Comments on: Don’t Start The Talking I Could Talk All Night

By: Kilo

Kilo — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:02:02 +0000

Reuters - Afghan Taliban reject Karzai’s safety vow

The Taliban have ruled out any talks as long as foreign troops remain in Afghanistan. Karzai said Sunday that condition was unacceptable.

Mullah Brother, deputy leader of the Taliban, rejected Karzai’s offer of safe passage and again said foreign troops had to leave before negotiations could start.

“As long as foreign occupiers remain in Afghanistan, we aren’t ready for talks because they hold the power and talks won’t bear fruit … The problems in Afghanistan are because of them,” Brother said.

By: Kilo

Kilo — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 15:14:08 +0000

AM commenters seemed to be more preoccupied with pidgeonholing what policy wonk he was channelling without any reference to what he was saying and it’s applicability on the ground.

By: yorksranter

yorksranter — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:10:50 +0000

Reading Kilcullen’s comments, I’m struck by one thing; it’s all so very, very John Vann in 1970. (Does he has three Afghan mistresses tucked away somewhere as well?) The Abu Muq commentosphere is complaining that Kilcullen is advocating something similar to the Russian position (concentrate on population security and holding the cities), but then I think the post-withdrawal Soviet solution is the best we can achieve – i.e. a fairly reasonable government with control of the bulk of the population, using few if any foreign manoeuvre units but plenty of aid and advisors.

By: Jkat

Jkat — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:04:04 +0000

damn lord curzon anyway ..

By: macaquerman

macaquerman — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 02:08:37 +0000

Cordell Hull

By: Kilo

Kilo — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 22:33:21 +0000

No, like I said, the question of “Taliban” sincerity is something you judge in negotiations. You’re raising an objection to giving them stuff because they’ll renege on their end of the bargain. And maybe that’s true. But I’m making a point about entering into negotiations — if they break down, they break down.

As mentioned elsewhere of Afg blogs, negotiations have been ongoing for years. So what hasn’t been entered into yet, apart from offering them the outcomes I referred to ?

By: Jkat

Jkat — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:00:29 +0000

it’s hard to call imo .. i’ve read far too much kipling to ever be optimistic about anyones chances of taming afghanistan ..

By: Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:48:32 +0000

Oh, I see WAY more problems with my scenario than that. As I say, it’s no guarantee. But is it worse than the alternatives?

By: Jkat

Jkat — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 17:33:08 +0000

well spence .. the only problem i see with your scenario is the question of who will know what.. in terms of “gaining some appreciable level of popular support from the populace” .. from what i’ve read .. seen .. heard .. “news” doesn’t travel well or fast in pak-ganistan .. what information “gets out” isn’t necessarily accurate .. but depends on who is tellin’ the tale ..

By: Spencer Ackerman

Spencer Ackerman — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 14:24:48 +0000

No, like I said, the question of “Taliban” sincerity is something you judge in negotiations. You’re raising an objection to giving them stuff because they’ll renege on their end of the bargain. And maybe that’s true. But I’m making a point about entering into negotiations — if they break down, they break down. But you’re no worse off then before if they do, and you probably gain at least some appreciable measure of popular support from the populace by entering into them. It’s anecdotal, but when I was in Afghanistan, Afghans pretty frequently told me that the Karzai government has to talk with the Taliban to bring them into the government. If Karzai reaches out and they refuse in some point during the process, then they’re the assholes, not him.