U.S. May Rethink Talking To Taliban

U.S., NATO May Negotiate With Moderate Taliban Leaders As Afghan Situation Worsens

(CBS/AP)  When NATO defense ministers meet in Budapest on Thursday, they will face a worsening situation in Afghanistan and vexing questions about whether the war can be won.

Increasingly, military commanders and political leaders are asking: Is it time to talk to the Taliban?

With U.S. and NATO forces suffering their deadliest year so far in Afghanistan, a rising chorus of voices, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the incoming head of U.S. Central Command, have endorsed efforts to reach out to members of the Taliban considered willing to seek an accommodation with President Hamid Karzai's government.

"That is one of the key long-term solutions in Afghanistan, just as it has been in Iraq," Gates told reporters Monday. "Part of the solution is reconciliation with people who are willing to work with the Afghan government going forward."

Gen. David Petraeus, who will become responsible for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command on Oct. 31, agreed.

"I do think you have to talk to enemies," Petraeus said Wednesday at an appearance at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, when asked about potential dialogue with the Taliban.

"You've got to set things up. You've got to know who you're talking to. You've got to have your objectives straight," he said. "But I mean, what we did do in Iraq ultimately was sit down with some of those that were shooting at us. What we tried to do was identify those who might be reconcilable."

In terms of Afghanistan, he said: "The key there is making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination with complete support of the Afghan government - and with President Karzai."

But entering negotiations with the Taliban raises difficult issues.

It is not clear whether there is a unified Taliban command structure that could engage in serious talks, and the group still embraces the hard-line ideology that made them pariahs in the West until their ouster from power in 2001.

During its 1996-2001 rule, Afghan women and girls were barred from attending school or holding jobs, music and television were banned, men were compelled to wear beards, and artwork or statues deemed idolatrous or anti-Muslim were destroyed.

In an assault that provoked an international outcry, Taliban fighters blew up two giant statues of Buddha that had graced the ancient Silk Road town of Bamiyan for some 1,500 years.

Seven years after the U.S. invasion, what was originally considered a quick military success has turned into an increasingly violent counterinsurgency fight.

An unprecedented number of U.S. troops - about 32,000 - are in Afghanistan today, and the Pentagon plans to send several thousand more in the coming months. Gates is expected to press for additional troops and money for the fight in Afghanistan at this week's NATO meeting.

At least 131 U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan this year, surpassing the previous annual high of 111 in 2007. An additional 100 troops from other NATO nations have died in 2008.

Speaking in London on Monday, U.S. Gen. John Craddock, NATO's supreme operational commander, said he is open to talks with the Taliban as long as any peacemaking bid is led by the Afghan government, not Western forces.

"I have said over and over again this is not going to be won by military means," Craddock said, adding that NATO's goal is to create a safe environment so responsibility for security can be transferred to Afghan authorities.

The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, added his voice to the rising chorus, saying Tuesday it was "desirable" to have direct talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, and offering to host any such meeting.

The problem, say some analysts, is identifying who within the Taliban can be a reliable negotiating partner.

"The Taliban are no longer a monolithic force; with whom do you negotiate if you want to talk with the Taliban?" asked Eric Rosenbach, executive director of the Center for International Affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School.

Rather than high-level, high-profile negotiations, "the Afghan government should pursue talks with individual commanders and warlords" who have renounced violence, he said.

"This approach is much more likely to succeed, will further fracture the opposition, and will place the Afghan government in a position of strength for future negotiations."

Charles Heyman, editor of Armed Forces of the United Kingdom, said there is widespread agreement that the original U.S. and British goal of building a liberal, Western-style democracy in Afghanistan in not attainable because the Taliban never were routed or forced to disband.

"There is going to be an accommodation with the Taliban whether people like it or not," he said. "Everyone knows this is going to be very, very difficult."

He said the West's long-term interest would be served by ensuring that al Qaeda doesn't have a presence in Afghanistan. That would mean making sure any future Afghan leadership, even if it includes Taliban elements, understands that it will come under sustained attack if it allows al Qaeda to set up training camps there.

Ayesha Khan, an associate fellow at the Chatham House research group in London, said it is possible that clerics close to fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Omar could meet with Afghan government representatives.

"This desire to engage the Taliban started last year and has gained momentum," she said. "The British government is involved in strategizing it. They are trying to separate the more moderate Taliban from the more extremist ones."

In Related News:

The U.S. military said Wednesday that U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan on Aug. 22 killed 33 civilians, far more than previously acknowledged. It expressed regret but blamed Taliban guerrillas who were targeted in the attack for having chosen to take up fighting positions near civilians.

A civilian toll of 33 compares with an original U.S. estimate of five to seven. The Afghan government and U.N. investigators contended 90 civilians died. In a summary of its findings from a detailed investigation, Central Command said 22 militants were killed in an assault that was launched on a village compound with the intent of killing or capturing an unnamed "high value individual."

[norcalruss]

I wonder what John McBomb would have to say about this? I suppose the flip-flopping hypocrite would be OK with this since the Bush administration is considering it. What would he say if Obama suggested it? Go into another of his rants about being naove, and appeasing our enemies blah, blah, blah

[swingset4u]

I thought the U.S. did NOT negotiate with terrorist???? I don''t think they will be having Tea and crumpets!

[babooph]

Just like Reagan did not pay blackmail $-HE PAID & WAS STIFFED-Why should the Taliban take less than they want -THE"RE WINNING!!!The US propaganda system will cover up the failures -AS ALWAYS!!

[whitemale08]

Of course the U.S. and the British are talking to the Taliban, this is how we end up supporting some 3rd world ditactor that will soon emerge here in Afganistan.

Same thing in Iraq.

One thing that they teach you at the Acadamey is that even Alexander the Great couldn''t fully control parts of the middle-east and Afganistan which is why it''s cheaper to back a ditactator.

And with the financial crisis unfolding, you better believe that that''s what is being planned and is part of the script for the next administration.

[getreeltex]

I thought the U.S. did NOT negotiate with terrorist???? I don''''t think they will be having Tea and crumpets!

Posted by swingset4u at 11:06 PM : Oct 08, 2008



That was just another talking point. Now that Bush is doing it, it''s briliant!

Stupid f*cking neocon parrots.

[andrew_693]

Well, when you loose a war it''s best to save face and start negotiating the surrender, the question is will the taliban put Bush''s soldiers in Guantanamo like conditions or will it be like vietnam where our guys were running in the tarmac at the airport trying to catch the last flight out back to apple pie and jesus with the vietcong kicking their arses all the way to the plane. I wonder if toby keith will still sing about how tough we are. The last flight out of afghanistan should put his music on the plane as they leave as to remind the defeated soldiers of a time of victories that never happened. I hope Macshame wins the election so we loose this war on his watch so he can tell his grandkids about how he was a failed soldier defeated by his enemies and went on to become a failed president defeated by more enemies.

[samthetvcat]

---"As Afghan Situation Worsens . . . "---

Don''t Dems secretly think that because Barack''s not Bush, it''s just going to be so much easier once they take office and Afghanistan''ll just start making gains and then we''ll leave? Like isn''t there going to be pressure on Barack after about a year or so to wrap things up?

Four years from now in 2012 Repubs''ll be using the exact same arguments against President Obama that Dems have used against Bush - he''s bungled the war, if they''d have been in power it''d have been won by then, where''s Osama, etc.

[egresor]

"I have said over and over again this is not going to be won by military means," Craddock said, adding that NATO''s goal is to create a safe environment so responsibility for security can be transferred to Afghan authorities.
=============
well you better have a talk with bush and mccain....cause bth of them believe in a military victory.

mccain said something like (paraphraseD) to bring the boys home in victory?

even the supreme military commander doesn''t believe that. and if you think they were talking about a negotiated settlement----uh-uh. that isn''t a victory. a victory is when the enemy is defeated. not when a settlement is agreed upon.

so if nccain is good to his word there will be no negotiations. not with the taliban and not with iran. that has been the stance of bush and that is the stance of nccain. make them knuckle under. that''s the attitude bush has brought and mccain ascribes to.

mccain intends to stay as long as it takes....rmember?

[jerr11]

I thought the Bush/Cheney admin don''t talk to their enemies. They kill them.

Pitiful, after routing them fours ago, now we''re reduced to having to negotiate with them.

I guess all those no-bid contracts in Iraq for Halliburton are worth the price of this humiliation for the Liar-in-Chief and his chief war architect, the great former CEO of Halliburton.

[inventagod2]

Owwww - That will scare the Taliban...


The Bu$hCo traitors were cutting deals with the Taliban just before 9/11...

I recall Bu$hCo offering "a carpet of gold or you''ll get a carpet of bombs" to allow the US oil companies a pipeline across Afghanistan...

Somehow, those talks soured, and Bu$hCo attacked NYC to instigate a war...

[scallywag8]

Well, I hope there are some pre-conditions set in place. Like ummm lets see...there pants down and bent over.

[lemonskink]

All I heard during the McCain yipping campaign was how Obama would open up dialogue, and now these crooks are using his playbook. Figures.

http://www.ronnierayjenkins.com/topics/education/The_Ballad_of_Caribou_Barbie/

[boatdocster]

No occupation army has ever taken down the Afghani''s in their own country.

You would think we would have remembered the Russians.

My bad - Bush and Think in the same sentence is an Oxymoron!

[egresor]

Well, when you loose a war it''''s best to save face and start negotiating the surrender, the question is will the taliban put Bush''''s soldiers in Guantanamo like conditions or will it be like vietnam where our guys were running in the tarmac at the airport trying to catch the last flight out back to apple pie and jesus with the vietcong kicking their arses all the way to the plane. I wonder if toby keith will still sing about how tough we are. The last flight out of afghanistan should put his music on the plane as they leave as to remind the defeated soldiers of a time of victories that never happened.

Posted by andrew_693
===

people should realize that that is exactly what''s going on. there is no way to win either war and america is trying to find an exit just like they did in vietnam. they propped up the south vietnamese government and said ok....we can leave now, but like you said the viet cong kicked our butts all the way to the planes.

all the parties know what''s going on including the taliban. so it''s up to them if they want it easy or harder.

right on about toby keith too

how you feel now toby? now that you can see the deception you swallowed. patriotism is a strong emotion and bush/cheney/rove knew just how to tap into it. seig heil!

[republic1776]

Why don''t we flood their with razor''s and mini skirts.

[egresor]

I thought the Bush/Cheney admin don''''t talk to their enemies. They kill them.

Pitiful, after routing them fours ago, now we''''re reduced to having to negotiate with them.

I guess all those no-bid contracts in Iraq for Halliburton are worth the price of this humiliation for the Liar-in-Chief and his chief war architect, the great former CEO of Halliburton.


Posted by jerr11

=====

not to worry

haliburton is making out just fine.

what do they care if it ends?
they raked in untold million from the american people. what do they care. they''ll be there for the next one too.

[libratine]

Looks like the deck is stacked against McMaverick.

BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh!!!!!!!! Oh my! Sorry. Ahem.

LOL.

[ramaci]

Bush Admin to the Taliban: We give you 100 million dollars, a pair of silk stocking, two Heresy chocolate bars for Osama Bin laden before November 4th

[egresor]

Bush Admin to the Taliban: We give you 100 million dollars, a pair of silk stocking, two Heresy chocolate bars for Osama Bin laden before November 4th

Posted by ramaci
----
no....that''s we''ll give you a billion dollars if you let us leave gracefully! and the hershey bars.

[toby2958]

Looks like the neocons and Bush are surrendering to me.

[demwatcher]

Wow, you Liberal idiots are in rare form tonight.

You crowed about how great it was that Obumba wanted to talk with ACTIVE rogue factions, but now that NATO (NOT Bush or McCain) is THINKING about talking with factions that have RENOUNCED their violence, you call it a disaster.

Continue making fools of yourselves. We enjoy it and your Liberal leaders expect it. As long as you remain the ignorant masses, they will be happy.

[getreeltex]

Wow, you Liberal idiots are in rare form tonight.

You crowed about how great it was that Obumba wanted to talk with ACTIVE rogue factions, but now that NATO (NOT Bush or McCain) is THINKING about talking with factions that have RENOUNCED their violence, you call it a disaster.

Continue making fools of yourselves. We enjoy it and your Liberal leaders expect it. As long as you remain the ignorant masses, they will be happy.

Posted by DemWatcher at 12:30 AM : Oct 09, 2008




Moron,


Do you even read the articles? Or do you just look at the pictures?




Let me help you here:


"With U.S. and NATO forces suffering their deadliest year so far in Afghanistan, a rising chorus of voices, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the incoming head of U.S. Central Command David Patraeus, have endorsed efforts to reach out to members of the Taliban considered willing to seek an accommodation with President Hamid Karzai''s government."

[toby2958]

Looks like President Obama and the Democratic Congress will have to fix all this after Bushie leaves office.

I''m not worried.

[getreeltex]

Negotiating with the Taliban?

Looks like Bush has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory again.

[heartlandjim]

Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! David Petraeus says we need to talk to the enemy. I can here McCain now. Palin, do your favorite thing. Fire ''em!! Right after I claim he''s a genious 15 times in my next debate.

[toby2958]

Perhaps we should send Palin into Afghanistan. I hear she''s quite a marksman. err. woman. Err... whatever. ;)

[neo269]

There is no such thing as a moderate Terrorist. This is just more of the same sick Liberal hypocrisy which infests the West. While we''re at it, let''s make Bin Laden the Democratic VP. Then all the terrorists and fanatics in the world will like us.

[ramaci]

I%u2019m liberal and I feel so dumb you are right. We, America, Bush and/or McCain have no representation or influence with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Maybe we should do what we (the west) have been doing in the Middle East over the last 100 years or so, install an %u201Cacceptable dictator%u201D. Wait a British ambassador in a coded French diplomatic cable mention it. Those NATO people, what will they think of next?

[claydowner]

The situation in Afghanistan has been deteriorating for several years. Taliban fighters make money from narcotics trade, have safe sanctuaries in Pakistan, and can rearm and equip new fighters faster than we can hunt them down. The Afghanistan war is more important than Iraq but has received way less resources. We are short infantry so we have to use airpower that increases civilian casualties.

There needs to be direct talks between Karzai and local leaders of the Taliban. But, the Taliban are nearly impossible to deal with because they are religious extremists who do not even want girls to go to school. The US negotiating with them will be very difficult.

I wonder when this war will ever end. It seems as if the fighting in the mountains of Afghanistan is going to go on indefinitely. If we do not use our braincells this whole conflict could last another 10 years or more. Some type of political accommodation between the Karzai government and the Taliban is necessary. There must be civil administration projects combined with a humanitarian aid packages that accompany any political agreement between the warring parties. This whole diplomatic process needs to replace the fighting with rebuilding a wartorn country from the ground up. There is no military solution to the Afghanistan problem.

[user168-2009]

But McNobrain and Painineck didn''t want to talk to any enemy.

[FHMullane]

Seems Obama is ahead of them all. Patraeus is McCain''s hero and look... even he knows that it is smart to talk.

[toby2958]

let''''s make Bin Laden the Democratic VP. Then all the terrorists and fanatics in the world will like us.

Posted by Neo269 at 12:46 AM

Well if Bush and the neocons had done their job, Bin Laden would be dead.

But of course, they didn''t.

Bush.

Cheney.

Neocons.

Failed.

[getreeltex]

There is no such thing as a moderate Terrorist. This is just more of the same sick Liberal hypocrisy which infests the West. While we''''re at it, let''''s make Bin Laden the Democratic VP. Then all the terrorists and fanatics in the world will like us.

Posted by Neo269 at 12:46 AM : Oct 09, 2008




Bush is a liberal?

[smurfcrusher]

Another Bush "victory."

I guess this means he shouldn''t have engaged a War of Choice in Iraq under false pretenses.

[billpl-2009]

what and we NObama the Taliban no more?

[smurfcrusher]

Another nail in that coffin which is Republican ideology.

[zietzke-2009]

"We will NEVER negotiate with terrorists" !! (Bush''s own words)...further: "we will hunt down these killers" !.....ANOTHER Failure and lie by this administration....Hell, this country is falling apart !

[rhs648]

Looks like President Obama and the Democratic Congress will have to fix all this after Bushie leaves office.

I''''m not worried.

Posted by Toby2958

You might be if the next president decides it won''t be possible to end the war quickly. Politicians are notorious for promising things but not delivering on their promises.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Bush is a liberal?" Posted by GetReelTex

Actually yes, his policies of welfare for the rich, reduced regulation of the rich, tolerance of corruption of the rich, and using the military as mercenaries for the rich, and now the nationalization bailout of failed, corrupt businesses, is extremely liberal.

But only if you are rich.

[mcfinished]

Just a few years ago, I recall GW Bush telling us that we don''t deal with terrorists.

Apparently, now we do.

Republicans - you just can''t trust them.

[rhs648]

Many posters fail to see the difference between Vietnam and the Muslim terrorists. It is neccessary to begin with the cold war and the fear Americans felt in the 1950''s and early 1960''s. Communists in the Soviet Union and China had vowed to destroy us. Many of our leaders believed that if Vietnam became a communist country, one country after the next would fall to communism. This was know has the "domino theory." However, it appears that the North Vietnamese were mostly interested in both North and South Vietnam becoming a communist nation and more or less restricted their ambitions to that region. The terrorists seem to have more ambitious plans. They want to destroy the western world and spread the Muslim religion everywhere. In effect, Vietnam was more ideological whereas the terrorist threat involves religious fanatics who wish to dominate the world. In light of this, we have to decide whether to stop them or let them grow until stopping them is too late. Regardless of ones position, we need to understand the differences and base our decision on the facts, not shallow or inaccurate comparisons.

[hermitdave]

Come on David, what you mean consider, we have been talking to them since before 9/11. Osama is CIA for crying out loud. This is a sham from the start. We owe Osama big time for helping throw out those evil Russians. As long as the drugs are flowing and the pipeline is moving along things are cool. So we blow up a few Afghan kids once in awhile, who cares they are not Christian kids.

[hermitdave]

So right tucker. I love the way this poster shrugs off the NAM mess as just a slight mistake. Forget the thousands of dead Americans that died for a filthy lie. There was no more of a chance of all those countries going commie, than there is that the Bush crusades were necessary.

[siobama]

"Regardless of ones position, we need to understand the differences and base our decision on the facts, not shallow or inaccurate comparisons."

Dear rhs648,

You are completely off the wall. Your comparisons are completely weird to say the least and your fear is absurd. Paranoia is not helpful in this case and it is making you see phantoms. Phantoms do not exist.

[mcfinished]

tuckerndfw at 02:02 AM : Oct 09, 2008 wrote:

"Muslim fanatics are little different than Jewish or Christian fanatics.

The "war on terror" as being conducted by the Bush administration (and supported by McCain) is a total waste of lives & resources."

Indeed.

One argument I''ve seen is that the Jews and Christians aren''t blowing people up. This is debatable and we only need to look back through history - both recent and older - to see that all religions have used violence.

Heck, GW Bush claimed that God had spoken to him and that is why he invaded Iraq killing and maiming many hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

Unfortunately, many Christians support war when it''s waged under the flag of Christianity.

Jesus didn''t believe in wars - and he certainly didn''t say it was ok to invade Iraq.

[irishmurph2]

Right - so now we raise the white flag. Unbelievable. Meanwhile our young empire is crumbling under the greed of a Republican economy...so what do we do? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban? I thought we had at one point been very, very close to winning this original "war on terro." And the shame of losing our finest including Pat Tillman. Also while all eyes are focused on losing our houses, Rice is in India making Nuke deals ,,, so they can build their own bomb. What else is going on under the radar, while they''ve diverted our attention?

[irishmurph2]

bomb, bomb, bomb iraq? kiss, kiss, kiss the Taliban?

[egresor]

we need to understand the differences and base our decision on the facts, not shallow or inaccurate comparisons.

Posted by rhs648
====
a comparison to vietnam is not out of line

it is similar in many ways

first

nefarious means were used to get us into each

they were/are not winnable

and you''re right....all the vietnamese were interested in was getting their own country back to themselves. like the US would feel/be in resisting occupationaal forces.
(the french and then the americans)

2nd

in both cases we look for an exit strategy....because everyone knows that (like the general said) it cannot be done militarily. the corrupt vietnamese sham government we established could not win over the vietnamese people (hearts and minds) and at the end we were hurting them just like we hurt the iraqi people. we bomb their towns and kill their people all in the name of trying to bring peace and democracy to them (it''s not about the oil at all you know). people hate us for killing their families and destroying the villages. can you blame them?

the muslim terrorists you speak of in iraq were made by US. and that deceitful invasions percipitated everything happening.

so the comparison is not all that far off my friend. btw i''m a viet vet-- bong son/among others 1967-68 and so have knowledge of what was going on incountry.

if you don''t fan/stoke a fire it dies out.

[brianbwb-2009]

"Right - so now we raise the white flag. Unbelievable." Posted by irishmurph2

It''s called "knowing when to fold ''em."

"Meanwhile our young empire is crumbling under the greed of a Republican economy...so what do we do? Give Afghanistan back to the Taliban?" Posted by irishmurph2

Seeing as how they did not attack us, we were stupid to mess with the ones who did the ground fighting that defeated their neighbor, the USSR. No matter when we leave, they will take it again, so even more then "knowing when to fold ''em", we shouldn''t have bought in in the first place"

I thought we had at one point been very, very close to winning this original "war on terro." And the shame of losing our finest including Pat Tillman.

No where near it, because it was a lie from the start, how do you win a lie?

"Also while all eyes are focused on losing our houses, Rice is in India making Nuke deals ,,, so they can build their own bomb." Posted by irishmurph2

Way late, dude, India has had nuclear weapons for the past fifteen years or more.

"What else is going on under the radar, while they''''ve diverted our attention?" Posted by irishmurph2

Nothing special, just the downfall of America.

[resurection9]

Yeah stuff like that is why he picked up the nickname, "General Betray-us". If they wanted to settle things without conflict. They should have shown an urge to do so when we droped the first 500,000 tons of exsplosives.Why make an attempt at diplomacy now? Thats like sticking your tounge to a flag pole in -35 degree wheather.You know it''s cold enough to freeze water.Yet your dumb enough to touch your tounge to it anyways.