Alwaght- On the weekend, Taliban militants entered the Afghan capital Kabul unarmed under a ceasefire announced by the government for the first three days of Eid al-Fitr, that marks the end of holy month of Ramadan. Pictures from the capital unprecedentedly showed no scenes of explosion and violence this time. Instead, there were hugs and selfies by the militant fighters and security forces.


Afghanistan’s President Ashraf Ghani said he extended the truce, a move drew a statement from the US Department of State which said Washington is ready to join Taliban-Kabul peace negotiations. The US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said any talks should have international participation. The NATO, on the other side, published a statement, saying it welcomes ceasefire extension and is ready to contribute to a sustainable cessation of fire.


Afghanistan is still occupied


However, Taliban has responded to the Ghani’s decision negatively. Shortly after the presidential statement, Zabihullah Mujahid, the spokesman to the Taliban said the militant group does not intend to extend the truce.


“Afghanistan is still under occupation. The ceasefire ended after the first three days of Eid. We have no intention to extend it,” he was reported as saying.


The spokesman referred to 18 years of US-led military coalition presence in Afghanistan which Taliban argued is a huge roadblock ahead of peace in the war-torn country.


Over the past years, Taliban demanded the US and NATO forces’ withdrawal as a precondition for going to the negotiating table with the central government. This largely makes it clear that Taliban preconditions have not changed and White House support for the peace and ceasefire while keeping troops on the ground does not comply with Afghanistan’s realities.


Washington’s contradictory Afghanistan approach


A look at the American policies over the long years of occupation of Afghanistan indicates that Washington has taken a contradictory approach in dealing with the nation’s challenges.


The US waged its war against Afghanistan in 2001 under President George W. Bush. Barack Obama criticized his predecessor’s policy in Afghanistan but continued his course and deployed some 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. However, Obama at his last months in office admitted that troops' buildup was not helpful and began cutting their number.


Obama’s successor appears to be going the same path. Contrary to his campaign-time speeches in which he promised American troops will return to their country, Donald Trump in his new strategy for Afghanistan war declared he wants to dispatch more forces to the central Asian nation. The analysts argue that he is testing an already-tested and failed policy.


In fact, the three contemporary-to-Afghanistan-war US presidents have gone a fully conflicting way in dealing with Afghanistan issues, some time insisting on troops increase, and some time saying that reinforcement was not a solution. Over the past 18 years, none of them, however, managed to find a settlement for the longest US regional war.


Mike Pompeo and NATO commander in Afghanistan have offered backing for truce and dialogue with Taliban while the armed group still sticks to its foreign forces pullout as a precondition for negotiating with the national unity government. But Washington does not seem to want to comply as it seeks to enlarge the number of its forces on Afghanistan soil, hence setting up a serious obstacle ahead of a final solution to the crisis.


Pulling out or staying?


The US has voiced readiness to talk to Taliban, but the new Trump strategy, unveiled in August 2017, does not have free space for Taliban negotiations and prefers troops increase. In January, Trump rejected peace talks with Taliban.


“I don’t see any talking taking place. I don’t think we’re prepared to talk right now,” Trump said on February 29 during a lunch with the United Nations Security Council members. However, after less than four months Pompeo said Washington wants to join the possible peace talks between the government and Taliban.


Does that mean the Americans have backed down and are ready for Afghanistan stability? While American leaders are paying lip service to the peace notion, unconfirmed reports have been emerged about US role expansion of ISIS terrorist group in the war torn country.


Iran, Afghanistan's western neighbor, holds the US accountable for relocation ISIS terrorists from Syria and Ira to Afghanistan. Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Major General Mohammad Baqeri  said on 6 February 2018, the US is relocating ISIS remnants from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan after the terrorist group has lost its strongholds in the west Asian Arab states. "After witnessing ISIS and other organized terrorist groups losing their ground in Iraq and Syria, they are now relocating them to Afghanistan," which has become the scene of fresh explosions, assassinations and crimes, Baqeri said.


On 30 January 2018, also Leader of Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei said the US has been relocating the terror group from the West Asia to the South Asian country to justify its military presence in the region.


 Lutfullah Baba, Senator of Afghanistan's Nangarhar province, has repeatedly asserted that a US military base in Bati Kot district in the east of the province sends arms to ISIS fighters in Haska Meyna and Khogyani districts in the south of Nangarhar. Member of Parliament Shakiba Hashemi maintained that the US relocated ISIS from Syria and Iraq to Afghanistan to destabilize Central Asia and thus threaten Russia.


Regarding such claims about the US contribution to the ISIS expansion across Afghanistan, many may consider Pompeo's pro-peace remarks as a propagandistic policy which ostensibly favors peace but in practice chooses war.


Many analysts believe that peace in Afghanistan would be attainable only after US pullout from the country. Very likely, the US leaders are aware of that. That is why they choose war perpetuation as a way to justify their presence.


The ceasefire and Taliban's show of will to talk to the central government jeopardized the foreign forces’ presence justification. At this exact time, ISIS carried out bomb attacks against the pro-reconciliation figures and so helped a foreign agenda to destroy chances of peace. This gives rise to the idea that the root cause of instability in Afghanistan is the presence of the West which pursues strategic interests through confronting Russia and China power gain in South, West, and Central Asia. In the West’s eyes, any sustainable peace in Afghanistan will pose a challenge to the Western interests and hegemony.