The US looks to leave Afghanistan – would you?

For almost twenty years, US and NATO-allied troops have fought to root out a resurgent Taliban and to prop up the fragile, democratically elected Afghan government.

Now, after nearly two years of negotiations, the Trump administration has struck a deal with the Taliban – who still control vast swathes of the country – to end US involvement in the country altogether.

Whether the deal brings peace, and at what price for Afghans who have suffered the scourge of conflict for almost four decades, remains to be seen.


What's in the deal? The US is to withdraw all of its roughly 12,000 remaining troops by April 2021 and will work with the UN to lift sanctions on the Taliban. About two-thirds of those troops are to leave within six months.

In return, the Taliban have promised to cut ties with global terrorist groups and begin substantive power-sharing talks with the Afghan government. Crucially, the deal envisions the release of some 5,000 Taliban fighters currently imprisoned in Afghan jails in exchange for about 1,000 Afghan prisoners held by the rebel group.

How's the peace deal doing so far? Not so great. By Monday, the Afghan government – which the Taliban insisted on excluding from the talks – had refused to release those 5,000 prisoners. The Taliban responded that unless that happens, they won't sit down with the Afghan government after all. Following a weeklong ceasefire that brought a lull in fighting, fresh clashes erupted between the Taliban and Afghan forces yesterday. The deal isn't dead, but it's not off to a promising start.

Can the deal work? Even if the prisoner swap can be finessed, it's unclear how much the Taliban can be trusted to cut ties with groups like Al-Qaeda, with whom they share both ideological and operational ties. A bigger question is whether the Taliban is willing to engage in good-faith negotiations with the Afghan government, over whom it would hold tremendous leverage as US troops depart.

What would US departure mean for Afghan society? The last time the Taliban ran Afghanistan, in the 1990s, it imposed an extreme interpretation of Islamic law that limited freedoms and harshly oppressed women and girls in particular. Even today, Afghanistan is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman. In more recent years, at least in the areas under Afghan government control, women have enjoyed much greater freedoms in education and public life. If the Taliban formally become part of the country's government, there is no guarantee that those rights and freedoms – not only for women, but more broadly for society – would be preserved.

Is this deal a defeat for the US? The Taliban certainly think so. Their social media mullah last week crowed about "the defeat of the arrogance of the White House in the face of the White Turban." But President Donald Trump has pledged, with a lot of popular support among a war-weary public, to be the guy who ends the longest war in America's history. He's obviously keen to get that done before election day, as any president would be.

What is the US responsibility? Even if you believe that the Trump administration is beating a politically motivated retreat that will leave Afghan society worse off, fundamental questions remain:

What's the better option? Is it the US responsibility to use its troops to protect human rights in Afghanistan? If so, at what cost? How many more years should the US fight the Taliban in their home ground?

Brazil's governors take on Bolsonaro: We've previously written about the tensions between local and national governments over coronavirus response, but few places have had it as bad as Brazil. As COVID-19 infections surged in Brazil, the country's governors quickly mobilized – often with scarce resources – to enforce citywide lockdowns. Brazil's gangs have even risen to the occasion, enforcing strict curfews to limit the virus' spread in Rio de Janeiro. But Brazil's president, Jair Bolsonaro, has mocked the seriousness of the disease and urged states to loosen quarantines in order to get the economy up and running again. "Put the people to work," he said this week, "Preserve the elderly; preserve those who have health problems. But nothing more than that." In response, governors around the country – including some of his allies – issued a joint letter to the president, begging him to listen to health experts and help states contain the virus. The governor of Sao Paulo, Brazil's economic powerhouse, has even threatened to sue the federal government if Bolsonaro continues to undermine his efforts to combat the virus' spread.

More Show less

Governments of the developed world are finally responding with due sense of urgency, individually in 3 different ways.

1st, stand health care systems up so they won't get overwhelmed (late responses). The private & public sector together, building additional ICU beds, supply capacity and production of medical equipment and surge medical personnel in the US, Canada, across Europe & the UK. Unclear if we avoid a Northern Italy scenario. A couple days ago, Dr. Fauci from the NIH said he was hopeful. Epidemiologists and critical care doctors don't feel comfortable. Not in New York, Chicago, LA, Boston, Philadelphia, New Orleans. In Europe, particularly London, Madrid, Catalonia, Barcelona, might be significantly short.

More Show less

The major outbreaks of coronavirus in China, Europe, and the United States have garnered the most Western media attention in recent weeks. Yesterday, we went behind the headlines to see how Mexico and Russia are faring. Today, we'll look at three other potential hotspots where authorities and citizens are now contending with the worst global pandemic in a century.

Start with India. For weeks, coronavirus questions hovered above that other country with a billion-plus people, a famously chaotic democracy where the central government can't simply order a Chinese-scale public lockdown with confidence that it will be respected. It's a country where 90 percent of people work off the books— without a minimum wage, a pension, a strong national healthcare system, or a way to work from home.

More Show less

In the end, it took the coronavirus to break the year-long deadlock in Israeli politics. Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu will still face corruption charges, but he has yet another new lease on political life, as he and political rival Benny Gantz cut a deal yesterday: Bibi will continue as prime minister, with Gantz serving as Speaker of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. After 18 months, Gantz will take over as prime minister, but many doubt that will ever happen.

More Show less