Read on Twitter
The #Taliban have posted a preemptive argument (in English) that says they are “seriously committed” to implementation of the US-TB Agreement & have “taken effective steps in this regard.” 1/n
https://alemarahenglish.net/?p=42652
https://alemarahenglish.net/?p=42652
What arguments do they offer to support this claim?
1. They haven’t killed any foreign troops in a year
2. No entity has used #Afghanistan to take action against the US & its allies, & #Taliban imply they’re the cause (“nor is anyone allowed to do so”)
2/n
1. They haven’t killed any foreign troops in a year
2. No entity has used #Afghanistan to take action against the US & its allies, & #Taliban imply they’re the cause (“nor is anyone allowed to do so”)
2/n
5. #Taliban have “significantly decreased the level of operations” & did not launch (or announce) a spring offensive
6. They didn’t conquer district HQs “in succession”
7. They didn’t conduct “numerous & complex” attacks in major cities
4/n
6. They didn’t conquer district HQs “in succession”
7. They didn’t conduct “numerous & complex” attacks in major cities
4/n
8. They didn’t make plans to conquer cities
5/n
5/n
How do these compare to the #Taliban’s actual commitments in the deal? A few thoughts:
1. They don’t address all of the group’s commitments. Perhaps the most notable omission is that pertaining to the group’s freed prisoners
6/n https://twitter.com/jjschroden/status/1359583704373465090
1. They don’t address all of the group’s commitments. Perhaps the most notable omission is that pertaining to the group’s freed prisoners
6/n https://twitter.com/jjschroden/status/1359583704373465090
2. They seem to mostly focus on items that are presumably in the so-called “secret annexes” of the deal. Some language in this announcement seems likely to have come directly from those annexes (eg conquering district HQs “in succession” seems oddly & specifically worded) 7/n
3. They focus on an observable metric for the clauses pertaining to terrorist groups (no actions against the US/allies). But they use passive voice when discussing why this is—interesting that they don’t claim active responsibility for this.
8/n
8/n
4. They seem to be arguing that, while violence has gone up since the deal was signed, it would have gone up *even more* if it hadn’t been signed—& therefore a reduction in violence did occur (ie actual violence versus expected violence).
9/n
9/n
Unsurprisingly, they also devote significant attention to arguing that the US has failed to uphold its commitments. 10/n
This is relatively easier for them because (as I tweeted earlier) the US’ commitments are all objectively & publicly verifiable. 11/n https://twitter.com/jjschroden/status/1359582834885873666
That said, the #Taliban’s list of supposed US violations includes a bunch of items that are attributed to #Afghanistan’s govt (including the wave of targeted assassinations). Unless these are in the secret annexes (seems unlikely), these aren’t things the US agreed to. 12/n https://twitter.com/jjschroden/status/1359576808111435789
The #Taliban close by calling for “all parties” to uphold their commitments. They argue that everyone should trust them b/c their religion doesn’t allow them to violate the deal. And they message the upcoming @NATO ministerial meeting. 13/n
In all, it’s a sometimes-clever but incomplete & therefore uncompelling set of arguments. However, as is often the case, the #Taliban have engaged in a proactive/preemptive messaging campaign (this + #get_out_of_Afghanistan) while the US is still sorting itself out. 14/14
