U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afghan Unrest

[LEGALEAGLE]

U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afghan Unrest

Gen. Petraeus Backs Effort to Win Over Some Elements of Group

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN, SIOBHAN GORMAN and JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. is actively considering talks with elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled Afghanistan and sheltered al Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would have been unthinkable a few months ago.

U.S. Marine Staff Sgt. Joseph Debose, 26, stands among village elders as Afghan and American forces search for weapons Oct. 25 in the Korengal Valley of Kunar Province in eastern Afghanistan.

Senior White House and military officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban -- while excluding top leaders -- could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. Both countries have been destabilized by a recent wave of violence.

The outreach is a draft recommendation in a classified White House assessment of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan, according to senior Bush administration officials. The officials said that the recommendation calls for the talks to be led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the U.S.

The idea is supported by Gen. David Petraeus, who will assume responsibility this week for U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Gen. Petraeus used a similar approach in Iraq, where a U.S. push to enlist Sunni tribes in the fight against al Qaeda in Iraq helped sharply reduce the country's violence. Gen. Petraeus earlier this month publicly endorsed talks with less extreme Taliban elements.
Join a Discussion

Discuss: Should the U.S. participate in talks with the Taliban? Cast your vote.

The final White House recommendations, which could differ from the draft, are not expected until after next month's elections. The next administration wouldn't be compelled to implement them. But the support of Gen. Petraeus, the highly regarded incoming head of the U.S. Central Command, could help ensure that the policy is put in place regardless of who wins next month's elections.

The proposed policy appears to strike rare common ground with both presidential candidates. Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama has said he thinks talks with the Taliban should be considered and has advocated shifting more military forces to Afghanistan. Republican contender Sen. John McCain supports, as part of his strategy, reaching out to tribal leaders in an effort to separate "the reconcilable elements of the insurgency from the irreconcilable elements of the insurgency," Randy Scheunemann, the campaign's top foreign-policy adviser, said Monday.

The U.S. policy review is taking place against the backdrop of ongoing talks between Taliban sympathizers and Afghan government officials. The negotiations, which have been held in recent weeks in Saudi Arabia and moderated by Saudi officials, have primarily involved former Taliban members who have since left the armed group. But a U.S. official said some of the discussions have included current Taliban members and others with close ties to the group's leadership.
Mutual Distrust

U.S. talks would have to overcome years of mutual distrust, a U.S. policy that has favored arrest rather than outreach, and some doubts over whether participants on the Taliban side would be credible. But the possibility of U.S. talks with Taliban officials comes amid a wholesale restructuring of American policy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The U.S. has endorsed a Pakistani move to arm thousands of anti-Taliban fighters along the country's porous border with Afghanistan, and senior American officials say they are considering creating similar local militias in Afghanistan as well.

With violence worsening, the U.S. is also taking some harsher measures. The Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Command have stepped up a campaign of missile strikes against militant targets inside Pakistan, a source of mounting casualties and growing public anger there. The U.S. is planning to deploy at least 12,000 more troops to Afghanistan next year.

Few of the new measures would carry as much political and emotional weight as talking with members of the Taliban, an armed group that has been an American foe since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan that followed the attacks was designed to oust the Taliban over its harboring of al Qaeda, and U.S. troops have spent the past seven years trying to capture or kill as many of its members as possible.

U.S. officials stress that they would play a supporting role in any future talks with the Taliban, which they say would be led by the Afghan central government and powerful Afghan tribal figures. The talks would primarily include lower-ranking and mid-level Taliban figures, not top officials from the group's ruling body.

"We'll never be at the table with Mullah Omar," one U.S. official said, referring to the fugitive leader of the Taliban.

The prospective talks would have two main goals, according to senior American officials: extending the Kabul government's authority across Afghanistan and persuading some Taliban figures to cease their attacks against U.S. and Afghan targets.

"We all agree on the need for the people of Afghanistan to come together if they are going to succeed in creating a lasting and viable state," White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said by email. "It remains to be seen if some in the Taliban will really renounce violence and extremism and play a constructive role in Afghanistan."

U.S. opposition to talks with the Taliban has been dissolving as the security situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues to deteriorate. The number of attacks across Afghanistan has skyrocketed, and more U.S. troops are dying there than in Iraq. Pakistan has been rocked by a wave of attacks, including a massive bombing at a Marriott hotel in the capital of Islamabad and the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

[LEGALEAGLE]

War Negotiations

"Most wars don't end on the basis of complete capitulation," said Kara Bue, a former State Department official who recently was co-chairwoman of an outside working group on Pakistan policy. "They're ended in many cases on the basis of negotiations."

It's far from clear that Taliban members with real control over the group's operations will want to take part in talks with the U.S. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has long supported reconciling with Taliban leaders who are willing to accept Kabul's authority and cut any links to al Qaeda, but U.S. and Afghan officials acknowledge that few Taliban figures were willing to make those commitments.

The two sides would also have to bridge a turbulent history of efforts at contact. Former Taliban Foreign Minister Maulvi Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil approached U.S. officials in early 2002 about working together, but the U.S. responded by arresting him. He was held at Guantanamo Bay for four years and has since returned in Kabul.

In subsequent years, some U.S. officials quietly conducted informal outreach to Taliban leaders, but the military was more interested in taking them into custody, said a former senior U.S. intelligence official. "There were instances where Taliban [leaders] were willing to work with us, and we didn't want to deal with them at all," the former official said.

Talking to the Taliban has been a sensitive issue for the Afghan government as well. Last year, Mr. Karzai expelled a United Nations diplomat, plus a second who worked for the European Union, for conducting negotiations with Taliban leaders without Kabul's specific consent.

Senior U.S. officials who are working on the White House review said the recommendations may not explicitly call for joining the Afghan government's talks with the Taliban, but may instead refer to greater interaction with local Afghan leaders in unstable parts of the country. In restive eastern and southeastern Afghanistan, where many Pashtun tribal leaders are Taliban or Taliban sympathizers, this strategy would effectively amount to dealing with the Taliban, these U.S. officials said.

"We and the Afghans negotiate with the tribes every day on the district level," said a senior State Department official working on the review. "Sometimes they're Taliban or their supporters. Often they say: 'If we get what we want, we'll lay down our arms.'"

Another senior American official said that talks with the Taliban will force the U.S. to make hard decisions about how much to offer the armed group for its support.

The U.S. would certainly be willing to pay moderate Taliban members to lay down their weapons and join the political process, these official said. But Taliban demands for amnesty and formal political authority over remote parts of the country might be harder to stomach, he said.

"The question always comes down to price," he said. "How much should be willing to offer guys like this?"

Current and former officials attributed the White House's policy shift to the influence of Gen. Petraeus. "I do think you have to talk to enemies," he said Oct. 8 during a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "You want to try to reconcile with as many of those as possible while then identifying those who truly are irreconcilable."

Not everything that worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus cautioned. Still, he said that engaging some members of the Taliban would be "a positive step."

Ms. Bue, the former State Department official, said U.S. officials would at a minimum want Afghan militants to help U.S. and Afghan forces root out the foreign fighters who have been responsible for most of the bloodiest attacks in Afghanistan.
Mapping Tribal Areas

U.S. officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. military's Special Operations Command have been mapping the key tribal areas of Afghanistan, said one person familiar with the planning. The goal is to look at the tribes, sub-tribes and clans in each province and understand whom they're aligned with. Targeting lower-level leaders is likely to be more fruitful than focusing on senior figures, said Seth Jones, a Middle Eastern analyst at the Rand Corp. think tank who travels regularly to Afghanistan.

The leadership of the Taliban may have no incentive to negotiate because they view themselves as winning the conflict and because "their vision of the country is so diametrically opposed" to that of the central Afghan government, he said.

U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afghan Unrest - WSJ.com

[m_ali_qazi]

ok bro, thats enough naswar for one day

[LEGALEAGLE]

m_ali_qazi said

ok bro, thats enough naswar for one day

Naswar is better then some of that weird lentil crap that makes the Misri's fart...

[m_ali_qazi]

LEGALEAGLE said

Naswar is better then some of that weird lentil crap that makes the Misri's fart...

you mean foole?

[LEGALEAGLE]

m_ali_qazi said

you mean foole?

I have no idea since I'd rather not hang around in the vicinity.

[Foxhole]

LEGALEAGLE said

War Negotiations

"Most wars don't end on the basis of complete capitulation," said Kara Bue, a former State Department official who recently was co-chairwoman of an outside working group on Pakistan policy. "They're ended in many cases on the basis of negotiations."

It's far from clear that Taliban members with real control over the group's operations will want to take part in talks with the U.S. Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has long supported reconciling with Taliban leaders who are willing to accept Kabul's authority and cut any links to al Qaeda, but U.S. and Afghan officials acknowledge that few Taliban figures were willing to make those commitments.

The two sides would also have to bridge a turbulent history of efforts at contact. Former Taliban Foreign Minister Maulvi Wakil Ahmad Mutawakkil approached U.S. officials in early 2002 about working together, but the U.S. responded by arresting him. He was held at Guantanamo Bay for four years and has since returned in Kabul.

In subsequent years, some U.S. officials quietly conducted informal outreach to Taliban leaders, but the military was more interested in taking them into custody, said a former senior U.S. intelligence official. "There were instances where Taliban [leaders] were willing to work with us, and we didn't want to deal with them at all," the former official said.

Talking to the Taliban has been a sensitive issue for the Afghan government as well. Last year, Mr. Karzai expelled a United Nations diplomat, plus a second who worked for the European Union, for conducting negotiations with Taliban leaders without Kabul's specific consent.

Senior U.S. officials who are working on the White House review said the recommendations may not explicitly call for joining the Afghan government's talks with the Taliban, but may instead refer to greater interaction with local Afghan leaders in unstable parts of the country. In restive eastern and southeastern Afghanistan, where many Pashtun tribal leaders are Taliban or Taliban sympathizers, this strategy would effectively amount to dealing with the Taliban, these U.S. officials said.

"We and the Afghans negotiate with the tribes every day on the district level," said a senior State Department official working on the review. "Sometimes they're Taliban or their supporters. Often they say: 'If we get what we want, we'll lay down our arms.'"

Another senior American official said that talks with the Taliban will force the U.S. to make hard decisions about how much to offer the armed group for its support.

The U.S. would certainly be willing to pay moderate Taliban members to lay down their weapons and join the political process, these official said. But Taliban demands for amnesty and formal political authority over remote parts of the country might be harder to stomach, he said.

"The question always comes down to price," he said. "How much should be willing to offer guys like this?"

Current and former officials attributed the White House's policy shift to the influence of Gen. Petraeus. "I do think you have to talk to enemies," he said Oct. 8 during a speech to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "You want to try to reconcile with as many of those as possible while then identifying those who truly are irreconcilable."

Not everything that worked in Iraq will work in Afghanistan, Gen. Petraeus cautioned. Still, he said that engaging some members of the Taliban would be "a positive step."

Ms. Bue, the former State Department official, said U.S. officials would at a minimum want Afghan militants to help U.S. and Afghan forces root out the foreign fighters who have been responsible for most of the bloodiest attacks in Afghanistan.
Mapping Tribal Areas

U.S. officials from the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. military's Special Operations Command have been mapping the key tribal areas of Afghanistan, said one person familiar with the planning. The goal is to look at the tribes, sub-tribes and clans in each province and understand whom they're aligned with. Targeting lower-level leaders is likely to be more fruitful than focusing on senior figures, said Seth Jones, a Middle Eastern analyst at the Rand Corp. think tank who travels regularly to Afghanistan.

The leadership of the Taliban may have no incentive to negotiate because they view themselves as winning the conflict and because "their vision of the country is so diametrically opposed" to that of the central Afghan government, he said.

U.S. Mulls Talks With Taliban in Bid to Quell Afghan Unrest - WSJ.com

Waste of time. Taliban will not lay down arms until democracy is abolished and they are back in power.

The Afghan people have two choices: accept Taliban rule, or continue fighting.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Foxhole said

Waste of time. Taliban will not lay down arms until democracy is abolished and they are back in power.

The Afghan people have two choices: accept Taliban rule, or continue fighting.

I think both the Taliban and you agree that the only solution is more war and killing.

Congratulations.

US Considers Taliban Talks

Posted October 28, 2008

The reports of the Afghan government seeking some kind of rapprochement with the Taliban seem stronger than ever, and in a move which General David Petraeus said he supports earlier this month the United States may be considering not just backing the talks but being directly involved in them.

The move is not expected to come until after next week’s Presidential election, and will reportedly not include the higher ranking Taliban officials. The push for a new strategy in Afghanistan seems all the more important as the violence spirals out of control and the disillusioned civilian population turns on President Hamid Karzai. Admiral Michael Mullen says that he expects the situation to grow even worse next year.

The Taliban has denied participating in any peace talks, which the Saudi government is reportedly trying to broker. The early “talks” reported in September were not attended by Taliban, but were rather preliminary talks between the Afghan government and other people with no recent Taliban ties.

The move may come as something of a surprise in Pakistan, where top state department official Richard Boucher has made regular visits to warn the Pakistani government against peace talks of its own. According to Secretary Boucher, only “harsh military means” can solve the problem of violence in the restive border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Since these talks would not only involve similar Pakistan-based groups but in many cases the exact same people who would be involved in the impending US-Afghanistan talks, the appearance of a double standard may further exacerbate tensions with the Pakistani government.

US Considers Taliban Talks | News From Antiwar.com

Oddly it seems that the US government wants the war to continue in Pakistan but not in Afghanistan.

[Foxhole]

LEGALEAGLE said

I think both the Taliban and you agree that the only solution is more war and killing.

Congratulations.

No, I never said that the only solution is more war and more killing. The other option is to let the Taliban take charge. Do you have a third option?

[m_ali_qazi]

Foxhole said

Taliban will not lay down arms until democracy is abolished and they are back in power.

what democracy?

Foxhole said

The Afghan people have two choices: accept Taliban rule, or continue fighting.

two choices, accept taliban rule, or accept a foreign imposed government

[Jamroll]

Foxhole said

No, I never said that the only solution is more war and more killing. The other option is to let the Taliban take charge. Do you have a third option?

For the US and UK to withdraw from Afghan land. Without the US botched airstrikes killing innocent men, women and children, the Taliban will lose popular support. Without popular support, the Taliban will just become a fringe group, and become largely irrelevant.

[LEGALEAGLE]

Foxhole said

No, I never said that the only solution is more war and more killing. The other option is to let the Taliban take charge. Do you have a third option?

If you want the war to continue then that means you want more war and more killing.

Or are you claiming that war doesn't involve killing ? Admit it.

The Taliban and you have something in common with one exception; they're on the ground fighting and you're hiding behind a keyboard.

Funny how the Generals who are on the ground disagree with your assessments.

[Foxhole]

Jamroll said

For the US and UK to withdraw from Afghan land. Without the US botched airstrikes killing innocent men, women and children, the Taliban will lose popular support. Without popular support, the Taliban will just become a fringe group, and become largely irrelevant.

Dude. You're being absurd.

The Taliban don't need popular support to take power, and they never have. An unopposed Taliban will take control of the country in about 2 days.

[Foxhole]

LEGALEAGLE said

If you want the war to continue then that means you want more war and more killing.

Or are you claiming that war doesn't involve killing ? Admit it.

The Taliban and you have something in common with one exception; they're on the ground fighting and you're hiding behind a keyboard.

Funny how the Generals who are on the ground disagree with your assessments.

Blather. Answer my question.

[Foxhole]

m_ali_qazi said

what democracy?


two choices, accept taliban rule, or accept a foreign imposed government

You're avoiding the issue, and something tells me you will resolutely continue to do so.