Obama's Great Afghanistan Gamble
Everyone knows 17,000 more troops can't win the war in Afghanistan. So what's the exit strategy?
IF YOU CAN'T IMAGINE how President Obama intends to win the war in Afghanistan, you're not alone. The challenge is daunting: Along with a handful of war-plagued African states—Somalia, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo—Afghanistan is one of the world's poorest countries. It's been racked by 30 years of war. Millions have fled into Pakistan and Iran; tens of thousands more have been killed since the US-backed jihad in the 1980s. "The reason we don't have moderate leaders in Afghanistan today is because we let the nuts kill them all," Cheryl Benard, Rand Corporation specialist and wife of former US Ambassador to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, told me in 2004, during an interview for a book on political Islam. Obama's advisers say that their plan is to surge, then negotiate—that is, beef up the US presence, stabilize the war, and then seek a deal backed by regional diplomacy. But that raises a host of questions, starting with: If negotiations are the answer, who's at the table?
President Hamid Karzai: His government is, well, mostly nonexistent. "Forty percent of the country is either partly or entirely off-limits to the government and to international aid groups," says Mark Schneider of the International Crisis Group. Karzai has been derided as merely the "mayor of Kabul," but it's worse than that: "He doesn't have much influence with parliament, so you can't even say that he controls the capital," says Marvin Weinbaum, a former State Department intelligence official who advised Obama's campaign. Terrorists strike fortified targets in Kabul, from the Indian Embassy to the Ministry of Justice, with impunity.
-
Pakistan's Pashtun Reservation
Along the country's northwest border, remnants of an oppressive colonial era.
-
The Great Game, Afghanistan Edition
Who wants to be an Afghanistan expert? (Some not so trivial trivia.)
-
Battling the Low-Tech Boom
America's anti-IED strategy pits million-dollar technology against garage door openers.
Karzai is struggling to regain control. By skillfully appointing governors and mayors, he's built a cadre of officials loyal to the regime. Still, in the provinces, the government's writ is weak. Law enforcement and the courts are virtually absent, leaving the field to criminals and drug traffickers. Corruption poisons everything: Afghanistan is ranked 176 out of 180 countries surveyed by the corruption watchdog group Transparency International; it produces more than nine-tenths of the world's illicit opium; and criminal gangs reach from the most remote districts into Karzai's own family—one of his brothers has been accused of involvement in the heroin trade.
The security forces: The pre-surge force of 13,100 US and 56,420 NATO troops (including 24,900 Americans) has been unable to secure Kabul and its environs, not to mention huge swaths of the south. Some NATO forces do little fighting, and some, like Canada's, are leaving. Afghan public opinion is turning against the coalition, partly because of rising civilian casualties caused by air strikes. Meanwhile the 80,000-strong Afghan National Army can't operate on its own, while the Afghan National Police, also numbering around 80,000, are dysfunctional, corrupt, and infiltrated by Taliban fighters; many are merely militiamen for local warlords.
The Taliban: In the 1990s, they rode to power by mobilizing armies of orphans and refugees brainwashed in Pakistani madrassas; toppled in 2001, they've come roaring back in rural areas where Karzai's feckless governors and crooked cops are viewed with disdain. They use threats, blandishments, and their cultlike ideology to expand their power base, village by village and clan by clan. Yet their hold is not as firm as it might seem. Polls indicate that 9 out of 10 Afghans disapprove of the Taliban. And, notes Seth Jones, an Afghanistan expert at Rand, "Most of the tribal, subtribe, and clan leaders don't particularly care for the central government, and they don't particularly care for the Taliban. They are willing to switch sides." The hardcore Taliban, he estimates, may be as small as just 2,000 to 3,000 fighters. They do, however, have allies—other militant factions, criminal gangs, and, of course, their own brethren beyond Afghanistan's borders. In Pakistan, the Taliban shura (council) is run by Mullah Mohammad Omar, the one-eyed true believer who headed Afghanistan until 2001. Farther north, Mullah Omar's allies include the Haqqanis, heirs to one of the more violent jihadist factions from the US-sponsored war in the 1980s, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, perhaps that war's most bloodthirsty combatant, both of whom regularly dispatch fighters into contested areas surrounding Kabul. (See Your Tax Dollars at War.)
To Serve and Collect
The US government has spent more than $6.2 billion building the Afghan National Police and, by September 2009, will have paid DynCorp International more than $1.2 billion to train them. Afghan officials say the force is near its manpower goal of 82,000. But last time Pentagon officials checked, they couldn't tell whether 38 percent of the cops on the payroll were active and eligible, and only 10,000 of the force's roughly 50,000 donated AK-47s were battle ready. Weekly progress reports from DynCorp have documented officials taking bribes, street cops collecting unauthorized highway "tolls," police funneling weapons to the Taliban (or joining them outright), suicide attacks targeted at officers, and cops going for months without pay.
The new players: With US advice and funding, Karzai is trying to counter the Taliban through a pair of new initiatives. The Afghan Social Outreach Program is quietly building anti-Taliban local councils. A parallel program, the Afghan Public Protection Force, has a pilot project under way in Wardak province to build quasi-official militias not unlike the US-sponsored Sunni Awakening that mobilized Iraqi tribes against Al Qaeda. J Alexander Thier of the US Institute of Peace is hopeful. But, he says, "It scares the bejesus out of people because this would result in the arming of Pashtun militias. It's extremely risky."
Which gets us back to the question: What's the endgame of the surge-and-negotiate strategy? Already there is plenty of negotiating behind the scenes. Karzai has an ongoing dialogue with the Taliban, with former Taliban allies in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan mediating, and there are reports of talks involving Hekmatyar, too. But Obama's advisers are split on whether those top-down negotiations will work: Some suspect that there can be no deal as long as the Taliban think they're winning.
An alternative approach gaining favor inside the beltway is bottom-up negotiations to mirror the Taliban's village-by-village strategy. "This is a country that historically has had very little central government," General David McKiernan, the US commander, said last November. "But it's a government with a history of local autonomy and local tribal authority systems." Jones, of Rand, says the key is winning the loyalty of rural Afghans. If it's done right—if America maintains a light footprint, if tribal leaders see improvements in security (as well as cold, hard cash), and if Afghanistan's meddling neighbors can be persuaded to help stabilize the country—then the loyalties of the Pashtun tribes may turn. If that happens, Jones says hopefully, "They can tip pretty quickly." Of course, if the surge causes more civilian deaths and further inflames anger at the United States, they could just as easily tip the other way. Therein lies the great risk of Obama's gamble.
Robert Dreyfuss has written for The Nation, Washington Monthly, and Rolling Stone, and is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam.
Page 1 of 1 
don't interfere
Maybe, the US government should give up foreign policy. Imperialism leads nowhere whether led by ObaBush or Reagan or Clinton... The whole concept of spending trillions of borrowed fiat money to fund a worldwide empire and a be a foreign policy player is flawed and morally wrong. Obama's voters have as much blood on their hands as Bush's supporters.
If you voted and supported Obama, imagine meeting a 15-year old girl whose family has been murdered by the current killer-in-chief's [that is Obama] Afghani policy... What do you say to her? It is Bush's fault! Change and hope are on the way? Is she entitled to get reparation from you? Maybe she could elect some politicians who would hire a bunch of thugs to kill and destroy in your neighborhood.
Foreign policy as a geopolitical game is always intellectually enticing but foreign policy is really about war and/or corruption. The US government must get out of that dirty business.
Holy smokes what is wrong with this picture?
Obama is presiding over tactics that include air strikes on targets where it is known that there is a high likelihood of civilian casualties. Whether or not there is any military value to the targets is unknowable. (Yes, we are acting on intelligence but intel is so poor that there is no way to be certain that a military target exists).
There is one word for this tactic. Murder.
I am astounded that the mainstream press is ignoring this story. I have called out the WaPo in posts to their dumbass stories about Carrie Prejean and other equally stupid nonsense on the front page... while the civilian deaths in Afghanistan don't get any ink anywhere in the paper. What's up with that? How can our supposed free press serve us when they won't cover the basic facts about a war in a country that has been fought over for the last 10 centuries without a clear victor?
I'm tired of Obama getting a free pass on Afghanistan and Iraq in the press. He was elected on a lot of promises, and now it's time to cut the fancy speeches and start delivering the goods. He says he's for a transparent government but he appears to be in collusion with those who are obstructing justice on the matter of torture. Single payer health care is dead. Domestic spying is doing just fine, though. Gitmo isn't closing anytime soon, and the free traders, stock speculators, and offshore plant operations will do fine under TARP, TARP 2, and TARPs to come.
Our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will go on and on. I read an interesting piece this morning by Chris Hedges regarding endless war and its effects on a nation's economy and soul. I have said for the last year that Obama will not change the trajectory of American foreign policy and that is exactly what Hedges was talking about. Endless war. We are not calling the shots, the Military/Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about is calling the shots.
And who pays for it? We all pay in one way or another, but some of us pay with our lives, our limbs, our sanity. And the Afghans have been paying that way for a millennium.
-Wexler
______________________________________________________________
If I would have known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
~~~ George Burns
The affrontery of the citizen commons!
Obama needs you love, faith and support now more than ever and you whine about AFGHANI civilian casualties?
How RUDE!
Just why do you hate Obama, War and Fascism so much? What did they ever do to you?
Perhaps you need to seek professional help from a mental health care specialist.
Never question our leadership again.
What more ground troops can do
One point that the above commentators seem to be missing is that putting more troops on the ground may actually mean fewer civilian casualties, not more. A primary reason air strikes are used in Afghanistan is because we do not have sufficient ground forces to respond with less lethal means. If a small, platoon-sized element comes under heavy fire, their own organic fires may not be enough to ward off the enemy. So they call for air support. On the other hand, a battalion-sized element may actually avoid enemy contact all together, if the opposing forces decide that it is not worth their trouble to get into a fire fight with a group that large. It is actually possible to hold more ground with less shooting if you have sufficient man power.
Please, take into
Please, take into consideration that without troops over there, Americans would not be murdering through their soldiers.
Once, again, imagine yourself meeting a 15-year boy whose parents have died under Obama's bombs... Would you dare tell him that "more troops on the ground is deemed to reduce civilian casualties"? War criminals are war criminals. Don't support them even if they are named Barrack Obama.
"Civilian casualties"? They are human beings! You are reducing them to mere elements of academic speculations on military art. Despicable. They are either innocent or not found guilty in a court of law of any crime. Is Habeas Corpus only an argument to go after Bush? Of course, the above article never challenges the idea that the US should police the world.
Don't forget to wash your hands; there is blood on them.
They fight for the money
-
tagged as:
- solution
Almost every single analysis including Dreyfuss's misses the elephant standing in the room everyone pretends not to see. Unlike other insurgencies, like the Vietcong or even in Iraq, this one is driven by Taliban money, and a botched reconstruction. The Taliban pays $8 a day, good money in these parts, and it is estimated that 70% of the men fight because there is 50% unemployment and no other way to feed their families. A Korengal Valley elder was recently quoted in Time as saying:
"The Taliban say they are fighting because there are Americans here and it's a jihad. But the fact is, they aren't fighting for religion. They are fighting for money. If they had jobs, they would stop fighting."
Dreyfuss's political analysis is an armchair general exercise which might have some validity if it didn't dismiss this looming factor. What is so hard to get about men seeing their children hungry and starving, then picking up a gun and doing whatever they have to do? It's pure economics.
My youtube on this subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyoMYBJspec
Not the only fighters in Afghanistan
Suggesting that all American forces are "murderers" and all the Taliban are "soldiers" as JCR does above is a clear bias. Yes, American forces make mistakes in Afghanistan. On the other hand, American forces do not burn down schools, throw acid in the faces of little girls trying to attend those schools, behead innocent civilians suspected of being spies, or force Afghan farmers to grow narcotics to fund the war effort. US forces entered Afghanistan with a clear mission to track a particular set of enemies and return Afghanistan to stability. Unfortunately that mission was not supported properly, and we are now struggling to make things right.
By the way, I've served with the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. None of this is academic to me.
I am pretty explicit in the
I am pretty explicit in the fact that US (and the French, Canadian...) soldiers are murders over there. They can hide behind a noble purpose, they can use the fact that the enemy is worse, or they can argue that they were just obeying orders, the reality is that innocent human beings were killed.
Forget one second that you served (same latin root as slavery???) the most powerful army in the world and the coolest killer-in-chiefs (Bush and Obama) and forget that your actions were done under the coward umbrella of a government, how do you feel for those lost and ruined lives??? Thinking of those dead children, was it worth? Was it worth?
Frankly, I don't get those American soldiers who support the US foreign policy and welcome so much the building of an empire all over the world that they join.
Christian, how did you feel knowing that US taxpayers who disagree with your political views and would not support imperialism go to jail if they don't fund your activist life in the army? Why should I go to jail if I don't pay taxes to fund your training, buy you a colt or a WMD or whatever you need to accomplish your mission? In the name of "whatever was your noble ambitions to join the army", you are undermining liberty in the US, making sure debt becomes huge, and you are killing or helping to kill innocent human beings.
Hopefully the goal was really noble and could not have been achieved otherwise.
Convictions and committment
Honestly, I can't say I'm the least bit bothered by the fact that if you stop paying your taxes as a war protest you will go to jail. I say "if" because I seriously doubt that you will do it. I serve every day with men and women who serve a cause they believe in, in full knowledge of the fact that they may be wounded or killed. If you believe the war is truly criminal, then have the courage of your convictions, stop paying your taxes as a protest, and lose your freedom. Many soldiers have lost much more in the cause we serve. We made our choice, and so can you. If you do not have the courage to follow through on your stated conviction, I frankly don't understand how you can have the temerity to criticize mine. That's simply hypocrisy.
Of course I am disturbed by the deaths of innocent civilians, and even, to be frank, the death of our enemies. I pray every night for peace. The problem is that simply pulling American forces out of Afghanistan is not going to provide lasting peace. Instead, the various armed elements in this country are going to turn and fight eachother--just as they did in the decades after the end of the Soviet conflict. We now have an entire generation here who have known little else but war, and without us the war would still go on. The fact that Americans would no longer be involved is not of much comfort to me. We have an opportunity to assist the Afghan people, rather than turn our backs on them as we did so many years ago. Through a combination of carefully applied force and broadly applied development, we may be able to put this country back on its feet again. It will not be easy. But I firmly believe it is the right thing to do.
Get a REAL good look at Empire, Christian...
"If you believe the war is truly criminal, then have the courage of your convictions, stop paying your taxes as a protest..."
Yes, Christian, you are correct in that this is a direct form of protest against a belligerent policy of intervention in another nation's affairs. However, your argument betrays a deceptive line of reasoning, i.e., this is not the ONLY form of protest that we who are opposed to Empire are assuming. For example, mass demonstration, it is argued, was a major factor in the decision of the Nixon regime to pull out of Vietnam, another one of our supposedly "benign" endeavors to "help" the Third World to "tow the line."
"If you do not have the courage to follow through on your stated conviction, I frankly don't understand how you can have the temerity to criticize mine."
We do follow through on our convictions, and, yes, we intend to continue to criticize your "convictions," however unenlightened they may be. Consider the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights as applying to those opposed to Empire's belligerence and duplicity in stated goals: e.g., the apocryphal WMD that served as our all-too-convenient entree to the Iraqi debacle.
"We have an opportunity to assist the Afghan people, rather than turn our backs on them as we did so many years ago."
We as Empire do not "assist" anyone but out own money-driven agenda to insinuate ourselves in the affairs of a country which we helped to further destabilize, beginning with Carter and continuing under Reagan in our last display of Cold War militarism. Our latest self-interest has to do with the establishing of the TAPI, i.e., the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. Blood for oil, Blood for natural gas: we do not give a damn for the Pashtuns, i.e., they are a "dark, non-Christian, sub-human, tribal people," engaged in their own indigenous conflicts which we and other imperialist agents of destruction opportunistically exacerbated for material gain.
"Through a combination of carefully applied force..."
The fallout from last week’s US air strikes in the Farah Province, which an Afghan commission concluded had killed 140 civilians, continued today as an Afghan MP involved in the investigation said that 95 of the dead were actually children (which he defined as under the age of 18). The attack was the single largest instance of US-killed civilians in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion [Antiwar.com, Jason Ditz, May 13, 2009]
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/05/13/afghan-mp-95-children-killed-in-!%0A+us-strike/
How's that for "carefully applied force," Christian? Man, you're only kidding yourself--wake up. Read about "Operation Speedy Express":
"In an article in the December 1, 2008 Nation magazine, 'A My Lai a Month,' author Nick Turse asserts Operation Speedy Express was a deliberate attempt by the military to massacre civilians" [from Wiki].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Speedy_Express
The US has a history which you all-too-willingly ignore. Wake up, man. You claim that you and your fellow soldiers are courageously acting upon your convictions. Convictions come about after becoming INFORMED, i.e., gathering ALL the information. You are not informed. Zealous, perhaps. And courage might be defined as posing dissent against the Empire, i.e., opposing authority. For example, one might argue that it took far more courage to oppose the Vietnam war than to relent, mindlessly, and go off and fight and kill "gooks." That "relenting" was called taking the path of least resistance. Wake up man. Oppose the "authority figure" in your world.
Informed comment
So let me get this straight...I'm in the warzone (been to war three times, in fact) and you think I am uninformed...but you sit at home and read things written from thousands of miles away, and you think you are informed? Trust me, I have as much information as you have, having read everything you have read, and more because I'm actually HERE.
You were the one who brought up being jailed for tax protestation, not me. I'm merely noting that it doesn't bother me if you go to jail for it. Why should it bother me? You're responsible for your choices, just as I am for mine.
As for the Pashtuns, I doubt you've ever met one. They're hard bunch, no mistake, but they are also people of incredibly complex culture, a strong sense of honor, and remarkable generosity if approached properly. These are people I hope to be friends with some day. It is my hope that in twenty years I will be able to return to a peaceful Afghanistan, plant trees on the mountains, and go climbing. In fact, I've met several soldiers who have expressed that wish. We're not down here to murder civilians or expand the "empire", as you would have it. We're here to catch the terrorists who struck at our country and help the various Afghani peoples to help themselves. If pulling out of this country would automatically mean peace and prosperity here, I would be all for it. Unfortunately I don't see that being the case. I notice you aren't presenting any solutions for assisting Afghanistan, merely insisting that we get out of it.
The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff's integrity...
"...I'm in the warzone (been to war three times, in fact)."
Because you BELIEVE in it, i.e., that's the way your mind functions. My contention is that it takes courage to oppose DC/Empire authority figures who mandate aggression while establishing deferrments for their elitist offspring.
"...I'm in the warzone (been to war three times, in fact) and you think I am uninformed..."
I do not think that you are uninformed because you have "been to war three times." I think you are uninformed because of the comments you revealed in your statement. For example:
"But I firmly believe [our current Afghanistan policy] is the right thing to do..."
This is posted on today's Democracy Now (but since you "read everything" you've no doubt seen it):
Adm. Mullen: Afghan Occupation Could “Further Destabilize” Pakistan
Meanwhile, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, has admitted the escalation of the US occupation of Afghanistan could end up worsening Pakistan’s internal unrest. Speaking before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mullen said, “We may end up further destabilizing Pakistan without providing substantial lasting improvements in Afghanistan.” He continued, “Can I…[be] 100 percent certain that won’t destabilize Pakistan? I don’t know the answer to that.”
The Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff isn't sure but YOU have a degree of certainty...
"Trust me, I have as much information as you have, having read everything you have read, and more because I'm actually HERE."
There is a decided lapse in reasoning--again--in your argument, i.e., combatants are not necessarily apprised of what is taking place since accurate uncensored reporting might serve to demoralize the military personnel.
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/5/22/headlines#5
I am truly sorry, Christian, that the best decision that you could come up with was to enlist in the military. If, as you imply, you believe in improving the quality of life for humanity there are many ways to go about this in the world without feeding--and thereby sustaining--the military/industrial complex. I harbor no contempt for you whatsoever, i.e., whether you believe it or you do not believe it, we are brothers. But, brother, you most assuredly err in your thinking vis-à-vis Empire.
"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Speaking of flawed reasoning...
As you may have noticed, I have internet access here. I can therefore go online and read uncensored material, just as you can. Certain blogs are restricted, but actual news sites (including such site as alternet.org, Democracy Now, The Nation, and of course Mother Jones) are perfectly open to us. Unless you consider sites of the sort I just listed "censored", well, I'd say my access to uncensored reporting is pretty good. We are aware of what is going on, and our morale is still pretty good. And yes, I am aware of ADM Mullen's statement. He's correct--we cannot be absolutely certain that the occupation will not lead to further destabilization. On the other hand, we can be pretty darn certain that leaving this country to the Taliban will result in chaos, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I am glad the Admiral put all the risks on the table. Our citizens should be informed of the risks and it is the duty of a military officer to make a clear and honest assessment. Me personally, I'll take the hard chance over the easy failure. I notice you are continuing to harp on the United States and allied nations getting out of Afghanistan--but you're not actually providing any alternate solutions. Let's say we pull out all US and allied forces tomorrow. What then?
Empire versus a Common Humanity
"Let's say we pull out all US and allied forces tomorrow. What then?"
The issues go well beyond the confines of the one state, i.e., Afghanistan. To put it into context: instead of pursuing the Vietcong--illegally--into Cambodia, thereby compelling a metastasized Khmer Rouge, instead of terror campaigns on the civilian population there--OUR terrorism--officially known as "pacification programs," e.g., "Operation Speedy Express," instead of napalm used on civilians, including children, instead of three to four million Vietnamese killed--many of them civilians--owing to our penchant for indiscriminate bombing, instead of our supplying a murderous Indonesian regime with ordnance with the approved use on the people of East Timor, instead of our aiding in the ethnic cleansing of the Kurds of southeast Turkey, instead of our contriving an excuse to attack Iraq via the false testimony of one of our torture victims, instead of aiding the Israelis with ordnance and weaponry in their massacre of Palestinians--most recently in Gaza for twenty-two days, instead of the use of drones which are killing a disproportionate number of civilians in Afghanistan, instead of the illegal use of white phosphorous in known civilian-populated areas, instead of our repeated attacks on wedding parties in Afghanistan--leaving primarily women and children dead, instead of what amounts to socio-pathic pride in policies of "shock and awe," we can establish our moral compass by
1) not looking upon Third World entities--the material resources and the populace-- as so much grist for our capitalist mill
2) dealing with the fallout from OUR aggression, i.e., radicalized Islamic sects, by listening to their grievances and addressing those grievances, even to the point of making material restitution for OUR wrongs
3) admitting that the "hearts and minds" program of militarily traumatizing a people, thereby making them tractable for American business interests, is a decidedly evil policy of blatant Imperialist subjugation--or, enslavement, if you like--which invariably results in radical defense measures by those people
4) acknowledging that one of THE main ideas to issue from the Nuremburg Tribunal--which we oversaw--is the declaration that military aggression is THE supreme war crime, as presiding jurist Robert Jackson averred, WHOEVER engages in it; by that definition, we are war criminals--as is Israel; in handing down his decision against the fascists on trial at Nuremburg, Judge Jackson carefully stated that as we, the U.S., are citing a condemnation of the Nazi aggression and other atrocities--and executing those responsible for those crimes--the U.S. had better use EXTREME CAUTION lest we, too, engage in acts construed as war crimes in the future; we did not heed that warning; this is OUR MORAL HYPOCRISY, writ large
Here us an article at After Downing Street citing a 5/21 NYT report on options for Afghanistan:
"With the passage of the war supplemental by the Senate, President Obama and Congress are 'doubling down' on war in Afghanistan. Are we - and the Afghan people - doomed to endure many more years of war?
There is no reason that we need be, according to yesterday's New York Times, which reports that talks between Taliban leaders and Afghan government representatives have accelerated since Obama's election, and that Afghan officials say they have the tacit blessing of Washington for the talks.
Furthermore, the demands being put forward by the Taliban in the negotiations appear, on the face of it, to be eminently reasonable.
Daoud Abedi, one of the intermediaries in the talks, told the Times he had hammered out a common set of demands between the Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's group. The groups agreed to stop fighting if those conditions were met, Abedi said.
The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders, including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow after the Western forces left.
Is there anything here which appears unreasonable on its face?
- Pullback to bases: this was a demand of the Iraqi government, which the US eventually agreed to a version of.
- Cease-fire: a standard element of any peace plan.
- Timetable for US withdrawal - in Iraq, the US agreed to a timetable for withdrawal.
- Transitional government including insurgent leaders: another standard feature of peace agreements.
- Replacement of Western troops by peacekeepers from Muslim nations: eminently reasonable. Note that many Muslim nations who might be willing to contribute to such a force have very close relations with the United States.
- Guarantee from insurgents not to attack such a force: obviously, a pre-condition of such a force being deployed; Muslim nations wouldn't deploy their forces unless they believed such guarantees were credible, and if the Taliban reneged on such a deal, it would hurt them very badly politically. Moreover, the Taliban have adhered to similar agreements made in the past, mediated by Pakistan.
- Nationwide elections after departure of Western forces - who could be against that? A standard principle of UN decolonization is that elections should not take place under the auspices of occupying powers.
The Taliban also demand the end of US drone attacks in Pakistan. But since even counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen says the drone attacks are doing the US more harm than good, and since according to Pakistan they are killing more civilians than militants, it's hard to see why this should be a deal-breaker.
The talks are significant because they suggest how a political settlement may be able to end the eight-year-old war, the Times says.
Of course, all this is one-half of the negotiation: the Taliban demands. What's missing for an agreement are the US demands. The US is sure to demand, at the very least, a guarantee from the Taliban about Afghanistan not being a base for attacks on the US; past statements from Taliban officials suggest that such a guarantee might not be very hard to obtain in the context of an agreement. But in any event, the fact that the Taliban are making reasonable demands ought to focus attention on the need for the Obama Administration to get serious about supporting inside-Afghanistan diplomacy.
The signaled position of the Obama Administration has been: we're not in any hurry for talks, because we want to bloody the Taliban first, so they'll be more flexible in negotiations. But if the Taliban are already being flexible, perhaps we could skip over the bloodying part - given that for every bloodied Taliban, there are going to be fifty bloodied Afghan civilians - and move straight to meaningful negotiations."
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42887
Staying on topic...
First of all, we're talking about Afghanistan here, not Iraq nor even Israel and Gaza, which are different subjects about which I have different opinions. Roping all these issues together isn't really to the point, as each one is a different conflict with a very different origin.
Second, to be brief, there is absolutely nothing unreasonable about the points of negotiation on the cease fire. The only problem is that many members of the Taliban aren't going to abide by them. We've seen this already in Pakistan, where Taliban forces agreed to cease hostile actions if an Islamic court was established, then carried out covert hostilities in other parts of Pakistan. The problem is that the Taliban are divided into so many different factions right now that we are never going to get them all to agree to a ceasefire, and many have publically stated that they will never negotiate.
I do think that it is vital to negotiate with those elements of the Taliban that are genuinely interested in peace. This is actually a stated element of US strategy since President Obama took over, and it makes sense from both moral and strategic counter insurgency grounds. The people in this area do have legitimate grievances and we should do our best to address those. But frankly, some points are non-negotiable. If the most radical elements of the Taliban will not expel or hand over the Al Qaida elements they are sheltering, that's not something we can live with. Nor can we accept handing over a major portion of Afghanistan to people who throw acid on little girls trying to go to school.
Credibility
-
tagged as:
- result
While I agree with the general thrust of your article - that this whole effort is pointless - your credibility suffers when you state that Canada is withdrawing from Afghanistan. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, our Canadian government and our military is committed, for some obscure reason, to continue this futile exercise, with the subsequent loss of many good Canadian lives. And considerable expense that could be put to more productive and less disruptive use elsewhere, for example Darfur, in a peacekeeping role within NATO and/or the UN.
If you are going to write about something as complicated as Afghanistan, you should get your facts straight - or at least MJ's fact-checkers should have picked up this obvious error. It reduces the credibility of the rest of the statements in your article.
Fact checking Glen
Do you Google?
If so, Google "Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan".
It appears that Canadian troops will be gone from there by 2011 or earlier. I hardly think that you call this an "obvious error" that "reduces credibility". If anyone is wrong on this, it's likely to be you and Google, since there is plenty of pressure in Canada to remove the troops sooner than later.
No offense intended.
-Wexler
______________________________________________________________
If I would have known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
~~~ George Burns
Fact-checking
That deadline of 2011 has been in place for several years, based in great part on public reaction that we did not wish to see our troops involved in an open-ended un-winnable conflict. Our Minister of Defence, while in Afghanistan last week, hinted we may not meet that deadline, but that the role may change from one of combat to reconstruction.
I believe the exact quote by Dreyfuss was "Some NATO forces do little fighting, and some, like Canada are leaving. He is absolutely correct in his first statement, with some major exceptions, but wrong - or at least very misleading - in the second.
To answer your question, it's hard to Google when you live in an igloo. ;-)
US GO HOME
Why can't the US just concentrate on their debt, their fuel emissions, their non existent health system, their violent death caused by their love for guns and LEAVE the REST of US alone.
Obama is just like Bush, another imperialist who bombs civilians in the name of freedom. Why not bomb Michigan and get rid of the auto industry ? Or why not the infamous Saoudi ally, who finance the US and praise islamic law ?
Igloo??!! Sheer luxury!
When I were a lad, we were so poor that at Thanksgiving we had to draw pictures of food on old newspapers that blew in the street with lumps of coal we'd find and then eat them. Dad would say grace.
Well, an igloo sounds like great fun and all, until the polar bears catch on that they can bust through ice.
Cheers....
-Wexler
______________________________________________________________
If I would have known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself.
~~~ George Burns
Eliminate Enemy Leaders
A million dollar reward for the heads of anti-American rabble rousers will be more productive than the use of tanks,planes and armies. Thousands of informers can become the ruling class of Afganistan and the eyes and ears of America. Special forces will supplement the muscles of friendly politicians. The British used this system to gain millions of friends, and it will work again.
melvin polatnick
Replies
I would like to point out again and again, that Obama never said he was going to war with the Taliban, he always said he intended to get Bin Laden and stop El Qaeda which is what the American people demanded after 09/11. For that purpose he also stated that if Pakistan did not move on Bin Laden's Base and he had definitive information where it was HE WOULD.
It would appear to me he is doing what he said he would and succeeded in getting Pakistan to fight the Taliban in the area where Bin Laden had his base. The 17,000 troops, it appear to me, is just a holding pattern to protect our and Pakistan's rear while they are clearing out that Valley.
Afghanistan
A lot of what goes in Afghanistan isn't reported, I have been in Afghanistan for a year a while back and things are actually worse then 2001, more people have died, the support for the government is non-existent, and when Obama says that he will help make the ordinary Afghan life better is a joke.
I was in a village in Zabul province, these people have no electricity, running water, vehicles, or anything. Everything is done by hand, mud huts, mud hut fences, water is brought from the river, it's beautiful and all but the peoples lives here will not change and the people themselves don't want to, this certain village wasn't visited by U.S. troops for over a year and they were doing fine, whenever we came the mood changed. I just hope we get out of Afghanistan because no matter what this country will not become a developed nation.
All this talk about rebuilding is a lie, yes you have some new buildings in Kabul, but once you get out of the capital your in the wild west. The people are happy as long as their is no one bothering them, they don't like outsiders invading their lands. History has proven this.
To the ANONYMOUS who said putting more troops will decrease civilian deaths is totally incorrect, it will just fuel more because there will be more combat situations and the easiest way to kill someone shooting behind a rock is with a lot of bombs, more troops in contact more bombs dropping, more tax payers money for a lost cause. Once they drop, you'll still here them shooting. We just need to get out of here, no reason to stay. I guess its just that Pipeline and the abudunce of the gems. It sucks for the Afghans because a lot of them are just real nice people. But when you have civilian deaths its a big devastation to what your "suppose to be doing". 18 Delta 7SFG
Peace
Bribery will bring peace to Iran. An offer of 40 virgins in a Las Vegas penthouse to Ahmadinejad will cause him to defect. But the leaders of North Korea will defect faster if offered a lifetime supply of Opium. Peace is at hand if filled with the right goodies.
