If there is no last-minute snag, there may be a ceasefire between the Taliban and the Afghan government during the Eid Al-Adha holidays, which fall in the third week of this month. What is contemplated is a truce that lasts a bit longer than the one which was in force toward the end of Ramadan that allowed Taliban commanders and troops to visit cities and celebrate Eid Al-Fitr with family members.

This short-lived truce has led to a new momentum in peace efforts. Even before the truce, former US Army Col. Chris Kolenda and former US Ambassador Robin Raphel met with Taliban representatives. This began in November 2017, although the White House has not acknowledged such meetings.

The idea of a second ceasefire came up in these discussions. But the discussions themselves were a departure from the Trump administration’s long-held policy of not directly talking to the insurgents over the head of the Afghan government. Washington wanted all negotiations to be “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led.”

So this bilateral meeting amounted to a major concession and indicated how eager US officials are to end a costly war which has entered its 17th year with no prospects of victory for Americans or their adversaries. According to reports, the Taliban too have budged from their rigid position of no talks until US troops leave Afghanistan. Now they would be satisfied if there are “enough guarantees” that the troops will not fight them.

This does not mean that the way is clear for a settlement that would end Afghans’ agony which started with the Soviet occupation of 1978. There are hard questions about the nature of a government that is Taliban-led or Taliban-dominated. Having made all the right kinds of noises about “bringing democracy” to a nation which has not known either democracy or a functioning central government and human rights including those for women, the US cannot leave the Afghans to the tender mercies of the Taliban. Another is the presence of Americans, whether in the form of troops or advisors. Should not Americans get something for all the blood and treasure spent by them?

Then there is the attitude of Pakistan, a country directly affected by what is happening in Afghanistan. Many fear that a Pakistan government led by Imran Khan may play a spoiler’s role in the matter. This need not be the case. Imran Khan’s and for that matter a majority of the Pakistani people’s support for the Taliban may be emotional, driven by their opposition to a war that has devastated a country. But Pakistan’s military, which has the last say in the matter, will be guided by geostrategic calculations. The military may go with the Americans if the final settlement with the Taliban does not ignore Islamabad’s security concerns.

A bigger problem is the inconsistency in US President Donald Trump’s approach to the question of war and peace. As a presidential candidate, Trump questioned the continued US involvement in Afghanistan. But once in office, he changed his mind. “We will push onward to victory,” Trump declared in August 2017. However, he ordered direct negotiations with the Taliban last month, after it became clear that his Afghan strategy was proving an utter failure. One hopes he will stick to his stand and ignore all those who conjure up visions of “a global jihadist victory” if American troops leave Afghanistan. He should also reject the “if we don’t fight them in Afghanistan, they will come to San Francisco” argument. The Afghan Taliban have not supported a mass-casualty terrorist attack against the West in the post-9/11 era.