# Talking to the Taliban (merged)



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2007)

Note to Jack Layton:  Even the UN won't sanction talks without removing sanctions against Taliban and/or AQ.  From a media briefing today - emphasis mine:

(....)

Radio Killid:  Recently, the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, has stated that he is ready to hold talks with Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.  This was at the time when he returned from New York – he is saying that this would be done in consultation with the international community.  However, these people named by the President are on the United Nations blacklist.  What is the United Nations’ position? 

UNAMA: I think if you read the President’s comments, you will see very clearly that he was extending an olive branch for talks as he has done on many occasions in the past.  And also, I think, he was making a point about Mullah Omar being in hiding. 

On the question of a peace process, if talks bring peace, then we of course welcome them. However, _*the constitution is not up for discussion, nor is deviating from our duties under UN Security Resolution 1267, on measures to do with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.*_

Radio Killid:  If they come and show their willingness for talks with the Government, will they be taken off the blacklist?

UNAMA:  That’s a question for the United Nations Security Council. However, _*I don’t see prospect of them being taken off the 1267 list.  *_

InterNews:  UNAMA has recently stated that it is ready to mediate talks between the Government of Afghanistan and the Taliban, and now the Taliban side is not ready to hold talks with the Government. How much progress have you so far seen in your mediation, and what is the reason for that?

UNAMA:  Mediation is not where we are at right now. It’s very important, I think, that journalists understand exactly where the story is right now - there is no ongoing mediation.   What the Special Representative Tom Koenigs has said is that _*UNAMA stands ready to extend its good offices role if asked. There are developments happening in peace in Afghanistan, and it’s important that the momentum on these continues.  But as I said, be wary of running ahead of the game. These things will take time, and they will take patience and determination. *_  

(....)

AP: Yesterday we had an interview with the President Karzai's spokesman, and he was saying that there was a debate among some Taliban about laying down arms.  Has the UN heard anything about this?

UNAMA:  On the issue of peace prospects, we certainly think there are things happening.  But it is still - as I tried to indicate - at a very early stage._* I understand that Mullah Omar himself was quoted recently as saying that commanders who might negotiate would be punished. This would imply that some commanders are indeed reaching out.*_ And as you know, the Government has its own strengthening peace (PTS) programme. 

(....) 

Noorin  Television:   The special Representative of the Secretary-General has said that he stands ready to mediate talks between the Government and the Taliban.   According to some critics, the efforts of the United Nations in bringing peace in Afghanistan have not been proved effective – what do you think about this time around?

UNAMA: _*You talk again about “mediation” but we have talked only about readiness to extend our good offices role. We must be quite clear on this. This is different to being some kind of go-between in active peace talks. So let’s get the story back to exactly where it is right now. The Special Representative has spoken of a readiness to extend our good offices role, if it’s asked for. *_ 

Secondly, if we all believed that we were doomed to permanently repeat the past then it’d be utterly pointless our being here and doing the jobs we do. Of course we believe in possibilities for progress here; that is why we are here, that is why we do our jobs. It really doesn’t make sense to think that if efforts have somehow not proved effective in the past then we cannot succeed in the future. 

_*People are crying out for peace in Afghanistan and clearly together, we have to answer those cries. But we also have to take this a step at a time. *_The political processes and public enthusiasm will have to go hand in hand.  It will take time, it will take patience, it will take determination and it will take hope. And we are hopeful.


----------



## twistedcables (16 Nov 2008)

It was only a matter of time.  The story is below.

However, the Taliban have previously said they will 'never' negotiate with West: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/11/13/taliban-spokesman.html 

This is a very dangerous investment.  Threats like the TB, that have made global their intentions, cannot be contained in local political participation.  Notwithstanding the variables of other regional players and their respective interests.

No position on whether this is good or bad, but even Obama has agreed to work with Iran towards containing the threat in Afghanistan: 

http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2008/11/obama-wants-iran-to-help-out-with.html 



By Rahim Faiez, The Associated Press 
KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai offered Sunday to provide security for the Taliban's reclusive leader Mullah Omar if he agrees to enter peace talks, and suggested that the United States and other western countries could leave the country or oust him if they disagree.

Karzai's comments come as international political and military leaders are increasingly mulling whether negotiating with the Taliban is necessary as the insurgency gains sway in large areas of Afghanistan.

Karzai has long supported drawing the militia into the political mainstream on the condition that they accept the country's constitution.

"If I say I want protection for Omar, the international community has two choices, remove me or leave if they disagree," Karzai said in an hourlong news conference in Kabul.

"If I am removed in the cause of peace for Afghanistan by force by them, then I will be very happy. If they disagree, they can leave. But we are not in that stage yet," Karzai said.

Omar headed the government toppled by the U.S.-led invasion in 2001. Since then, he has been in hiding but is believed to be running the insurgency.

Previously, Karzai has said that Omar lives in neighbouring Pakistan, an allegation dismissed by Pakistani officials.

Seven years after the invasion, record levels of violence are afflicting Afghanistan, where the number of insurgent attacks are up by 30 per cent compared to 2007. The Taliban are present in large parts of Afghanistan's south and east and are increasingly encroaching on Kabul, the capital.

In September, Taliban members met with Afghan and Pakistani officials during a dinner hosted by Saudi Arabia's king, but there were no concrete results from the meeting.

"If I hear from (Mullah Omar) that he is willing to come to Afghanistan or to negotiate for peace and for the well-being of the Afghans so that our children are not killed anymore, I as a president of Afghanistan will go to any length to provide protection," Karzai said.

Omar has not directly responded to these calls, but spokesmen associated with the Taliban have previously said their participation in any talks depends on the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from the country.

Karzai dismissed that, saying foreign troops are necessary for Afghanistan's security.

Meanwhile, Pakistan temporarily barred oil tankers and container trucks from a key passageway to Afghanistan, threatening a critical supply route for U.S. and NATO troops on Sunday and raising more fears about security in the militant-plagued border region.

Confirmation of the suspension came as U.S.-led coalition troops reported killing 30 insurgents in fighting in southern Afghanistan and detaining two militant leaders - both in provinces near Pakistan's lawless border.

Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters are behind much of the escalating violence along the lengthy, porous Afghan-Pakistan border, and both countries have traded accusations that the other was not doing enough to keep militants out from its side.

There was no major announcement of the ban, and it was unclear how strictly it had been enforced in the past week. News of the ban filtered into local media over the weekend.

END


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Nov 2008)

Karzai is free to negotiate with whomever he wishes.  It is his country.

edit-spelling


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Nov 2008)

I actually think this is a good move by Mr Karzai. Mullah Omar has consistently stated that the Taliban will not negotiate until all foreign troops have left the country. Mr Karzai shows that he is willing to negotiate, while Omar is not.


----------



## Armymedic (16 Nov 2008)

And if he did not ensure Omar free passage for talks, then the offer would be nothing but an empty jesture....but would the CIA listen?


----------



## twistedcables (17 Nov 2008)

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/081117/n_top_news/cnews_us_afghan_taliban

Big surprise.


----------



## ballz (29 Jan 2010)

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/video.aspx?cp-documentid=cbcc2010-2801-1558-0017-139848477200,3b523e3a-f423-42a5-8510-a0eb8daa74fb,627ee45e-5034-453b-81b0-a9d551a9ea44

Very sketchy, could be very dangerous... but I think it could work to some extent. As long as we can get all their "low-level" fighters, the ones doing the real dirty work

My favorite part of course: "Menard says Taliban members are finding it harder than ever to continue fighting because of the large increase in the number of troops."

Looking forward to hearing the opinions of people that have knowledge and experience in the Sandbox.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2010)

The good news:  a new statement posted to the Taliban's Voice of Jihad web page (VOJ version <a href="http://www.alemarah.info/english/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=1237:can-we-call-this-reconciliation&amp;catid=2:articles&amp;Itemid=3">here</a>, PDF at non-terrorist site <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/26490653/Can-We-Call-This-Reconciliation">here</a>) says this (the first time I've ever seen it in the past year - emphasis mine):


> The Islamic Emirate has curtains goals to achieve. They are: 1. Complete independence of the country. 2. Establishment of an Islamic system representing the wants and aspiration of the Afghan people. 3. Progress and prosperity of the country and people. *Our first priority is to achieve  these goals through talks and negotiation.*


The bad news:  they remain unimpressed with conditions for coming into the tent:
<blockquote>Similarly, they put forward conditions, which are tantamount to escalating the war rather than ending it. For example, they want Mujahideen to lay down arms; accept the Constitution and renounce violence. None can name this reconciliation.</blockquote>
We want to talk and negotiate, but we're not happy with <em>anything</em> you're offering right now - interesting opening gambit, that.

The interesting news: first time in a while I haven't seen a call in a signed statement or editorial for getting all foreign troops out of Afghanistan before talking.

Meanwhile....
<blockquote>But if the invading powers in Afghanistan are not ready to give the Afghans their natural rights which is the right of independence and establishment of a government based on their aspirations and wants, then the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate are determined to carry on the fight until the realization of the said goals. </blockquote>
I remain skeptical, based on previous "talks that weren't talks and/or didn't happen," but stay tuned to see what else they say down the road.


----------



## lyned (11 Feb 2010)

As far as I'm concerned the Taliban have less "morals" than the nazis of WW2. Can't be trusted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Mar 2010)

This, from _The Guardian_ (UK):


> Britain will today urge the Afghan government to put more effort into the pursuit of peace talks amid fears that the war could be prolonged – and more British lives lost – as a result of incompetence and lack of political will in Kabul.
> 
> A speech to be delivered in the US by the foreign secretary, David Miliband, will reflect growing anxiety in London that President Hamid Karzai's professed desire for a political solution has not been backed up by any serious planning or concrete proposals.
> 
> Unless more pressure is put on the Afghan government, some British officials predict that Karzai's proposed loya jirga, or grand peace council, due at the end of next month, will be little more than a PR stunt. "My argument today is that now is the time for the Afghans to pursue a political settlement with as much vigour and energy as we are pursuing the military and civilian effort," Miliband will say at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, according to a text of the address seen by the Guardian ....



The news release leading into today's speech says this:


> .... The Foreign Secretary will say that the Afghan government must now 'pursue a political settlement with as much vigour and energy as we are pursuing the military and civilian effort'.
> 
> The military and civilian surges create the space for Afghan politics to take place. Political and military efforts must work alongside each other as part of a comprehensive Counter-insurgency strategy, as set out by Commander ISAF, General McChrystal, and reiterated by President Obama and Gordon Brown.
> 
> He will also highlight the need for Afghan leadership in building the politics that will help dismantle the insurgency: 'The Afghans must own, lead and drive such political engagement. It will be a slow, gradual process. But the insurgents will want to see international support.' ....



And the Minister's blog?


> .... The core of my argument is simple – only politics will end the War in Afghanistan. The immense effort of UK, ISAF and Afghan troops is vital, as is the development and capacity building work that now runs alongside it. But – as with the vast majority of conflicts - the key is a genuine political settlement.
> 
> This involves three things. First, the reintegration into Afghan society of low-level insurgents prepared to lay down their arms and accept the writ of the government. Second, political engagement with those disaffected by the current settlement, but prepared to renounce violence, split from Al Qaeda and accept the constitutional framework. Third, a wider regional political settlement that sees all Afghanistan’s neighbours and near neighbours supportive of an independent Afghan state....


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2011)

A new paper via NYU's Center on International Cooperation:


> Separating the Taliban from al-Qeada : The Core of Success in Afghanistan
> A CIC Study
> February 2011
> 
> ...


Paper attached - more from the _New York Times_ here and Wired.com Danger Room here.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jun 2013)

Let's see how _this_ goes ....


> Afghanistan officials will open a U.S.-backed office in the Gulf nation of Qatar as early as Tuesday to facilitate direct peace talks with the Taliban, according to three senior administration officials.
> 
> The announcement comes as Afghan President Hamid Karzai announced Tuesday that Afghan security forces have taken the lead from NATO. The White House officials spoke on the condition they not be identified because the government of Qatar has yet to announce the official opening of the office in the capital of Doha ....


_Army Times_, 18 Jun 13



> .... “The office is to open dialogue between the Taliban and the world,” Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said, although he made no reference to peace talks or the Afghan government. “The Islamic Emirate Of Afghanistan [the group’s formal name] doesn’t want any threats from Afghanistan soil to other countries, and neither permits anyone to threaten other countries using Afghanistan soil.
> 
> “We support a political and peaceful solution that ends Afghanistan’s occupation, and guarantees the Islamic system and nationwide security.”
> 
> ...


The Telegraph, 18 Jun 13



> The Taliban held secret negotiations in Norway over the past few months, helping yield a deal that allowed the radical Afghan rebels to open an office in Qatar, Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide said on Tuesday.
> 
> "We have played a key role in this process," Barth Eide told state broadcaster NRK. "It has been a strictly confidential process but we can now reveal it."
> 
> Barth Eide would not say how many rounds of such talks took place in Norway, a NATO member, or who the Taliban negotiated with. Afghan President Hamid Karzai was in Oslo in February for what appeared at the time as a mostly protocol visit ....


Reuters, 18 Jun 13


----------



## Jed (18 Jun 2013)

Well I personally am not comfortable with were this process is taking us. I hope the lid stays long enough to get this last contingent of Canadian troops back safe and sound from the sandbox.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Jun 2013)

The only ones that should be at the table are Afghanistan and the Taliban. The US can issue statements based on meetings with the Afghan negotiators. At the end of the day, it's the Afghans that will have to live with whatever is agreed to.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Jun 2013)

.... from their web page - usual caveat:  don't click if you don't want the Taliban's webmaster to get your info.  You can also see a screen capture of the statement at a non-terrorist site (Google Drive) here.


> *Statement regarding inauguration of political office of Islamic Emirate in Qatar*
> 
> Everyone is aware that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been waging Jihad and working tirelessly to bring an end to the invasion of Afghanistan and establish in it an independent Islamic government and has always utilized every legitimate method to achieve this goal.
> 
> ...


----------



## skyhigh10 (19 Jun 2013)

Pardon my ignorance. 

I thought the U.S. doesn't negotiate with "terrorists"?  I thought the US preached for years that Taliban rule in Afghanistan enabled all this bloodshed in the first place?  Why aren't Obama's political foes going nuts over this announcement?  

Exit strategy me thinks.


----------



## JorgSlice (19 Jun 2013)

They say they want to talk, but then they attack Bagram and kill U.S. soldiers.

Just turn that damn place into a parking lot.


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jun 2013)

They don't call it the graveyard of empires for nothing. Once they sabotaged our development efforts winning was out of our grasp. I was hoping they would change the name to let us save face. Time to learn some lessons so we don't repeat them.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Jun 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Once they sabotaged our development efforts winning was out of our grasp.


Yep, victory was ours -- if only we could have built _two_ more schools...and a well! Yes, another well would have ensured victory.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2013)

And who's not going to be at the table?


> Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Wednesday his government would not join U.S. peace talks with the Taliban until they were led by Afghans and would suspend negotiations with the United States on a troop pact.
> 
> U.S. officials have said talks with the Taliban would begin in Doha, capital of Qatar, on Thursday, raising hopes for a negotiated peace in Afghanistan after 12 years of bloody and costly war between American-led forces and the insurgents.
> 
> ...


Reuters, 19 Jun 13


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (19 Jun 2013)

Four U.S. soldiers are killed, and the Taliban openly claim responsibility for this.  Ya, great way to start the peace process.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jun 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> They don't call it the graveyard of empires for nothing. Once they sabotaged our development efforts winning was out of our grasp. I was hoping they would change the name to let us save face. Time to learn some lessons so we don't repeat them.



Are we speaking about Pakistan or the Taliban?


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Jun 2013)

I could see it go like Vietnam, Taliban claim peace, waiting for a couple months after NATO and its allies are out then jump back into it at full strength


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jun 2013)

Interesting piece on the little things that are pissing folks off ....


> Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Thursday mulled his response to US efforts to repair damaged ties after a public spat over the Taliban opening an office in Qatar for peace talks.
> 
> Karzai and US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke twice by telephone after the Afghan government became enraged that the office was opened in a blaze of publicity and US officials were apparently about to arrive for talks.
> 
> ...


_Gulf News_, 20 Jun 13


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jun 2013)

More on the niggling bits, from the U.S. ....


> The Taliban signaled a willingness to meet demands to keep their flag lowered as the U.S. warned Saturday that their newly opened political office in Qatar might have to be closed as talks aimed at ending nearly 12 years of war in Afghanistan remained in limbo.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the ball was in the Islamic militant movement’s court, urging the Taliban to step back from the brink and begin what he called the “difficult” road ahead. He said the main U.S. envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan was in Doha and “waiting to find out whether the Taliban will respond.”
> 
> ...



.... and from the Taliban's Info-machine (usual caveat:  don't link to Taliban sites if you don't want Taliban's webmeister to get your info - screen capture of statement also attached below):


> Yesterday on the 21/06/2013, Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper published a report regarding the use of the name and flag of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan on its political office in Qatar. The said report quotes the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry as saying that they had signed an agreement with the leaders of Islamic Emirate regarding the use of flag and name ‘Political office of The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ on their political office while in reality, no such agreement has been signed nor does such an agreement exist although documents have been exchanged between the Islamic Emirate and the Qatari government regarding conditions of the office.
> 
> The raising of the flag and the use of the name of Islamic Emirate were done with the agreement of the Qatari government. The statement which states that by using the name and raising the flag, the Islamic Emirate somehow violated an agreement, then this allegation is completely false while the discord which arose due to panic by the Kabul administration is not related to the Islamic Emirate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2013)

Latest from the Taliban's info machine (*usual caveat:  don't click if you don't want Taliban webmasters with your info* - screen capture of statement also available at non-terrorist Google Docs account here) - highlights mine:


> On Tuesday, 18th June, the office of the Islamic Emirate was officially inaugurated inside Qatar. It was widely welcomed by the Afghan Nation. A large number of our countrymen sent their messages of felicitations through the Alemara website and other social media and have considered this office as the sign of Mujahidin’s success and the end of occupation; but on the other side the Kabul administration has shown their strong opposition with the inauguration of this office particularly with the name and white flag of the Islamic Emirate, therefore, if you, the spokesman of the political bureau of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Qatar, Dr. Mohammad Naeem, could please answer the following questions of the Alemara website! We will be thankful to you.
> 
> Alemara: Dr. Mohammad Naeem, the spokesman of the official bureau of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in Qatar, how would the Islamic Emirate make use of this office?
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jun 2013)

Do they really want to talk ? The taliban attacked the Presidential palace in Kabul yesterday.I suspect that they will wait until ISAF leaves,before they take on the ANA.If I were Karzai I would have my bags packed and a helo standing by.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jul 2013)

Well, THAT lasted a long time, didn't it?


> Afghanistan’s Taliban have shuttered a newly opened office in the Gulf state of Qatar, vowing to fight on against President Hamid Karzai’s government while abandoning a diplomatic approach seen as the best hope of finding a political end to the protracted 12-year war.
> 
> Experts said Tuesday that the final withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan in 2014 offered the Taliban the hope of a military victory while limiting their incentive to press ahead with peace talks. The Taliban, they said, envisioned the talks more as a means of gaining legitimacy than as a road to peace.
> 
> ...


_Army Times_, 9 Jul 13


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Aug 2013)

Back to talkin' about talkin' ....


> The Taliban have held secret talks with representatives of Afghan President Hamid Karzai to try to jumpstart a peace process that stumbled and stalled at the starting gate, according to Afghan officials and a senior Taliban representative.
> 
> The discussions with members of the Afghan High Peace Council have so far been unofficial and preliminary, seen as an attempt to agree on conditions for formal talks ....


.... while Mullah Omar reportedly says "yeah, we'll talk":


> The Taliban’s reclusive leader said Tuesday that his group was willing to start peace negotiations, even as he urged more attacks — including insider shootings by government security forces — on foreign troops.
> 
> In a wide-ranging emailed message, Mullah Mohammad Omar blamed America and the Afghan government for the derailment of talks two months ago.
> 
> ...


You can find links to the Eid al-Fitr message highlighted above here (links to Milnet.ca posting).


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2013)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Reuters_, the "father of the Taliban," Maulana Sami ul-Haq, does soe talking about what happens when the Western allies withdraw:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/15/us-pakistan-taliban-idUSBRE98E04920130915


> Pakistani 'Father of Taliban' keeps watch over loyal disciples
> 
> By Maria Golovnina and Sheree Sardar
> 
> ...




The _Deobandi_ strain of Sunni Islam was inspired by the same (18th century) Muslim Indian _guru_ whose followers developed Wahhabism. Many of the madrassas in Pakistan are funded by Saudi followers of Wahhabi Islam.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Sep 2013)

My reading is that they both attended seminary together in the 17 or 18th century.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2013)

Some of the latest from Pakistani media ....


> Taliban commanders refused to meet their former chief in Peshawar on Thursday because he was accompanied by Pakistani security agents, dealing a blow to attempts to resume Afghan peace talks, security and militant sources said.
> 
> Afghanistan and the US believe Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar, who has been held in Pakistan since 2010, holds the key to stopping the war in Afghanistan because he is influential enough to persuade his former comrades there to stop fighting.
> 
> ...


----------



## armyca08 (13 Oct 2013)

You may not like it but the Taliban is largely composed of the Afghan people. They should have their right to democracy as much as any other person. Just because you don't like their political beliefs, it doesn't equate them, in a democratic society being silenced. 

They are your enemy but if you take your blinders off you should realize that NATO-ISAF hasn't stopped the war either. Saying they want to talk but are still attacking the troops, is completely ignoring the fact NATO-ISAF is still attacking the Taliban, and other groups in Afghanistan. 

Millions of Afghans are Taliban. They will still be there when most of NATO is not, that includes Canadians. 

They are engaged in guerrilla war and have been for over 12 years now.  While they may only garner the support of 1 in 10 Afghanis, or 1 in 5 Afghani's, that is still major party status in places such as Canada. That is more support than the PQ has in Canada. 

The factor of minority alienation is what leads to problems, including revolt. If the Taliban are willing to create a situation of peace, that is a good thing. The goal of war is not genocide, at some point the killing needs to stop.

For everyone who indicates they should all be exterminated, it is really unfortunate you can't be professional and support the fundamentals of human rights in non genocidal objectives. Is genocide really the desired outcome of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, if so the 12 years you had didn't come close to acheiving that objective. Not to be vexatious, but I am somewhat disturbed so many people here seem to view peace talks some revoliting occurence. I really don't understand that position.  They are Afghans. If there is only one Afghan state they should have a right of peaceful participation in that state without being unduely discriminated against or violated contrary to the principles of human rights.

I have to add I'm reading into your positions but some of the points highlighted are suspect to the fact, the Afghan security forces set up by Nato havn't stopped the war against the Taliban.  


The fixation on the Taliban seems to be likely a legacy of all the war propaganda, we hear nothing next to nothing about the Haqani Network, Hezb-i-Islami Gulbaddin (HIG), and Tahrek-I Taliban Pakistan (TTP). If we look to reports like  Half in Afghanistan Believe the Taliban Have Moderated;
Most Back Settlement Talks, Even with Territorial Concessions " http://www.d3systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Afghan_Futures_W2_Analysis-v6.pdf "  We are given a view that there is a beleif that the Taliban group is a moderate group, and like shifting political parties, the view and leadership of those organizations can drift over time as the composition and leaders of those groups changes with time. I can't say this is the case but the report would indicate that. The fact there are more extreme groups than the Taliban could serve to moderate that. Al Qaeda for instance operates independent of the Taliban, and is often viewed as a much more extremist group than the Taliban, who did not have massively radical views compared to other Islamic states such as Saudi Arabia, the courts, and much of the world 100 or 200 years ago. It is easy to say their laws arn't the same as those in Canada, but cultures have different laws. Even Canada had burnings at the stake, hangings, and rather abusive forms of punishment only 100 to 150 years ago. It is a country that has been in a state of war for 30 or more years, the standards in that environment can be understandably watered down a bit.

The section "endgame" on the CFR.org site also explains why negotiation has been part of the strategy.  "http://www.cfr.org/afghanistan/taliban-afghanistan/p10551#p7 "

There really is no solution but to talk if violence is to be reduced.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2013)

There....there....it will be alright.....no more bad guys will come in the night....... :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Nov 2013)

Much of the leadership of the Taliban has changed, mainly as they have been killed off. I suspect the Taliban as cohesive force will not rule Afghanistan again. Afghanistan has also changed and the conditions that allowed the Taliban to sweep unexpectedly (even for themselves) through the country do not really exist. With a minimal ISAF/US presence, the main issue to force the various factions to work together is much reduced. The US interests in Pakistan diminishes and with it, Pakistan's ability to twist our nuts goes as well. Pakistan will suck up more and more to China and refocus on the their tradition threat of India and ignore the plight of the NWF even more. The Taliban will lose much of it's support as the Islamic world focuses elsewhere and will rely more and more on drug money to sustain itself, losing more respect domestically and internationally.


----------



## Shrek1985 (7 Nov 2013)

I despair of us ever understanding these people at an institutional level.

We lost the war as soon as we set our pullout to a schedule, by entertaining the prospect of negotiation we could not have done more to express our weakness and vulnerability.

Are westerners truly incapable of understanding eastern peoples?


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jan 2014)

The latest:  no movement.  


> Secret contacts are again reported to be underway for an Afghanistan peace deal, but neither analysts nor the insurgents see hope they will succeed.
> 
> A Taliban official has told The Associated Press that least two ministers in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government have met with Taliban representatives in the United Arab Emirates, at a time when Pakistan has been releasing dozens of Taliban prisoners in a bid to revive talks.
> 
> ...


Quelle surprise!


----------

