What's new

Negotiating with moderates in taliban

^^ Couldn't have said it any better. Everyone understands the urgent need of getting rid of the menace of extremism and lawlessness in the tribal areas. There is a broad consensus on that matter. The tribal areas have for decades been neglected by the political establishment in Pakistan. Today, the locals are an easy prey for the terrorists. The tribal areas has become a breeding ground. This is where Pakistan has failed miserably. The corrupt and petty regimes were careless and only concerned with amassing their foreign bank balances. The Pakistan army is heavily engaged in the tribal areas and taking care of the problem. Although, the drone attacks aren't helping, but only exacerbating the security situation. The hearts and minds of the locals aren't being won. Without the help of the locals victory is impossible. The US can be of great help by supporting the Pakistan army and rebuilding the tribal areas. The solution for this conflict is multidimensional.
 
Last edited:
.
The analysis below raises one particularly interesting question for thinking Pakistanis -- If it becomes factual that the US can declare victory and leave the Afghans to sort out good from bad talib -- what will it mean for Pakistan -- belive it or not, and most Pakistanis do not, the real issue has always been Pakistan -- Can Pakistan be Pakistan with islamist running the show? if the US can live with talib in Afghanistan, Can Pakistanis live with Talib in Pakistan??




Talking to the Taliban
Najmuddin A Shaikh


In Pakistan, we are so taken with the domestic political turbulence that little or no attention is being paid by our media and particularly by our analysts to developments in Afghanistan, and even more importantly to the hints that have started appearing in the American media about the direction the Obama administration’s review of its Afghan policy is likely to take.

First things first, we have had in Afghanistan a mini-crisis about the date for the presidential elections. According to the constitution, elections should have been held at least thirty days before the expiry of the term of the president. The election commission however decided that given weather conditions and the difficulties associated with voter registration, the election could be held at the earliest in August. This announcement was immediately endorsed by the US and the UN.

The constitution has however been interpreted as holding that the president’s term cannot be extended even if elections have not been held. It apparently makes no provision for who would take over in the interim. In a belated move, Hamid Karzai issued a decree calling upon the election commission to hold the election before the expiry of his term.

This caused an explosion of protests by Karzai’s opponents and statements by the Americans that the date should remain as decided by the election Commission. Karzai has backtracked and accepted that the election commission’s decision should stand, but is now looking for a means to continue in office until the elections. Whether he succeeds in doing so may depend on the Afghan parliament where Karzai’s supporters appear to be dwindling. How this situation will be resolved remains up in the air.

In the meanwhile, the American and other western media has been full of stories about the cold shoulder that Karzai is getting from the Obama administration, and about the corruption of the Karzai brothers who, from being minor restaurant owners in America, have now become millionaire businessmen in Afghanistan. There is particular concern being expressed about Wali Karzai, who maintains a grip on Kandahar’s political life and uses it to promote his interests in the drug trade.

Alongside this indictment of the Karzai family have been stories of maladministration and poor governance to which is attributed the growth in the Taliban insurgency. Are the Americans preparing to dump Karzai in favour of some other more effective leader? They don’t seem to have much of a choice. No Pashtun figure of any consequence and popularity appears to be available.

On the other side, Obama, after a period of reflection, has yielded to the pleas of his commanders in Afghanistan and sanctioned an immediate 17,000-strong troop augmentation in Afghanistan. He has, however, postponed a decision on the remaining 13,000 demanded by commanders until the review of Afghan policy — in consultation with Pakistan, Afghanistan and other countries — is complete
.

Surprising for some has been the decision to invite the Iranians to participate in this review. Secretary Clinton has explained that Iran had cooperated with the US when it first moved against the Taliban in Afghanistan and suggested that this continued to be a common interest. It would seem, however, that this is part of the Obama plan to reach out to those who are prepared to “unclench” their fist and to find a way of assuring Iran that Obama is not looking for regime change, but instead trying to find common ground even while opposing Iran’s nuclear programme.

While apparently far fetched, it may also be an effort to persuade Iran to permit the use of its ports for the transportation of American supplies to Afghanistan. This need has become urgent because of instability in Pakistan and the Kyrgyz demand, presumably under Russian pressure, for the US to vacate Manas Airbase. The Russians have permitted shipments across their territory and have indicated that under the right circumstances, they would permit further supplies. But the US would be loath to make this their primary supply route since they could then be required to pay the heavy price of recognising Russia’s right to have its sphere of influence in Central Asia and to be the only route to Europe for Central Asian fossil fuel.

The Obama administration has been consulting extensively with its European allies on the Afghan situation. More such consultations will be held before the review of Afghan policy is completed, but already it is evident that Obama’s popularity in Europe notwithstanding, the Europeans are not going to offer additional troops for Afghanistan nor is there likely to be any change in the position of countries like Canada and Netherlands, who have indicated dates on which their contingents will be withdrawn from Afghanistan
.

All the US can hope for is a greater European effort to support the economic and institutional development effort in Afghanistan. So far, however, the Europeans have been found wanting on this front as well.

In the popular perception, even though the Afghan war has been ongoing for seven years, it will henceforth be Obama’s war because he had maintained throughout the campaign that this was the war America had to fight and win, in contrast to Bush’s war of choice in Iraq. Obama cannot therefore afford to withdraw from Afghanistan but he can revise the aims and objectives he sets for declaring victory. Hence the statement by Defence Secretary Robert Gates that all the US should aim for is a situation where Afghanistan cannot be used as a haven for terrorists wanting to attack the US and its allies. Subsequently, it was only logical for Obama to talk, albeit cautiously, about the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban.

However, most American analysts suggest that there is good reason to believe that the haven for terrorists has already shifted from Afghanistan to Pakistan, and that even if the Taliban were to be sharing power in Afghanistan, they would have no ambitions extending beyond Afghanistan. They would therefore not pose the sort of danger to America that they did while playing host to Al Qaeda.

No one is prepared to take an equally benign view of Pakistan. Juxtaposed with the onset of the current political crisis and following closely on the “deal” in Swat has been the statement by the American charge d’affaires in Afghanistan that Pakistan is more dangerous than Afghanistan. (This view has frequently appeared in the American media but coming form an American diplomat in Afghanistan, it has added significance.). More recently, there have been reports suggesting that American intelligence agencies now believe that the Lashkar-e Tayba rather than Al Qaeda may be the organisation that launches the next terrorist attack on the West.

Let us also be clear that while the induction of the Taliban into the power structure in Afghanistan may be acceptable as part of the American exit strategy, a similar compromise in Pakistan would be entirely unacceptable. The simple reason for this is that here, the Taliban or their local cohorts are seen as sanctuary providers for Al Qaeda and as having many in the mélange of extremist groups operating in Pakistan that have strong links in the Pakistani diaspora in the US and Europe.


Today in Washington, the political crisis in Afghanistan, while real and worrisome, is small potatoes compared to the concern about Pakistan and what the current crisis will mean for the tribal areas, where the army has achieved some success, and for Swat, where the pact with Sufi Mohammad is being watched warily.

The writer is a former foreign secretary
 
. .
Let us also be clear that while the induction of the Taliban into the power structure in Afghanistan may be acceptable as part of the American exit strategy, a similar compromise in Pakistan would be entirely unacceptable.

So, In reality there is no exit strategy for the United States. And another political interesting move for the Americans, There goals have changed to eliminating Al-queda to possess no more threat to the west. That is simply a bad policy/strategic thinking. If given time it will poss a larger threat.
 
.
"you get a skewed view from posters like s-2."

Indeed they may or not. Nonetheless, the view they DON'T get from me is of a politicized officer corps in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Never said it. No hint of it. Culturally absent from us. Alien.
 
.
In laymans terms isn't US looking for an excuse to run away from Afghanistan.
 
.
Moderate Taliban to my mind is an Oxymoron.

Unlike good & bad cholesterol.. I think the Taliban are all " birds of the same feather". To get temporary reprieve, factions may appear " moderate" but would soon change colour.
 
.
american policy (which is new, from a new administration) is extricating american forces and a more aggressive intervention in the internal political affairs of pakistan.

the taliban is the seething mass of humanity in 10,000 villages in afghanistan. fighting them is not a productive way to spend one's time.

direct manipulation of pakistan government (controlling punishing rewarding) is how you fight terrorism.

"For the past two days British and American officials have been involved in intense mediation between President Asif Ali Zardari's government and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif. London and Washington are concerned that Pakistan, a key ally, is engulfed in political infighting rather than tackling extremists."

US and Britain seek deal to end Islamabad's deepening crisis | World news | The Guardian

american policy is not to mediate but to assert control and then direct pakistan to take certain actions. we dont care about pakistan's problems at all even to the smallest degree. we only care about effectively compelling pakistan to destroy the terrorist networks that infest it.
 
.
America original enemy was Alqaida not the Taliban.If you keep killing them it will not end the problem.You have to change the ideology.If you kill today, 10 more will join tomorrow.In other words, Afghanistan is called Tomb of Empires.No one could occupy it successfully including British, Soviet's and Americans.
 
.
Let us also be clear that while the induction of the Taliban into the power structure in Afghanistan may be acceptable as part of the American exit strategy, a similar compromise in Pakistan would be entirely unacceptable.

So, In reality there is no exit strategy for the United States
i
Not so, there is an outline of one - just that the game is shifting -- to where it should have been all along - Pakistan.

Analyst after analyst have point to the fact that the strategic prize is Pakistan -- in fact where is it that islamist (al-qaida/Taliban and their Pakistani enablers) activity has picked up steam in the last two years?? In which have suicide attacks mushroomed? Which country is closer to internal collapse, Iraq? Afghanistan? or....Pakistan?

I am sure there will be some interesting comments to follow from the question, can Pakistan live with Al-Qaida, taliban and their Pakistani enablers?
 
.
i


I am sure there will be some interesting comments to follow from the question, can Pakistan live with Al-Qaida, taliban and their Pakistani enablers?


The answer is yes, Pakistan can live with them, but the world will not let them. The fear of Al-qaida striking again is a big issue, and also taliban growing influence in Pakistan (nuclear country) is a big issue.

The resolution of complacency is going to be grave mistake for the world as for Pakistan. If the NATO forces do leave, Pakistan will be in dire strait as S-2 has mentioned. The idealogy of Taliban with access to Nuclear bomb will be very hard for the world and NATO forces to control the situation like they are doing right now.

The true question one must ask is What does Pakistan want? Because eventually it has become the key master.
 
.
I'm pretty sure one day it will turn out that the Americans made us sign all the peace deals. :D
 
.
Jeypore


The review of the Afghan policy that will be out in a week or so -- expectations are that the focus will be where it ought to have been all along, Pakistan.

You suggest Pakistan can live with Talib Al-Qaida in Pakistan --
Whereas on our TV screens and in a variety of media we are fed the islamist message for a variety of reasons and whereas islamist political parties are certainly good at organizing street protests and media circus - most Pakistanis are not at all the kinds of people who appreciate beheadings and such -- this potential is untapped, and with not a snow flake's chance in hell islamists and their enablers will find refuge not even in hell, when this untapped potential is organized and directed.
 
.
i belive americans came with another plan in their minds and hindrance is only taliban..nevetheless talibans have factions among themselves and sometimes it can be exposed wittfully but will they give you a chance that is something to be reckoned!
 
.
Jeypore


The review of the Afghan policy that will be out in a week or so -- expectations are that the focus will be where it ought to have been all along, Pakistan.

You suggest Pakistan can live with Talib Al-Qaida in Pakistan --
Whereas on our TV screens and in a variety of media we are fed the islamist message for a variety of reasons and whereas islamist political parties are certainly good at organizing street protests and media circus - most Pakistanis are not at all the kinds of people who appreciate beheadings and such -- this potential is untapped, and with not a snow flake's chance in hell islamists and their enablers will find refuge not even in hell, when this untapped potential is organized and directed.


Very good point Mr. Muse, I also concur. Then one must ask that the motivation of eliminating the breading ground is still not in the physic of the majority. As I have suggested before it is high time for state of emergency and to round up talibs (maybe cruel) to be placed in only and only one spot.

The bolded statement made above by you, I fear when eyes are really open, it will be too late.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom