On August 21, President Trump prescribed a new kill and cure medicine for winning the war in Afghanistan. Killing terrorists is the kill part of the medicine while negotiating with the Taliban at some surprise moment in the future is the cure part. The kill part is not new. Since 9\/11, U.S. presidents have employed soaring rhetoric to sell the kill part. President Bush executed the kill part through the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama, the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, staged drone strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen to kill both alien and citizen terrorists. <\/p>\n
The cure part is sort of new because previously (even before 9\/11) the U.S. presidents publically vowed not to talk to the terrorists, though first secretly or sometimes openly, they all have negotiated with the leaders of terrorist organizations, including Yasser Arafat, Gerry Adams, Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar. Trump is simply making the cure part a bit less covert. <\/p>\n
Killing terrorists is now a global practice of warfare that many nation-states endorse and act upon, ignoring the strictures of extra-judicial killings. Israel pioneered the state practice by killing Palestinian leaders in occupied territories, including the 2004 drone assassination of Sheikh Yassin, a quadriplegic leader of Hamas. Upon 9\/11, the U.S. too adopted an open policy of killing terrorists. Recall, however, that the covert policy of killing foreign leaders has been for decades a part of the U.S. foreign policy. <\/p>\n
The U.S. changed the kill rule of international law. When a minor state violates a rule of international law, it is considered a breach or crime; and, the violating state may be punished with economic sanctions or use of force. When a superpower violates a rule of international law, the rule itself loses legitimacy and may be abandoned if extensively violated. Such de-enactments of rules, though uncommon, are part of international lawmaking. Killing terrorists has been established as a recognized exception to the prohibition against extra-judicial killings. <\/p>\n
One problem with the kill rule is the classification of terrorists subject to assassination. However, the classification is no longer confined to persons who personally commit acts of terrorism. A mastermind such as Osama bin Laden who finances terrorism is a legitimate target. So is an intellectual who incites resistance, as did Anwar Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen killed in a drone strike in Yemen. So is a spiritual leader, such as Sheikh Yassin. Afghan Taliban Chief Mullah Omar, though not killed, died under a hanging sword of U.S. bounty of $25 million placed on his head. <\/p>\n
Theoretically, the kill part of the medicine may unleash fierce bombings of the Afghan Taliban who control significant territory of Afghanistan. Mega bombs may be routinized in all parts of Afghanistan. Likewise, drone warfare may escalate both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This course of chemotherapy, however, is highly improbable, despite the anticipation of medicine. <\/p>\n
It is unclear how Pakistan would react to increased drone strikes within Pakistan. Previous U.S. administrations would use drones or other strikes, including the killing of Osama bin Laden, with permission from and prior notice to the Pakistan armed forces. This covert strategy is unlikely to change, though the public rhetoric from both governments may turn mutually antagonistic. <\/p>\n
If perchance the Trump administration pursues a unilateral kill policy in Pakistan, the Afghanistan war will break for the worse. Pakistan may shoot down U.S. drones, cutoff supply routes, or unleash groups willing to fight India in Kashmir. This development will generate a head-on collision between Pakistan and the U.S. It is highly doubtful that the U.S. and Pakistan will resort to such extremity, given the close relationship between U.S. and Pakistan militaries and intelligence communities. <\/p>\n
In sum, the kill part of the medicine will remain a tool of propaganda, though a lot of civilians will be killed in showoff bombings and drone strikes. Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world, will continue to suffer adversity, as it has in the past. The U.S. will fail to eliminate the Taliban, strengthen Afghan democracy, or bring prosperity to the people of Afghanistan. The kill part will be downright ineffective. <\/p>\n
By contrast, the cure part carries some promise. Trump made two things clear: first, the U.S. is no longer interested in nation-building or promoting democracy in Afghanistan. This means that the people of Afghanistan may choose a form of government other than liberal democracy or democracy at all. It also means that the people of Afghanistan may choose a form of government consistent with the Shariah principles, much like the people of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. This ideological flexibility may pave the way for the Taliban to take interest in negotiating an exit deal with the U.S. <\/p>\n
The second thing that Trump made clear is the U.S. willingness to negotiate with the Taliban. Even though Trump indicated that the U.S. is open to talking to some elements of the Taliban, the pragmatics will dictate that the U.S. negotiate with the Taliban leadership. The cure part also means that Pakistan, commanding influence over the Afghan Taliban, will play a crucial role in shaping the future of Afghanistan. Pakistan furnishes the medium, the credibility, and the logistics for direct negotiation between the U.S. and the Afghan Taliban. To balance these services from Pakistan, Trump asks India to furnish resources for development in Afghanistan. <\/p>\n
The U.S. can kill thousands of people in Afghanistan, as it has in the past sixteen years, but the kill medicine will not furnish a face-saving exit from this longest war in the U.S. history. The war will become ghastlier and the world less safe if the U.S. picks an unnecessary fight with Pakistan because Pakistan will divert its frustration against India, triggering yet another South Asian war. The way forward for the U.S. is no other but direct negotiation with the Taliban leadership without killing their leaders. Moreover, the time for negotiation is now and not at some unannounced surprise party in the future. <\/p>\n
The Morning Email <\/p>\n
Wake up to the day's most important news. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more:<\/p>\n
Trump's Kill and Cure Medicine for Afghanistan - HuffPost<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On August 21, President Trump prescribed a new kill and cure medicine for winning the war in Afghanistan. Killing terrorists is the kill part of the medicine while negotiating with the Taliban at some surprise moment in the future is the cure part. Continue reading