[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Thanks for the info.

Do you or other knowledagble people here feel his talks with the Taliban isto bring about peace or do you feel he is playing both sides? I know the Afgans have a history of switching sides when the money is better or the situation changes. What is your opinion on his motives? I'll answer this as the "you" part and leave the 'knowledgeable" part to others. I doubt this is a "play both sides" ploy. If it were what would the end state be? I think the Afghans are pragmatic and historically consistent in a search for "something has GOT to be better then this". They let lots of foreigners in, in the hopes of something better coming from it, when it doesn't they unite to kick them out. After eight years the Afghans maybe getting to the point where they are ready for us to go. Willing or not.
I know at some point to bring peace we will have to talk to the opposition to some extent, do you believe this is not the correct time? Note I am talking about taliban only, not AQ. To bring peace the opposition has to talk to to some extent, in any and all cases. Karzi accepts the Taliban as Afghans first. My personal experience, working with the local security at Camp Eggers I was very amazed (at first) to talk with our guards and learn some were in the Army when the Soviets were here. Others were with the resistance. We had guys who "regretted" being with the Taliban. Some who claimed to have done nothing during that time frame. All these guys working side by side. My amazement dimmed when I tried to see it their way -- that is politics or work, what REALLY matters is family and tribe. Absolutely, about the AQ. Karzi is adamant that AQ foreigners are not included in the "ally ally outs in free".

Also what role do you folks here feel the ISI is playing in this whole mess. I am familar with their role in general terms during the soviet invasion. The ISI was the gate keeper for US involvement during the Soviet period. Read Charlie Wilson's War (skip the movie)
Someone told me their opinion is the ISI is playing both sides for several reasons one of the major ones being as long as there is a problem the west keeps giving them money. If the problem is solved then they are afraid the money will stop so they actually fund some of the insurgents they are supposed to be stopping just enough to keep them going, but not enough to let them get strong enough to be a real threat. Again this goes toward the "playing both sides ploy and my argument remains the same. To what end?. I will say Pakistan is very nervous about India and does not like to see Indians cozy-ing up to them. there are serious indications that the bombing on the Indian Embassy had less to do with the anti-Hindu leaning of the Taliban. Little is mentioned of the Iranian view of the Taliban but the Taliban is a ultra-fundamental Sunni (deliberately dumbed-down, too). The Iranians saw the Taliban as a real threat when they were fighting to take Herat and supplied the Ismail Kahn with fuel and munitions. There were Iranian Border troops vs Taliban clashes. You need to read Afghanistan by Stephen Tanner. Lord, I am NOT saying this is the truth, but want a knowledagble opinion on this keeping opsec in mind. Ahhhh, the TRUTH, Indeed. If we only knew for certain what the TRUTH is this might be simplier. Mods let me know if this is off topic or opsec.
Thanks.

This is all open source. Writing about Afghanistan seems like a growth industry.