The Daily - A Historic Peace Plan Collapses

Episode Date: September 10, 2019

President Trump abruptly called off negotiations between the United States and the Taliban that could have ended the war in Afghanistan and canceled a secret meeting at Camp David. We look at how a historic peace deal went off the rails. Guest: Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading:The United States and the Taliban, after nine rounds of painstaking negotiations in Doha, Qatar, appeared to have ironed out most of the issues between them. But President Trump canceled a secret meeting at Camp David and called off the talks.What jarred many Afghans was how a single attack and the death of one American, cited by Mr. Trump, could upend 10 months of negotiations.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, President Trump has abruptly called off the negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban that could have ended the war in Afghanistan, saying that the talks are dead. The story of how a historic peace deal went off the rails. It's Tuesday, September 10th. Peter Baker, tell me about this meeting in the White House Situation Room. Well, on the Friday before Labor Day, the president sits down in the Situation room with his top national security advisors, talk about

whether or not to make peace with the Taliban. Now, his administration had been negotiating a deal for nearly a year with these militants we've been fighting since 9-11. And in that room, at this moment, he was presented with a choice. Do you go ahead and make peace with them or not? On the one side was Mike Pompeo, Secretary of State, and his special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, who has negotiated this deal. And they said, look, this is a way to fulfill your campaign promise, pull troops out, and get a security agreement with the Taliban that will make sure that Afghanistan is not a haven for terrorists. But not everybody agreed, and particularly John Bolton. He's the president's national security advisor, a longtime, well-known hawk.

And he said, wait a minute, you don't have to have agreement with the Taliban to pull troops out and fulfill your campaign promise. If you want to pull out 5,600 troops, the way you're talking about doing, you can do that on your own without getting in bed with these killers who have American blood on their hands. And like you said, in the background of this,

it seems, is the president's campaign pledge to get every U.S. troop out of Afghanistan. For years, we have been caught up in endless wars and conflicts under the leadership of failed politicians and a failed, totally failed foreign policy. Yeah, he had said that he wanted to end these endless wars, right? That Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria, and all these other places we have troops around the world, that the American public was tired of it. We spent too much money, lost too many lives and for nothing. If we didn't do anything with Iraq, if we never went there, if our presidents went to the beach, we'd be much better off. If they just went every single day to the beach.

Now, that's a very radically different view than the conventional Republican view up until that point, as represented by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and others in the Republican Party, including John Bolton. I understand the Bolton perspective here, but it seems a little bit late for this sort of elemental division, right? late for this sort of elemental division, right? I mean, these negotiations led by the U.S. government have been going on for, as you just said, almost a year. Why was the U.S. government so deeply engaged in these negotiations if members of the administration weren't aligned in agreeing that they should be doing so? Yeah, what President Trump's aides would tell you is he wants to hear disagreement. There is disagreement within his team on a lot of issues, and he doesn't shy away from hearing it. He doesn't like it when it's made public and it's aimed at him, right? But if people are disagreeing in front of him, he's okay with that as long as he is the one who makes the final choice.

And you're right. It's late in the game, but it's not the first time this debate has come up. It's just sort of the last chance that the opponents have to register their objections before the president goes forward, if he goes forward. Do you think that the Taliban would have been surprised to learn that amid all these negotiations, the president and those around him

weren't even sure that there should be a deal? I don't know. That's a good question. I think that they themselves are, you know, my guess is having, you know, a similar debate as to what they're willing to accept and what they're not willing to accept. Remember, you know, we're kind of circling back here 18 years later to where we started. Tonight, we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. After 9-11, George W. Bush, the president at the time, said to the Taliban, which was the government in Afghanistan,

Deliver to United States authorities all the leaders of Al-Qaeda who hide in your land. You have to give us Osama bin Laden and you have to give us Al-Qaeda and expel them from your country. These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. And if you do that, we'll leave you alone. The Taliban must act and act immediately. If you don't do that, there'll be a price to pay. They will hand over the terrorists

or they will share in their fate. And the Taliban didn't do that. Well, we're kind of circling back to that now, same position 18 years later. And a lot of blood and treasure under the bridge between 2001 and 2019. So what does President Trump decide to do in that room, dealing with these boring advisors? Well, he's not convinced by John Bolton's argument,

but he doesn't make a decision to go forward yet either. They do begin talking about how they would go about finalizing a deal. And the idea comes up in this meeting of doing it in Washington, which appeals to President Trump's sense of spectacle and drama. The idea of making peace in Afghanistan after all his time in Washington was very appealing to him. And over the days that followed, he came up with an even more dramatic idea, which is to actually bring the leaders of the Taliban, as well as the president of Afghanistan, to Camp David. Now, Camp David, of course, has a historic legacy. It's where Ike and FDR and Reagan used to relax. When we first arrived at Camp David, the first thing upon which we agreed was

to ask the people of the world to pray that our negotiations would be successful. And where Jimmy Carter made peace between Egypt and Israel. Those prayers have been answered far beyond any expectations. We have an opportunity to bring about a just and enduring end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bill Clinton tried to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians there.

Of course, there is no guarantee of success, but not to try is to guarantee failure. I've asked the highest levels of our government to come to discuss the current tragedy that has so deeply affected our nation. George W. Bush set the path of the war that we are talking about now in Afghanistan there at Camp David. We will not only deal with those who dare attack America, we will deal with those who harbor them and feed them and house them. So it's a place with a real resonance. It's special.

The idea that you would invite the leaders of this band of terrorists, that's what they're designated by the United States government, to the mountains of Maryland, in effect host them in this special setting really struck some as a bad idea, in particular John Bolton. We're told that the vice president, Mike Pence, was worried that it would be bad optics, particularly coming just a few days before 9-11. But the president pulled forward. He loved this idea and he began pushing it forward so that they began even telling the Afghan government about a plane coming to pick up the president of Afghanistan, Ashraf Ghani. The trick is, I don't think the Taliban had necessarily the same idea that the president had, right? The Taliban said, we're open to coming, but only after the deal is announced. In other words, they wanted the assurance that it was done before they traveled to the heart of the enemy, the United States, and showed up

at an event with President Trump. That's a fundamental disagreement with what Trump thought. What Trump wants to do is he wants to be the dealmaker. He wants to be who closes the deal, or at least be perceived to be the person who closes the deal. So he doesn't want to announce it before you have it at Camp David. He wants to bring you to Camp David, seal the deal, and then say, I've had this great success. It's sort of funny, Peter, that the question goes from whether to make peace with the Taliban because of who they are to whether to take them to Camp David to do it. Yes. I mean, look, this is how life is in the Trump White House. You saw literally over the course of a few days, you know, a debate about whether to go forward with the agreement to this remarkable idea for how to finalize an agreement that hadn't yet been fully

finalized. Peter, besides the fact that the president wants to invite the Taliban to Camp David, I'm struck by the fact that he wants to invite the leader of the Afghan government, because my sense from talking to our colleagues is that the Taliban feels really strongly about these being negotiations with the U.S. to end the war, and then it will negotiate with the government of Afghanistan, which, by the way, it views as illegitimate. Right, exactly. And this is the structural conundrum of this process that's been going on. You're leaving out the very people who are supposed to be running the country. And from their point of view, they are, you know, potentially being sold out, right? The Americans want to get out, but then they're left to battle the Taliban on their own. Ashraf Ghani, the president, he was very skeptical of this whole thing from the beginning.

And the idea of bringing him to Camp David, putting him in one lodge, putting the Taliban leaders in another lodge, trying to find a way to bring them together, would have been a big gamble for, frankly, all three parties. So, Peter, as the president is secretly planning for this spectacle of a summit at Camp David, what is the state of the actual peace talks between the U.S. and the Taliban that have been going on in Doha? So, while the president is planning for this Camp David extravaganza, his special envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, is shuttling back and forth in the region between Doha, Qatar, which is where the talks of the Taliban have been taking place, and Kabul, the Afghan capital. And he's telling everybody they've got a deal.

In fact, he and the Taliban negotiators initial a document outlining their deal that would involve America pulling out the remaining 14,000 troops. deal that would involve America pulling out the remaining 14,000 troops. In exchange, the Taliban would make commitments about ensuring that Afghanistan is never again a haven for al-Qaeda or other terrorist groups that have America as their target. And this would be basically a way out of 18 years of war, while in theory, securing some sort of guarantee of American safety. We'll be right back. Okay, so Peter, from everything you've just described, these peace talks are going quite well. The president has a vision of a grand public announcement of a deal. And as he's planning this, the two sides seem to be coming together to actually make a deal. So then what happens?

Well, on Thursday, a brazen attack just outside the entrance to NATO headquarters in Kabul. In Kabul, a suicide car bomber attack kills 12 people, including an American soldier. It's part of a string of attacks launched by the Taliban this week, as the militant group reportedly edges closer to a peace deal with the U.S. The president is told about this by his aides. The Taliban takes credit. While they may be talking peace in Doha here in Afghanistan, they're still waging war in the most brutal way.

And the idea of bringing the Taliban leaders to Camp David just a few days after an American soldier has been killed is just politically untenable. And he says to his aides, this is it. We can't do this. It's over. We can't do it. Now, he's not calling off the peace drive altogether, but it is the idea of having the enemy to your home, in effect, just three days after one of your soldiers is killed was just too much for him. in effect, just three days after one of your soldiers is killed, was just too much for him. But Peter, hasn't the Taliban been setting off suicide bombs and waging war in Afghanistan and even horribly killing American soldiers for years and months right up and through these negotiations

with the U.S.? Yes, and as far as we can tell, there was no agreement to have a ceasefire during the talks. In fact, Secretary Mike Pompeo was on television on Sunday. Jake, it's also the case. We haven't been negotiating while they've been killing us, and we've been standing still. We've been taking it to the Taliban as well. Over 1,000 Taliban killed in just the last 10 days alone. Specifically, boasting that the American side had killed 1,000 Taliban fighters just in the last week. So the American people should know we're going to defend American national interests.

We're going to be tough. Whether that's true or not, that doesn't sound like a situation where we expect violence to go away in the midst of the talks, right? Right. We had one soldier killed. They had 1,000. Having said that, as a matter of politics, as a matter of visuals, as a matter of optics, it would have been hard for our president to go forward with the Camp David meeting in the immediate aftermath. And is your understanding, Peter, that this car bombing in Kabul is the main reason that

the Camp David talks are called off? Or was it sort of this accumulation of complexities that were starting to signal that this was just a little bit too dicey? Yeah, I think it was more complex than just the car bomb. It was a work in progress. It was coming together so quickly. And then it falls apart just as quickly. But nobody knows about it outside of a handful of people.

The president didn't have to say anything. And yet on Saturday night. Breaking news tonight, the president revealing he was going to have a secret meeting tomorrow. For whatever reason, he sends out a handful of tweets announcing to the world that he had issued this invitation and canceled it. Trump wrote, quote, unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and separately, the president of Afghanistan were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday. They were coming to the United States tonight.

Unfortunately, in order to build false leverage, they admitted to an attack in Kabul that killed one of our great soldiers and 11 other people. I immediately canceled the meeting and called off peace negotiations. That's how most of America learns for the first time that this was even a possibility. And it was a shock, I think, to a lot of people. It was 7 o'clock at night on a Saturday, and most of Washington doesn't know about this. Congress doesn't know about this. Most of the State Department, the Defense Department, don't know about this. And it was a real jaw-dropper, I think, for a lot of people.

What exactly was the reaction beyond the initial shock of its very existence? Well, you can imagine the Democrats would be critical, but what was really striking was, of course, Republicans were nervous and uncomfortable about the whole idea of this peace negotiation to begin with, but the idea that it would be at Camp David was just too much. So Republicans ended up criticizing the president by praising him. Hmm.

I think the president was right to cancel the meeting. I think what he's trying to do is fulfill a campaign promise. They put out tweets and they issued statements saying the president did the right thing not to do the thing he was thinking about doing. Well, the president, you know, leads through action. He's looking for results, looking for solutions. He's done that in terms of North Korea. He's done that all across the world. I think he is right to have done it here and right to have pulled back.

The president was right not to do it. So in that praise is really a profound critique that the president should never, ever have invited the Taliban to Camp David in the first place. Exactly. Exactly. And this is the thing that kind of wakes Washington up, right? Again, these peace talks have been going on for a while. Everybody kind of knows about it. But it hasn't been a source of major debate in Washington. But now for the first time,

it's sort of thrust out into the conversation in a significant way. Now suddenly it's sort of more front and center. Now suddenly they're going to have to confront the idea of whether this is even a good idea in the first place. Forget the Camp David idea. Is the very idea of this agreement wise or not? And we don't know the answer to how Trump views this.

He was certainly willing to go forward with the deal on some level, and we assume that he is still open to it. He has shown in the past a willingness to go back and forth. He did this with Kim Jong-un. He canceled a summit meeting with him one day, and a few days later, you know, reinstated it. It would not surprise me if at some point in the not-too-distant future, they resume talks or they resume an effort to still finalize this deal.

I wonder if Camp David had never entered the picture. Is it likely that he would now be signing a peace deal between the United States and the Taliban? I think it's certainly possible. I mean, again, the bombing would have still made it difficult, but they could have postponed by a week and nobody would have known. Comming would have still made it difficult, but they could have postponed by a week and nobody would have known. Or they could have come back and negotiated, hey, if we're going to do this kind of agreement, we have to have a period of calm and no violence between us. And if we, you know, do something like that, then we can sign a deal. I suspect the president hasn't changed his mind about the fundamentals, which is that he wants to get out of Afghanistan.

And whether he, in fact, has a deal with the Taliban or not, he seems still determined to bring troops home, at least some of them. And does Washington, does Congress, and perhaps even the entire Republican Party suddenly play a much greater role in all of this because the president, as you said, kind of awakened everyone to this? Yeah, I think that they're going to weigh in. Now, the question, of course, is this is a Republican Party that's been remarkably deferential to the president even when he has, you know, gone against traditional Republican orthodoxy. He's going against it now, and they have been mostly quiet up until this point. The Camp David angle gives them a way in to register their discontent with making too much of a deal with the Taliban, with pulling out too fast in their view or too precipitously. And we'll see if they, you know, jump into that void. But for now, the debate is front and center. So it sounds like the debate you told us about at the beginning of our conversation

in the Situation Room between Mike Pompeo on one end and John Bolton on the other, about whether to sign a peace deal with the Taliban, that that is representative of a much bigger and still unresolved question, not just in the Republican Party, but maybe in the whole country, which is whether we should ever make peace with the Taliban, given who they are and what they did. I think that's exactly right. That debate in the Situation Room now may play out in the broader public, as you say, because, in fact, America is going to have to make a decision. They're tired of war, right? Poll after poll shows that Americans want to get out. They're done with it. Last poll I saw showed that around 59 percent, something like that, think the Afghanistan war wasn't worth it.

But the tradeoff is, does that mean you're willing to pull out? Does it mean you're willing to hand the country over to the Taliban if that's the consequence of pulling out? And do you want to get in bed with these guys who harbored the al-Qaeda terrorists who were responsible for 9-11? These are difficult choices. And now, instead of just in the Situation Room, this choice is being presented to the American public. Peter, thank you very much. Thank you. It's great talking to you. After we spoke with Peter, President Trump was asked about the state of the negotiations with the Taliban

by reporters outside the White House. They're dead. They're dead. As far as I'm concerned, they're dead. Trump defended his original plan to host the Taliban and the Afghan government at Camp David, saying it was less controversial than holding the summit at the White House. I like the idea of meeting. I've met with a lot of bad people and a lot of good people during the course of the last almost three years. And I think meeting is a great thing. The Times reports that despite the president's emphatic claim that the negotiations are dead,

it's unclear whether the peace talks have permanently ended, something the president seemed to hint at Monday when he reiterated his desire to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan. We'd like to get out, but we'll get out at the right time. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. Order! Order! On Monday night, British lawmakers delivered their latest and most devastating defeat yet to Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The ayes to the right, 293. The noes to the left, 46. By voting to reject his plan to hold new elections. plan to hold new elections. The majority does not satisfy the requirements of the fixed-term Parliament's Act for the purpose of engendering the election that some seek. Thanks to his own tactics, there is virtually no way for Johnson to fulfill his promise to leave the European Union with or without a negotiated exit by October 31st. Parliament is now suspended for the next five weeks at Johnson's behest and has passed a law in response, blocking the Prime Minister from leaving the EU without a negotiated deal.

And the Times reports that the Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, threatened to fire top officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for contradicting President Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian might hit Alabama. The threat prompted the agency to disavow a message that assured Alabama that it was not at risk, in a move widely seen as caving to the White House. The president's claim that Alabama was in the storm's path was inaccurate from the moment he made it. But for the past week, his administration has aggressively defended it.

That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.