• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "C. Raja Mohan"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie India"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "India",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie India

Kabul’s Risky Overture

As Washington, Rawalpindi, Kabul, and the Taliban recalibrate their positions, Afghanistan is entering a very fragile moment.

Link Copied
By C. Raja Mohan
Published on Mar 6, 2018
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

Source: Indian Express

One of the most difficult moments in any war is when to bid for peace. If made from a weak position, the peace move could simply hasten defeat. With a strong hand, though, it could help accelerate a positive shift in the structure of the conflict. It is by no means clear at this stage where the Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani’s peace offer to the Taliban last week might lead to.

In offering unconditional talks to the Taliban, pessimists say, Ghani is walking down the slippery slope towards surrender. After all, the Taliban’s territorial control in Afghanistan has steadily expanded in recent years. It is now said to control or influence nearly 50 per cent of the nation’s territory. The Taliban, with its sanctuaries in Pakistan, has been able to mount spectacular terror attacks in Kabul at will despite massive security. Amidst intensifying violence in Afghanistan, civilian casualties have risen to more than 10,000 in 2017.

Meanwhile, Ghani’s own position vis-a-vis his partners at the national level and his authority over the provincial governments is coming under greater strain. After three massive attacks in February that killed nearly 200 people in Kabul, an angry Ghani vowed revenge against the Taliban in the battlefield. For many observers, his about-turn in proposing unconditional peace talks is a reflection of Ghani’s difficult situation. Pessimists also worry that any significant concessions to the Taliban will further intensify the divisions within the ruling coalition and sap Kabul’s ability to negotiate as a coherent entity.

Optimists, however, point to the fact that Ghani is not alone in the war against the Taliban. They hope that Washington’s renewed commitment to prevent a military victory for the Taliban and the Trump administration’s growing pressure on Pakistan to stop destabilising Afghanistan could yet change the dynamic in Kabul’s favour. They see the recent decision of the Financial Action Task Force of the United Nations to put Pakistan on the grey list and Islamabad’s promise to address international concerns as a positive sign.

But first to Ghani’s peace package unveiled at a peace conference in Kabul last week. It includes a ceasefire, release of prisoners, the promise to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate political force, a review of the constitution, and a transition to a new order guaranteed by the international community. There is no question that this is the most generous peace offer ever made by Kabul. That in itself is an acknowledgement of the Taliban’s renewed relevance for the political future of Afghanistan.

Until now, Kabul was arguing that any integration of the Taliban would be on its terms. By offering unconditional talks, Kabul may be suggesting that the political structure set up after the Taliban was ousted from power at the end of 2001 is now up for renegotiation. Meanwhile the Taliban persists in its refusal to engage the government in Kabul, which it considers illegitimate. The Taliban has offered to talk to the United States, instead, about the timelines for the withdrawal of American troops. Unlike its predecessor in Washington, the Trump administration, however, refuses to set a date for withdrawal.

In a letter circulated in Washington last month, the Taliban was playing on the sentiments of those Americans who think that the US war in Afghanistan, now in its 17th year, is not winnable. Even “if the policy of using force is continued for another one hundred years,” the letter said, “the outcome will be the same… America must end her occupation and must accept all our legitimate rights including the right to form a government consistent with the beliefs of our people”.

On its part, the government of Pakistan has welcomed Ghani’s peace offer and has promised “wholehearted support” to the peace process. But Pakistan’s credibility is rather low. Many suspect that the Pakistan army has no political intent to moderate the demands of the Taliban that it has nurtured all these years. For Rawalpindi, the investment in Taliban is about controlling the political future in Afghanistan. It is unlikely to abandon the Taliban just when it is getting closer to regaining its position in Afghanistan.

Sceptics point to the Pakistan army’s rejection of the massive peace overture from Ghani to the Pakistan army a few years ago. What has changed, of course, is the pressure from the Trump administration on Rawalpindi to stop supporting terror in Afghanistan. How this tussle between the two plays out in the coming weeks will have a significant bearing on the eventual outcome in Afghanistan.

If Washington has demonstrated more political will than before in pressing Pakistan to change course, a surprised Rawalpindi is doing everything to fend off US pressures. It would want to appear cooperative in the latest round of peace efforts without giving away too much. It would fully mobilise old friends in Beijing and new ones in Moscow to blunt the current American thrust in Afghanistan.

Much in the manner that Washington and Kabul are looking for “reconciliable elements in the Taliban”, Rawalpindi is probing the multiple faultlines in Washington and Kabul to facilitate a political outcome that is in Pakistan’s favour. As Washington, Rawalpindi, Kabul and the Taliban recalibrate their positions, Afghanistan is entering a very fragile moment.

This article was originally published in the Indian Express.

About the Author

C. Raja Mohan

Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India

A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership

      C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah

  • Commentary
    Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New Delhi
      • Alexander Gabuev
      • +1

      Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …

C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
Foreign PolicySouth AsiaAfghanistanIndiaPakistan

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

  • Trump with arms out, surrounded by mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Problem With the Idea That Netanyahu Made Trump Attack Iran

    Going to war was the U.S. president’s decision, for which he alone is responsible.

      Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller

  • Implementing the Biden Administration’s China Strategy
    Report
    Implementing the Biden Administration’s China Strategy

    At the heart of Biden’s approach to China was the consolidation of a framework for strategic competition with an eye toward coexistence.

      • Senkai Hsia

      Christopher S. Chivvis, Senkai Hsia

  • Article
    What Could a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement Do for U.S.-India Ties?

    India and the United States are close to concluding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement (RDPA) that will allow firms from the two countries to sell to each other’s defense establishments more easily. While this may not remedy the specific grievances both sides may have regarding larger bilateral issues, an RDPA could restore some momentum, following the trade deal announcement.

      Konark Bhandari

  • Trump and Netanyahu speaking
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Diverging U.S. and Israeli Goals in Iran Are Making the Endgame Even Murkier

    The cracks between Trump and Netanyahu have become more pronounced, particularly over energy and leadership targets.

      • Eric Lob

      Eric Lob

  • Seoul traffic at night
    Commentary
    Emissary
    How the Hormuz Closure Is Testing the Korean President’s Progressive Agenda

    The crisis is not just a story of energy vulnerability. It’s also a complex, high-stakes political challenge.

      Darcie Draudt-Véjares

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • 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.