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

Thu Oct 9 16:43:00 CDT 2008

Thanks, Barbara-

And you're right of course.  It's well worth one of those "even Gen. Petraeus says" points that can be so effective in arguing that the Bush & Obama policies are way off. 
 Ricky 

"Only those who do nothing make no mistakes." - Peter Kropotkin

----- Original Message ----
From: Barbara kessel <barkes at gmail.com>
To: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 2:39:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] What the Debate Missed on Afghanistan: Brits Say Talk to Taliban

Excellent point, Ricky, about the native tribes vs. the colonists as parallel to all the resisting parties in the Middle East, from Palestinians to Pakistanis, including Iraq and Iran. Still Gen. Petreaus' comment is pretty amazing, as it raises a doubt (even if it was unwitting on his part to do so) about what we are doing in any and all of those places, from deep within the Green Zone. Barbara Kessel

On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:

This is a very useful statement by Petraeus, and we ought to spread it around.  It's mainly useful because it comes from outside the anti-war camp.  But Carl's comments are worth remembering, too.

And one more - the Afghans we are fighting in Afghanistan are indigenous, unlike the English *colonists* in North America who rebelled against their "Mother Country" (mainly as a continuation of longstanding conflicts within English society about the "rights of Englishmen", not against belonging to the British Empire, per se, except for some of the rabble called to die for their betters again.)  The "terrorists" from Iraq to Afghanistan are more like the rebellious Seminole, Lakota, Apache, and others  attempting to defend their land from the "early Americans".  But that message still doesn't play too well - wonder why?

 Ricky

"Only those who do nothing make no mistakes." - Peter Kropotkin

----- Original Message ----
From: C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
To: naiman.uiuc at gmail.com
Cc: peace discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 11:09:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] What the Debate Missed on Afghanistan: Brits Say Talk to Taliban

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.
>>>>>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________

Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081009/6fd4893b/attachment.html