What criticisms and compliance issues emerged after the US-Taliban agreement was signed?
Executive summary
The February 29, 2020 U.S.–Taliban “Doha” agreement committed the Taliban to prevent Afghan soil from being used against the U.S., set a U.S. troop‑withdrawal timetable and envisioned intra‑Afghan talks — but critics warned the deal was ambiguous, excluded the Afghan government, and showed early signs of non‑compliance such as resumed attacks and disputes over prisoner releases [1] [2] [3]. Subsequent reporting, watchdog reviews and expert analysis documented failures in verification, rising concerns about terrorist groups’ presence, and political and humanitarian consequences that complicated normalization and assistance [4] [5] [6].
1. A deal written around withdrawal, not enforceable peace
The agreement’s public text focused on a U.S. withdrawal timetable and counter‑terrorism guarantees rather than a comprehensive settlement between Afghans; it left key enforcement mechanisms and measurement of Taliban commitments vague — for example, only al‑Qaida is named as an explicit terrorist concern in the public text, and there is no clear authority specified to determine threats from other groups [1] [2]. Analysts warned this made the accord effectively a withdrawal compact that could reward the insurgency while failing to produce an inclusive political settlement [5] [2].
2. Early compliance frictions: prisoners, violence and messaging
Within days of signing, disputes over prisoner releases and continued Taliban attacks on Afghan government forces exposed cracks: Taliban spokesmen publicly tied the deal’s progress to large prisoner exchanges, and unconfirmed orders reportedly told fighters to resume attacks on Afghan government forces while exempting U.S. forces — actions critics said undercut the agreement’s intent to reduce violence [3] [7]. U.S. officials and lawmakers quickly voiced skepticism that the Taliban were taking sufficient steps to live up to the accord [8].
3. Verification and measurement problems cited by experts and jurists
Scholars and practitioners noted the agreement lacked clear metrics and independent verification for Taliban commitments, leaving measurement of compliance uncertain and opening room for divergent interpretations — a shortcoming that invited calls for additional bilateral or multilateral understandings to fill gaps [4] [2]. Brookings experts and former commanders argued the Taliban lacked the organizational discipline or incentives to implement wide‑ranging obligations, reducing the deal’s practical enforceability [9] [10].
4. Long‑term consequences: legitimacy, Afghan exclusion and collapse risks
Because the U.S.–Taliban talks excluded the Afghan government, critics said the agreement bolstered Taliban legitimacy and morale while alienating Afghan institutions; watchdogs later linked that dynamic to erosion of the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces’ cohesion and a sense of abandonment among Afghans [11] [5]. Observers warned the deal’s benefits to the insurgency — prisoner releases, international profile, and troop drawdown — deepened criticism in Kabul and among Afghan constituencies [2].
5. Post‑agreement compliance monitoring and the terrorism question
Subsequent reporting and monitoring showed re‑emergence or tolerance of extremist networks inside Afghanistan, prompting alarm that Taliban guarantees against the use of Afghan soil were not fully realized or verifiable; multiple reviews and allied reporting documented the presence and organizational activity of groups such as Al‑Qaida and ISIS‑Khorasan in the country [6]. The Taliban later signaled in 2025 that they no longer regarded the Doha agreement as operative, further complicating the counter‑terrorism assurances at the accord’s core [12].
6. Humanitarian and aid compliance dilemmas for donors
Post‑takeover realities forced donors to balance pressure for Taliban compliance on rights and inclusion with the need to deliver humanitarian assistance; U.S. and international bodies pressed the Taliban on human rights and women’s freedoms as conditions for normalization, while U.S. oversight and congressional scrutiny intensified over reports that assistance channels indirectly benefited Taliban authorities [13] [14] [15]. SIGAR and other oversight bodies later documented payments and tax flows and recommended stricter monitoring of aid to avoid diversion to sanctioned entities [13] [16].
7. Competing viewpoints and policy implications
Supporters argued the deal created an opportunity to end U.S. military involvement and open intra‑Afghan talks; critics argued it rewarded the Taliban and lacked safeguards to protect civilians and rights, leaving the international community with limited leverage [5] [8]. Some analysts urged using recognition, sanctions relief, and aid as calibrated carrots and sticks to press Taliban behavior, while others warned that engagement without enforceable guarantees risks legitimizing abuses [17] [18].
Limitations: available sources document criticisms, monitoring gaps and later compliance concerns but do not provide an exhaustive, court‑style accounting of every alleged violation; available sources do not mention judicial determinations of breach beyond those reported assessments and watchdog findings [4] [6] [13].