Slivers of hope persist after Afghanistan ceasefire ends

Afghan Muslims at the start of the Eid al-Fitr holiday outside the Shah-e Do Shamshira mosque in Kabul, during the first ceasefire with the Taliban since the 2001 U.S. invasion. Photo: Noorullah Shirzada/AFP/Getty Images

For several days in Afghanistan, civilians, troops and Taliban fighters happily mingled together, exchanging hugs and sweets during the Eid holiday. But now an all-too-brief Taliban ceasefire has ended, despite Kabul's request that it be extended.

What's next: The insurgents are headed back to the battlefield. This is no surprise: As long the Taliban believes it's winning the war — and it very much does — it won't stop fighting. And especially not on the Afghan government's terms.

It's easy to dismiss the Taliban's return to the battlefield as one more failed attempt to achieve peace. But in fact, the temporary truce has several silver linings for a nation badly in need of optimism:

  1. The fact that the Taliban stopped fighting for the first time, even if only for a few days, represents a major new building block.
  2. The ceasefire has strengthened a national consensus for peace. As their beaming faces in photos that went viral made clear, Afghan civilians, and, most surprisingly, Taliban foot soldiers, genuinely enjoyed their brief time together in peace.
  3. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani will now have more political space and public support to push forward on reconciliation. And Taliban leaders now face the uncomfortable prospect of their rank and file growing increasingly uncomfortable about fighting.

The bottom line: Peace isn't about to break out across Afghanistan, but the country got a tantalizing taste of it over the last few days. That experience should help strengthen the country's pursuit of a reconciliation that now seems a bit more achievable, even if far down the road.

Michael Kugelman is deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the Wilson Center.

What's next

New York Times endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president

Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warrenand Sen. Amy Klobuchar at the December 2020 debatein Los Angeles. Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The New York Times editorial board has endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for president, in a decision announced on national television Sunday night.

Why it matters: The board writes in its editorial that its decision to endorse two candidates is a major break with convention that's intended to address the "realist" and "radical" models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field.

Go deeperArrow1 hour ago - Media

What's next in the impeachment witness battle

Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Senators will almost certainly get to vote on whether or not to call impeachment witnesses. The resolution laying out the rules of the trial, which will be presented Tuesday, is expected to mandate that senators can take up-or-down votes on calling for witnesses and documents.

Yes, but: Those votes won't come until the House impeachment managers and President Trump's defense team deliver their opening arguments and field Senators' questions.

Inside Trump's impeachment strategy: The national security card

White House counsel Pat Cipollone and acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Trump officials say they feel especially bullish about one key argument against calling additional impeachment witnesses: It could compromise America's national security.

The big picture: People close to the president say their most compelling argument to persuade nervous Republican senators to vote against calling new witnesses is the claim that they're protecting national security.