Smurf-Herder
03-10-2009, 11:45 PM
Am I wrong, or haven't we learned from past experience with the Taliban in Pakistan that this is a bad idea?
Obama Signals Readiness To Talk To Taliban
CBS Evening News: White House Floats Trial Balloon In NYT Interview About Strategic Shift In Afghanistan And Pakistan
(CBS) President Obama, in a newspaper interview this weekend, signaled a possible strategy shift for the war in Afghanistan. And as CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports from Washington, it would involve a new approach to some members of America's long-standing nemesis: the Taliban.
They are the sworn enemies of the United States - the fighters who openly support America's enemy number one - Osama bin Laden.
And President Obama, who is now reviewing his war strategy in Afghanistan, says it may be time to talk to them.
Aboard Air Force One, he told the New York Times, we're not winning now.
"Our troops are doing an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation," the president said. "But you've seen conditions deteriorate... The Taliban is bolder, I think."
The president, who visited Afghanistan during the campaign, is considering talking to less extreme elements of the Taliban, just as U.S. forces did in reaching out to Sunni militants in Iraq.
"There may be comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region," Obama said.
Negotiating with the enemy is how wars are ended - that from one of the minds behind the surge strategy in Iraq.
The Taliban is made up of many tribes and leaders, some of whom may be ready to talk, Dozier reports.
"I think there are 'small t' Taliban we can negotiate with, and 'big t' Taliban who are going to have to be captured or killed, just like al Qaeda," says John Nagl, a senior fellow at the Center for the New American Security.
Those who only joined because they couldn't find another job somewhere else, or those who have been treated harshly by al Qaeda, may be ready to deal, Nagl says.
The hard part will be sorting friend from foe in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan, Dozier reports. Some are ideological purists, driven by religion. Others are loyal to a warlord or tribe. And all are separated by a hostile terrain.
"To try and peel off, try to isolate and marginalize the very hard core ones and then try to protect the population," says Karin Von Hippel with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The strategy itself is good if they can do it right. It's very difficult. It's very nuanced."
But until NATO can train enough Afghan forces to offset the Taliban, they need to find another way to stop the growing violence.
Analysts call the Obama interview a carefully controlled trial balloon by the White House. They already know their forces on the ground are going to have to work with some elements of the Taliban. They've got to start getting the American public used to that concept before the president makes it official, Dozier reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/08/eveningnews/main4852716.shtml
Obama's Taliban Response Draws Lukewarm Response From Allies, Criticism From Experts
The reactions President Barack received for his proposal to talk to "moderate Taliban" are different in style, but not very different in substance from the comments Germany's former head of the Social Democratic Party, Kurt Beck, got: Mostly negative.
Jason Burke argues in the Guardian that talking to the Taliban has been tried on the local level for some time - and it has failed. According to a Reuters story, many experts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are skeptical of Obama's talk offer to the Taliban, questioning whether there are any "moderate Taliban," and calling negotiations with them useless. And Peter Bergen, an al Qaeda expert with the New America Foundation, cautions against making deals with the Taliban.
America's allies have been equally cautious in their response to the President's proposal. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said possible negotiations with moderate elements of the Taliban are primarily a decision of the government in Kabul. He added that the Afghan government must make sure that Taliban involved in possible talks have to distance themselves from violence.
Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said pretty much the same thing: "If the Afghan government at the end of the day desires to go out there and have discussions with people who fundamentally will renounce any forms of violence, we're quite comfortable with that," Cannon told public broadcaster CBC.
The best analysis I could find of why talking to the Taliban makes sense comes from Robert Dreyfus in the Nation who argues that given the dire prospects for Afghanistan the U.S. will have to strike a deal with the Taliban sooner or later.
And the price for the most sardonic reply to Obama's proposal goes to David Rothkopf.
And finally: Not surprisingly the Taliban flat out rejected Obama's proposal calling it "illogical."
http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/michael/1.7795.html
Obama Signals Readiness To Talk To Taliban
CBS Evening News: White House Floats Trial Balloon In NYT Interview About Strategic Shift In Afghanistan And Pakistan
(CBS) President Obama, in a newspaper interview this weekend, signaled a possible strategy shift for the war in Afghanistan. And as CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports from Washington, it would involve a new approach to some members of America's long-standing nemesis: the Taliban.
They are the sworn enemies of the United States - the fighters who openly support America's enemy number one - Osama bin Laden.
And President Obama, who is now reviewing his war strategy in Afghanistan, says it may be time to talk to them.
Aboard Air Force One, he told the New York Times, we're not winning now.
"Our troops are doing an extraordinary job in a very difficult situation," the president said. "But you've seen conditions deteriorate... The Taliban is bolder, I think."
The president, who visited Afghanistan during the campaign, is considering talking to less extreme elements of the Taliban, just as U.S. forces did in reaching out to Sunni militants in Iraq.
"There may be comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region," Obama said.
Negotiating with the enemy is how wars are ended - that from one of the minds behind the surge strategy in Iraq.
The Taliban is made up of many tribes and leaders, some of whom may be ready to talk, Dozier reports.
"I think there are 'small t' Taliban we can negotiate with, and 'big t' Taliban who are going to have to be captured or killed, just like al Qaeda," says John Nagl, a senior fellow at the Center for the New American Security.
Those who only joined because they couldn't find another job somewhere else, or those who have been treated harshly by al Qaeda, may be ready to deal, Nagl says.
The hard part will be sorting friend from foe in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan, Dozier reports. Some are ideological purists, driven by religion. Others are loyal to a warlord or tribe. And all are separated by a hostile terrain.
"To try and peel off, try to isolate and marginalize the very hard core ones and then try to protect the population," says Karin Von Hippel with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The strategy itself is good if they can do it right. It's very difficult. It's very nuanced."
But until NATO can train enough Afghan forces to offset the Taliban, they need to find another way to stop the growing violence.
Analysts call the Obama interview a carefully controlled trial balloon by the White House. They already know their forces on the ground are going to have to work with some elements of the Taliban. They've got to start getting the American public used to that concept before the president makes it official, Dozier reports.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/08/eveningnews/main4852716.shtml
Obama's Taliban Response Draws Lukewarm Response From Allies, Criticism From Experts
The reactions President Barack received for his proposal to talk to "moderate Taliban" are different in style, but not very different in substance from the comments Germany's former head of the Social Democratic Party, Kurt Beck, got: Mostly negative.
Jason Burke argues in the Guardian that talking to the Taliban has been tried on the local level for some time - and it has failed. According to a Reuters story, many experts in Afghanistan and Pakistan are skeptical of Obama's talk offer to the Taliban, questioning whether there are any "moderate Taliban," and calling negotiations with them useless. And Peter Bergen, an al Qaeda expert with the New America Foundation, cautions against making deals with the Taliban.
America's allies have been equally cautious in their response to the President's proposal. German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said possible negotiations with moderate elements of the Taliban are primarily a decision of the government in Kabul. He added that the Afghan government must make sure that Taliban involved in possible talks have to distance themselves from violence.
Canada's Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon said pretty much the same thing: "If the Afghan government at the end of the day desires to go out there and have discussions with people who fundamentally will renounce any forms of violence, we're quite comfortable with that," Cannon told public broadcaster CBC.
The best analysis I could find of why talking to the Taliban makes sense comes from Robert Dreyfus in the Nation who argues that given the dire prospects for Afghanistan the U.S. will have to strike a deal with the Taliban sooner or later.
And the price for the most sardonic reply to Obama's proposal goes to David Rothkopf.
And finally: Not surprisingly the Taliban flat out rejected Obama's proposal calling it "illogical."
http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/michael/1.7795.html