IYPF
  • Home
  • Blueprints
  • Magazine 2021
  • Magazine 2020
  • Departments
    • American Affairs
    • Trade & Economics
    • Human Rights
    • Cultural Relations
    • Climate Change and the Environment
  • About
    • Contact Us
  • Submissions
  • Get Involved
    • Writing Application
    • Internship Application
    • Submit a piece
  • Podcast
  • Shop

3/1/2020

Another flop? - Trump's Aghani Peace Plan

0 Comments

Read Now
 
On February 29, President Donald Trump signed a prospective peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar in a possible first step to ending the war in Afghanistan. However, President Trump’s track record leads people to question whether or not this peace deal will truly bring about the peace it promises, or if it is only masking something more sinister below the surface. 

The wording of the peace deal is clear: if the Taliban continues to meet their commitments to prevent terrorism, the United States will begin transitioning their forces in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 over a 3-4 month period, and will fully withdraw over the course of 14 months. However, the subtext is what is really important to focus on in evaluating this piece deal. 

The most likely outcome of this peace deal is heavily reminiscent of South Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. After the accords were signed, North Vietnam immediately began to violate the terms of the accords, and then “the weakened state of South Vietnam was overrun by a North Vietnamese blitzkrieg. America’s abandoned allies had to flee or be consigned to brutal ‘reeducation’ camps.” 

In my opinion, nothing is going to change. The troop withdrawal is entirely predicated on whether or not the talks between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s government officials succeed. If we look at historical precedence of the Talibans longtime refusal to step down in the Middle East, as well as the United States’ past commitment to fighting terrorism, it feels as though this peace deal is a meaningless decree of nothing. Either the situation will remain the same, or the United States will now have an excuse - be it under the guise of diplomacy or otherwise - to involve themselves even more heavily in Middle Eastern affairs. Either way, this “peace agreement” is little more than President Trump attempting to create media buzz and attention that paints him in a favorable light, likely to improve his chances at reelection for 2020. In reality, he is contributing nothing positive through his foreign policy.

Furthermore, this peace deal comes after Trump’s ineffective overture to Palestine for a peace deal. Between this Taliban deal and the disaster with Palestine, Trump’s middle-eastern intervention reflects a greater inclination to lessen U.S. involvement in the middle east. Furthermore, this more reasonable deal comes in the wake of the 2016 election, when Trump campaigned on the promise that he would bring troops home from Afghanistan. This treaty is another step in achieving the goal of completely removing U.S. troops from the middle east.

President Obama, during his presidency, used drones as a substitute for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, although he largely failed to pull them out of the war-ridden nation. Instead, he claimed that Afghanistan was a just war that was needed to find justice for the September 11th victims. Further, he claimed that Afghanistan instead of Iraq was a priority for his presidency. Obama went so far as to send 17,000 new troops to the country in 2018 after being advised by the Pentagon.

On February 29, President Donald Trump signed a prospective peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar in a possible first step to ending the war in Afghanistan. However, President Trump’s track record leads people to question whether or not this peace deal will truly bring about the peace it promises, or if it is only masking something more sinister below the surface. 

The wording of the peace deal is clear: if the Taliban continues to meet their commitments to prevent terrorism, the United States will begin transitioning their forces in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 over a 3-4 month period, and will fully withdraw over the course of 14 months. However, the subtext is what is really important to focus on in evaluating this piece deal. 

The most likely outcome of this peace deal is heavily reminiscent of South Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. After the accords were signed, North Vietnam immediately began to violate the terms of the accords, and then “the weakened state of South Vietnam was overrun by a North Vietnamese blitzkrieg. America’s abandoned allies had to flee or be consigned to brutal ‘reeducation’ camps.” 

In my opinion, nothing is going to change. The troop withdrawal is entirely predicated on whether or not the talks between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s government officials succeed. If we look at historical precedence of the Talibans longtime refusal to step down in the Middle East, as well as the United States’ past commitment to fighting terrorism, it feels as though this peace deal is a meaningless decree of nothing. Either the situation will remain the same, or the United States will now have an excuse - be it under the guise of diplomacy or otherwise - to involve themselves even more heavily in Middle Eastern affairs. Either way, this “peace agreement” is little more than President Trump attempting to create media buzz and attention that paints him in a favorable light, likely to improve his chances at reelection for 2020. In reality, he is contributing nothing positive through his foreign policy.

Furthermore, this peace deal comes after Trump’s ineffective overture to Palestine for a peace deal. Between this Taliban deal and the disaster with Palestine, Trump’s middle-eastern intervention reflects a greater inclination to lessen U.S. involvement in the middle east. Furthermore, this more reasonable deal comes in the wake of the 2016 election, when Trump campaigned on the promise that he would bring troops home from Afghanistan. This treaty is another step in achieving the goal of completely removing U.S. troops from the middle east.

President Obama, during his presidency, used drones as a substitute for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, although he largely failed to pull them out of the war-ridden nation. Instead, he claimed that Afghanistan was a just war that was needed to find justice for the September 11th victims. Further, he claimed that Afghanistan instead of Iraq was a priority for his presidency. Obama went so far as to send 17,000 new troops to the country in 2018 after being advised by the Pentagon.

​

Share

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

Details

    Author

    Natalie Goldberg, Vice President

    Archives

    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

International Youth Politics Forum, Est. 2019
All arguments made and viewpoints expressed within this website and its nominal entities do not necessarily reflect the views of the writers or the International Youth Politics Forum as a whole. Copyright 2021. Based in the United States of America
Submit a piece
Apply to write
Apply to intern
​
Archived articles
Picture
About the IYPF
The Mag 2019-2020
The Mag 2020-2021
The Global Generation
Contact us
  • Home
  • Blueprints
  • Magazine 2021
  • Magazine 2020
  • Departments
    • American Affairs
    • Trade & Economics
    • Human Rights
    • Cultural Relations
    • Climate Change and the Environment
  • About
    • Contact Us
  • Submissions
  • Get Involved
    • Writing Application
    • Internship Application
    • Submit a piece
  • Podcast
  • Shop