WASHINGTON — In a secure facility underneath the Capitol, members ofCongress stopped by all last week to review two classified annexes tothe Afghanpeace accordlinkwiththe Taliban that set the criteria for a critical element of the agreement:What constitutes enough “peace” for the United States to withdraw itsforces?
The Taliban have read the annexes. Nonetheless, the Trump administrationinsists that the secret documents must remain secret, though officials havestruggled to explain why to skeptical lawmakers.
Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper, in congressional testimony, appearedunaware of — or seemed unwilling to discuss — the secret annexes just daysbefore the agreement was signed. And lawmakers who have paid the mostattention to the peace plan also openly express frustration with the lackof a mechanism for verifying compliance that they believe Secretary ofState Mike Pompeo had promised.
At the core of the two documents, according to people familiar with theircontents, is a timeline for what should happen over the next 18 months,what kinds of attacks are prohibited by both sides and, most important, howthe United States will share information about its troop locations with theTaliban.
While it may sound odd that the American military is sharing trooplocations with its enemy of 18 years, the goal is to give the Talibaninformation that would allow it to prevent attacks during the withdrawal.Mr. Pompeo described the annexes last week as “military implementationdocuments.”link
That is part of it, but they appear to be much more.
Because the documents lay out the specific understandings between theUnited States and the Taliban — including what bases would remain openunder Afghan control — the details are critical to judging whether theUnited States is making good on its promise to leave only if conditionsallow, or whether it is just getting out.
The State Department has struggled to explain why the criteria for theterms, standards and thresholds for the American withdrawal could be knownto the adversary but not to the American people or allies. In response toquestions from The New York Times, the State Department issued a statementon Friday saying that the documents remained classified because “themovement of troops and operations against terrorists are sensitive matters.”
“We do not want, for example, ISIS to know those details,” the statementadded, referring to Islamic State fighters in Afghanistan.
But another reason for the secrecy, according to several people familiarwith the matter, is that the annexes leave the markers for peace remarkablyvague, making it far from certain that the Taliban must convert into acounterterrorism force — as President Trump suggested a week ago — or thatthey are required to make complete peace with the elected government ofPresident Ashraf Ghani of Afghanistan.
In fact, as written, they appear to give Mr. Trump, or his successor,enormous latitude to simply declare that the war is over and leave. Butmany of Mr. Trump’s aides suggest that American counterterrorism forces anda significant C.I.A. presence should remain in the country. How that willbe resolved within the U.S. government, with the Taliban and with the Kabulgovernment remains to be seen, and any resolution likely will provedifficult.Image[image: At least 27 people were killed in an attack on Friday inKabul. The Islamic State in Afghanistan claimed responsibility.]At least 27 people were killed in an attack on Friday in Kabul. The IslamicState in Afghanistan claimed responsibility.Credit…Agence France-Presse —Getty Images
Read Top Stories
Many of the Republicans and Democrats who have taken the opportunity toreview the documents say they are unimpressed
Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming, the No. 3 House Republican and one ofthe sharpest critics of the accord, said before the agreement was signedlast week, “Any deal that the United States would contemplate entering intowith the Taliban should be made public in its entirety.”
After reading the pact, including the classified annexes, Ms. Cheney saidthat the deal failed to provide mechanisms to verify that the Taliban waskeeping the promises that Mr. Pompeo had described at the signing. “Myconcerns still remain,” she said, declining to describe the contents.
Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, said in aninterview that the thresholds outlined in the annexes were “remarkablyfuzzy” and that it was unclear how the United States would measure success.
Representative Tom Malinowski, a New Jersey Democrat who served as a seniorState Department official in the Obama administration, posted a blisteringmessage on Twitter last week about the annexes.
“Bottom line: the administration is telling a terrorist group theconditions (such as they are) of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, but nottelling the American people,” he wrotelink. “This iswrong. And it serves no national security purpose.”
Lawmakers have voiced widespread unhappiness about Mr. Pompeo’s outreach onthe subject. He called top members on the Senate and House committeesdealing with foreign affairs last weekend to give them a cursory heads-upthat the documents were coming to Congress, but lawmakers and their aidessaid they had not heard from him since.
Days before the agreement was signed, Mr. Esper and Gen. Mark A. Milley,the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appeared to not know about — orseemed reluctant to discuss — the secret annexes.
“Are you aware of any contemplation of any secret side deals with theTaliban?” Ms. Cheney asked on Feb. 26 during a House Armed ServicesCommittee meeting, New York Times has reported.
