Afghanistan learns a HARD LESSON in insurgency

However, Abdullah acted prematurely. For peace talks to be successful, they require the participation of both sides, and unfortunately it seems that Abdullah failed to get the green light from the Taleban before going public. As a result, the militants felt compelled to respond viciously.

The spate of attacks that followed was a hard lesson for the Afghan |government on the dangers of making premature announcements on peace efforts to end insurgent violence.

Thai citizens will be familiar with this scenario, having witnessed how their own spotlight-chasing generals are fond of alleging progress made by security forces in the restive southernmost provinces, where an 11-year insurgency has claimed more than 6,000 lives since January 2004.

Swift to discredit the claims, insurgents usually respond by stepping up their attacks in the contested region.

Insurgency in Afghanistan is no different, in the sense that the Taleban deems the issue of peace talks highly sensitive. After all, the group bills itself as “resistance” movement whose mission is to violently confront the authorities. Talking to the government hardly constitutes resistance. 

Bounded by the terms of its mission, the Taleban had no choice but to prove its point with vicious attacks – this time on a neighbourhood popular with diplomats and expatriates.

Abdul Waheed Wafa, a political analyst at Kabul University, was quoted by local media as saying, “It’s too early to talk about the talks. We 

 need to talk about the issues before the talks. There needs to be an internal consensus in Afghanistan about the issue.”

The previous round of talks, in 2013, ended in failure. The preparation for those negotiations comprised three years of behind-the-scenes shuttle diplomacy. Each side blamed the other when the talks broke |down.

This time around, preparations have been underway for the past 12 months in China and Oman. Both countries have been wise enough |to keep a low profile and not |speak out about their roles and |contributions to the process.

In a separate but related development, neighbouring Pakistan has begun to share more of its intelligence reports with Afghanistan. The cooperation has reportedly yielded progress in the battle against the insurgents, but it will take time to overcome the mistrust between the two neighbours. Kabul has long accused elements within the Pakistani military of supporting the Taleban.

But, in forging closer intelligence cooperation, the two sides might have finally realised that their wellbeing is entwined. A secure Afghanistan is good for Pakistan, and vice versa.

As for Afghanistan’s internal conflict, a discussion on possible peace talks is slowly emerging into the public domain, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

The two sides are still a long way away from agreeing on specifics, but the very fact that ordinary citizens are debating agenda items is a good start.

Let’s hope these promising beginnings evolve into concrete efforts towards peace, especially when the time comes for both sides to sit down and negotiate their differences.