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.
Obaidullah Baheer is a lecturer at the American University of Afghanistan. He is also a visiting scholar at the New School in New York. He currently leads an aid effort named “Save Afghans from Hunger” that provides freshly baked bread to over two hundred families every day. Obaidullah is also a poet.
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
The Trump administration has so far played its cards in the Ukraine peace process with great skill. Pressure on Kyiv has led the Ukrainian government to abandon its impossible demands and join the U.S. in calling for an unconditional temporary ceasefire.
This call, together with the resumption of U.S. military and intelligence aid to Ukraine, is now putting great pressure on the Russian government to abandon its own impossible demands and seek a genuine and early compromise. A sign of the intensity of this pressure is the anguish it is causing to Russian hardliners, who are demanding that Putin firmly reject the proposal. We must hope that he will not listen to them.
That does not mean that Moscow either will or should simply agree at once to a ceasefire. It will not, because the Russian government has always insisted that certain things have to be firmly nailed down in advance. It should not, because unless key things are agreed and/or excluded, there will be a grave risk that the ceasefire will collapse and the war will resume. These issues will now be discussed in the next round of U.S.-Russia talks, and we must hope that they can be agreed upon with reasonable speed.
Among the things that Russia will have to abandon is Putin’s previous demand that in return for a ceasefire Ukraine withdraw from those parts of the four provinces that Russia claims to have annexed but Ukraine still holds. That is not going to happen, any more than Russia will withdraw from the territory it now holds. The ceasefire line will run where the battle line stops. However, it seems probable that before agreeing to a ceasefire Russia will do its utmost to drive the Ukrainian army from the sliver of Russian territory it holds in Kursk, and it may well achieve this in the coming days.
Something that should be agreed — at least in principle —- before a temporary ceasefire is the framework of a long term ceasefire. It is not clear from the latest U.S.-Ukraine talks if Kyiv has definitely given up its hope of a European peacekeeping force. It must do so; for the Russians regard this as NATO membership by another name, and if the Ukrainians and Europeans try to re-introduce this later, Russia will resume the war.
Any peacekeeping force must come from genuinely neutral countries under the authority of the United Nations; and this in turn could form the starting point for a new consultative mechanism on European security —- something that Russia has been seeking for the past 15 years at least.
Western suggestions for this have been pointless and unacceptable to Moscow, because they have involved four Western nations plus NATO and the EU “consulting” with Russia. For Moscow, this would be simply a new version of the failed NATO-Russia Council, in which Western countries line up to present Russia with previously agreed diktats.
A UN peacekeeping force for Ukraine by contrast could be under the aegis of a committee of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany and whichever leading member of the “Global South” (for example, India and/or Brazil) provides significant numbers of peacekeepers. Such a group would also put content in (so far empty) Western acceptance of the “multipolar world,” and Western recognition that other countries have legitimate interests in European stability, insofar as war in Europe can have severe effects on their own food and energy security.
Such a UN mechanism could in turn help initiate talks on mutual arms limitations. Russia will obviously have to give up its previous demand that Ukraine reduce its armed forces to levels where they could not defend Ukraine, but it can be expected to press hard for limits on certain categories of weapons, like long-range missiles. This will be far easier for Ukraine, the U.S., and EU to accept if it forms part of a wider process of arms limitation negotiations.
One promising element could be a return to the mutual abolition of intermediate missiles in Europe.
Obviously such a complicated issue cannot be negotiated before a ceasefire, but an announcement of the beginning of a new arms control process should be possible.
Then there is the issue of the approximately $300 billion in frozen Russian assets, mostly held by Europe. Moscow will certainly demand a guarantee that they be unfrozen. The EU for its part is under pressure to seize the assets and use them to fund Ukraine —something that would be both illegal and a serious obstacle to peace. Ideally, however, together with EU aid they could form part of a Ukraine reconstruction fund under the UN, with a significant proportion of the Russian money going to reconstruct the Russian-held areas of Ukraine. Russian officials have suggested that this solution could be agreed.
These are all highly complex issues. Nonetheless, given intelligence and goodwill on both sides, it should be possible to make real progress in the next round of talks, and open the way to a ceasefire in the reasonably near future. Russia has good reason to seek an agreement, because otherwise the future offers only on the one hand a grinding war of attrition for uncertain gains, and on the other, the collapse of a highly promising new relationship with Washington.
Ukraine too will have to compromise, and here, professed friends of Ukraine in the West also have a responsibility, which so far all too many have completely failed to meet. The Trump administration’s initiation of the Ukraine peace process has been met in much of the U.S. and Europe not with sensible analysis and advice but hysterical and hate-filled condemnation, including disgraceful accusations of “treason”, of “betraying Ukraine”, and of a “New Yalta Agreement.”
As the latest news clearly demonstrates, none of this is true. And if as Marco Rubio has said, the ball is now firmly in Russia’s court when it comes to peace proposals and a ceasefire, it is also true that Ukraine also still has the capacity to wreck peace talks by introducing or reintroducing conditions that Russia will automatically reject. Their “friends” should not encourage them to do so.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: An aerial view of the Pentagon, in Washington, District of Columbia. (TSGT ANGELA STAFFORD, USAF/public domain)
Passing with a vote of 217-213 mostly along party lines — only one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) broke ranks to vote against it — the CR now proceeds to the Senate, which needs to pass something by 11:59 p.m. Friday to avoid a government shutdown. Although Republicans will need bipartisan support for the CR to pass there, Senate Democrats, weary of the political costs of a shutdown, seem increasingly likely to comply.
Part of the House CR’s defense boost would go toward increased pay for troops. But the CR would also bolster the Pentagon’s flexibility to make new weapons purchases, even though such a measure would not typically be included in a continuing resolution.
And, while the CR sets aside previously requested funds for two Arleigh Burke class destroyers, it also fronts $1.5 billion toward a third one to be built — even though the Navy has not requested funds for another one.
Some lawmakers are frustrated by the choice to ram through additional defense spending at a critical political moment, when politicians are weighing the CR’s budget cuts with the political risks of a government shutdown.
“We know that there is a $6 billion in defense spending increase [in the CR]. That is not something the majority of Democrats, including myself, are in support of,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said, expressing her opposition to the CR on CNN. “Especially when they are making $13 billion in cuts to programs that people care about.”
“I’d like verification that in the future that we’re going to reduce the spending at the Pentagon,” Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said, explaining his weariness towards the CR on Monday. “There's savings in [the CR] and they're making cuts in different departments, but the Pentagon always gets (more money),” he told CNN. Typically against CRs, Burchett ultimately voted for the bill.
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has called to increase military spending, invoking the China threat to warn against a CR-sparked return to last year’s defense spending levels.
“Spending the entire year under the FY2024 funding level will mean no money or authorization for 168 new programs — many of which are required to outcompete China in space and cyberspace,” he wrote in the Washington Post. “In the race to project power and deter aggression across the Indo-Pacific, it would put U.S. forces and our regional allies even further behind.”
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: George Air Force Base is a former United States Air Force base located about 75 miles northeast of Los Angeles, California. The facility was closed by the Base Realignment and Closure (or BRAC) 1992 commission at the end of the Cold War. It is now the site of Southern California Logistics Airport and a National Guard drone training facility. (Flickr/Creative Commons/slworking2)
In his search for saving taxpayers’ money, President Trump recently directed Elon Musk and the newly-created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to take a closer look at the Pentagon. And their search is apparently already paying off.
“They’re finding massive amounts of fraud, abuse, waste, all of these things,” Trump declared.
If the administration is truly committed to cutting waste and maximizing efficiency, it should direct the Pentagon to examine how it is using its vast real estate holdings — an estimated 26 million acres in the United States alone. And if the Department of Defense were to make such an assessment, it is likely that it would justify another round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC), a process last initiated in 2005, in which an independent commission helps to select a list of bases to be realigned or closed, in consultation with affected communities.
Between 2013 and 2017, the Pentagon repeatedly requested another BRAC. The new Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, seems open to the idea. In a series of responses in advance of his confirmation, Hegseth explained, “I will work with leaders in the Department and across the Executive Branch to assess whether another BRAC round is needed. If the President were to determine a BRAC is appropriate, we will work with Congress to identify and implement process improvements.”
This is where DOGE could help move the needle. For nearly a decade, a few members of Congress have steadfastly blocked any consideration of base closure or realignment, despite the fact that a 2017 Pentagon study found that it has 19% more capacity than it needs. If many of the Pentagon’s facilities are underutilized, or even entirely unused, releasing this land to be redeveloped could generate revenue for the federal government, and benefits to the surrounding communities.
This underutilization is precisely the kind of problem that DOGE is designed to root out. According to one estimate, savings from the prior five rounds of BRAC save taxpayers $12 billion annually.
“There are strong indications DOGE wants to reduce the federal government’s real property footprint and see if there is a way to cut some savings loose from DoD’s installations and infrastructure, though it remains to be seen if it will look or smell anything like BRAC,” explained Assistant Commander for BRAC Andy Napoli during a phone call with the authors.
Without Congressional approval to formally close bases, however, the Pentagon may quietly cut personnel and operations at certain facilities across the country, and redeploy them elsewhere. Ten years ago, Anthony Principi, chairman of the last BRAC, warned against such a "stealth" BRAC. “These reductions have a serious economic impact on local communities,” Principi wrote, “who are helpless to counter the Pentagon’s decisions.”
A stealth BRAC not only harms military communities, it also decreases military readiness. Blocking BRAC, Representative Adam Smith (D-WA) explained in 2016, “has the harmful and unintended consequence of forcing the Military Departments to consider cuts at all installations, without regard to military value.”
Under such circumstances, the military, the taxpayers, and the surrounding communities, would be better off with a formal closure, which would eventually deliver the property over to redevelopment.
We can see how this has played out from some of the bases and communities included in the 2005 BRAC. Take, for example, the case of Fort Gillem in suburban Atlanta. The former Army logistics hub is now the Gillem Logistics Center, home to a 1.3 million-square-foot warehouse for the Kroger grocery chain, as well as distribution centers for global brands such as Amazon, Boeing, Cummins, and Kuehne & Nagel. The facility is valued for its close proximity to Hartfield Jackson International, one of the nation’s busiest airports, as well as major interstate highways.
Those same factors attracted BlueStar Studios which currently operates two 20,000-square-foot sound stages, with plans to eventually have fourteen. BlueStar Studio CEO Rich Goldberg announced in 2022 that "Ninety-plus percent of the jobs” at the studio would be “for local Atlantans.”
We can also look at what happened at the former Naval Air Station Brunswick in Maine. A facility that once hosted sub-hunting P-3 Orion aircraft, but was mostly off-limits to civilians, now features a wide array of businesses, including a brewery in the former small arms firing range, and a public golf course. TechPlace, a business incubator, has helped launch start-ups in critical sectors such as aerospace, advanced materials, and life sciences.
Plus, there are 1,470 housing units on former base land, including over 500 constructed since 2018. The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Authority (MRRA), which is responsible for managing the property, reported late last year that over $272 million in “new property valuation has been added to the property tax rolls in the town of Brunswick” accounting for over $6.5 million “in new property tax revenues for FY 2025.”
Even if Congress isn’t ready to consider a BRAC, they should not block a public assessment of the military’s needs. It has been eight years since the Pentagon released a formal study on excess capacity. And, as that report noted, it did not “provide the details necessary to identify specific infrastructure for elimination.” As part of a new assessment, the Pentagon could estimate possible savings from a future BRAC round.
“Even if DOGE does not recommend a round of base closures — which I doubt they will because their reform time horizon is much faster than the multi-year BRAC process -— the effects of what DOGE does recommend or implement could potentially rekindle interest in something like a BRAC process for rationalizing missions and functions across DoD after the fact,” said Napoli. “I could imagine DOGE analysts questioning why each military department needs certain functions of its own and directing development of plans to potentially consolidate functions into fewer locations, which is actually quite similar to what aspects of the 2005 round of BRAC recommended,” he added.
If DOGE directs the consolidation of a particular functional area or the downsizing of a certain workforce and leaves the implementation details to still be worked out, members of Congress might step in and request a more formal review to ensure they and their constituents have a seat at the table. This broadens stakeholder and community involvement — and diffuses the political downsides if the axe falls hard on a particular location.
If Trump is serious about cutting waste in the Pentagon, and also committed to helping mostly rural communities that are adjacent to many military bases, a new round of BRAC might fit the bill. After all, the Pentagon’s problems of excess and underutilized capacity will exist far beyond DOGE’s expiration date of July 2026.
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.