• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [],
  "type": "pressRelease",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE

REQUIRED IMAGE

Press Release

Negotiating With the Taliban Won't Stabilize Afghanistan

Negotiating with the Taliban is the worst possible approach to stabilizing Afghanistan, and one that would fail. Though costly, a long-term commitment to building an effective Afghan state is the only way to achieve victory and defend U.S. national security objectives.

Link Copied
Published on Apr 13, 2009
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

WASHINGTON, Apr 13—Negotiating with the Taliban—who are convinced military victory is within sight—is the worst possible approach to stabilizing Afghanistan, and one that would fail. Ashley J. Tellis warns in a new report (synopsis) that U.S. signals of impatience and a desire for an early exit could motivate insurgents to maintain a hard line and outlast the international coalition. Though costly, a long-term commitment to building an effective Afghan state is the only way to achieve victory and defend U.S. national security objectives.

Key Conclusions:

  • Negotiation with the Taliban is premature and unnecessary. Afghan stability can be achieved through a concerted modification of current military and political strategy—sustaining commitment from Washington, returning to successful counterinsurgency operations, and improving Afghan governance.
  • A lasting peace in Afghanistan and defeat of the Taliban can only come from a political-military victory that diminishes the rewards for continued resistance. The Taliban’s leadership does not want conciliation. Initiating unwanted negotiations could exacerbate ethnic fissures in Afghanistan, signal weakness or defeat in Washington and Kabul, and ultimately renew civil war.
  • The United States must reaffirm the goal of building a democratic and stable Afghan state. Counterterrorism and state-building are not mutually exclusive. Washington cannot fight al-Qaeda and its allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan without supporting the creation of an effective and responsive regime in Kabul.
  • Although counterterrorism cooperation by Pakistan is desirable for U.S. success in Afghanistan, American goals in Afghanistan can be—and if necessary must be—attained without Islamabad’s assistance.
  • Portending coalition defeat in the “graveyard of empires” is an inadequate analogy. Neither the British nor Soviet experience mimics the current situation. Military superiority aside, the U.S. presence in Kabul is seen less as occupation than support for the Afghan people, much to its advantage. The Afghan public, by a margin of 82 percent to 4 percent, oppose the Taliban and desperately seek success from Western military forces.
  • President Obama’s recently announced “Af-Pak” strategy is courageous and responsible, but still incomplete. The administration needs to commit to building a democratic Afghan state, persevering in Afghanistan over the long term, deploying additional U.S. resources and troops, correcting command and control deficiencies, and enlarging the size of Afghanistan’s national security forces, among other things.

Tellis explains:

“Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership have decisively rejected any reconciliation with the government of Afghanistan. And the tribal chiefs, village elders, and street fighters, who either support the insurgency or are sitting on the sidelines currently but are susceptible to being reconciled in principle, certainly will not take any steps in that direction so long as the Karzai regime, and its Western supporters, are not seen to be winning in their long-running battle against the Taliban. The coalition, therefore, is confronted by an inescapable paradox: any meaningful accommodation with those reconcilable segments of the rebellion will only come at the tail end of political-military success in Afghanistan and not as a precursor to it; yet, if such success is attained, reconciliation will become possible but, ironically, when it is least necessary.”

###


NOTES

  • Direct link to the PDF: www.carnegieendowment.org/files/reconciling_with_taliban.pdf
  • Ashley J. Tellis is a senior associate in the Carnegie South Asia program. He specializes in international security, defense, and Asian strategic issues and helped the U.S. State Department negotiate the civil nuclear agreement with India. Previously he was a senior adviser to the U.S. ambassador to India and was a special assistant to the president and senior director for strategic planning and Southwest Asia in the NSC.
  • The Carnegie South Asia Program offers in-depth expertise on a range of issues relating to South Asia, including nonproliferation, international security, and political and economic development.
  • The Program produces South Asian Perspectives, a biweekly publication showcasing selected views and opinions from the South Asian media and policy circles, thus providing a forum for policy makers to hear voices from the region.
  • Press Contact: Trent Perrotto, 202/939-2372, tperrotto@ceip.org
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaAfghanistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Pashinyan shaking hands
    Commentary
    Emissary
    At Stake in Armenia’s Election: Peace and Russian Influence

    Regardless of the outcome, there’s another path to ensuring that progress doesn’t stall.

      Zaur Shiriyev

  • Bangladesh's newly sworn-in Prime minister Tarique Rahman (2R) shakes hands with President Mohammed Shahabuddin during a swearing-in ceremony at the National Parliament building in Dhaka on February 17, 2026
    Article
    Bangladesh’s Unfinished Revolution

    Bangladesh’s February 2026 elections were the most credible in nearly two decades. But within weeks of the BNP’s return to power, the fundamental characteristics of the country’s political economy threaten to pull it back toward continuity rather than change.

      • Avinash Paliwal

      Avinash Paliwal

  • Commentary
    Emissary
    Trump and Xi Are Angling for Three Years of Stability

    But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.

      • Damien Ma

      Damien Ma

  • Recruit polices vow as they join in the police at Beijing Public Security Bureau on February 18, 2011 in Beijing, China. (
    Paper
    China’s Police and Security Cooperation Agreements

    China’s Ministry of Public Security is often portrayed as a domestic law enforcement agency, but it is also a global security actor. This paper explores how MPS has used international law enforcement and security cooperation agreements—over 200 since 2006—to advance China’s vision of security in a changing global environment.  

      • Sheena Chestnut Greitens

      Sophie Zhuang, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Cameron Waltz

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could Migrants From India and Africa Solve Russia’s Labor Shortage?

    The demands of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, demographic problems, and public hostility toward Central Asians mean Russia does not have enough workers.  

      Salavat Abylkalikov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.