A THREAD on why having modest expectations for opening round of #AfghanPeaceProcess set to start in Doha tomorrow is not just realistic but also positive. 1/13

The realistic part, through example: It took more than 6 months to resolve wrangling over a prisoner exchange that was supposed to take days. In 10 years of various efforts to get #AfghanPeaceProcess launched, *nothing* has ever happened quickly. 2/13

Another example: Almost 1.5 years to negotiate a several-page U.S.-Taliban agreement that U.S. negotiators had hoped could be done in a few months. 3/13

Prisoner exchange and even U.S.-Taliban deal signed February 29, 2020 were relatively easy compared to *anything* meaningful or concrete that will have to be agreed in talks among Afghans. 4/13

Not surprising U.S. would like *something* agreed fast, before November. Analysts shy away from definitive statements, but I'll go out on a (sturdy) limb: there is no way any significant advance in peace process can be achieved by Nov 3rd. 5/13

Small steps forward are possible near-term: e.g., statements of principles, agreement on agenda and process. These can be important and useful for generating traction, and it's better to focus on realistic steps like these than trying (and failing) to get something bigger. 6/13

Talk still floats around about forming interim govt (meaning, discarding current govt) as early step in peace process. That would entail huge and unnecessary risk - would increase Afghan state's fragility, have high propensity for collapse, and wouldn't solve the hard issues.7/13

If Trump loses in Nov, #AfghanPeaceProcess will be in doldrums until Feb '21. Talking could continue but not realistic to expect Afghan sides to make any tough decisions until they know whether US will stick with specifics of Feb '20 deal, which set context for current stage.8/13

Peace is urgent, but here's why careful pacing of process can be better than trying to rush: Opening positions will be far apart on crucial issues of what kind of state Afghanistan will be in future. Positions need to get more specific and to evolve, and that takes time. 9/13

Also, Taliban enter these talks with high confidence they are winning on the battlefield and can win at the table. Any fast deal is only conceivable if they are given large concessions. I state this as a matter of objective assessment, not arguing for any side's view. 10/13

An unbalanced deal that concedes too much to any side is not likely to be stable and durable. 11/13

Time is needed for Taliban - as they confront other Afghans in talks (no longer informal dialogue, but real, interests at stake talks) - to develop more of a political vision, one that can be accepted by a broad enough range of Afghans. 12/13

Time also needed for much more to be done diplomatically to bring the regional powers together in support of what goes on in and comes out of Afghan talks. Aside from leverage they can apply to get the parties to compromise, there is no durable peace without this support. 13/13