Follow us on social

||||

Ignoring the Taliban won't make them go away

Doing something about the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan may help contain the worst impulses of the country’s new leaders.

Analysis | Asia-Pacific

Commentary on Afghanistan is still bogged down by the insurgency phase of the Taliban and the illegitimate nature of their takeover. This prevents the world from  taking pragmatic steps to contain the Taliban’s worst totalitarianism.

The Taliban are not an absolute evil, they are just another less than ideal entity ruling a country. By obsessing over what is and how it came to be, we pay little heed to making the current reality better. The current humanitarian crisis, civil rights of Afghans, and the threat of terrorism that should be cause enough to push the world into a meaningful engagement with the Taliban.

The larger narrative with regards to Afghanistan overly focuses on reminiscing over the gains lost instead of thinking about preserving what remains. Yes, democracy was lost. Yes, women and girls’ access to work and education was restricted. Yes, the media space was altered and confined. But there are still civil activists in Afghanistan that require support.

Internal and external pressure finally drove the Taliban to open public universities for women and promise to open girls’ schools in March. There are private universities that provide education to Afghan women who can barely afford tuition anymore. There are avenues in the economy that can be expanded for more women to seek employment. Above all, the Taliban have shown some willingness to engage as seen in their meeting of their political opponents in Iran and civil society in Norway. The Taliban also adopted a humanitarian declaration in their recent visit to Geneva.There are viable ways of moving forward but avoiding the Taliban is not one of them.

We have to question the wisdom of avoiding the Taliban in the aid process since it creates more issues than it solves. Though it might  absolve the United States and its allies of appearing to support the Taliban, it ends up depriving Afghanistan of any chance of sustainable governance. The Taliban won against the odds and they are unlikely to go away anytime soon. The international community, by choosing international organizations to deliver basic services in the country, is depriving the Taliban the chance of integrating into a governance role and learning in the process.

We have to question the wisdom of pushing international organizations into a parallel government role of providing services with its large overhead and lack of localized knowledge. The Taliban’s emergence was not the sole reason for the economic collapse that the country experienced. Its preposterous aid dependency was a primary reason. The same aid dependency being created in the country again with the current model. There is also the issue of how the international community not letting money or aid get into the hands of the Taliban is causing hunger and desperation among their ranks which is in turn producing rent-seeking behavior among the Taliban which is causing an even larger disconnect between the Taliban and the citizenry of Afghanistan. All are issues that can be avoided if strict monitoring is implemented and the consequences of non-compliance are communicated.

The last time the Taliban were in power, their disregard for international norms coupled with the international community’s indifference towards them led them to become pariahs and in turn a failed state. The vacuum created then became the perfect breeding ground for foreign extremists to conduct their pan-Islamist aspirations from Afghanistan. The resurgence of the Taliban is a reaction to the wrong policies taken towards the country.

Extremism cannot be eradicated with the elimination of the extremist, but rather with the alleviation of the population to not find such ideologies appealing — which is also called drying the well. Hoping to choke out the Taliban has two negative consequences. First, it punishes the population the international community aspires to protect. Second, it strengthens groups such as ISKP in finding more recruits in the form of defectors from the Taliban or desperate Afghans who find more reason to hate the west. 

The current policy towards the Taliban might make sense if the international community had better alternatives lined up. But the United States already accepted the Taliban as an unfortunate reality that they negotiated and signed a peace deal with. So why is it now so hard to imagine a process of dialogue in order to produce positive outcomes?

Of course, this is not to say that the Taliban should not be held accountable, but the longer we delay the question of dealing with the Taliban, the longer they go unchecked and the Afghan people suffer. 

There are sensible ways of releasing Afghanistan’s frozen assets in phases under strict monitoring. There are ways of demanding that the Taliban meet expectations with regards to civil rights and education but that too has to be communicated subtly (in order to not incur a reputation cost for the Taliban among their ranks and cause defection) and in exchange for some level of engagement.

Considering the leverage the United States and its allies still have on the Taliban including the prospects of releasing assets and further relieving sanctions, there are paths forward, the world just needs to realize the futility of its current approach and care enough to review it. 


An Afghan woman holds her child as she and others wait to receive package being distributed by a Turkish humanitarian aid group at a distribution centre in Kabul, Afghanistan, December 15, 2021. REUTERS/Ali Khara|Courtesy of Tyndall Report|||Courtesy of the Tyndall Report
Analysis | Asia-Pacific
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.