Vikram Singh and Nate Fick of the Center for a New American Security visited Afghanistan just before I did, went to many more places, and take to the New York Times to warn about the crisis of governmental illegitimacy. (Me too me too. Vikram was kind enough to talk to me for this piece.) In listing their suggestions for bolstering the legitimacy of the political process, they take a brave and important position:
Third, the Afghan government must negotiate with Taliban groups that have shown an honest willingness to renounce violence in exchange for a path back into the country’s political life. Most Afghans we spoke with drew a sharp distinction between Afghan Taliban and other groups opposing the government — Al Qaeda, Arab foreign fighters and members of the Pakistani Taliban. They view Afghan Taliban as “sons of Afghanistan” who deserve to be treated differently than their more extreme foreign counterparts.
This is increasingly the position of the Karzai government itself. Singh and Fick are good counterinsurgents, so they understand that cooptation is the way counterinsurgencies are typically won. Interestingly, at General McClellan’s McKiernan’s press conference last week, he declined to take a position on whether Karzai should cut a deal with the Taliban — saying, sensibly, that that’s not his call — but said that there were certain insurgents that he’d be rather unenthusiastic about seeing in government. Undoubtedly it’s a bitter pill to swallow — they’re the Taliban! But if anyone has a better idea for an Afghanistan endgame, I’d like to hear it.
Login Here




7 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
I’d rather have ‘em in the tent, pissin’ out, than the other way around.
Saw the author of “Kill Bin Laden” saying the same thing the other day.
Being inclusive of Taliban members who are not as radical is the way many who know the Afghanistan situation from the inside out recommend. A retired Brigadier General in Afghanistan that I have had the pleasure of asking questions via his son has said that the Taliban were on the run after the U.S. invaded. That the situation in Afghanistan improved for the year after that invasion. But that the U.S. did not keep up the pressure and from the end of 2002 until now the Taliban continued to regain power.
Last week on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now Robert Fisk said that the Taliban was in control of one half of the country
Part I of the Fisk interview
http://www.democracynow.org/20…..ior_robert
ROBERT FISK: Look, the Taliban now control half of Afghanistan, not just at night, but in the day—during the day, too. There’s no doubt that Petraeus has got it right when he talks about things are going to get worse.
…I believe Fisk will be doing part two with Amy Monday
Spencer I am by no means a spelling bee gal. No need to put this up. I think you mean “co-operation” in that last paragraph. Glad you’ve picked up on how being inclusive of the not so radical element of the Taliban is the only way to move forward there. Have heard several Afghanis in the know repeat this
I read that sentence again. What does “cooptation” mean?
Freed the tolls!
At this point, there is no better solution, which is way there is no point in looking for a solution now.
The Afghanis are bribable, but will never be loyal to anyone but their own and those that they embrace as their own. They don’t really play well with others.
You’re going to have to shape the situation so that it offers no profitable alternative to the one you desire. That probably requires the severe diminishment of insurgent fighting capability and at least two years.