The consensus among a considerable number of scholars and analysts that the Afghan Peace Deal, signed in Doha on February 29, 2020, was essentially a US withdrawal agreement rather than a comprehensive peace framework for Afghanistan holds significant weight. This perspective stems from a close examination of the deal's primary contours, its inherent limitations, and the subsequent trajectory of events in Afghanistan.
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
The Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan, as it was formally known, represented a culmination of protracted negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, largely bypassing the Afghan government in Kabul. At its core, the deal outlined a commitment from the United States and its coalition partners to withdraw all military forces from Afghanistan within 14 months, provided the Taliban upheld specific counter-terrorism pledges. The agreement stipulated an initial reduction of US troop levels from approximately 13,000 to 8,600 within 135 days, with the complete withdrawal of all US and coalition forces by May 1, 2021. For instance, the US Department of State's official declaration from February 2020 prominently detailed these phased withdrawals, underscoring the exit strategy as a central pillar. This timetable, driven by a US desire to end its longest war, often overshadowed the broader, more complex objectives of achieving lasting peace and stability within Afghanistan itself.
One of the most telling aspects supporting the "withdrawal deal" interpretation was the overwhelming focus on US troop withdrawal. The detailed timeline for the departure of American forces occupied a substantial portion of the agreement, signaling that the primary objective for the US was to disengage from a costly and protracted conflict. While the agreement mandated that the Taliban prevent terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda from using Afghan soil to threaten the US or its allies, the emphasis was heavily placed on the logistics and timeline of the American exit rather than a robust, enforceable peace architecture for Afghanistan.
Further evidence lies in the exclusion of the Afghan government from the initial and most crucial stages of the negotiations. Thomas Ruttig, a renowned expert on Afghanistan, noted in 2020 that the initial talks were exclusively between the US and the Taliban. The Afghan government, led by then-President Ashraf Ghani, was effectively sidelined, which severely undermined its legitimacy and bargaining power in any future intra-Afghan negotiations. This exclusion meant that the deal lacked genuine buy-in from a key stakeholder, complicating any comprehensive peace effort that required the full participation and agreement of the internationally recognized Afghan state. It created a perception that the US was negotiating on behalf of Afghanistan, rather than facilitating an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process.
Moreover, the deal was notably insufficient in its provisions for human rights and governance. As Barnett Rubin, a leading scholar on Afghanistan, pointed out in 2020, the agreement was largely silent on critical issues such as the protection of women's rights, minority rights, and the future of democratic institutions. Its primary focus remained on security arrangements and troop withdrawal. The absence of detailed mechanisms to safeguard fundamental human rights and ensure a democratic future for Afghanistan suggested that the US prioritized its exit strategy over the long-term well-being and governance structure of the country. This omission left a significant void, raising concerns about the Taliban's potential return to the restrictive practices of their previous rule from 1996 to 2001, when women's education and public life were severely curtailed.
The ambiguous nature of the Taliban's commitments also reinforced the view of the deal as primarily a US withdrawal mechanism. The agreement relied on the Taliban's promise to prevent terrorist groups from operating in Afghanistan, yet it lacked clear verification mechanisms or robust enforcement clauses. Michael Kugelman, a prominent South Asia expert, highlighted in 2020 that the deal's reliance on "unclear Taliban promises" raised significant doubts about its long-term effectiveness in ensuring security. This vagueness allowed the US to frame its withdrawal as conditional on counter-terrorism assurances, even if those assurances were not rigorously defined or verifiable, serving the immediate objective of justifying the pullout.
The delays and challenges in intra-Afghan negotiations following the Doha agreement further illustrated the deal's primary focus. The intra-Afghan talks, which were meant to be the second phase of the peace process, struggled to gain momentum and achieve substantive progress. Lori Plotkin, a senior expert on Afghanistan in 2021, noted that these talks faced numerous setbacks, highlighting that the primary driver for the US had been its withdrawal, rather than meticulously constructing a comprehensive and durable peace framework for the Afghan parties. The rapid collapse of the Afghan government in August 2021, shortly after the final US withdrawal, tragically underscored how fragile the peace process was without a strong, inclusive intra-Afghan agreement in place.
Furthermore, the emphasis on tactical security agreements within the deal, as discussed by Catherine Putz in The Diplomat in 2020, leaned more towards immediate de-escalation of violence and counter-terrorism measures rather than a detailed roadmap for a political settlement. The focus was on reducing attacks and ensuring safe passage for withdrawing troops, rather than establishing a comprehensive, long-term political process for national reconciliation and power-sharing. This tactical approach was consistent with a strategy aimed at facilitating an exit, rather than fundamentally transforming the conflict dynamics.
Finally, the limited engagement with regional stakeholders in the peace process was another critical flaw, hinting at the US's intent for a skeptical escape from the region. As noted by Ahmed Rashid, a distinguished author and expert on the Taliban and regional dynamics, the agreement largely sidelined crucial regional actors such as Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian republics, all of whom have significant stakes in Afghanistan's stability. Their exclusion meant that the deal failed to adequately address the broader geopolitical factors and regional interests that heavily influence Afghanistan's internal stability. This lack of comprehensive regional buy-in limited the deal's potential for achieving a truly stable and sustainable resolution to the conflict.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
In critical analysis, while the Doha Agreement was presented as a pathway to peace, its structural elements and subsequent outcomes strongly suggest it was primarily a US withdrawal strategy. It allowed the United States to fulfill its long-standing promise to end its military presence, a key objective for both the Trump and later the Biden administrations, thereby catering to domestic political pressures. However, by sidelining the Afghan government, providing vague Taliban commitments, and largely omitting detailed provisions for human rights and inclusive governance, the deal failed to lay a robust foundation for lasting peace. The rapid fall of Kabul to the Taliban in August 2021, far sooner than many anticipated, served as a grim testament to the deal's limitations as a true peace accord, underscoring its nature as a mechanism for the US to extricate itself from Afghanistan.
In conclusion, the Afghan Peace Deal, signed in Doha in 2020, ultimately functioned more as a US withdrawal agreement than a comprehensive framework for establishing lasting peace in Afghanistan. Its primary focus on the timetable for US troop departure, the exclusion of the Afghan government from initial negotiations, and the ambiguous nature of the Taliban's commitments collectively indicate that the overriding objective was American disengagement. The deal lacked the depth and inclusiveness required to address Afghanistan's complex political problems, human rights concerns, and deep-seated security challenges. The subsequent swift collapse of the Afghan government after the US withdrawal cemented the perception that the agreement served short-term geopolitical objectives for the United States, leaving Afghanistan vulnerable and its future uncertain.
