Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Afghanistan war end-game includes truce with the Taliban

Baraka_Guru · 01-29-2010, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Afghan endgame: From victory to compromise

Nine years after the war began, the plan to end the war involves making peace with the Taliban, not eradicating them

Doug Saunders

London — Globe and Mail Update Published on Thursday, Jan. 28, 2010 9:19PM EST Last updated on Friday, Jan. 29, 2010 8:47AM EST

With surprising unanimity, the countries fighting in Afghanistan agreed, for the first time in the war's nine-year history, to a set of goals for its conclusion and a rough timetable for withdrawal.

The plan, reached at a day-long conference of more than 60 foreign ministers in London on Thursday, is far removed from the optimistic vision of a prosperous and united country foreseen in 2001, when the United States and its allies, including Canada, launched their campaign to oust the Taliban government.

The war's endgame replaces a military victory with a political compromise that involves making peace with the Taliban and incorporating its more moderate and “reconcilable” factions into Afghanistan's government – a scenario that many participants, including Canada's military command and political leadership, have opposed in the past.

It appears that peace talks with the Taliban have already begun.

It was reported that senior figures from the Islamist movement's leadership council held talks in Dubai on Jan. 8 with UN special representative Kai Eide to pave the way for the scenario laid out in London.

The new plan will see the country given over to Afghan forces on a district-by-district, province-by-province basis. Some provinces will be handed over to full Afghan National Army control by the end of this year.

This will be followed by a large-scale withdrawal of forces and transfer of power beginning in late 2011, shortly after the departure of Canadian combat troops, although some, mainly U.S., forces will stay for at least five more years.

Most controversially, it establishes a fund, which, hours after its launch, had attracted $141-million (U.S.) in pledged contributions for its first year of operations, that will place Taliban fighters on the government payroll, and calls for peace talks beginning this spring that may lead to a power-sharing government involving some Taliban factions.

The new plan is, in essence, a redefinition of the concept of victory.

At a minimum, it means that even if the withdrawal of coalition forces coincides with the Taliban holding power in several provinces and branches of the Afghan government, the mission can still be declared something other than a failure as long as al-Qaeda does not return to Afghanistan.

Under its most optimistic scenario, the plan will see a unified Afghan National Army and police force, with more than 140,000 members each and incorporating formerly alienated fighters who had joined moderate Taliban factions, holding control of a drug-free country on behalf of a diverse national government that may include some former Taliban leaders but which supports the Afghan constitution.

However it plays out, the London plan marks the first time countries fighting in Afghanistan have agreed on a strategy to end the war – one largely conceived and written by U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the head of NATO forces.

“I believe this conference has perhaps for the first time set out a clear agenda with clear priorities for the Afghan government,” Mr. Eide said as he released the conference’s communiqué.

Canada was more guarded than other countries. Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said the Taliban reconciliation plan will need discussion before Canada commits any funds. Ottawa made only a $25-million (Canadian) pledge to a drug-eradication plan, an announcement of a previously budgeted contribution.

This was partly because Canada has had experience with paying Taliban fighters to switch sides, participating in a scheme that paid off more than 4,000 fighters before petering out around 2007.

The new plan also means a dramatic change of strategy for Canada’s forces, which have been engaged in a form of village-based counterinsurgency that involves clearing out the Taliban, establishing the trust of the village and building infrastructure such as schools, a process that can take years.

The new plan will mainly involve training Afghan National Army soldiers and former Taliban fighters, and places the U.S. very much in charge.

Mr. Cannon said that any financial contributions will require discussion, but that Canada will support the overall plan. “I am extremely confident, because I have seen a degree today of co-operation and understanding among all parties involved,” he said, adding that the plan will mean a “transition into a more secure Afghanistan. … We all need to be confident in what General McChrystal is proposing.”

The London meeting was decidedly a political, rather than a military, conference, and it provided the foreign ministers some relief in being able to take home a political narrative that can be used to explain why numerous lives have been lost in a conflict without an apparent victory.

“Afghanistan has been the victim of other countries’ policies for too long,” British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told his fellow ministers, “and now I believe there is a chance for Afghanistan to have the independence and autonomy it has so long craved.”

But despite its unanimity, the London plan is little more than a broad outline, lacking in dates, numbers or locations.

Some of these will be filled in at a Kabul “Grand Jirga” peace conference to be held in the spring, likely with the participation of the leaders of at least one of the four groups that make up the Taliban.

Participants also backed away from earlier optimism. The initial draft of the communiqué referred to five provinces being shifted to Afghan control this year; it was changed Thursyesterday simply to “some provinces.”

The idea of incorporating Taliban elements into national and provincial governments has alarmed many human-rights advocates who worry that the extreme repression of women experienced during the 1990s could return.

The ministers stressed repeatedly that the Afghan constitution, with its guarantees of human rights, would remain supreme. “Reintegration and reconciliation is not about selling out Afghanistan’s constitution,” Mr. Miliband told a women’s group. “It’s about defending Afghanistan’s constitution.”

Afghan endgame: From victory to compromise - The Globe and Mail

Okay, so what we have here are a few major developments:

an exit strategy in Afghanistan,
a compromise on the original plan of defeating the Taliban, and
a surprising unanimous support of allied countries for the plan.

A couple of major implications:

Ending the war is certainly desirable for those involved, but at what cost?
The Taliban are no longer expected to face defeat; the plan involves two controversial aspects that include millions of dollars for funding job creation for moderates, and the negotiating of a truce with the Taliban militants, with the help of Saudi Arabia.

It's no question that many want to see an end to the military operations in Afghanistan, and it looks like it might happen sooner than later. But what do you think about how they are compromising in their view of the Taliban?

I remember reading a ways back a comment from either an expert in Middle East relations or a native of Afghanistan that it is folly to want to destroy the Taliban because the Taliban make up an actual segment of the country. The Taliban are Afghanis.

At the same time, there are those who view them as tyrants, terrorists, and/or supporters of terrorism.

This is the controversy. Though it should be known that a lot of security and development is still to be implemented and ensured over the next 10 or 15 years. But still....

What do you think about this development and what it will mean in the region?