Will the US-Afghan peace deal sustain?

History has this strange quality of turning friends into foes and the enemies into bosom mates. But there is politics to everything. There is politics to friendship and there is politics to enmity. More so in the modern world and particularly when it comes to the nations.

We have to view the US-Afghan peace deal from this viewpoint since politics is always conflictual as András Körösényi (of the University of Budapest), puts it.

This is not just any other pact of the recent times. Qatar peace deal does not exactly mean immediate peace in Afghanistan. The deal itself is ironical because of the fact that it was the US which ousted the Taliban from power.

The signing in Doha has attracted the attention of the world and all the past, present and future (possible) players of the Afghan theatre are watching it keenly with a sense of excitement.

This is being described as a "vital step toward negotiating a more sweeping peace deal that could end the insurgency altogether, after years of unrelenting violence that took the lives of more than 3,500 Americans and coalition troops and tens of thousands of Afghans since the U.S. invasion in 2001".

But, does this have that kind of a potential, when a neighbour like Pakistan who trained the Taliban in the last two decades and which still trains various terror groups on its soil, keeps intervening in future too in the internal affairs of Afghanistan?.

As has been pointed out earlier, since politics is always conflictual, the term of friendship does not have any political significance without the term of enmity. In politics friends and enemies (as the notion of consensus and conflict) mutually assume each other, it is said.

This third-party intervention, if we may call it so, does not bode well for Afghanistan. If we prefer to interpret the Afghan situation from Aristotle's concept of friendship we may have to supplement it with Carl Schmitt's concept of the political, i.e. the concept of friend and enemy.

The two theories are diverging. Aristotle focuses on friendship, while Schmitt's focus is on enmity. Even if the US and the Taliban seeks to promote friendship, Pakistan, a state full of non-State players, its army and its ISI, may not be willing to let peace take a foothold here.

Sadly, the Afghan cauldron is the outcome based on a conflict-oriented approach and does not believe in peaceful approach to issues on which any side differs over. No single view is shared by any of the Afghan groups.

Prima facie, there is little to suggest that the Taliban or the Afghan government of the day agree to take the negotiations beyond a point. Taliban does not even recognise the Afghan government as a legal entity.

This was a major contentious point during negotiations with the US.

Secondly, the Taliban does not want any outsiders' intervention in settling their political dispute. Now that includes Pakistan. India always stood steadfastly by the Afghan Government, except in offering military assistance.

Questions are being raised not only in Afghanistan but also in the US over the rushing of the peace deal by Donald Trump. It is important for him to have a deal ahead of his elections.

Trump could always bank on such a deal for a positive outcome for himself. It is a Trump-centric approach rather than peace-centric one for Afghanistan.

Even this is heavily dependent on the Taliban's fulfillment of major commitments pending over a period. From the militancy viewpoint, will this lead to a breaking up of Taliban-Al Qaeda bonding? The US would not want that friendship to continue between the two.

Afterall, why did the US step into the quicksands of Afghanistan? It claimed it wanted to establish a democratic system based on the principles of justice, equality, women empowerment etc. Taliban seeks to establish a Sharia rule. Who will protect the civilian rights in the country with the exit of the US?

Despite the death dance of terror all these years, Afghanistan is modernising itself rapidly. Today's Afghanistan is not just a land of tribesmen as we have seen in pictures.

The Atlantic had a beautiful canopy of pictures to prove how modern lifestyle is slowly seeping into Kabul. It went on to prove that despite decades of conflict in Afghanistan, the country's capital city of Kabul is home to a vibrant youth scene, a handful of sleek shopping malls, cafes, and more. It had proved beyond any doubt that its youth were not yearning to pick up guns. That was in 2014 itself.

Today's Kabul is no different. It is still populated by musicians, artists, athletes, and activists "who are trying to live 21st-century lives in spite of massive infrastructure problems and the ever-present threat of militant attacks". Talking to friends from Afghanistan will prove the point.

In a war ravaged and conflict-prone Afghanistan one finds two sets of people - one seeking allegiance to Sharia and harsher Islamic rule and the other believing in democratic norms and peace. Consensus may be a political goal, but conflicts can't be transcended.

The United States Institute of Peace in last year's Fact Sheet was categorical in saying "Afghanistan has entered a pivotal but highly uncertain time.

As all parties recognise that a military solution is not achievable, increased war fatigue has shifted Afghan and international attention toward a possible political settlement to the ongoing 18-year war.

Grassroots peace movements and a three-day cease-fire between the Afghan government and the Taliban in June 2018 demonstrate Afghans' widespread desire for sustainable peace.

Despite some promising developments, many issues lay ahead that must be resolved before a sustainable peace process can be undertaken, and numerous spoilers could possibly derail this process".

It is this desire among the people that should be respected if peace is to be brought to this land. Otherwise, as pointed out by the USIP, numerous spoilers lurking around would derail the peace process.

Donald Trump only has his elections in mind in setting the peace process in motion. Has he said one word to Pakistan to mind its own business or else face consequences? Has he asked the Pak Army not to divert the Taliban and other groups towards India? Let's wait and watch.