View Full Version : US Commander Signals Peace Talks With Taliban
Nato's top commander in Afghanistan has said increased troop levels could bring a negotiated peace with the Taliban.
And so it goes...
Richard
US Commander Signals Peace Talks With Taliban
BBC News, 25 Jan 2010
US Gen Stanley McChrystal told the UK's Financial Times newspaper that there had been "enough fighting".
He said a political solution in all conflicts was "inevitable". His remarks came as the top UN envoy in Kabul said it was time to talk to the militants.
Afghan and Pakistani leaders are in Turkey to discuss tackling the Taliban-led insurgency in their countries.
This is the fourth such meeting initiated by Turkey, which has offered to broker talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban.
Both Afghan President Hamid Karzai and his Pakistani counterpart, Asif Ali Zardari, will attend an international conference on Afghanistan in London on Thursday.
'Focus on the future'
"I'd like everybody to walk out of London with a renewed commitment, and that commitment is to the right outcome for the Afghan people," Gen McChrystal told the Financial Times.
He said the arrival of the extra 30,000 US troops pledged by President Obama and the additional 7,000 troops promised by other Nato countries should deliver "very demonstrably positive" progress in 2010.
But he warned that the level of Taliban violence could increase sharply this year.
The Taliban wanted to create the perception that Afghanistan was on fire, and that President Karzai and his Western allies could not cope, Gen McChrystal said.
However, if the new US-led strategy was successful, the militants "could look desperate" in a year's time, he said.
"I think they will look like an entity that will be struggling for its own legitimacy... I think they will be on the defensive militarily, not wiped out."
On the issue of reconciliation, Gen McChrystal said: "I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it's the right outcome."
Asked if he thought senior Taliban could have a role in a future Afghan government, he said: "I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.
"As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there's been enough fighting," Gen McChrystal added.
'Time has come'
In an interview with the New York Times, United Nations special representative Kai Eide called for some senior Taliban leaders to be removed from a UN list of terrorists, as a prelude to direct talks.
"If you want relevant results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority," Mr Eide said. "I think the time has come to do it."
President Karzai recently told the BBC that he planned to introduce a scheme to attract Taliban fighters back to normal life by offering money and jobs.
He said he would offer to pay and resettle Taliban fighters to come over to his side.
Mr Karzai said he hoped to win backing for his plan from the US and UK at the London conference.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8478076.stm
WHAT???
I don't get this thinking!!!!!!!!
When defensive Jihad ceases, and the "Infidel" invaders have been repulsed from Islamic lands, the more prominent form of Jihad begins - offensive Jihad - when the mujahideen become refurbished, <10 years.
When defensive Jihad ceases, and the "Infidel" invaders have been repulsed from Islamic lands, the more prominent form of Jihad begins - offensive Jihad - when the mujahideen become refurbished, <10 years.
Wish I had me one of those palantirs - not sure I'd believe it, though.
Richard
Dozer523
01-27-2010, 06:20
Sounds like the US has started to listen to the President of Afghanistan, who has been saying this for years. Specifically, that Afghanistan is for all Afghans (All others need not apply).
Taliban is a political party all be it one that went far astray, who were welcomed as an alternative to the WarLords (who were welcomed as an alternative to the Soviets who were welcomed as an alternative to the ineffective government). Maybe an all inclusive government will be welcomed as an alternative to the US proxy government.
Were the Taliban excessive? To the max. Did the Afghan people wish things had turned out differently, probably (although the Olymipic stadium was packed and nobody made anyone watch).
It seems unlikely the Taliban will be allowed by the average Afghan to return to that much power.
Taliban does not equal Al Queda.
Wish I had me one of those palantirs - not sure I'd believe it, though.
I prefer fingernail clippings, animal skins, and chicken bones Sir - much more reliable than a palantír :D
IMHO, some variation on this theme is inevitable. The devil is in the details, though - the Taliban is not monolithic (as most of you know) and there are more opportunities for us to screw this up than to get it right.
So long as Afghanistan does not return to its haven status for AQ or provide material assistance to them, I could care less if they remain a dismal backwater for the remainder of history. Decapitating a future regime which reneges on its agreements with the West is easily within our power and would require far less blood and treasure than getting Afghans to leapfrog a millennium of foregone political and economic development.
Dozer, you seem to have a much more nuanced view of the Taliban than most people involved, let alone the public. My greatest fear here is Obama (of whom I am not a great fan) being tarred and feathered by members of the public who do not understand the human terrain in Afghanistan and simply react emotionally to the idea. Some serious education needs to begin sooner rather than later, or we will remain locked into our current course and trajectory.
Dozer523
01-27-2010, 13:29
Dozer, you seem to have a much more nuanced view of the Taliban than most people involved, let alone the public. My greatest fear here is Obama (of whom I am not a great fan) being tarred and feathered by members of the public who do not understand the human terrain in Afghanistan and simply react emotionally to the idea. Some serious education needs to begin sooner rather than later, or we will remain locked into our current course and trajectory. Thank you. I'm a big fan of the people, and the countryside. We need to de-link AQ and the Taliban in the American mind. Karzi has been attempting that for years in Afghanistan. His policy is practically "Alli alli Afghans out, in free". Working with Afghan security around Camp Eggers (Bet they're not snickerin' about my Hesco Barriers now!) it was common to find guys working side by side who had been muj or part of the ANA under the Soviets, or Taliban and alliance. That's politics and a paycheck. Family and clan are what matter.
Hey! Your not calling me Kerry are you?:D
Hey! Your not calling me Kerry are you?:D
No way, much respect...
Afghan Women Warn Against Possible Deal With Taliban
Not everybody is happy with the thought. I notice this is a UN group.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/01/27/world/international-uk-afghanistan-women.html?_r=2
"....Women from a United Nations agency, the Institute for Inclusive Security and other rights' groups told reporters in London that the progress made since 2001 should not be jeopardised by courting conservative elements....."
and
"...."I have great fears, and I am greatly confused," Homa Sabri, national officer-in-charge for UNIFEM Afghanistan, the U.N.'s women's fund, told Reuters.
"2001 was a very clear signal that there is no more room for conservative elements to rule in Afghanistan," she said.
She questioned how the international community could now regard dealing with these elements as acceptable, and how it could guarantee peaceful integration in a future government.........."
Well, there is always "Hope and Change".
Good post, Pete. There are a lot of people out there who believe that one of the success factors for victory in Afghanistan is the social liberation of women. IMHO, we need to get a bit more hard-nosed about what we want and how we're going to get it, instead of flailing around and confusing the Afghans and ourselves...
spherojon
01-28-2010, 14:21
Hmmm...
By David Brunnstrom and Myra MacDonald David Brunnstrom And Myra Macdonald – 40 mins ago
LONDON (Reuters) – The Afghan government on Thursday invited Taliban insurgents to a peace council of elders as part of efforts to find a way out of a conflict which is trying the patience and resources of Afghanistan's Western allies.
In an indication of the quickening pace of diplomacy, a U.N. official said members of the Taliban's leadership council had secretly met the United Nations representative for Afghanistan to discuss the possibility of laying down their arms.
As leaders and ministers from 60 nations convened in London to discuss Afghanistan, the official told Reuters members of the Taliban's Quetta Shura had met U.N. Special Representative Kai Eide on January 8 in Dubai.
"They requested a meeting to talk about talks. They want protection, to be able to come out in public. They don't want to vanish into places like Bagram," the official said, referring to a detention center at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan.
The official said it was the first time such talks had taken place with members of the Taliban's top council, which U.S. officials say is based in the Pakistani city of Quetta.
At the London conference, nations agreed that Afghan forces should aim to take the lead role in providing security in a number of provinces by late 2010 or early 2011, opening the road for a reduction in foreign troops.
"We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers, who are not part of al Qaeda, or other terrorist networks, who accept the Afghan constitution," Afghan President Hamid Karzai told the conference.
The United States and its allies would not be involved in the council, known as a loya jirga, and have said they want to leave it up to the Afghans to seek reconciliation.
At the same time, U.S. President Barack Obama is sending in 30,000 more troops to weaken the insurgency and convince the Taliban to accept a peace deal, which crucially would require them to sever ties with al Qaeda militants.
More than 110,000 foreign troops are in Afghanistan, including some 70,000 Americans.
"You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency or so marginalizes the remaining insurgents that it doesn't pose a threat to the stability and security of the people," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said.
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said $140 million had been pledged toward an international fund to help reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers into society. Japan said it would provide $50 million toward that sum.
WAR WEARY
The war, originally launched to deny al Qaeda militants a haven under the Taliban after the September 11, 2001, attacks, has entered its ninth year with public support in the United States and its NATO allies waning as casualties rise.
A flawed election, widespread corruption and questions about Karzai's performance have also fueled criticism of the mission.
With economies still fragile after the financial crisis, governments are keen to find a way to end the war.
An Afghan government spokesman said the Taliban would be asked to take part in the loya jirga, expected to be held early this year.
"We wish them to come," spokesman Hamid Elmi told Reuters.
The Taliban have so far shown no willingness in public to enter talks, though some analysts say they realize they are no better placed than the United States and its allies to win the war by military means alone.
"They are tired of fighting. Despite a lot of the bravado they don't have the capacity to take the country," a UN diplomat said. "So in the long run they need a route out themselves."
Western governments have stressed there could be no compromise with those who harbored links with al Qaeda.
But the West's attitude to involving at least some elements of the Afghan Taliban, once demonized over their human rights record and treatment of women before they were ousted by the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, appears to be softening.
PROMINENT ROLE FOR SAUDI ARABIA
Elaborating on the Dubai meeting, the U.N. official said
there had been no follow-up on the talks yet but added: "We've had the initial approach and we are hoping that the Afghan government will now follow up and capitalize on it."
The Dubai meeting was at a higher level than earlier known talks which took place in Saudi Arabia between former Taliban officials and representatives of the Afghan government in 2008.
Karzai also called on Saudi Arabia, which has hosted talks between the Afghan government and Taliban representatives in the past, to help bring peace to Afghanistan.
In response, Saudi Arabia said it would take part in peace efforts only if the Taliban denied sanctuary to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and cut ties with militant networks.
Karzai also said Afghanistan needed the support of its neighbors, particularly Pakistan, to secure peace. Washington says Afghan Taliban chief Mullah Muhammed Omar and other leaders are based in Pakistan -- a charge Islamabad denies.
Pakistan, one of only three countries to recognize the Taliban government before it was overthrown, is seen as well placed to mediate in any talks.
Utah Bob
01-28-2010, 15:10
Thank you. I'm a big fan of the people, and the countryside. We need to de-link AQ and the Taliban in the American mind.
That would certainly simplify things and allow a tighter focus on the immediate threat.
I prefer fingernail clippings, animal skins, and chicken bones Sir - much more reliable than a palantír :D
Ya'lls first problem is using a palantir for fortune telling. It's just a cool set of binoculars. Anything else just creative control of your viewing for manipulative purposes. Going back to my corner.
Last I heard Afghanistan wanted $ 500,000,000 for some sort of peace plan with the Taliban. Honestly, If we ever did pay that money to Afghanistan I would leave the country. The Taliban themselves have said that they cannot be bought...well I am glad they feel that way :)
Dozer523
01-30-2010, 13:51
Last I heard Afghanistan wanted $ 500,000,000 for some sort of peace plan with the Taliban. Honestly, If we ever did pay that money to Afghanistan I would leave the country. The Taliban themselves have said that they cannot be bought...well I am glad they feel that way :)Fuel costs $400 a gallon to get it and use it in country. Might be cheaper in the long run.
Fuel costs $400 a gallon to get it and use it in country. Might be cheaper in the long run.
True, but I'd figure that would be the LAST option on the table, wouldn't it seem like we just did all the fighting for nothing ? I mean where is the honor in that ? Then everyone else will smell pussy (excuse my french) and think they can try us and get paid once the fighting stretches out too long.
But Shans - what do you suppose we gain if we win in Afghanistan? Seriously. And at what cost?
Even if every single Afghan starts watching the Superbowl, even if they all pray at the altar of MickeyD and the quarter pounder, even if they break out in tears at the sight of Old Glory - what have we gained?
Conversely, if we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion such that the dollar ceases to be the global reserve currency and we find ourselves reduced to an economic weakling - what price have we paid?
I joined the Army thinking that I was fighting the good fight and now sometimes I feel that we are being intertwined into all of this political B.S. ! I just don't know how I should feel about this anymore...I am so confused.
War is a mere continuation of politics by other means. Carl von Clausewitz.
I have heard it said that logistics is an important factor. Perhaps the national economy is the foundation of logistics. I suspect that foundation has been badly abused, hence the logistical tail may endanger the strategic and tactical teeth.
MOO, YMMV.
One should not believe everything one thinks.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I joined the Army thinking that I was fighting the good fight and now sometimes I feel that we are being intertwined into all of this political B.S. ! I just don't know how I should feel about this anymore...I am so confused.
Look to your right and left...focus on the job and why you joined...keep your head up and ignore civilians who want to discuss politics with soldiers. Hooah?
Well maybe it is just the current Admin is looking at a way to buy into the next election.
Yes Election.
Something along these lines.
You start with $500,000 to go to the people. How much is going to the GIRoA. Now we pay off the local TB to get their guns to stop shooting at US military and ISAF. This is basicly the same thing the British did in the Helland and what did that do. Where are we fight heaviest at now??
Okay so we pay the TB off and they do stop fighting to some degree. The US Military disarms the TB. Then DoS and DoD work out some great fine details to have the shadow TB Govt to become a legitinate party within the GIRoA. President Hamid Karzai does have a Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim is what?? A former "druglord".
Like to see how this happens or works out.
Well maybe it is just the current Admin is looking at a way to buy into the next election.
Yes Election.
Something along these lines.
You start with $500,000 to go to the people. How much is going to the GIRoA. Now we pay off the local TB to get their guns to stop shooting at US military and ISAF. This is basicly the same thing the British did in the Helland and what did that do. Where are we fight heaviest at now??
Okay so we pay the TB off and they do stop fighting to some degree. The US Military disarms the TB. Then DoS and DoD work out some great fine details to have the shadow TB Govt to become a legitinate party within the GIRoA. President Hamid Karzai does have a Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim is what?? A former "druglord".
Like to see how this happens or works out.
You must have been reading my mind..I thought the Brits would just demilitarize any region where they were getting spanked in ? Anyway, I hope we can make some sort of legitimate govt there. Maybe if we dropped a Wal-Mart there if it would distract the TB for awhile ? LOL
Detonics
01-31-2010, 00:43
My question about long term peace in Afghanistan is primarily "How do we ensure a successful, stable government in a country in which half the GNP is based on cultivation of opium poppy?"
If we begin dealing more formally with the Taliban will we have to overlook crops to a greater extent than we do now?
It seems a huge Catch-22.
Maybe we could use their opium to make morphine and harvest the marijuana for medicinal uses, I think that could work if organized properly. *shrug*
I didn't cover how I feel this plays into a election or election year.
Obama and the DEMS can use any success plays into their has. We go in Paying off the TB. $500,000 turns into $1,000,000 and pulling funds from Military and not PRT funds, ETC.
So we pay off the TB and tell them their Shadow Gov't base will become a legal Gov't party within Afghanistan. They pay into the hands to be. Then where do we go. Obama Admin is who realy care. We work our way out of a job as we did in Iraq and success will fall into the right hands of Aghanistan.
Maybe a long shot in the dark. But looking back and seeing what Brits did with teh Helland. Can we do any better. PAy off asnd deals do what. Did we make deals with Drug lords of the South? No so way are we doing it in Afghanistan? Policy change, we are in the season of CHANGE.
Dozer523
01-31-2010, 20:54
My question about long term peace in Afghanistan is primarily "How do we ensure a successful, stable government in a country in which half the GNP is based on cultivation of opium poppy?"
If we begin dealing more formally with the Taliban will we have to overlook crops to a greater extent than we do now?
It seems a huge Catch-22. Wasn't always like that, doesn't have to be that way in the future. There was a time (I read it somewhere) when Afghanistan was a net exporter of food. They are sustainment farmers. There will come a time when they realize they can't eat opium and the money from the sale does not feed their families. Instead of burning the opium fields we should be teaching effective farming techniques that will return them to being self-sufficient in food production.
As for the Taliban and Opium there has never been a ATF as successful as the Taliban.
testedone
01-31-2010, 21:10
Wasn't always like that, doesn't have to be that way in the future. There was a time (I read it somewhere) when Afghanistan was a net exporter of food. They are sustainment farmers. There will come a time when they realize they can't eat opium and the money from the sale does not feed their families. Instead of burning the opium fields we should be teaching effective farming techniques that will return them to being self-sufficient in food production.
As for the Taliban and Opium there has never been a ATF as successful as the Taliban.
I have close to 500mb of photos of Afghanistan that were from 1968 (they were passed on to us by some folks over there) it really amazes me how different it was there...so yes it doesn't have to be that way...
Detonics
01-31-2010, 21:31
Wasn't always like that, doesn't have to be that way in the future. There was a time (I read it somewhere) when Afghanistan was a net exporter of food. They are sustainment farmers. There will come a time when they realize they can't eat opium and the money from the sale does not feed their families. Instead of burning the opium fields we should be teaching effective farming techniques that will return them to being self-sufficient in food production.
As for the Taliban and Opium there has never been a ATF as successful as the Taliban.
That at least is comforting. Lots of variables to be defined before we reach some sustainable situation, I think. Return to agriculture, warlords and their loyalties (unquestionably to the $), bordering countries and their stability, politicians and their end game.
Makes yer head hurt. Thanks Mr. Dozer!
Interesting perspective...clearly has some biases...YMMV
LINK (http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/04/karzais-gambit-and-obamas-betrayal.html)
Karzai's Gambit and Obama's Betrayal
Whatever else Hamid Karzai may be, he's always been a survivor. And now he's trying to survive the Obama Administration. Karzai knows that unlike Bush, Obama has no commitment whatsoever to Afghanistan. What Obama wants is to pull out as quickly as possible in time for his own 2012 election. And he wants to do it without the appearance of a disaster and a defeat. And there's only one way to do that, cut a deal with the Taliban.
To that end the Obama Administration is operating on two tracks. Track 1, the public and visible track, is the military approach that Obama got pushed into, a temporary surge to push back the Taliban and allow him to declare victory ahead of a pullout. Meanwhile behind the scenes Track 2, the invisible diplomatic track, is meant to sideline Karzai with a coalition of pragmatic "moderate" Taliban, who will end the fighting and provide an appearance of normalcy for the pullout to come.
The surge was supposed to be a show of force, to force them to the table, but the real gambit was to put the Taliban back in power.
For Obama, Afghanistan is a threat to his political neck. For Karzai, it's a threat to his actual neck, and Karzai is a survivor. And so he in turn began sabotaging Obama's Track 2. If the Obama Administration wanted a show of force and some high profile prisoners, he helped give it to them, by routing Pakistan's capture of top Taliban leaders who were willing to negotiate with the US. Meanwhile Karzai was using Pakistan's ISI, which had helped fund the Taliban, to conduct his own talks with them. The resulting situation is one in which both Karzai and the Obama Administration are competing to cut a deal with the Taliban-- even as they're fighting them.
This disaster was brought to you courtesy of the Obama Administration, which demonstrated its absolute disregard for the future of Afghanistan and tried to cut Karzai out of the loop in order to make a deal with the Taliban. Karzai's response, within the context of the Afghani system, is completely unsurprising. A successful US deal with the Taliban would mean that Karzai is on his own. And so Karzai rushed ahead to double cross us first.
With both the US and the "legitimate" Afghani government courting Taliban factions, the chaos has grown incrementally, with internal betrayals by the Taliban and the collaboration of ISI yielding spectacular captures. This has led to some short term successes, but the real problems are only growing.
Both Karzai and the Obama Administration now essentially agree that the Taliban will take over again, the disagreement is who will cut the deal and on whose terms it will happen. Karzai wants to stay in power and maintain a stable coalition with his own warlords. Obama wants a problem-free pullout, with no video of US helicopters abandoning pleading crowds in Kabul. But whichever of them gets their way, the pleading crowds will still be there, because the people we promised to liberate have been sold out instead.
Neither Obama nor Karzai care very much about what will happen to the girls' schools we set up, to the women escaping their husbands, to the translators who worked with us, and all those who really believed that we were bringing a new day with us. Some of these will get visas to come to the United States. A few will even get invites to the White House for a convenient photo op, so long as they keep their mouths shut. The rest will be back under Taliban rule, because a deal might be cut to let Obama wave his "Mission Accomplished" flag, or one to let Karzai maintain a coalition, but the day to day Islamic law will be back either way.
Worse yet Afghanistan's future will send a message once again that no one should put their faith in the US. That any liberation that comes will be strictly temporary and then the people we drove out will be back. And that means the next time we come after the Taliban or terrorists anywhere else, allies will be much harder to come by.
The lesson we've taught is that not only will we negotiate with terrorists, but we'll sell out those who helped us and replace them with the very people who were killing us. We did it in Iraq not too long ago. So it's no surprise that we're set to do it again in Afghanistan. Karzai knows it too, so unsurprisingly he's threatening to join the Taliban. And why not. If we reserve our best rewards for our worst enemies, then it pays more to be our enemy than our friend.
Don't believe me? Just ask Israel, which has spent the last two decades being blamed for every Muslim terrorist attack and hostility toward America by Muslim regimes. Just ask Taiwan which stood by the US while the Communist Chinese were sending battalions into Korea. Or would have if we hadn't done our best to keep our distance even then. Just ask Columbia, which stood by us, only to face an administration eager to take its showers with Chavez. Just ask England which fought with us in Afghanistan and Iraq, only to be shown the bottom of Obama's shoe. Why would Karzai or anyone else want to be the New Israel, berated, belittled and sold out at every turn. Much better to be the Taliban. Much better to bomb Allied convoys and then demand cash and concessions to stop.
Karzai is a survivor, if nothing else, and he knows exactly what he can expect from Obama. Both men are products of similar environments and cultures, but Karzai is a professional at the game, while Obama is an amateur. Obama has the power, but Karzai is demonstrating that he still has the leverage. If Obama wants to hug a Taliban, Karzai will not only become the Taliban, but become a bigger threat than the Taliban. If Obama wants to cut a deal with the Taliban, he will have to make a deal with Karzai first, and deal with the Taliban through him. That's something the bright foreign policy boys in foggy bottom still don't understand, because while they were getting their oxfords polished, their opposite numbers in Afghanistan were slogging rocket launchers through the mud and cutting each other's throats in the dark.
Under the Bush Administration, Afghanistan was meant to demonstrate that we could take the darkest Islamist corner of the world and bring light to it. Obama instead is demonstrating the brand of Realpolitik that will end any such hope in order to score some political points before his own election. And so another dream dies in betrayal and lies.
Surf n Turf
04-10-2010, 22:13
Wish I had me one of those palantirs - not sure I'd believe it, though.
Richard
Richard,
Some Palantir's promis is better than others. :D
SnT
I joined the Army thinking that I was fighting the good fight and now sometimes I feel that we are being intertwined into all of this political B.S. ! I just don't know how I should feel about this anymore...I am so confused.
Shans84,
I’m sure that feeling prevailed in 1812, 1917, 1941, 1950, and I know it prevailed in the 1960’s. I can’t speak about GW1, II, or Afganistan—but suspect that our troops just wanted to fight the good fight – and go home.
Politics has been screwing up the good fight for centuries. Just remember, we are the guys in the white hats, and you are fighting the good fight.
SnT