DOHA, Qatar — When america invaded Afghanistan in 2001 and toppled the Taliban authorities, even those that surrendered had been handled as terrorists: handcuffed, hooded and shipped to the American detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Now, in a stark demonstration of the twists and contradictions of the lengthy American involvement in Afghanistan, 5 of these males are sitting throughout a negotiating desk from their former captors, a part of the Taliban crew discussing the phrases of an American troop withdrawal.
[To observe the Afghan battle peace negotiations, join the weekly At Conflict e-newsletter.]
“Throughout our time in Guantánamo, the sensation was with us that we had been introduced there unjustly and that we’d be freed,” mentioned one of many former detainees, Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa. “Nevertheless it by no means occurred to me that at some point there could be negotiations with them, and I might be sitting there with them on one facet and us on the opposite.”
The 5 senior Taliban officers had been held at Guantánamo for 13 years earlier than catching a fortunate break in 2014. They had been exchanged for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the one identified American service member to be held by the insurgents as a prisoner of battle.
In current months, because the American and militants took up intense negotiations to attempt to finish the battle in Afghanistan, the Taliban management made some extent of together with the previous prisoners. Every day in the course of the current spherical of talks in Doha, Qatar, the 5 males sat nose to nose with American diplomats and generals.
Throughout days of sluggish and at instances pissed off discussions at the newest session, which ended on March 12, it was the Taliban facet that was usually extra emotional. Some gave impassioned speeches about how very important it was that the Individuals utterly go away Afghanistan in as little as six months.
The same old response from the American facet, led by the senior envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, was to give detailed technical explanations about why withdrawing was complex and needed to be slower, perhaps over years.
But other than Mullah Khairkhwa, the former detainees seemed more reluctant to speak, officials involved in the talks said.
When they did address the group, they seemed less harsh or strident than some of the other Taliban negotiators, perhaps mellowed by years of hardship or wary that their freedom could be fragile. Over the past few years, they have stayed in Doha and have been reunited with their families, but remain under watch by the Qatari authorities at the request of the United States.
The five former Guantánamo detainees had varying roles during the Taliban government. Mullah Khairkhwa served as a governor and acting minister of interior. Abdul Haq Wasiq was deputy minister of intelligence.
Perhaps the most infamous figure in the group is Mullah Fazel Mazloom, a front-line commander who was also chief of the Taliban army. While accusations of human rights abuses by the others have generally remained vague, there seems to be considerably more evidence against Mullah Mazloom, who is accused of mass killings and scorched-earth brutality.
During his tribunal hearings at Guantánamo — the transcripts were released by WikiLeaks — Mullah Mazloom (his last name means “meek”) showed no remorse.
“There is a 25-year war between person to person, village by village, city by city, province by province, and tribe against tribe,” he told the tribunal. “If you think this is a crime, then every person in Afghanistan should be in prison or bring them here.”
Still, he insisted: “I never fought against the new government. I never fought against America.”
In their introductions around the table as negotiations started last month, the five men held up their detention at Guantánamo as the most important part of their identity.
“In important moments like this, my own personal troubles don’t come to mind,” Mullah Khairkhwa said in the interview, after the negotiations had ended. “I am really not thinking about who is sitting across from me and what they had done to me.”
“What is important is what we are talking about,” he said, “and what is in it for our interests, for our goal and for our country.”
The men’s Guantánamo files include several notations about uncooperative behavior and instigations, including throwing milk at guards and tearing up their mattresses in protest.
Listed in Mullah Khairkhwa’s record, along with making disruptive noises or refusing to eat or shower at times, is this: trying to kill himself and urging others to kill themselves. But in his tribunal hearing, Mr. Khairkhwa denied having done so.
“There was no spoon in my meal, so I asked the guard for a spoon,” Mullah Khairkhwa said, according to the transcript. “Other detainees also shouted that they did not have spoons, either. The sergeant said he was sorry and from orders of his boss he could not provide me with a spoon.”
“When I asked the reason,” Mullah Khairkhwa added, “he said that I was trying to kill myself and encourage others to do the same.”
[See the Times interactive project “The Guantánamo Docket,” a collection of documents and research about the roughly 780 people who have been detained there.]
Most of the men were detained and sent to Guantánamo after they had surrendered — or even after they had started cooperating with the leadership of the new government the United States had installed in Afghanistan.
At the time of his arrest, Mullah Khairkhwa had retreated to private life in his family’s home village, and had reached out to President Hamid Karzai, who came to power in the wake of the American invasion.
Mullah Khairkhwa, according to his Guantánamo documents, was accused of narcotics trafficking and of closely associating with Osama bin Laden’s men in Al Qaeda. He denied both accusations in his hearings.
The former Taliban government deputy intelligence chief, Mr. Wasiq, had come to a meeting with C.I.A. operatives to discuss cooperation with American and Afghan officials. But he and some of his associates who had come along were bound and taken away, with at least one of them rolled up in a carpet.
Mullah Mazloom had surrendered to Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek strongman in northern Afghanistan whose militia allied with American Special Operations forces. General Dostum sent thousands of Mullam Mazloom’s men to an overcrowded prison, and his militia killed hundreds — if not thousands — of those foot soldiers after an insurrection in the prison.
Mullah Mazloom and some others were eventually turned over to the Americans.
A timeline for an American withdrawal from Afghanistan has been a stubborn sticking point during the long days of talks. But an even more frustrating issue has been how to define who is a terrorist and who is not. That definition is central as the United States has tried to seek assurances from the Taliban that Afghan territory will not again be used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies.
When they were toppled and hunted down, the Taliban were an oppressive regime, denying citizens basic rights, including keeping women and girls out of school and behind house walls. In the group’s 18-year insurgency since, they have resorted to acts of terrorism like truck bombings that have caused mass civilian casualties.
But now that the United States’ priority has shifted to withdrawal, and out of the pragmatic need to negotiate with the Taliban, American envoys have turned to parsing words to find some definition of terrorism they can hold in common with the Taliban.
In some of the sessions sitting across the table from the former Guantánamo detainees was Gen. Austin S. Miller, the commander of the American and NATO forces in Afghanistan, in his four-star uniform. Last October, General Miller narrowly escaped death in an attack by a Taliban infiltrator that killed a prominent Afghan security chief, Gen. Abdul Raziq, who had been walking beside him in a heavily guarded compound in Kandahar Province.
According to several officials on both sides who knew details of the talks, General Miller told the Taliban that he respected them as fighters, but that the war needed to end. He also evoked a mutual need to fight the terrorism of the Islamic State.
“We could keep fighting, keep killing each other,” General Miller was quoted as saying. “Or, together, we could kill ISIS.”
Mullah Khairkhwa said that even though the two sides had not been able to reach a final agreement this time, the two sides shared a common interest, at least, in ending the war.
“It’s been a long war, with lots of casualties and destruction and loss,” he said. “What gives me hope is that both teams are taking the issue seriously. On every issue, the discussions are serious, and it gives me hope that we will find a way out — as long as there are not spoilers to ruin it.”