Obama want to talk to the Taliban

[Joseph]

Obama Says US May Reach Out to TalibanAP
posted: 2 HOURS 59 MINUTES AGOcomments: 2862filed under: Political News, The Obama PresidencyPrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON (March 7) - President Barack Obama says he hopes U.S. troops can identify moderate elements of the Taliban and move them toward reconciliation.
Asked in an interview with The New York Times if the United States is winning in Afghanistan, Obama said "no," while adding "our troops are doing an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation."
Skip over this content
A Presidency BeginsMartin H. Simon, Pool / Getty Images42 photos President Barack Obama said in an interview published Saturday that there may be chances to reach out to moderates in the Taliban in Afghanistan. Here he leaves the Oval Office for Camp David, Md., Saturday. Click through for more on the first weeks of Obama's presidency.(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)





"But you've seen conditions deteriorate over the last couple of years. The Taliban is bolder than it was. I think ... in the southern regions of the country, you're seeing them attack in ways that we have not seen previously," Obama said in the interview, which was posted Saturday on the Times' Web site.
"The national government still has not gained the confidence of the Afghan people," he said. "And so it's going to be critical for us to not only, get through these national elections to stabilize the security situation, but we've got to recast our policy so that our military, diplomatic and development goals are all aligned to ensure that al-Qaida and extremists that would do us harm don't have the kinds of safe havens that allow them to operate."
There may be opportunities to reach out to moderates in the Taliban, but the situation in Afghanistan is more complicated than the challenges the American military faced in Iraq, Obama said.
U.S. troops were able to persuade Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq to cooperate in some instances because they had been alienated by the tactics of al-Qaida terrorists.
Obama cautioned that Afghanistan is a less-governed region with a history of fierce independence among tribes, creating a tough set of circumstances for the United States to deal with.
Skip over this content
Latest Obama PhotosREUTERS500 photos The hands of U.S. President Barack Obama and first lady, Michelle Obama as they walk on the South Lawn of the White House while departing for the presidential retreat in Maryland, March 7, 2009. REUTERS/Larry Downing (UNITED STATES POLITICS IMAGE OF THE DAY TOP PICTURE)(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)

The idea of cooperation with some in the Taliban has been talked about for many months by American military commanders including Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command. But it would be a sharp departure from the approach of the Bush administration in regard to the Taliban.
"If you talk to Gen. Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us," said Obama.
"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region, but the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex," Obama added.
Last month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government's terms.
At the same time, Obama left open the possibility that U.S. operatives might capture terror suspects abroad without the cooperation of a country where they were found.
"There could be situations — and I emphasize 'could be' because we haven't made a determination yet — where, let's say that we have a well-known al-Qaida operative that doesn't surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don't have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person," he said.
Obama added that the U.S. doesn't torture its suspects and noted in some cases those being held would have an opportunity to challenge their detention in federal courts.

There was a poll; Talking No 63%
yes 25%
don't know 12%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Naked Gents Rut]

America out of Afghanistan as soon as possible.

[DaShi]

It is a better long term solution than occupation. However, how moderate could a moderate Taliban be?

[Jon Miller]

In all real politic honesty, do we care as long as they don't attack us or support those who attack our interests?

JM

[Naked Gents Rut]

No.

[Zevico]

No, but judging by the ideology of the Taliban, that's impossible. The relevant question is whether the Taliban are capable of hurting American interests enough to merit all-out conflict, or whether a withdrawal would be more cost-effective (taking into account that an accurate cost-benefit assessment is difficult to make.

[Unimatrix11]

Conflict takes crossing interests of (at least) two parties. One could as well make Zevico´s statement the other way around: By judging the ideology of the americans, talking to them is impossible. It´s just a matter of the pov taken. The Taliban, for example, i imagine, being religious and muslim, have an issue with america being practiacally allies of the saudis, who are privelged (sp?) with guarding the Kaaba. They (the americans) dont do it for reasons of faith though, but for oil and business and thus (in the pov of the taliban) corrupted the guardians of the holy site (or something along these lines roughly). The taliban have issues with that. Add the palestine mayhem. So talking to the taliban would entail talking more than just about afghanistan. It would indeed entail the whole american politics in the near and middle east (which leads to energy politics as well, among other things).

So, though i think fruitfull talks will be hard, even for Obama and his promise of a radical change of US-politics, it is always a good idea to attempt to initiate some form of negotiation. There is nothing to loose, but potentially a lot to gain.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

It is a better long term solution than occupation. However, how moderate could a moderate Taliban be?

The leadership of the Taliban still consists of the same crazy f*cks it always did, though they're currently motivated less by ideological/religious fervor than by the fact that Afghanistan is turning into a narcostate, and they're missing out on the spoils.

But much of the Taliban rank-and-file, and even at the mid-levels, are men who are not committed to the Taliban per se but simply see the Taliban as the most promising force in their area. This is especially true in Kandahar, Helmond, and Nimroz. These guys -- particularly the young, unemployed men with no immediate prospects at home -- could be drawn away, if viable alternatives were presented. To some extent, the Afghan security forces -- especially the Afghan National Army, which has been one of the great success stories of the last few years -- are beginning to provide such an opportunity, which is why Taliban terrorism has occasionally targeted recruiting centers. But it's not enough.

Right now, the Taliban's greatest weapon is the knowledge that, whenever we go home -- be it years from now or decades from now -- they will still be there, waiting. There's no question that that's true. The trick is not to wipe them out -- which we can't do -- but to undermine them (by depleting their ranks, among other methods) while building up an Afghanistan that seems to Afghans themselves as worth defending from the Taliban (as some of today's Afghans do not).

For that reason, Obama needs to be talking not only to the Taliban (with the hope of drawing away moderates) but also, frankly, Iran, which has a huge interest in seeing Afghanistan succeed and the Taliban fail.

[SlowwHand]

Talking with the Taliban is a fool's folly.

[Unimatrix11]

This sounds like good expertise, Rufus. It made me come across a maybe funny idea: Would Iranian ´peace-keepers´ be more accepted in afghanistan ? I mean, the US and Europe could still do the build up and such, but maybe Afganistan offers a field of cooperation (in whatever form), as you state, the interests of the US and Iran actually coincide there. I know this is a very far shot, but just as a ´Gedankenspiel´ - what do you think about it?

[Ramo]

Not really. Iranians are backing Kabul, and wouldn't be seen as neutral. Also, they're competing with Pakistan over influence in Afghanistan, and stoking Pakistani concerns would be pretty counter-productive.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Iran hasn't got the money for a proper peacekeeping mission. Moreover, they certainly couldn't replace NATO forces, and it's hard to see them serving alongside our troops when we don't even have diplomatic relations with each other.

But the Taliban are fervently anti-Shia, which should engage Iran's interest on an ideological level; they're also clients of Tehran's bitter rivals, the Saudis, so there's a geopolitical motivation for defeating them. On top of that, Iran also has a huge and growing drug addiction problem, and Afghanistan is the supplier. Iran has a real interest in a stable, non-Taliban future for Afghanistan, and could be of specific help in the provinces that border their country (especially Herat, which is a real problem right now). They need to be at the table.

[Kuciwalker]

Talking with the Taliban is a fool's folly.

Yes; Bush tried it immediately following 9/11.

[Zkribbler]

The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11. That was al Qaeda. Our true enemy is al Qaeda. The Taliban's mistake was its decision to give a safe harbor to al Qaeda. We ended that problem when we invaded Afghanistan and ousted them from power.

If we can draw the mid-level and low-level guys away but cutting deals with them similar to what we did with the Iraqi Sunnis to bring about the Sunni Awakening, then we should.

Al Qaeda, though, belongs in our crosshairs.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The Taliban didn't attack us on 9/11. That was al Qaeda. Our true enemy is al Qaeda. The Taliban's mistake was its decision to give a safe harbor to al Qaeda. We ended that problem when we invaded Afghanistan and ousted them from power.

If we can draw the mid-level and low-level guys away but cutting deals with them similar to what we did with the Iraqi Sunnis to bring about the Sunni Awakening, then we should.

Al Qaeda, though, belongs in our crosshairs.

Actually, al Qaeda is looking more and more like a spent force -- which is not to say they don't belong in our crosshairs, but even getting every last one of them wouldn't solve much. The real problems are the newly-emergent terrorist groups operating in the lawless parts of Pakistan, especially the group Lashkar-e-Taiba, who look very much like they're making a bid to be the new al Qaeda.