Kabul, the day after the Saur revolution on 28 April 1978

In 1978, The People’s Democratic Party, a political party in Afghanistan backed by the Soviet Union, attacked the presidential palace. The party killed the first president of Afghanistan, Sardar Mohammad Daoud Khan, and his entire family. Then, the Party took the throne. The People’s Democratic Party would remain in power for 14 years while fighting the U.S.-backed Afghan Mujahideen, a rebel group of freedom fighters that stood against the communist regime.

United States, Afghan Mujahideen, France, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other allies fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. In the proxy war between the East and West, the West came out the winner and the Soviets subsequently lost the fight in Afghanistan. In 1989, the last of the Soviet troops pulled out, but the civil war continued as the Afghan Mujahideen set their sights on the last communist president of Afghanistan, Mohammad Najibullah.

Soviet Army soldiers wave their hands as their last detachment crosses a bridge on the border between Afghanistan and Soviet Uzbekistan, Feb. 15, 1989.

In 1992, although the Mujahideen declared victory, a devastating civil war followed. From 1992-1996, Afghanistan experienced one of the most destructive civil wars in its history. Afghans often refer to it as the “Bloody War”. The Afghan Mujahideen did not compromise on a shared power by a unified government. Instead, fought for the throne, and like Syria resulted in a devastated Afghanistan. The most perilous party was the Hezbi Islami, meaning Islamic Party, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, also known as the “Butcher of Kabul”. Hekmatyar’s missiles killed thousands of innocent residents of Kabul. According to the Human Rights Watch, by the year 2000, roughly 1.5 million people died as a direct result of the conflict, and some 2 million people became permanently disabled.

In 1996, as the Mujahideen fought for power, the Taliban (“students” in Arabic) emerged in Pakistan. Backed by the Saudis and Pakistan, the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996. They introduced an extreme version of Islam, banning women from studying and working, and inflicting severe Islamic punishments upon the citizens, such as stoning people to death, public beheadings and amputations.

Taliban militiamen drive toward the front line near Kabul in November 1997. (Reuters)

Afghans were struggling for deliverance when on September 11, 2001, Al-Qaeda brought down the World Trade Center in an attack that killed more than 3,000 innocent Americans. That was the year that the United States declared a War on Terror and entered Afghanistan. Since then, the U.S. has remained, combating terrorism to build democracy and help bring more peace to the country. Despite the U.S.’ long tenure in Afghanistan, the same challenges exist.

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s bombardment of Kabul during the 1990s inflicted some of the worst damage in more than 40 years of war, destroying one-third of the city and killing tens of thousands of civilians.

Afghanistan is not an easy fix. Afghans are ready for a democratic change in order to bring more peace to their homeland, but establishing democracy requires time. The question remains as to whether the government is ready to hold a transparent election because Afghans are so tired of war. In fact, most Afghans are willing to give up almost everything, including many civil liberties, in exchange for a semblance of peace in their homeland. It is hopeful that, despite the failures of the government, Afghans, and particularly the young generation, the generation of war, will be able to make some traction.

Through higher education, new opportunities will present themselves to these young men and women. Armed with a level of understanding and the kind of knowledge aimed at progress over destruction, this generation will be the agents of change.

Ahmad Shah Mohibi is founder and president of Rise to Peace, and a national security expert. Ahmad Mohibi is a published writer, as well as a George Washington University and George Mason University Alumni. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi

Ahmad Mohibi discusses US’s direct talks with the Taliban on TOLOnews

After the New York Times reported that the White House ordered diplomats to hold direct talks with the Taliban, Rise to Peace founder Ahmad Mohibi told Tolonews, “The United States will not negotiate with the Taliban directly. The U.S. is facilitating the peace process, and U.S. talks with the Taliban will expedite the process.” Mr. Mohibi added, “Negotiations must occur between the Taliban and the Afghan government. Because it’s a war among Afghans, they are responsible for fixing it. Peace is critical and achievable, but it must come from the indigenous people.”

Ahmad Shah Mohibi is founder and president of Rise to Peace and a national security expert. Mr. Mohibi is a published writer and a George Washington University and George Mason University alumnus. Follow him on Twitter at @ahmadsmohibi