President Obama hints at talks with the Taleban & al-Qaeda
Discussion
Barack Obama said:
President Obama has suggested there could be talks with moderate elements of the Taleban in Afghanistan as part of a process of reconciliation.
Mr Obama told the New York Times that US forces in Iraq had persuaded some Islamic radicals alienated by the tactics of al-Qaeda to co-operate.
He said there might be similar opportunities in Afghanistan, although the situation there was more complex.
Asked if the US was winning in Afghanistan, Mr Obama replied: "No."
A month into his presidency, Mr Obama authorised the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan.
More than seven years after US-led forces ousted the Taleban regime in Afghanistan shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks in America, the militants have regrouped and are waging an intensifying insurgency.
'Fierce independence'
Correspondents say the notion of reconciliation with the fundamentalist Islamic movement appears to be gathering momentum as a way of reining in the escalating violence in Afghanistan.
Mr Obama and his advisors are reviewing the US strategy on Afghanistan, and have looked at what has worked in Iraq.
"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the pakistani region," he said on board Air Force One.
Referring to the US policy in Iraq, he said: "If you talk to General [David] 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."
But Afghanistan could be a different situation.
"The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex," he told the newspaper.
"You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes.
"Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge."
"I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario," he added.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and some foreign diplomats have long advocated moves to reach out to the Taleban or at least moderate elements within the group, as part of an eventual political settlement.
Mr Karzai's brother met former members of the Taleban in Saudi Arabia in September 2008 as part of a first step towards peace talks.
In December 2007, a senior EU and UN official were expelled from Afghanistan by the government in Kabul, accused of attempting to secretly broker a deal with Taleban militants.
This weekend a former British special forces commander said the UK's effort in Afghanistan was "worthless".
"We hold tiny areas of ground in Helmand and we are kidding ourselves if we think our influence goes beyond 500 metres of our security bases," ex-SAS commander Maj Sebastian Morley told a newspaper.
Deadly rivalries
Analysts say coalition forces face three types of insurgent in Afghanistan
* fighters with links to al-Qaeda (deemed to be irreconcilable to the Kabul government)
*
nationalists, whose primary aim is to expel foreign forces
*
Afghans who joined the insurgency for personal reasons, such as abuse at the hands of the authorities.
Security analysts believe the last two types of fighter could eventually be reconciled to the government.
But any talks would have to take account of the often deadly rivalries between Afghanistan's various ethnic groups, say correspondents.
At first sight this appears to be a positive mood. The Allies are unlikely to ever 'win' the war against the Taleban so sitting round the metaphoric table may just work. The problem, I think for most of the West would be if America had to offer concessions to them. Mr Obama told the New York Times that US forces in Iraq had persuaded some Islamic radicals alienated by the tactics of al-Qaeda to co-operate.
He said there might be similar opportunities in Afghanistan, although the situation there was more complex.
Asked if the US was winning in Afghanistan, Mr Obama replied: "No."
A month into his presidency, Mr Obama authorised the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan.
More than seven years after US-led forces ousted the Taleban regime in Afghanistan shortly after the 11 September 2001 attacks in America, the militants have regrouped and are waging an intensifying insurgency.
'Fierce independence'
Correspondents say the notion of reconciliation with the fundamentalist Islamic movement appears to be gathering momentum as a way of reining in the escalating violence in Afghanistan.
Mr Obama and his advisors are reviewing the US strategy on Afghanistan, and have looked at what has worked in Iraq.
"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the pakistani region," he said on board Air Force One.
Referring to the US policy in Iraq, he said: "If you talk to General [David] 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."
But Afghanistan could be a different situation.
"The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex," he told the newspaper.
"You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes.
"Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge."
"I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario," he added.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and some foreign diplomats have long advocated moves to reach out to the Taleban or at least moderate elements within the group, as part of an eventual political settlement.
Mr Karzai's brother met former members of the Taleban in Saudi Arabia in September 2008 as part of a first step towards peace talks.
In December 2007, a senior EU and UN official were expelled from Afghanistan by the government in Kabul, accused of attempting to secretly broker a deal with Taleban militants.
This weekend a former British special forces commander said the UK's effort in Afghanistan was "worthless".
"We hold tiny areas of ground in Helmand and we are kidding ourselves if we think our influence goes beyond 500 metres of our security bases," ex-SAS commander Maj Sebastian Morley told a newspaper.
Deadly rivalries
Analysts say coalition forces face three types of insurgent in Afghanistan
* fighters with links to al-Qaeda (deemed to be irreconcilable to the Kabul government)
*
nationalists, whose primary aim is to expel foreign forces
*
Afghans who joined the insurgency for personal reasons, such as abuse at the hands of the authorities.
Security analysts believe the last two types of fighter could eventually be reconciled to the government.
But any talks would have to take account of the often deadly rivalries between Afghanistan's various ethnic groups, say correspondents.
This is how we should have played this from the start.
Britain and Russia have both failed in past military encounters in Afghanistan. The coalition this time will fail also, if the current philosophy is adhered to.
Bribery is always the way!
Why do we learn nothing from history? The arrogance of man eh? Always assuming superiority over his ancestors, convinced that this time, somehow, we are cleverer and better equipped than those that went before us.
In 50 years time, the Chinese will probably have a pop at Afghanistan too.....and fail!
Britain and Russia have both failed in past military encounters in Afghanistan. The coalition this time will fail also, if the current philosophy is adhered to.
Bribery is always the way!
Why do we learn nothing from history? The arrogance of man eh? Always assuming superiority over his ancestors, convinced that this time, somehow, we are cleverer and better equipped than those that went before us.
In 50 years time, the Chinese will probably have a pop at Afghanistan too.....and fail!
Regardless I'd still like to see continued long term financial and military support of the ANA.
Areas should remain under UN/ANA control as fortified zones with controlled checkpoint access to the outside such that civilians may seek safety and get access to education/food/water/medical attention/shelter. What I fear most for Afghanistan is a slide backwards then those lives will have been lost for nothing and we'll have another generation resentful at the imperialist infidels.
Areas should remain under UN/ANA control as fortified zones with controlled checkpoint access to the outside such that civilians may seek safety and get access to education/food/water/medical attention/shelter. What I fear most for Afghanistan is a slide backwards then those lives will have been lost for nothing and we'll have another generation resentful at the imperialist infidels.
Personally I think talking to them is vital. Look at Northern Ireland, through much of the troubles contact was maintained and IIRC Thatcher did have a number of conversations which on at least some levels opened the doors for the resolution we now have. Granted that resolution may not be perfect as evidenced I guess to some extent by the attack there this week, but its a whole load better than it has been for many, many years.
There are many more examples of this but the simple truth is that you don't have to like your enemy but in a situation such as this, when you are dealing with a organisation with whom there is an international conflict, but without the normal governmental routes such as the UN, diplomacy or ultimately a war such as WW2 or even the Gulf Wars (forget the aftermath, I mean the wars themselves!), you have to communicate with them. Potentially there are other ways forward beyond force of arms. Like it or not, the Taleban etc are an issue that need to be dealt with and force of arms has not succeeded fully. Therefore one must examine alternative option, which may include force but may include many other options, or a combination of techniques.
There are many more examples of this but the simple truth is that you don't have to like your enemy but in a situation such as this, when you are dealing with a organisation with whom there is an international conflict, but without the normal governmental routes such as the UN, diplomacy or ultimately a war such as WW2 or even the Gulf Wars (forget the aftermath, I mean the wars themselves!), you have to communicate with them. Potentially there are other ways forward beyond force of arms. Like it or not, the Taleban etc are an issue that need to be dealt with and force of arms has not succeeded fully. Therefore one must examine alternative option, which may include force but may include many other options, or a combination of techniques.
Jasandjules said:
Moderate aspects of the Taliban? Only stone the women who go to University rather than just school?
Only kill the unbelievers if they have a 10 minute head start?
Talk softly, but carry a big stick.
yes im sure they could work within this sort of frame work , after all they dont stone women for fun do they ,, or do they hmmmmOnly kill the unbelievers if they have a 10 minute head start?
Talk softly, but carry a big stick.
Pappa Lurve said:
Personally I think talking to them is vital. Look at Northern Ireland, through much of the troubles contact was maintained and IIRC Thatcher did have a number of conversations which on at least some levels opened the doors for the resolution we now have.
Trouble is that these people deal in absolutes. They will lie to our faces to get what they want and they will keep talking whilst they weave mischief in the background. You only need to look at Iran and NK to see that talking doesn't work.They want a form of religion that will confine people to the dark ages, and that needs to stop. We live in the 21st century and if we can't stop a few million people being dragged back down, then what's the point?
Fundamental Islam knows no borders.
tinman0 said:
You only need to look at Iran and NK to see that talking doesn't work.
Only if the talk was "here is the 0.5 round which will shortly be taking your head off".......... The Romans didn't conquer the world by hosting feckin' dinner parties, they conquered the world by killing everyone who opposed them.......
Martial Arts Man said:
This is how we should have played this from the start.
Britain and Russia have both failed in past military encounters in Afghanistan. The coalition this time will fail also, if the current philosophy is adhered to.
Bribery is always the way!
Why do we learn nothing from history? The arrogance of man eh? Always assuming superiority over his ancestors, convinced that this time, somehow, we are cleverer and better equipped than those that went before us.
In 50 years time, the Chinese will probably have a pop at Afghanistan too.....and fail!
Agreed. When the US invaded Afghanistan (with us gamely hanging onto their coat tails saying "yes sir!") with no real clear objective and no exit strategy I couldn't believe the madness of it.Britain and Russia have both failed in past military encounters in Afghanistan. The coalition this time will fail also, if the current philosophy is adhered to.
Bribery is always the way!
Why do we learn nothing from history? The arrogance of man eh? Always assuming superiority over his ancestors, convinced that this time, somehow, we are cleverer and better equipped than those that went before us.
In 50 years time, the Chinese will probably have a pop at Afghanistan too.....and fail!
To be fair, there was actually a legitimate reason for going in there (unlike Iraq) but as you say, the history books tell us everything we need to know about how vastly superior military forces can become cannon fodder.
For the decision to go into Afghanistan, Blair should be seen as an idiot.
For the decision to go into Iraq he is a war criminal.
Doubt we'll ever see him tried for it, but I live in hope.
Martial Arts Man said:
This is how we should have played this from the start.
Britain and Russia have both failed in past military encounters in Afghanistan. The coalition this time will fail also, if the current philosophy is adhered to.
Bribery is always the way!
Why do we learn nothing from history? The arrogance of man eh? Always assuming superiority over his ancestors, convinced that this time, somehow, we are cleverer and better equipped than those that went before us.
In 50 years time, the Chinese will probably have a pop at Afghanistan too.....and fail!
The Chinese aren't as dumb as the yanks and Russian, they can read a history book.Britain and Russia have both failed in past military encounters in Afghanistan. The coalition this time will fail also, if the current philosophy is adhered to.
Bribery is always the way!
Why do we learn nothing from history? The arrogance of man eh? Always assuming superiority over his ancestors, convinced that this time, somehow, we are cleverer and better equipped than those that went before us.
In 50 years time, the Chinese will probably have a pop at Afghanistan too.....and fail!
mickken said:
ShadownINja said:
Don't talks depend on what their ultimate goal is?
The goals are to get out ASAP now we know that the war for oil is unwinable. We have to look like heroes and are the ones who started the peace talks so we can leave without too much egg on our faces....Watch these places consume themselves once we pull out!
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff