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

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?

kramus · 01-29-2010, 04:08 PM

It is the only viable option.

I am totally disgusted with these mujahadeen freaks, with their blow-up-everybody as an accepted alternative to dialogue. I also am not enamoured with their kill-their-own--girls because there is some bullshit idea of male pride being more important than the lives of their own children, or the burn-girls-with-acid because that is how you treat half the human race when it wants to learn.

Unfortunately,there are hundreds of millions of people that are ok with that shit as part of their way of life. And we have to accept that, because the alternative is war to the death. So we accept it while hoping that the moderates who actually live there can keep the Taliban freaks from destroying/degrading everyone and grinding our future down to some horrific vision as a result of their personal belief system.

I think we will always be stuck with this crap, it is part of the human condition. Maybe the next step after homo sapiens sapiens will figure something out that bypasses the Taliban mindset. I can only hope that the Taliban don't find a way to end the possibility of any future for anyone. I do believe that they would prefer that the entire human race burns to death rather than allow some of us think differently than them.

*sigh*

Martian · 01-29-2010, 05:51 PM

The trouble is that the whole thing is a war on ideology.

You can't kill an idea. Short of wiping out everyone who ever supported the taliban, striking some sort of truce was always a matter of when, rather than if.

I am a firm believer that some sort of stability is necessary before lasting change can be affected. Work on that first, then work on changing mindsets.

Pearl Trade · 01-29-2010, 07:13 PM

How are we expected to make peace with these extremists, when the normal believers think the exact same way, just less hardcore?

No way that the truce will work. This reminds me of Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler back in the day. The Munich Agreement. Peace for land. Didn't work at all, and offering peace to the Taliban would be exactly the same. The USA would look weak and cowardly. Meanwhile, Bin Laden mocks our stupidity until the day he dies.

Willravel · 01-29-2010, 08:07 PM

We were never going to wipe out the Taliban. We supposedly went in after al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan in any meaningful way (less than 100 individuals according to the best sources). We have no reason to be in Afghanistan. If there's to be a real democracy there, let the young reformers from Afghanistan get that done, I'll back them up. We don't need to be there.

rahl · 01-29-2010, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martian

The trouble is that the whole thing is a war on ideology.

You can't kill an idea. Short of wiping out everyone who ever supported the taliban, striking some sort of truce was always a matter of when, rather than if.

I am a firm believer that some sort of stability is necessary before lasting change can be affected. Work on that first, then work on changing mindsets.

Serious question, isn't every war a war of ideology? I agree that it is near impossible to change these peoples' views. What I have trouble understanding is how this is any different than any other war that has ever been fought. I'm trying to ask this question in as nuetral a way as I possibly can.

Martian · 01-29-2010, 10:34 PM

Not in the slightest. Wars can be fought over territories or resources, and what may be an ideological struggle to one faction could well be a simple fight for survival for their opponents.

I'm not going to say the coalition had no business in Afghanistan. We all went in there, because it was necessary. But there's a fine line here, and it needs to be tread with caution. As soon as you start trying to fight against a concept, you've lost by default. You can't beat an idea through brute force.

Removing the Taliban from power wasn't a bad thing. Driving the Al Qaeda forces out of Afghanistan certainly wasn't a bad thing. But those goals have been accomplished. The next step is to rebuild and restabilize the country, and those things can't be done under constant conflict. If you're trying to wipe out 'terrorism' or 'insurgency' or even 'extremists' through military might, you're never going to win. There's no solid force, there's no infrastructure to speak of. Your enemy is the ultimate in adaptable, ad hoc forces.

It is my opinion that negotiating with the moderate elements of the Afghan political structure is not only the best course of action, it's the only one that stands any chance of bringing peace to the region again.

Ace_O_Spades · 01-30-2010, 05:19 AM

I remember back in 2006 when the NDP leader in Canada Jack Layton forwarded this same idea and was soundly thumped because of it.

Hey! Maclean's did a feature on it:

Quote:

And you all laughed - Beyond The Commons - Macleans.ca
Jack Layton, Sept. 1, 2006. “A comprehensive peace process has to bring all the combatants to the table.”

New York Times, today. Afghanistan’s president declared Thursday that reaching out to the Taliban’s leaders should be a centerpiece of efforts to end the eight-year-old war there, setting in motion a delicate diplomatic process that will carry great risks for both Afghanistan and the United States.

Ahem.

Andrew Coyne, Sept. 2, 2006. Leave aside what there is to negotiate with the Taliban. (Perhaps we’ll only stone some of the homosexuals to death? Every third school to be burnt to the ground?) Is it to be imagined that they would be content with a share of power, a portion of the territory? The most extreme exponents of an apocalyptically extremist sect, a movement absolutely devoted to the absolute necessity of absolute rule, in which the church-state regulates everyday life down to the most insignificant detail? That Taliban?

Christie Blatchford, Sept. 4, 2006. I wonder how he might actually swing it, were he the PM and that process was starting today. Would he chide the “combatants” (“Bad Taliban!”) even as he welcomed them to the peace talks? Would he pull out the chairs for their representatives? Would he pour the tea for those who have killed 23 Canadian soldiers this year?

Peter MacKay, Sept. 6, 2006. “Is it next going to be tea with Osama Bin Laden? This cannot happen.”

Rick Mercer, Sept. 6, 2006. Speaking of the short bus I see that Jack Layton has distinguished himself on the international front by coming up with a solution for the Afghanistan situation. Jack is calling for peace talks with the Taliban. About time the NDP get back to their more loony roots. For a while there they were coming off all semi-sensible.

Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 13, 2006. “These are people who whipped women in stadiums given to them by the international community to play soccer; who refused to let women learn to read. The Taliban made Afghanistan a failed state and a terrorist haven for al-Qaida so that they could launch the Sept. 11th attack. What’s to negotiate?”

I opposed extending the mission in 2009 after it became clear the only options were compromise and withdraw, or go all Carthage on their asses. The opportunity to win the "hearts and minds" has long since passed... The serious abuse and torture done by the ANA to detainees transferred by NATO forces being one of the more serious reasons.

So I'm happy our troops will be leaving very shortly, and that we can divert those resources to more worthwhile pursuits... Like say, attacking our own structural budget deficit...

roachboy · 01-30-2010, 07:19 AM

given the hopeless muddle that the afghan adventure has been from the outset, i think this is about the only sane alternative and its release to the public indicates (finally) that there actually is attention being paid to how to get out of the muddle that is the bush administrations and now the obama administrations afghan adventure. the central government is in about the same position it was in around 2003---it cannot deliver the basic services required to assure a routinized legitimacy (basic services are a political argument for the legitimacy of the status quo if you think about it)---it represents a different coalition of factional leaders many of whom now find themselves in a far weaker position than they were in previously for having joined with the karzai goverment---the americans etc. have been a party withi a civil war rather than a mediating force for a long time---the whole situation is absurd, futile. and there are no good options. the taliban is not a great bunch of guys. the americans and allies probably dont want to be understood as a colonial occupation...there's no good way out.

so this seems to me about as sensible an approach as is possible in a nutty situation.

Canine · 02-09-2010, 06:29 PM

something that doesn't come out a lot is that we are actually fighting two broad categories of people in Afghanistan. One group, the Taliban proper, have become somewhat more organized and are actually adopting slightly more moderate views than before. We could make peace with them and the Taliban would stop fighting and start integrating into the government. Sounds peachy.
But what the news doesn't mention (or at least fails to distinguish) is the second category - Local insurgents. These people come from every village in the country and fight the same war as the Taliban, use the same weapons and tactics, and dress in the same clothes. But they don't work together on any large scale, have no chain of command to tell them to stop, and they aren't motivated by ideology like the Taliban. Some insurgents may lay down their weapons at a truce with the Taliban, but many more will not. They will continue fighting until all foreign forces are out of the country. But the harder they fight us to force us out, the more difficult it will be for us to actually be able to pull out, because we won't leave until there is peace and stability. Every bomb in the road and every gunshot takes away from that peace. We have to make peace with -everyone-, not just the Taliban. The local farmers with AK-47s and an RPG won't be attending any international peace conferences.

inBOIL · 02-11-2010, 12:13 AM

Wasn't there some agreement in place recently (maybe it was in Pakistan) that gave control of certain areas to the Taliban in exchange for their agreement to stay out of other areas? IIRC, that fell apart because the Taliban didn't stick to the bargain. Which is to be expected, really. When you're fighting against the forces of Satan, you aren't really bound by any agreement you make with them.

Stability will spell the end of the Taliban, but it's really easy for them to destabilize things. We have to set up a transition scheme that strongly discourages them from destabilizing society at every step of that transition. Perhaps bribing their leaders with prestige, legitimacy, a steady paycheck and a few ideological concessions is the best price we can hope to pay for the stability that's needed.

01-29-2010, 04:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
kramus loving the curves Location: my Lady's manor	It is the only viable option. I am totally disgusted with these mujahadeen freaks, with their blow-up-everybody as an accepted alternative to dialogue. I also am not enamoured with their kill-their-own--girls because there is some bullshit idea of male pride being more important than the lives of their own children, or the burn-girls-with-acid because that is how you treat half the human race when it wants to learn. Unfortunately,there are hundreds of millions of people that are ok with that shit as part of their way of life. And we have to accept that, because the alternative is war to the death. So we accept it while hoping that the moderates who actually live there can keep the Taliban freaks from destroying/degrading everyone and grinding our future down to some horrific vision as a result of their personal belief system. I think we will always be stuck with this crap, it is part of the human condition. Maybe the next step after homo sapiens sapiens will figure something out that bypasses the Taliban mindset. I can only hope that the Taliban don't find a way to end the possibility of any future for anyone. I do believe that they would prefer that the entire human race burns to death rather than allow some of us think differently than them. sigh __________________ And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ... I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

01-29-2010, 05:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	The trouble is that the whole thing is a war on ideology. You can't kill an idea. Short of wiping out everyone who ever supported the taliban, striking some sort of truce was always a matter of when, rather than if. I am a firm believer that some sort of stability is necessary before lasting change can be affected. Work on that first, then work on changing mindsets. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

01-29-2010, 07:13 PM	#4 (permalink)
Pearl Trade Addict Location: Houston, Texas	How are we expected to make peace with these extremists, when the normal believers think the exact same way, just less hardcore? No way that the truce will work. This reminds me of Neville Chamberlain and Adolph Hitler back in the day. The Munich Agreement. Peace for land. Didn't work at all, and offering peace to the Taliban would be exactly the same. The USA would look weak and cowardly. Meanwhile, Bin Laden mocks our stupidity until the day he dies. __________________ Our revenge will be the laughter of our children. Give me convenience or give me death!

01-29-2010, 10:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	Not in the slightest. Wars can be fought over territories or resources, and what may be an ideological struggle to one faction could well be a simple fight for survival for their opponents. I'm not going to say the coalition had no business in Afghanistan. We all went in there, because it was necessary. But there's a fine line here, and it needs to be tread with caution. As soon as you start trying to fight against a concept, you've lost by default. You can't beat an idea through brute force. Removing the Taliban from power wasn't a bad thing. Driving the Al Qaeda forces out of Afghanistan certainly wasn't a bad thing. But those goals have been accomplished. The next step is to rebuild and restabilize the country, and those things can't be done under constant conflict. If you're trying to wipe out 'terrorism' or 'insurgency' or even 'extremists' through military might, you're never going to win. There's no solid force, there's no infrastructure to speak of. Your enemy is the ultimate in adaptable, ad hoc forces. It is my opinion that negotiating with the moderate elements of the Afghan political structure is not only the best course of action, it's the only one that stands any chance of bringing peace to the region again. __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

01-30-2010, 07:19 AM	#9 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	given the hopeless muddle that the afghan adventure has been from the outset, i think this is about the only sane alternative and its release to the public indicates (finally) that there actually is attention being paid to how to get out of the muddle that is the bush administrations and now the obama administrations afghan adventure. the central government is in about the same position it was in around 2003---it cannot deliver the basic services required to assure a routinized legitimacy (basic services are a political argument for the legitimacy of the status quo if you think about it)---it represents a different coalition of factional leaders many of whom now find themselves in a far weaker position than they were in previously for having joined with the karzai goverment---the americans etc. have been a party withi a civil war rather than a mediating force for a long time---the whole situation is absurd, futile. and there are no good options. the taliban is not a great bunch of guys. the americans and allies probably dont want to be understood as a colonial occupation...there's no good way out. so this seems to me about as sensible an approach as is possible in a nutty situation. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-29-2010, 08:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	We were never going to wipe out the Taliban. We supposedly went in after al Qaeda, and al Qaeda is no longer in Afghanistan in any meaningful way (less than 100 individuals according to the best sources). We have no reason to be in Afghanistan. If there's to be a real democracy there, let the young reformers from Afghanistan get that done, I'll back them up. We don't need to be there.

02-09-2010, 06:29 PM	#10 (permalink)
Canine Upright Location: Fort Bragg, NC / Kandahar Province, Afghanistan	something that doesn't come out a lot is that we are actually fighting two broad categories of people in Afghanistan. One group, the Taliban proper, have become somewhat more organized and are actually adopting slightly more moderate views than before. We could make peace with them and the Taliban would stop fighting and start integrating into the government. Sounds peachy. But what the news doesn't mention (or at least fails to distinguish) is the second category - Local insurgents. These people come from every village in the country and fight the same war as the Taliban, use the same weapons and tactics, and dress in the same clothes. But they don't work together on any large scale, have no chain of command to tell them to stop, and they aren't motivated by ideology like the Taliban. Some insurgents may lay down their weapons at a truce with the Taliban, but many more will not. They will continue fighting until all foreign forces are out of the country. But the harder they fight us to force us out, the more difficult it will be for us to actually be able to pull out, because we won't leave until there is peace and stability. Every bomb in the road and every gunshot takes away from that peace. We have to make peace with -everyone-, not just the Taliban. The local farmers with AK-47s and an RPG won't be attending any international peace conferences. __________________ Awesome sig coming to a post near you! If you say plz because its shorter than please, then I'll say no because its shorter than yes.

02-11-2010, 12:13 AM	#11 (permalink)
inBOIL I have eaten the slaw	Wasn't there some agreement in place recently (maybe it was in Pakistan) that gave control of certain areas to the Taliban in exchange for their agreement to stay out of other areas? IIRC, that fell apart because the Taliban didn't stick to the bargain. Which is to be expected, really. When you're fighting against the forces of Satan, you aren't really bound by any agreement you make with them. Stability will spell the end of the Taliban, but it's really easy for them to destabilize things. We have to set up a transition scheme that strongly discourages them from destabilizing society at every step of that transition. Perhaps bribing their leaders with prestige, legitimacy, a steady paycheck and a few ideological concessions is the best price we can hope to pay for the stability that's needed. __________________ And you believe Bush and the liberals and divorced parents and gays and blacks and the Christian right and fossil fuels and Xbox are all to blame, meanwhile you yourselves create an ad where your kid hits you in the head with a baseball and you don't understand the message that the problem is you.