The answer is obviously zero, but for a different reason than you might think. They are worth zero not because, as some call them, they are “cutthroats”, but simply because no promise of moderation is worth more than zero.
Of course this is not always the case. If a father who is too strict promises the judge to behave in moderation, and then does not, that judge can take away from him the protection of the children. Therefore the unwary has serious reasons to keep his word. But if in war a victor promises moderation to the vanquished, his promise is worthless precisely because he runs no risk and, in the event, no sanctions will be imposed.
In this field Thucydides is still the great teacher. Greece, with its innumerable small states, and innumerable small wars, provides all kinds of examples. Sometimes the victor was magnanimous, sometimes he put the besieged guilty of defending too much to the sword, sometimes he kept his promises and sometimes he didn’t keep them, and all this the Greeks knew so well that Thucydides brings back their doubts and their perplexities, in endless discussions. In this sense, the ignoble behavior of the Athenians towards the inhabitants of Melo is unforgettable. International politics is a game without rules, and it was particularly so then, when the Geneva Conventions could not yet be talked about and moderation, when it existed, was dictated by interest.
Thucydides presents humanity to us as unpredictable and the case of the Taliban is even worse than average. In fact, not only is their Polar Star not interest, but neither is Reason. They are guided by the Faith whose values are transcendent and independent of interest. We remember the old anecdote: betraying the promise, the scorpion stung and killed the frog that carried him. Why, since he was now drowning too? “Because it is my nature”.
Perhaps for each “his nature” is the pursuit of his own interest but this does not apply to “homo religiosus”. What interest could the martyrs have, in opposing the formal cult of the emperor, to the point of suffering capital punishment? How could they put on the same level scattering some incense on a brazier in front of a statue and be killed, perhaps even in a horrible way?
The Taliban are almost one hundred percent illiterate and unlike the early Christians they were not raised with the philosophy of the lamb but with that of the lion or, worse, the hyena. For them the infidels must convert or otherwise they deserve death for this. Like all Muslims, they have been dazed by an endless repetition of the Koran, of which they understand the precepts in their own way and – as is the case with the Catholic Church with the gospel – they give more importance to tradition than to the sacred text itself. In the Koran there is no mention of the veil of women and they impose it with whips. But go and tell him that there is no rule in the Koran. Go and point out that Islam is a widely diffused religion, but almost every country follows it in its own way, with greater or lesser severity and reasonableness.
Reasoning with a religious person is a vain undertaking. I was unable to prove to a fervent Catholic lady – and a graduate – that “going to visit” Our Lady of Fatima was nonsense. Either the Madonna exists and one can address her from anywhere, with the same effectiveness, or everything is a legend, both in Fatima and in any Italian city. She went to Fatima all the same, because “Our Lady appeared” there. As if an apparition (to admit that the thing is credible) left traces. But yeah, this is the absurd relic system. Since a saint used to sit on this chair, now who knows if the chair won’t do me a miracle.
If we Europeans are like this, after we invented science and after we had the Enlightenment, how can we judge the illiterate Taliban from above? And how can we get them to change their behavior? I know from experience that I could not prove to a believer that Jesus had brothers and sisters (all four of the Gospels write it) and that Mary should therefore have been a virgin and a mother over and over again. How could I prove to the Taliban that women are human beings like us men, in no way inferior to us except in the musculature?
The conclusion, however, is not what one might expect. If, in dealing with someone, even if he is an opponent, I know that he is a person of honor, I can reasonably take the risk of taking his word. It may be bad, but it should be okay. If, on the other hand, I already know that he is a villain, I do not even ask him to give me his word: I act directly as if he had violated it, whatever he tells me and whatever reassurance he offers me. A perjurer cannot enjoy the same advantages as the gentleman. Especially if the perjurer has been taught by his sacred book that the believer must tell the truth to co-religionists, while it is permissible to lie to infidels.
I conclude with a small note. In my humble opinion, Obama, Trump and Biden were right in wanting the United States to withdraw from distant countries, especially Afghanistan. But there was an intermediate possibility; not withdraw from the whole of Afghanistan, as Biden did, without even giving civilians a chance to escape, but leave the campaigns, which support them, to the Taliban and garrison Kabul and some other major cities. So I would have said to the Taliban: govern with moderation, otherwise we are here to cancel your provisions and make you pay. The occupiers could have loosened their grip little by little, giving the Taliban time either to civilize a little, or the population time to emigrate. That is to decide whether to live under the rule of these “Islamic students”, or to emigrate to the vast world where if you cut your beard no one will whip you.
The “asymmetrical” wars benefit the irregular in the fields and in the woods but, unless the population is united in favor of the rebels, they benefit the regulars in the cities where they are concentrated. Kabul is not pro-Taliban.