[Peace-discuss] What the Debate Missed on Afghanistan: Brits Say Talk to Taliban

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The US' most political general makes a move in the war in Washington on 
the Middle East. --CGE]

	Petraeus: US Should Talk With Talk With Taliban, Other Enemies
	Posted October 8, 2008

Much has been made of the rumored peace talks between Afghanistan and 
the Taliban, and while both the Taliban and the Afghan government have 
made rather public denials that any such talks are ongoing, the United 
States has been totally silent on the report. That is, until today.

Today, General David Petraeus confirmed that Afghan President Hamid 
Karzai has in fact asked Saudi Arabia to arrange peace talks between his 
government and the Taliban. He also referenced “some local activities” 
to that end.

And while the general said he didn’t want to “get into the middle of 
domestic politics,” he appeared to endorse the idea, saying that he 
thought the US should talk with its enemies. In the case of Afghanistan 
he said “the key is making sure that all of that is done in complete 
coordination with complete support of the Afghan government and with 
President Karzai.”

President Karzai seems to be in favor of reconciliation as well, having 
last week made a public call to Taliban leader Mullah Omar to return to 
the country and participate in upcoming presidential elections. Karzai 
promised to be personally responsible for Omar’s safety. The Taliban 
rejected the call, saying Karzai was a “puppet” of the US and not in a 
position to negotiate.

So far the only sign that the Taliban is at all open to reconciliation 
is a statement by Mullah Omar late last month which offered US and NATO 
forces a “reasonable opportunity” to withdraw safely from the country. 
There has been no apparent progress on the offer.

http://news.antiwar.com/2008/10/08/petraeus-confirms-peace-overtures-to-taliban/

Robert Naiman wrote:
> We sent this alert out today in response to the debate and the anniversary.
> 
> -----------------
> 
> 
> October 7 marked the seventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
> 
> Our British allies are telling us that there is no military solution,
> that there must be a political solution, and that there should be
> talks with the Taliban. It would be a step forward for U.S. policy if
> the Presidential candidates would acknowledge this reality in the next
> Presidential debate on October 15.
> 
> Can you join us in asking the Presidential candidates and debate
> moderator Bob Schieffer to acknowledge that the British say there must
> be a political solution, and that there should be talks with the
> Taliban?
> 
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/afghanreality.html
> 
> The top British military commander in Afghanistan says, "We're not
> going to win this war," and "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on
> the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement,
> then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies
> like this." [1] The British government supported the commander's
> statements: a spokesman said the UK's ministry of defense "did not
> have a problem" with warning the UK public not to expect a "decisive
> military victory" and to prepare instead for a possible deal with the
> Taliban. [2]
> 
> Meetings between Taliban representatives and Afghan government
> officials took place recently in Saudi Arabia. [3]
> 
> Defense Secretary Gates made partially supportive remarks. Gates
> endorsed efforts to reach out to members of the Taliban or other
> militants in Afghanistan who may be considered reconcilable, much like
> what has happened in Iraq. [4]
> 
> But what Gates didn't acknowledge was the need to bring in people at a
> higher level than individual fighters, which would likely involve
> political accommodation. In Iraq after 2006 the U.S. brought in
> leaders, and made accommodation for groups with political demands,
> such as integration into the Iraqi army.
> 
> Some may wish to postpone confronting the uncomfortable reality of
> Afghanistan until after the election. But the danger is that the
> candidates will lock us into a policy of military escalation, which
> without a new political strategy, is almost certainly doomed to fail.
> That would mean more needless American and Afghan deaths before we
> accommodate reality. Why not begin accommodating reality now, and
> avoid the needless deaths?
> 
> Please join us in asking the Presidential candidates and debate
> moderator Bob Schieffer to acknowledge reality in Afghanistan.
> 
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/afghanreality.html
> 
> Thanks for all you do in support of a Just Foreign Policy,
> 
> Robert Naiman, Chelsea Mozen, and Sarah Burns,
> Just Foreign Policy
> 
> Please support our work. We're funded by people like you. Our small
> staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. You can
> contribute here:
> 
> http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate.html
> 
> References:
> [1] "Talks with Taliban the only way forward in Afghanistan, says UK
> commander," Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian, October 6, 2008.
> [2] "Britain risks US rift in war against Taliban," Jimmy Burns and
> Daniel Dombey, Financial Times, October 6, 2008.
> [3] "Source: Saudi hosts Afghan peace talks with Taliban reps," Nic
> Robertson, CNN, October 5, 2008.
> [4] "Gates: Afghan militants key to country's future," Lolita C.
> Baldor, Associated Press, October 6, 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>