“A man responsible for the destruction raging in Afghanistan is Zalmay Khalilzad”


Questions surround Zalmay Khalilzad, an enigmatic diplomat who has presided over US failures in Iraq and now the Taliban’s return to power in Afghanistan. Khalilzad, a prominent American diplomat of Afghan descent, has long been a controversial figure for his involvement in Washington’s war. on terrorism. “He also led Washington’s talks with the Taliban, whom many see as the main precursor to the Pashtun-dominated group’s lightning victory in Afghanistan, TRT World reported. After the Taliban’s surprisingly swift victory over the US-trained Afghan army, many government operators and experts cannot help but speculate on Washington’s role, especially Khalilzad’s, in bringing the Afghan group back to power. Some other experts further believe that Khalilzad has pursued a “special political agenda” to promote his personal and family interests. “One man responsible for the chaos and destruction raging in Afghanistan is Zalmay Khalilzad. He should be investigated for alleged financial corruption, ”said Kamal Alam, a non-resident senior researcher at the Atlantic Council. In 2014, Khalilzad’s finances were the subject of an Austrian investigation that froze his wife’s accounts in the European country based on information from the US Department of Justice that he was suspected of money laundering. money. related to business activities in Iraq and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). “This man wanted to be the president of Afghanistan. He ran to be the president of Afghanistan. Nobody likes him. Everyone hates him,” Alam told TRT World. A Turkish source, who knows closely Khalilzad, declined to talk about himself because he should publicly express “very negative opinions” about someone he knows very well.

Prior to his appointment as US envoy to Afghanistan, some of his Afghan compatriots signed a petition accusing him of “previous ethno-nationalist-motivated conduct”, a veiled reference to his alleged support for the domination of the Pashtun community after. invasion.Alam drew attention to the fact that Khalilzad should never have mediated between the United States and the Taliban after clearly expressing his political ambitions in his home country, the Afghanistan. Khalilzad reportedly wanted to contest the 2009 Afghan elections, but missed the deadline to apply. “How can an American official be neutral when running for president of another country called Afghanistan?” Alam asks. While he has been an active participant in the “big game in Afghanistan,” he has no way of doing independent advisory work, Alam adds. Khalilzad was also considered for the post of US Secretary of State by former US President Donald Trump administration. Ahmad Rashid, a Pakistani writer, also criticized him for “acting like a British viceroy”. Before the Soviets and the Americans, the British also invaded Afghanistan. Alam believes Khalilzad is no different from Afghan warlords. “He is truly an Afghan warlord,” he said, adding, “His political agenda is the same as any other Afghan warlord.” Even after the hasty withdrawal of the United States, Khalilzad’s political merit in Washington could increase as no American but him seems to have any idea what the Taliban might do next. “That’s why Biden kept him because he’s the only guy who could talk to the Taliban,” Alam says. “He failed in his mission. Just as British and French Prime Ministers Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier failed to prevent the expansion of (Nazi) Germany after the Munich Pact of September 1938, the Ambassador Khalilzad signed an agreement, in February 2020, in Doha, which failed to bring about reconciliation and a political settlement between the belligerents, ”said Ioannis Koskinas, senior researcher in the New America’s international security agenda. . “

The Taliban were explicit in their intention to take full control of Afghanistan. Ambassador Khalilzad’s efforts were meant to be a gracious exit for the United States that left no mess in Afghanistan. The Taliban have achieved their objective; Ambassador Khalilzad did not, ”Koskinas told TRT World. Koskinas, a former US military officer who served in Afghanistan for years as a special forces member, also strongly criticizes the Afghan peace process and Khalilzad’s role in it, saying “Doha was a sideshow, a smart move by the Taliban to acquire political legitimacy and credibility. “While the political representatives of the Taliban in Doha were discussing, their commanders in Afghanistan were fighting,” Koskinas observes. Ambassador Khalilzad never seemed to be looking for ways to strengthen the negotiating power of the Afghan government, in negotiations at the time of the possible withdrawal of the United States in 2021, “he adds. Some argue that he has played a kind of transitional role from the Afghan government to domination of the Taliban by legitimizing and empowering the group by negotiating with them under the doctrine of “the end of eternal wars” Trump administration Muhammad Athar Javed, a member of the international security agenda of New America, a Washington-based think tank, believes the United States has played a bigger role than has been said. The transition to the Taliban regime must have been well thought out. I mean it’s no accident to be honest, ”he says. The Taliban cannot behave like this unless they have a political agreement with the United States and other Western powers, according to the analyst.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.