9

Trump claimed in 2022 that his peace plan for Afghanistan (that Biden ruined) involved keeping the Bagram Airfield:

We were gonna be out. I got it down to 2,000 [troops] we were getting ready to pull them out, but we were pulling them out with very great strength. We were gonna keep Bagram, not because of Afghanistan. We spent billions building this base, has the biggest and longest runways in the world, and it’s one hour away from where China makes its nuclear weapons. So I was keeping that and keeping it in full force. But I was getting out of Afghanistan, and we would have gotten out with tremendous strength and dignity and power and respect.

Was this possible concession (of Bagram Airfield to the US, e.g. as a lease or something) ever mentioned by the Taliban? Or even by US officials in charge of the negotiations back when Trump was still in power?

FWTW, I see that later on

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said remaining at Bagram “meant staying at war in Afghanistan.”

So that seems to suggest the Taliban were not agreeable to that (at least later on).

Also FWTW, more recently Trump suggested that a trade deal with the Taliban over the airfield is possible “But we’ll get it back. We’ll get it back, maybe we’ll get it back as part of a trade deal. Give us back that damn airport.” Did the Taliban ever give any hint publicly they were considering something like this?

2
  • Austin was not referring to making a deal with the Taliban to keep Bagram, but rather to holding Bagram while in conflict with the Taliban.
    – user76284
    Commented Mar 4 at 2:25
  • 1
    @user76284: yeah, it's not conclusive. Maybe the Taliban were willing to trade something for it. The Q is whether there's any indication that/what they did. Commented Mar 4 at 2:28

1 Answer 1

5

Oh, it's the usual "genius" at work here. Just the same way he'd "solve Ukraine in 24 hours.easy".

The full text of the Doha Accords regulating US withdrawal is easy to read, 4 pages, a good deal of which consists of repeating the following homily : "the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban "

Bagram does not figure in the text.

Base does, but not in the way Trump claims:

The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) monthsfollowing announcement of this agreement, and will take the following measures in this regard:

A. The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will take the following measures in the first one hundred thirty-five (135) days:

  1. They will reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to eight thousand six hundred (8,600) and proportionally bring reduction in the number of its allies and Coalition forces.
  2. The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will withdraw all their forces from five (5) military bases. B. With the commitment and action on the obligations of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban in Part Two of this agreement, the United States, its allies, and the Coalition will execute the following:
  3. The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will complete withdrawal of all remaining forces from Afghanistan within the remaining nine and a half (9.5) months.
  4. The United States, its allies, and the Coalition will withdraw all their forces from remaining bases.

Odd that someone who congratulates himself so much on his "deals" can't understand that, if it is not signed and on paper, it's so much hot air.

Anyone really critical of Biden's handling of Afghanistan needs to read those accords and see for themself what Biden was left to work with: these accords generally obligate the US and have next to no obligations for the Taliban, aside from saying that Afghanistan would not harbor US-menacing terrorists.

Usually, you'd expect some dumb pretend claims that the other party is committing to "being nice" and peaceful in some way. Like North Vietnam saying it will not attack South Vietnam. Sure, those promises may be hard to take seriously, but at least there is some quid pro quo. Not here.

Nor, despite the term "conditions-based" being touted about freely at the time, are there much in the way of conditions that have to be respected by the Taliban and could have justified the US holding up the withdrawal due to the Taliban not meeting said conditions.

Huuugge beautiful deal!

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .