The debate about whether the United States should open talks with Afghan insurgents appears to be gathering momentum — so much so that it is beginning to acquire an air of inevitability, without there ever being a specific policy announcement.
The U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide, became the latest to call for talks when he told France’s Le Monde newspaper that reconciliation was an essential element. “But it is important to talk to the people who count,” he said. ”A fragmented approach to the insurgency will not work. You need to be ambitious and include all the Taliban movement.”
His remarks follow much more guarded comments by President Barack Obama who said in an interview with the New York Times that Washington might look for “comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region” as it did in Iraq, involving “reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us.”
Vice President Joe Biden has also said that U.S. assessments were that only five percent of the Taliban were “incorrigible”. He told a news conference in Brussels that whatever happened would have to be initiated by the Afghan government. “But I do think it is worth engaging and determining whether or not there are those who are willing to participate in a secure and stable Afghan state.”
According to the New York Times, the Afghan government has already begun exploring the potential for negotiations with the Taliban leadership council of Mullah Omar and with mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Al Jazeera has also reported that the Afghan government has begun talks with Hekmatyar, while the Christian Science Monitor said Kabul had opened preliminary negotiations with the network of mujahideen commander Jalaluddin Haqqani.
I have just written an analysis on what any U.S. dialogue with Afghan insurgents would mean for India and Pakistan, two countries with a major stake in any political settlement, and am still trying to pin down the implications for other major regional players, including Russia, Iran and China.
One theme that is emerging is the extent to which any dialogue with the Afghan insurgents would aim to peel them away from the Islamist ideology of al Qaeda by stressing their Pashtun identity above their religious affiliation. (The Pashtun lost their dominant position in Afghanistan when the Pashtun Taliban were toppled by the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.)
According to C. Raja Mohan, quoted in my analysis, “Addressing Pashtun grievances is indeed the key to any settlement. The real problem is different: all Taliban are Pashtun; not all Pashtun are Taliban. Finding the space here is the real challenge.”
The distinction between stressing the Pashtun identity over the religious identity of the Afghan insurgents could prove to be fundamental in the coming months (and that is not to suggest that the insurgents can be reduced to a single identity — you have to assume that like everyone else they have multiple loyalties, to religion, tribe, nationality, ethnic group, family etc etc).
And that brings me to what I think are the most interesting questions about any U.S.-backed talks with Afghan insurgents. How would you frame these talks in such a way as to reach a political settlement that would satisfy both the people of Afghanistan and the regional players?
Would you, for example, use Saudi Arabia as an intermediary, as has been done in the past? Saudi Arabia had close links with the Taliban before they were ousted in 2001, and is also a U.S. ally. At the same time, its foreign policy tends to have a religious tint to it, and its involvement could create problems with Iran - a major rival in the Islamic world, which also wants to be sure that any government in Kabul respects the rights of Afghanistan’s non-Pashtun Persian-speakers and of its Shi’ite minority.
Does the United States have a choice? Or, facing financial mayhem at home, will it accept any settlement in Afghanistan as long as it eliminates al Qaeda as a global threat? (Shazia Rafi at The Women’s Media Center and Fareed Zakaria at Newsweek both have interesting takes on how far the United States should be ready to compromise with hardline Islamists.)
I don’t have answers, but I did scroll back to a blog I posted last May asking: Who will be left standing when the Afghan war ends? At the time, I asked the Reuters reporter who covered the fall of Saigon in 1975 for his answer to that question. He quoted me the following truism of asymmetric warfare; “the strong lose if they don’t win and the weak win if they survive.”
The situation in Afghanistan seems to have moved very quickly since then, until we are now asking not whether the United States should support dialogue with the insurgents, but how.
(Reuters photos: U.S. troops on patrol in Afghanistan, and President Barack Obama)
Trackback
56 comments so far
Previous | 3 | 2 | 1 | Next
@Pakistanis are jealous of Indians eh ? If that’s the case why are the Indians so obsessed with Pakistan, as evidenced by this blog ?
- Posted by Aamir Ali
-This is called “alert and watching” for the fallout of the events inside Pakistan. You guys are obsessed with the word “obsessed”.
- Posted by rajeevPakistanis are jealous of Indians eh ? If that’s the case why are the Indians so obsessed with Pakistan, as evidenced by this blog ?
Returning to topic, the US is now engaged in dialogue with militants and wants deals. So why was Pakistan criticized and condemned so heavily for doing the same ?
- Posted by Aamir AliFrom the Hadiths of Abu Dawud
Book 14, Number 2478:
Narrated Imran ibn Husayn:
The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: A section of my community will continue to fight for the right and overcome their opponents till the last of them fights with the Antichrist.
Then shall victory come. Allahu Akbar!
- Posted by ginaGlobal watcher,
Your words are comforting. We should remain positive.
- Posted by Mauryan@Mauryan,
No Mauryan, India will not fall into that trap, if the reaction to Mumbai is any indication.
India will continue to become stronger in democracy, secularity and equality for all, regardless of caste, race and religion.
India has inertia of 7000 years of civilization, like the great civilizations of Persia, China, Greece, India will always persevere, always has and always will and will emerge greater than ever in its own successes.
Dalits, muslims, Sikhs, all of these people have positions of power and beginning to realize as they try harder, they are equal to everybody else, as the old hatreds and resentments melt away, Pakistani’s get more scared than ever.
India is ancient, secular, democratic and inclusive. Those strengths are beyond measure and words and fuel jealousy in Pakistan.
- Posted by Global WatcherGlobal watcher: Provoking Hindu extremism inside India is part of the plan. This will help alienate the Indian Muslims even more and that can be used as a leverage in Pakistan’s jihad against India. Like you, I detest the Hindu fundamentalists too. But they have emerged due to emotional reasons where justice is elusive. When 9/11 happened the reactions shown by Americans anything associated with Islam/Muslims was stark. They didn’t hesitate to show their true feelings. One Tamil actor named Kamal Hassan was denied entry to the US from Toronto because his name sounds Muslim. His name is based on Sanskrit, but that didn’t matter. So worldwide human beings react the same way when emotional buttons are pushed. It is unfortunate, but those who plan long term conflicts to divide up people, rely on these things. They cause the damage, wait for the reaction and capitalize on it. India unfortunately is falling in that trap.
- Posted by Mauryan@Myra,
Attached is a link showing the location of the terrorist training camps:
http://www.kashmir-information.com/Terro rism/machine.html
In Indian General Kapoor’s own words, since Mumbai, there has been no change in the number of guerilla terrorist training camps.
India has satellite imaging capability, there fore existence of these guerilla style terrorist training camps in Pak Kashmir is not just some conspiracy theory.
Please let this topic be posted so that it may be discused and brought and given its due discussion.
- Posted by Global WatcherIt seems that the Pakistani Army is still complicit, supporting and quietly supporting Terrorism, namely the Kashmir Mujahideen terror training camps and the Taliban.
Please refer the following link.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Pak-s till-running-terror-camps-Army-chief/art icleshow/4315822.cms
Myra, the U.S. has to do more to pressure include turfing of these so-called strategic proxy terrorist army “assets”.
The U.S. must consider droning these terrorist training camps in Pakistan Kashmir, in the future.
Will you please, in a future topic, directly and headon, address the Terrorist Jihadi Proxy Armies in Pakistan, nurtured and cultivated to agitate and destabilize India?
I am a little perturbed that the west is turning a blind eye to the Kashmir based terrorist camps.
- Posted by Global Watcher@Mauryan,
First off there are proud muslims who practice their faith who can be called moderates, unfortunately the mosques are places of politics and the moderates are not allowed to have a voice there, as if they do, there are often threats of violence and intimidation.
Please READE see the following link on Islam vs Islamists: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/ dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/storie s/DN-rodislam_13edi.ART.State.Edition1.4 35bd6b.html
I complete agree with you, the west has to realize is that India MUST be included in the Global strategy to fight terrorism. If the west ignores this, what this does is create resentment and anger amount the Nationalist ultra orthodox Hindus, which want to radicalize India and keep it for Hindus only. I detest and loathe these guys as much as I detest the Taliban. These right wing Hindus are very dangerous to the stablity of India as well and it is actually in the hands of Pakistan and the U.S., how big and powerful these groups become.
Since India is a secular democracy, India can’t just silence and kill these guys off, like the Military does in Pakistan with minority groups, they will have an equal voice in government, and through votes, if they become popular they can legally gain power in office and be in control of the Indian military.
The Extremist Hindus can only get power, if the Pakistani Military and ISI don’t stop terrorism on India. Every time Pakistani’s do terrorism on India, it angers the public, as they want justice and they don’t vote for moderate governments. The best way for Pakistan to control anti-Pakistan sentiment in India, is for Pakistan to flatten its terrorist infrastructure and change the minds and hearts of its people and stop the hate propaganda against India. Because for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This simple concept is foreign to Pakistan, for some reason and evades their mentality.
Unfortunately there are outside forces working in Pakistan, like the Wahabi’s and Deobandi which have 8th century dreams of delusional conquest and “DAWAs” over Kaffirs and Dhimmi’s, which is fueling hate and fear against India, through the madrasas and facilitated by the complicity, sympathy and support of the Pakistani Military and ISI and desensitized and sympathetic Pakistani society at large. These folks feel entitlement to rule India once more due the last 800 years but for get that India was free for almost 6200years before that, but that becomes ignored, for some reason. The Americans know this, but turn a blind eye and don’t want to engage this scenario.
As long as the moderates in India stay in power, India will not let their problems become the world’s problem. How long the Indian moderates stay in power, will depend upon the words and actions of those religio-political forces in Pakistan, which Pakistan is unwilling to divorce itself from.
- Posted by Global WatcherGlobal watcher:
There is no clear definition of the term “moderate Muslim.” Is it someone who is not a radical in action, but supports it in his heart? Many are in this category. There are those who don’t go to the mosque or pray five time a day or follow any of the Muslim codes of conduct (Jinnah is one example). They know about the Quran from what others told them. Are they moderate? Being a moderate person depends on a person’s individual nature and not on his religion. People become defensive when their identity is pointed at. Whether they strictly fit the definition of that identity or not does not matter.
Coming to the Taliban, they must be treated just like the apartheid regime in South Africa. In today’s world, they are practicing gender Apartheid. Woman has no rights, she is half man, she has no access to education and she is expendable. This is blatant human rights violation. The way they brought South Africa to give up official apartheid was by trade embargo, economic sanctions etc. At some point they had to give in. In the case of the Taliban, the same must be done. No deals whatsoever. Whoever makes a deal with the Taliban or endorses them should see the same fate. No business deals. No foreign aid. Nothing. And at the same time the stick must be used. Saudis must be told in clear terms that dealing with these barbarians will invite stern reaction from the world powers. They imposed all these on Saddam Hussein. But Pakistan is a strategic ally! That makes no sense. Pakistan has everything that they accused Saddam of. They have started their jihadist activities in Kashmir already. This tells that these guys can never be trusted and no deal will work with them. They only believe in carrying out their pursuit. Every deal made is a short term relief to regroup and restart. The Western powers are using Pakistan as a leverage against India’s progress. They want to prove their theory that India as a democracy with diverse cultures cannot survive. India has been proving them wrong and it was allied against them in the past. That residual mindset has not left the West. So they are not very sympathetic to what India is bearing. At some point things are going to blow up. Emotional people are on the other side of the border too. If they come to power, it will lead to irrational acts and a huge calamity.
- Posted by Mauryan@Mauryan,
Thank you for summing up the exact thoughts of millions of people worldwide. No one has the brevity to say what they truly feel about Radical Extreme Islamists. Just to be clear, moderate muslims are not included in my wholehearted agreement with your statement.
I do however feel that those seeking to be at war with non-muslims continually, should not be given an inch, but should be destroyed. If humanity did not take a stand against evil, case in point, Hitler, who had a sick lust for conquering the world, this would be a much different place today.
It is when nations ally together against a enemy so evil and insidious at its core, that nations and civilizations preserve the sovereignty of human progress and protect the things we hold dear today against dictatorships, totalitarianism and tyrany.
It may be time again for democratic freedom loving nations that value the right of the individual as a human being first, to unite and surgically radiate, smash and destroy this evil pervasive cancer of Radical Islamist Terrorism.
It would be the right thing if moderate muslims did much more to directly fight radicalism at its doorstep and be very vocal and action oriented about fighting the very philosophies of Radical Islamists at the source. It is that lack of will, internal fear, lack of strength, inner weakness and in some cases quiety sympathy and quiet complicity that makes the job much harder for those trying to contain it.
- Posted by Global WatcherRajeev writes: “Somethings are stupid in hindsight but Iraq war was horrible right from the beginning.”
Making a deal with the Taliban will be one of those blunders that will come to haunt the world in the long run. I understand why the US is tempted to do it now. The coffers are getting depleted very fast due to market melt down. They need to get out. Already they are talking about Afghan exit strategy. What they will work out will be a deal where American and Western interests are not bothered anymore by Islamic insurgency. The Taliban will act as an intermediary with the Al Qaeda. They will make sure that all Jihad is confined to local interests only. Things will return to the state as in 1989 - US and its allies are left alone. No more terrorism on their soil. Pakistan, Taliban, Al Qaeda etc could do whatever they want on others. And the crooks know that they made a mistake by taking on the US in 2001. Once Bin Laden is dead (which will be soon), Al Qaeda will fizzle out. The ISI-Jihad network will confine its activities to known territory in India. The US and its allies will agree to turn a blind eye to it so long as they are not bothered. War on terrorism will be over. Terrorism inside India will be rephrased as freedom fight to pacify the Pakistani establishment. Reset button would have been pushed. Rebooting will start. The world will live happily ever after.
- Posted by Mauryan@Bush is now busy writing a book on the decisions that he had made as a President.
-by Mauryan
–So, he is making money both ways. So is Dr. Rice.
- Posted by rajeevPersonal financial gains of few were also the reason for the war –Haliburton. But what was the official version of USA: “wrong intelligence”–something like that!!! Somethings are stupid in hindsight but Iraq war was horrible right from the beginning.
Umair,
Jonathan Power mentioning Churchill reminded me of an article I read recently on the BBC website about how Churchill rewrote the history of the 1930s to his own advantage in a way that coloured our view of “appeasement” for the rest of the 20th century:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/w wtwo/churchill_gathering_storm_01.shtml
I think I’d say that we know already that the United States is not going to carpet-bomb either Afghanitan or Pakistan. That means it will eventually have to reach an accommodation with the Pashtun insurgents — although there are many arguments over how and when Washington should do this, and, as I mentioned in my analysis, how you define the insurgents.
I’d also rephrase the question. Can anyone on this forum think of a time when an invader has successfully defeated an insurgency without at the same time going for a huge displacement of the population? If we assume that the United States is not going to displace the Pashtuns en masse (a fairly reasonable assumption), then logically, you have to say it will eventually have to accommodate them one way or another.
That is, of course, not to pass a value judgment on the Taliban, but to ask realistically what is likely to happen over the coming years.
Myra
- Posted by Myra MacDonaldOne must have a measure of who they are dealing with when considering engagements. A dog will respond when thrown food. It will understand kindness and be the best friend. A crocodile on the other hand has no such nature. It will bite every time a hand is offered. Islamic terrorism, radical Islam, Jihad, and Orthodox Islam are extremely intertwined. This is a very different animal. It feeds on militant ways to enforce its values on others. It does not stop until it has achieved its end. It is constantly at war with something. All this talk of Islam being a peaceful religion is only talk. In reality, its followers resort to brutal means to enforce their values. They have figured out that violence is the best way to get what they want. They are preying on the good will of other societies and religions to establish firm ground for their fundamentalist beliefs. Extending a hand for shake to them is equivalent to kneeling in front of them in submission. That is how they understand it. Watch it now. If the US makes the mistake of engaging them through a dialogue, they will declare victory. Then they will lose their value for the enemy. Islamists seek an enemy at all times. Giving them deals and weapons is the worst thing one can do. The only way to bring them around is by carpet bombing non stop until they give up. And they have a weaker side too. Surrender and switch sides. That is the only option that should be given to them. Western values do not work in these societies. Cancer cannot be cured with placebos. It needs the treatment it deserves.
- Posted by MauryanMyra I am just wondering what can we make of the article by Jonathan Power. Constructive engagement is required in Afghanistan, carpet bombing is not even an option. Those who invented strategies like “regime change” “shock and awe” and “pre-emptive strike” are today out of the picture, their voices have been silenced.
In South Africa after aparthied fell, the truth and reconciliation commission was formed with a spirit of forgiveness. We need more people like archbishop Desmund Tutu and Nelson Mandela, if South Africa can come out of the suffering and pain of aparthied, Afghanistan can also recover from the darkness of war.
- Posted by UmairIslam is also a religion of peace and to forgive is the Quality of Allah(God). A tru muslim believes in forgiving others, I am sure Taliban can forgive others for what they did to them, similarly others will have to forgive the Taliban. But this is no story book fantasy, it is the real world and things are not that simple. However, peace should be given a chance.