Read on Twitter
A friend asked me if the #Taliban attack on Kunduz violated the US-TB agreement. Here are some thoughts on that in a THREAD. 1/n
Technically, there is nothing in the text of the US- #Taliban agreement about what may or may not be acceptable targets for attacks. (As an aside, there is nothing in it about reductions of violence either). 2/n
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Agreement-For-Bringing-Peace-to-Afghanistan-02.29.20.pdf
However, @SecPompeo has stated that there are two secret “implementing elements” to that deal. & there have been numerous reports citing “anonymous US officials” that suggest these annexes speak to what the #Taliban can/cannot attack. 3/n https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/us-taliban-deal-has-secret-elements-pompeo
Supposedly, the #Taliban agreed not to attack US forces/positions or #Afghanistan’s major cities/roads. Attacks on #ANDSF forces/positions apparently remained fair game—certainly the TB continued to (increasingly) do so after the deal was signed. 4/n https://time.com/5784103/secret-annexes-backroom-deals-can-zalmay-khalilzad-deliver-afghan-peace-for-trump/?amp=true
So an attack on Kunduz would be a violation of that part of the agreement, right? Presumably so, though w/o the text of the annex that regulates this, it’s hard to say for sure. 5/n
That annex supposedly also regulates what the US military can/can’t do in #Afghanistan—one assumes that it says the US can’t engage in offensive ops, though US officials have publicly stated that @USFOR_A would continue to defend & support the #ANDSF. 6/n https://tolonews.com/afghanistan/us-gen-miller-speaks-taliban%E2%80%99s-resumed-attacks
Of course, all of this must take into account the prior events of this week. The despicable attack on the maternity ward of a hospital in a predominantly Hazaran neighborhood of Kabul shocked & sickened us all, & led to @ashrafghani putting the #ANDSF back “on the offensive.” 7/n
That attack fit the profile of #ISIS-K, but that group hasn’t claimed it. The #Taliban denied being behind it, but a narrative has emerged from Kabul that holds the TB responsible—either directly or for enabling such an attack by causing insecurity across #Afghanistan. 8/n
That’s important b/c #Afghanistan’s govt is using that narrative (along with vague but publicly unsubstantiated claims of having intel that the #Taliban did it) to justify its return to offensive ops. 9/n
The #Taliban most likely see the #ANDSF’s renewed offensive as a violation of the agreement’s annex, since they see #Afghanistan’s govt as “a puppet” of the US. No doubt they believe the US gave the green light for @ashrafghani’s decision (or at least, failed to restrain it) 10/n
Thus, I’m sure the #Taliban r using a logic that says (a) they didn’t do the hospital attack; (b) the Afghan govt unjustly went on the offensive against them; (c) the US violated the agreement by allowing that to happen & (d) the attack on Kunduz is just retaliation in kind. 11/n
That’s tortuous logic of course, but in the absence of clear information on who was responsible for the hospital attack & what’s in the secret annex of the US- #Taliban agreement, it’s also difficult to absolutely refute it. 12/n
What would really help is if the US & Afghan govts released what intel they have regarding the perpetrators of the hospital attack—to establish fault for it. Also, for the US to release the text of the secret annex to allow for clear interpretations of compliance. 13/n
Unfortunately, I don’t see either of those things as likely to happen. I also suspect that—in keeping with their past negotiating stances—the #Taliban will insist on the #ANDSF being the first to ratchet violence down, before they’ll even consider doing so. 14/n
All of which probably means another period of increased violence & suffering for the people of #Afghanistan who have already suffered far, far too much. 15/15
