Recently, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has sent a letter to Afghan politicians, specifically to the president of Afghanistan and to the Chairman of high peace council urging on acceleration of peace talks and urging on more comprehensive roadmap for the peace process in Afghanistan.
The letter had stressed on urgency of peace process warning of worsening security situation in case the US forces completely withdraw from Afghanistan.  The US Secretary of State had explained in the letter that their decisions were not finalized about Afghanistan but reached in a conclusion that the peace talks should accelerate through high level diplomatic efforts.The letter also stressed on efforts by Khalilzad to accelerate the peace process and to reach a quick ceasefire in Afghanistan. In general, the new approach seems more comprehensive because all the regional stakeholders such as Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, and India are supposed to be engaged with mediation of the UN and host of Turkey as an impartial country in the region.
The Antony Blinken’s letter has faced different reactions in Afghanistan.  The ordinary and non-political people think that it is not important how or who will bring the peace but it is important to put an end to the war as it imposes high expenses on the people of Afghanistan. The US Secretary of State Antony Blinken had also stressed on the same issue stressing that the ongoing war imposing unacceptable expenses on the people of Afghanistan.
He talked about a short term plan which would pave the way for 90 day violence reduction plant to prevent from Taliban attacks in the spring season.So, the position of ordinary and non-political people seems conformist to the new US approach. This plan seems more enchanting to the ordinary people when we imagine the successive failure of the security forces against the everyday attacks on the heart of large and small city of the country.
The second part of people seems more skeptics about this and other plan in the country. This group of people while extremely is unhappy from the current disorders; they prefer the minimum security than no security. They stress that word and action should go ahead together in the peace process.
They are afraid of repetition of bitter experiences which happened after the former president of Afghanistan Dr. Najib which eventually led to destruction of everything in the country.
Based on this view, we can find many good points in the new US plan but there is no guarantee for preservation of the past achievement which hardly attained in last two decades. The concerns of this group of people are more realizable when we look at the frequent breaches of commitment by the Taliban and their supporters.
They had pledged to reduce violence after the release of 5000 prisoners but the outcome were vice versa. They had pledged to disconnect from the international terrorism such as Daesh and Al-Qaeeda but the national and international evidences show that they have not acted upon their commitment.
Therefore, the stance of this group of people seems more rational as there is no guarantee once the current minimum order collapses down.
The next group of people has showed more sentimental reactions to the Blinken’s letter.
In fact, the Blinken’s letter faced with angry reaction of politicians saying this letter was sent on contrary to the international customs and practices. Others said the US has never had a transparent policy in Afghanistan.
Although the people of Afghanistan had welcomed their presence in the country expecting to bring peace and stability, no outcome has gained yet. If we follow the local media, especially social media network, it can make a long list of issues and criticism outlined from the letter. Firstly, revelation of this letter from sources close to the United States indicates that the country has violated the international protocol and has blatantly violated the principles of friendship between the two countries. Secondly, the diplomatic custom was not observed in this letter and even political literature was not used correctly in this letter.Thirdly, the US Secretary of State’s letter looked at the issue of peace as a project that had to be done on time. Fourthly, the letter ignores the objective realities of Afghanistan emphasizing on domination of certain ethnic and religious group in the country.
Fifthly, the letter does not respect the values that the US government considers itself responsible for its implementation in the world.  And last but not last, the tone of this letter, however, is offensive, threatening and on contrary to diplomatic principles.
In general, the position of Afghan politicians falls into the last category.
It is said that the recent calls between the US secretary of state, the US national security adviser and Afghan NSA Hamdullah Mohib could not change the Afghan government’s stance on peace and therefore Mr. Blinken produced this blunt letter.  Amongst the political reactors, the first vice President Amrullah Saleh had a direct and harsh reaction to the letter, saying that it will not change the Afghan government’s position on the peace process.
He also stressed that as long as the “legitimate demands of the Afghan people” are at stake, the government will stand by the basic principle of elections.
On the whole, most of the people seem unhappy because the new US administrations have adopted similar to the Tramp’s approach when he marginalized the Afghan government and people in the peace process.