What’s going on with the Afghanistan insurgent-reconciliation process? Last month, the Kabul government seemed disinclined to deal with the leadership of the insurgency, including the Taliban’s Quetta Shura and key factional chiefs like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaleddin Haqqani. But now the Christian Science Monitor‘s Anand Gopal reports that the government has talks open with Haqqani’s people:
… the [Karzai government's] mediating group began to contact the Taliban leadership and the heads of the Haqqani network. "We’ve contacted the Haqqanis indirectly," says one member of the mediation team, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "They were open to hearing our proposals."
The mediators drafted a road map for an eventual settlement. In the first stage, the Haqqani network should stop burning schools and targeting reconstruction teams, and the US military should stop house raids and release Haqqani-network prisoners (similar provisions were proposed to the Taliban).
Representatives of the Haqqani network have agreed in principle to the road map as a starting point for negotiations. But the specifics may change as talks proceed.
What spurred the Haqqani network to see an opening? According to an Afghan senator quoted in the piece, President Obama’s recognition that the conflict doesn’t have a military solution shook loose some interest from the Taliban and the Haqqani network. Yet the road map under discussion calls, at this stage, for restrictions on U.S. military actions leading to ultimate U.S. withdrawal. Would the Obama administration accept that?
According to a knowledgeable source, the U.S. has three basic conditions for what it can’t accept from the Karzai government in terms of insurgent reconciliation: no al-Qaeda; no separate deals with insurgent groups that leave them in charge of provinces; and no restrictions on military operations. If Gopal’s report is accurate, a roadmap for peace with Haqqani tests the strength of those conditions.
As far as I can tell, Gopal is the first to detail this negotiations process. We’ll see if denials emerge from Haqqani’s people, as was the case earlier this week with the Taliban‘s Quetta Shura following reports that they were ready to deal with the Kabul government.
Crossposted to The Streak.



21 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
thanks Spencer
Thanks for this, Spencer.
Retrictions on the U.S. military? Seems completely unamerican to me.
Those guys(especially Hekmatyar)have done more harm to the people of Afghanistan than OBL.
Maybe true, but whose interests should the US put first, the American people or the Afghani population?
The US probably won’t like the best possible outcome outside of a puppet propped up by the US military. That’s tough.
I wished I’d counted the time that the U.S. switched sides vis-a-vis Hekmatyar. Wasn’t he one of our best buds during the war against the Soviets?
If the U.S. military was about U.S. interests, it wouldn’t have invaded Afghanistan to begin with. There were other ways to get OBL.
Last i heard, the military doesn’t get to decide when or where to invade.
Hopefully that won’t change.
I agree that it’s not going to be a happy outcome in Afghanistan, neither for the US nor for the Afghanis.
You quibble. The military claims to do what it is told by civilians (I have my doubts, but that’s an issue for a different day). So it is the civilians who are using the military for purposes that have nothing to do with benefitting the U.S.
Does that fix it for you?
I expect Karzai to look out for the Afghan people (gave up on the US giving a damn long ago). Although it is may be a ridiculous expectation he is the one in the position to do so. If the US was acting in its own or Afghanistan’s interest, there would not have been an invasion, IMO.
Karzai is a U.S. puppet. No way he’ll look after Afghan interests. He’s only interested in staying alive and getting elected again.
Karzai was a US puppet under the Bush regime, certainly. However, he has been kicked pretty neatly by Obama, Clinton, and Biden; I don’t think he is their puppet at the moment. Like all politicians these days, I’m certain he is interested in himself primarily, but he is a “democratically elected” President and even though it is popular to dismiss him out of hand he has the power to negotiate away the future of the Afghan people.
So who’s the next U.S. puppet? If Obama doesn’t like Karzai, does he have another one waiting in the wings? Or will he just put up a Mission Accomplised sign if Karzai goes, and hope for the best?
Yes, I was quibbling and apologize. I read assertions around here about the military sometimes make me oversensitive.
Karzai barely has control of the area around Kabul. Based on the history of the country and their unwillingness to be influenced by foreigners I don’t imagine Karzai has much support outside of his comfort zone. The use of drones isn’t going to make us any friends.
No need to apologize, but thanks. It is hard to make sure to keep precise language when reacting quickly. selise disciplines me constantly.
Here’s an interesting discussion on the new application of the Petreaus Doctrine of buying off your opponents, as applied to Afghanistan.
i appreciate the link, but I have a lot of difficulty treating Porter too seriously since he defended the Democratic Republic of Kampuchea, or whatever it was that Pol Pot was calling it.
I also think that Porter exaggerates the quality of his information.
Thanks. I am not familiar with Porter’s background. What you say sounds pretty damning. So far, in my short history, Porter has made sense.
Karzai’s hold on Kabul isn’t too firm either. The problems that Afghanistan has historically had is with occupation, rather than influence.
Drones and “accidental” death raining down on civilians isn’t popular in any country.