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

[C. G. Estabrook]

Petraeus is of course an instrument of American murder in the Middle East -- 
done in the interests of the small group who own this country -- and therefore 
certainly a thug.

But of course the thuggishness of the leaders of the American revolution is hard 
to deny. An example that recently came to my notice were some comments on the 
post-war demands of Daniel Shays' veterans, who so frightened the upper classes 
that they wrote the anti-democratic constitution of 1787 with a central 
executive to keep the lower orders in their place:

   --Samuel Adams said that the economic protests were the result of British 
emissaries acting as outside agitators; he helped draw up a Riot Act, and a 
resolution suspending habeas corpus, arguing that rebellion in a republic, 
unlike in a monarchy, should be punished with the death penalty.

   --Abigail Adams (Sam's cousin-in-law) applauded the military force that put 
down the rebellion, because "Ignorant, restless desperadoes, without conscience 
or principles have led a deluded multitude to follow their standard, under 
pretense of grievances which have no existence but in their imaginations..."

CGE

Robert Naiman wrote:
> Well, Petraeus isn't comparing the Taliban to us today - he's
> comparing the Taliban to the American colonists during the War of
> Independence. A remarkable comparison.
> 
> Maybe there is something to be said for letting military leaders
> participate in political debates...I don't think we've heard this
> comparison from any Members of Congress yet.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 9:38 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> Petraeus seems far too circumspect to make statements about his enemies that
>> unintentionally apply to himself, as Bush does ("terrorists need to be
>> eliminated from the Middle East"), but the reference to "us" as "thugs" may
>> be an exception.
>>
>> But what makes him America's most political flag office is that his
>> principal enemies seem always to be the opposite faction in the military and
>> the government.  For example, he campaigned for the job of proconsul in Iraq
>> against the officers who then held it by -- unprecedentedly -- publishing
>> his counterinsurgency manual on the net.
>>
>> Can these unusual statements be interpreted that way?  Perhaps, if it's true
>> that the argument between Neocons and Realists in Washington includes the
>> issue of who should be constructed as the threat in the Middle East that
>> justifies the continuance of US military occupation (and not just in Iraq).
>>  The former prefer Iran, the latter Pakistan. (An occluded form of the
>> debate is reflected by the presidential candidates -- Obama more a hawk on
>> AfPak than McCain, whom he pillories for "bomb-bomb-Iran.")
>>
>> Petraeus, lauded by both candidates but particularly by McCain, may be here
>> carrying water for the Neocons, against the Realist belligerence that will
>> probably continue from the end of this administration into the next: Obama
>> as president will be able to improve on Bush's "baby steps" (as Obama's
>> campaign terms it) in killing Pushtuns.  --CGE
>>
>>
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>> Petraeus said something quite reasonable.
>>>
>>> From the JFP News yesterday: 'Gen. Petraeus said negotiations with some
>>> members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections
>>> of
>>> Afghanistan, Reuters reports. The British commander in Afghanistan had
>>> told
>>> the Sunday Times negotiations with the Taliban could bring needed
>>> progress.
>>> Asked about those remarks, Petraeus noted that Britain's long experience
>>> negotiating with adversaries helped reduce violence in Iraq. "They've sat
>>> down with thugs throughout their history, including us in our early days,
>>> I
>>> suspect," he said.'
>>>
>>> I think the antiwar.com piece is wrong about there not being any sign of
>>> Taliban interest. It's true that their public proclamations in response to
>>> Karzai's appeals have been hostile. But there was the meeting in Saudi
>>> Arabia, which Karzai's brother attended according to some reports; Omar's
>>> statements that the Taliban is no longer alled with al Qaeda; Taliban
>>> observance of the UN Day of Peace; Taliban agreement not to attack
>>> humanitarian convoys if Taliban commanders are contacted in advance.
>>>
>>> "Seek peace and pursue it."
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 1:43 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>> wrote:
>>>> [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.
>>>>>
>>
> 
> 
>