A US military spokesperson in Afghanistan said Thursday, somewhat optimistically, that a recently revealed schism among Taliban leaders represents an opening for the group to lay down its arms.
Army Brig. Gen. Wilson Shoffner said that news about Mullah Omar’s 2013 death and the internal fighting it has exacerbated gives the Taliban “an opportunity here, we think, to strike for peace with the Afghan government.”
“We know that the government of Afghanistan has invited the Taliban to join as part of a political process. We strongly support that,” he said.
Omar’s death, the subject of rumors for years, was confirmed by the Taliban late last month. The split that followed was caused by disagreements over succession. According to The Wall Street Journal, high ranking opponents to the appointment of the Taliban’s current head, Mullah Mansoor, include Omar’s brother and the now former leader of the fundamentalist group’s Qatar office. Mullah Tayyab Agha tendered his resignation on Monday.
The factionalization isn’t likely to lead to the Taliban seeking peace, despite Shoffner’s analysis, with the militant group reportedly bickering intensely about a political settlement. Mansoor, under pressure from the Pakistani government, had pushed for formal discussions, but that initiative was opposed by a key Taliban deliberative body, the Quetta Shura.
Public awareness of Omar’s death only seems to have intensified this key policy conflict.
Taliban and Afghan officials met in Pakistan in July for high-level discussions. A second round had been planned for later that month, but it was canceled when Omar’s death was reported.
On Aug. 1, Mansoor called for “jihad until we establish an Islamic state,” and a source close to the embattled leader told WSJ that “it could take months for the Taliban’s new leadership to quell internal dissent, prove its toughness on the battlefield and build support for participation in negotiations.”
A senior Taliban spokesperson also told Reuters on Wednesday that two out of three major suicide attacks in Kabul last week were launched “in response to rumors the insurgents had been weakened by disputes following confirmation of the death of [Omar].” Zabihullah Mujahid told the wire service that “the aim at this stage was to convey a message to those saying the Taliban had been split into factions.”
“We wanted to convey a message that the Emirate of Afghanistan is still intact and is capable of carrying out attacks on highly guarded installations,” he said.
More than fifty people were killed in the assaults, including a US soldier.
Complicating matters for the Taliban has been the appearance of some Afghan militants loyal to the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). US military officials have described ISIL forces in the country as being “operationally emergent”–basically incapable of carrying out complex missions, but a marginal factor with potential to grow.
On Thursday, Shoffner said that they are currently mostly engaged in recruitment efforts and “attempts to gain influence…and disrupt the Taliban.”
“The fighting has generally been from Daesh against the Taliban, in terms of what we’ve seen so far” he said, employing a commonly-used Arabic pejorative nickname for ISIL.
He also noted that the two groups have fought mostly in the provinces of Nangarhar and Helmand—two areas that have played host to heavy fighting in the almost 14 year-old war that followed the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Any successful peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government might not necessarily lead to the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan.
Shoffner remarked Thursday that the US has been “very encouraged” by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s offer to turn the country into a “regional hub to combat terrorism.” He also noted that former Joint Chiefs of Staff head, Gen. Martin Dempsey, before retiring this summer, described Afghanistan as being a country from which the US can take on ISIL in “all of South Asia.”
Last month, top ranking military officials suggested that President Obama’s current withdrawal timetable, which calls for a Kabul-centric force and further troop reductions by the end of the year, might not be followed.
