Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Photo: Drew Angerer via Getty Images

Reports of a tentative understanding between U.S. and Taliban negotiators in Qatar last week sparked strong, disparate reactions. Some say the U.S. is negotiating its surrender in Afghanistan and selling out its Afghan allies, while others see the first steps toward ending the world’s deadliest conflict.

Reality check: To stop the fighting, the U.S. and the Taliban must hold formal talks; to bring stable peace to Afghanistan, the Taliban and Afghan power-players opposing them must do so as well. That the former has happened first doesn’t inherently constitute a betrayal.

Background: Divergent views on whether to negotiate have long stymied Afghanistan peace efforts. The U.S. has vacillated on talking to the Taliban, usually trying to gain a battlefield advantage beforehand. The Trump administration has run through this cycle, first increasing troops and bombing to gain a military upper hand, then last fall opting to prioritize diplomacy instead.

Pro-government players in Afghan politics — inside and outside government — also have disagreed on negotiating with the Taliban and what objectives to pursue. President Ashraf Ghani has bristled at the Trump administration’s activism on the peace front; others are more welcoming.

  • The Taliban, meanwhile, has long been open to talks, but exclusively with the U.S. and about a timetable for removing U.S. troops. Only after, with its leverage increased, would the group then negotiate with other Afghans.

Between the lines: Had the U.S. waited for pro-government Afghan consensus, peace talks would not be moving forward. The U.S. has allowed the Taliban a process win by acceding to their sequencing preference, but this broke the logjam; neither side has earned substantive concessions just yet.

What’s next: The U.S. reportedly floated a troop drawdown timeline and the Taliban a pledge to prevent terrorists from using Afghan territory. However, U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, including a ceasefire and Taliban commitments to negotiate with the Afghan government over the country’s political future. For the Taliban, those are tough lines to cross.

What to watch: If Washington demands a comprehensive deal, last week’s small steps could lead to a real peace agreement. But if the Taliban balks, and if other Afghan parties don’t pull together, then an impatient Trump administration might exit without a deal.

Laurel Miller is director of the Asia Program at the International Crisis Group and a former senior U.S. State Department official responsible for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Go deeper

Updated 7 mins ago - Politics & Policy

Coronavirus dashboard

Illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios

  1. Global: Total confirmed cases as of 7 p.m. ET: 31,759,233 — Total deaths: 973,904 Total recoveries: 21,811,742Map.
  2. U.S.: Total confirmed cases as of 7 p.m. ET: 6,939,645 — Total deaths: 201,861 — Total recoveries: 2,646,959 — Total tests: 96,616,779Map.
  3. Health: CDC director says over 90% of Americans have not yet been exposed to coronavirus — Supply shortages continue to plague testing.
  4. Politics: Missouri Gov. Mike Parson tests positive for coronavirus — Poll says 51% of Republicans trust Trump on coronavirus more than the CDC.
  5. Technology: The tech solutions of 2020 may be sapping our resolve to beat the coronavirus
  6. Vaccines: Johnson & Johnson begins large phase 3 trial — The FDA plans to toughen standards.
  7. Sports: Less travel is causing the NBA to see better basketball.

Trump refuses to commit to peaceful transfer of power if he loses

President Trump repeatedly refused to say on Wednesday whether he would commit to a peaceful transition of power if he loses the election to Joe Biden, saying at a press briefing: "We're going to have to see what happens."

The big picture: Trump has baselessly claimed on a number of occasions that the only way he will lose the election is if it's "rigged," claiming — without evidence — that mail-in ballots will result in widespread fraud. Earlier on Wednesday, the president said he wants to quickly confirm a replacement for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg because he believes the Supreme Court may have to decide the result of the election.

"Not enough": Protesters react to no murder charges in Breonna Taylor case

A grand jury has indicted Brett Hankison, one of the Louisville police officers who entered Breonna Taylor's home in March, on three counts of wanton endangerment for firing shots blindly into neighboring apartments.

The state of play: Angering protesters, the grand jury did not indict any of the three officers involved in the botched drug raid on homicide or manslaughter charges related to the death of Taylor.

Get Axios AM in your inbox

Catch up on coronavirus stories and special reports, curated by Mike Allen everyday

Please enter a valid email.

Subscription failed
Thank you for subscribing!