Obama to the New York Times:
Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail last year that the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban “should be explored,” an idea also considered by some military leaders. But now he has started a review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan intended to find a new strategy, and he signaled that reconciliation could emerge as an important initiative, mirroring the strategy used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq.
“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said.
What might this look like? At a meeting a little over a week ago at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington with reporters, Zalmay Rassoul, Hamid Karzai’s national security adviser, sketched out an approach to reconciliation when I asked him. "Our policy is those who are willing to stop fighting and drop their guns," are "not al-Qaeda" and "accept our constitution" are potentially reconcilable," he said.
Pressed by another reporter, Rassoul divided the insurgency ino three groups. "The hardcore leadership [with] very close links to al-Qaeda and other state actors" are "irreconcilable," he said, and the Karzai government wouldn’t negotiate with them. That would mean the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar, and presumably the leaders of affiliated insurgent groups like Jalaleddin Haqqani or Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Similarly, "the foot soldiers" were not people with whom to negotiate. "An economic alternative is the way forward for them," Rassoul said. "These are people lured into terror… it’s our responsibility to lure them out."
Negotiated reconciliation is the way forward for "the midlevel commanders," he said. "Our purpose is to reconcile with them… Whether they give up violence up front now or late, it doesn’t matter… What matters is they renounce [violence] at some point." Rassoul didn’t offer any particular guess on the size of this "midlevel" pool. But the day before, the Afghan foreign minister, Rangin Dadfar Spanta, said that reconciliation was a realistic prospect for a "remarkable" proportion of the insurgency.
That’s the Afghan government’s perspective, anyway. It’s by no means clear the Obama administration will follow its lead. Throughout 2006 and 2007 in Iraq, truces between insurgents and U.S. commanders broke out throughout Sunni Iraq at the company to brigade level, all without the explicit approval of either Washington or Baghdad. It’s at least possible — I’m not saying it’s likely, just possible — that unit commanders in Afghanistan could pursue their own truces or alliances of convenience with particular insurgent groups as well.
Login Here




14 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
Well I got that wrong. I think I can recall exactly two conservative blogs hovering around that NYT story on memeorandum.
BTW, if you use that website in Firefox, you really want to get yourself the FF add-on that highlights blogs red/blue based on their political spectrum.
Like this: Dont screw with us or give safe harbor to those that would and we won’t screw with you.
This categorization on the basis of whether the groups are militant or not is ridiculous. It completely misses and fundamental reason why the groups might have legitimate reasons to be militant, like Pashtun underrepresentation in the Afghan govt. But you couldn’t expect U.S. corrupt puppet Karzai to notice that. It’s all so mindless and stoooopid.
As long as nothing remotely smelling of bush,cheney,rummy,exops,&co. are involved, I’m wary but curious. Mebbe the foregoing could be offered on a silver platter as an appetizer.
you actually need color-coding? hmmmm. try readjusting the foil over the frontal lobes.
the pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence is packed with radical army personnel whose ideologies often overlap with the taliban. it began with zia-ul-haq in the ’80s. if you have been talking to the ISI, there’s nothing unusual about talking to the taliban.
Announce crusade, march in, burn national libe into crispychips, punch homeboys in the nose, fry their kids & grandmas, offer peace.
Ambooshchen & Co. already tried it.
nonstarter for them. go figure.
did i miss somethin?
I wouldn’t mind encouraging the adults now in charge to try again.
” …mindless and stoooopid.”
Well, we are talking about “war”, after all.
It ain’t gonna stop until it is no longer profitable (for the few).
This is not about finding common human cause in search of solutions, it is about appearances of ‘victory’ or ‘pacification’(for popular ‘consumption’) and, somehow, finding an ‘opportunity’ for the Political Cla$$ to ‘justify’ the ‘mindless and stooopid’ so that they can do ‘it’ again, sometime. (Sooner rather than later, if history is any guide. Of course, America is exceptional and history has nothing whatever to teach her.)
America can ill afford such utter nonsense, on any level, but we are truly well-endowed in the “m & s” department, which trumps all other possible considerations.
Remember, eCAHN, “you are either with us or against us”, there is no other way.
You are suggesting nuance and thoughtful consideration.
Neither appears, yet, to be in vogue, especially as it has never been clear what our ‘purpose’ is, aside from ‘encouraging’ what we term ‘free enterprise’ and having our way.
There is probably no more fitting place for America to have its come-up-ance than Afghanistan (with a little help from Pakistan).
It would also appear to be non-existant. Are you sure you’re posting in the right comments thread ?
What’s being discussed is whether some current militants would be willing to forego fighting to join in a moderate governance.
Is that stoopid?
One can argue that if the Pashtun are represented proportionately to population 2/3rds of the country and 95% of the other ethnic groups will break away. The Pashtun were the dominant force when the Taliban were the central government.
Karzai is a Pushtun as are a plurality of most government officials. No other group has the political power of the Pashtun in Afghanistan. The problem is that regions will remain unrepresented “on the ground” as long as there is the idea that a Pashtun-dominated government ( a la the Taliban) is the motive of the leadership.
If negotiations can occur with individuals who want regional autonomy and greater local participation at the Federal level then perhaps there can be a break in the logjam and a reduction of attacks against the Central government. At the same time that means that these subregions will continue to institute a fundamentalist version of Islamic law on their population, including women and those that are viewed as apostates.
here’s how it shouldn’t look like:
news from shrub’s stalwart ally (AP):
“A Saudi Arabian court has sentenced a 75-year-old woman to 40 lashes, four months imprisonment… for having two unrelated men in her house”
Hopefully, we’re going to be leaving the Afghans with something better than this, Taliban alliance or not.
“Hopefully, we’re going to be leaving the Afghans with something better than this, Taliban alliance or not.”
Surrender that hope and there’s a way forward. The idea that there are some “moderate” Taliban who are just gagging to become part of a liberal democracy is so laughable that you could cry. Afghanistan looks very much like being the graveyard of Obama’s presidency.