# Revealed: secret Taliban peace bid



## GAP (29 Sep 2008)

Revealed: secret Taliban peace bid
Saudis are sponsoring a peace dialogue involving a former senior member of the hardline group
Jason Burke in Kabul The Observer, Sunday September 28 2008 
Article Link

The Taliban have been engaged in secret talks about ending the conflict in Afghanistan in a wide-ranging 'peace process' sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain, The Observer can reveal.

The unprecedented negotiations involve a senior former member of the hardline Islamist movement travelling between Kabul, the bases of the Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and European capitals. Britain has provided logistic and diplomatic support for the talks - despite official statements that negotiations can be held only with Taliban who are ready to renounce, or have renounced, violence. 

Sources in Afghanistan confirmed the controversial talks, though they said that in recent weeks they had 'lost momentum'. According to Afghan government officials in Kabul, the intensity of the fighting this summer has been one factor. Another is the inconsistency of the Taliban's demands. 

'They keep changing what they are asking for. One day it is one thing, the next another,' one Afghan government adviser with knowledge of the negotiations said. One aim of the initiative is to drive a wedge between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda and the Taliban. 

Last week the French Prime Minister, François Fillon, referred indirectly to the talks during a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. 'We must explore ways of separating the international jihadists from those who are acting more for nationalist or tribal motives. Efforts in this direction are being led by Sunni [Muslim] countries such as Saudi Arabia,' he said.

This summer's fighting season in Afghanistan has been the most violent since the invasion of 2001. The deterioration of the situation has provoked a major review of strategy among the 40-nation international coalition pitted against an increasingly confident and effective insurgency.

Although there have been low-level contacts with individual Taliban commanders at district level before, the Saudi initiative is the first attempt to talk to the Taliban leadership council based in or around the south-west Pakistan city of Quetta, known as the 'Quetta Shura'.

The talks started in the summer and have been brokered by Saudi Arabia at the invitation of the Afghan government. The go-between has spent weeks ferrying lists of demands and counter-demands between the Afghan capital, Riyadh and Quetta. He has also visited London to speak to Foreign Office and MI6 personnel. A delegation from Saudi intelligence has also visited Kabul. 

The Taliban are understood to have submitted a list of 11 conditions for ending hostilities, which include demands to be allowed to run key ministries and a programmed withdrawal of western troops. 

In Kabul, President Hamid Karzai's national security adviser, Zalmay Rasul, has been in charge of the negotiations. It is understood that Karzai has yet to make a formal response to the demands, leading to frustration among some western officials. 

The Observer has also learnt of a separate exchange of letters in the summer between Karzai and the Taliban ally Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The dialogue proved fruitless.
More on link


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Sep 2008)

This is surprising ? The taliban are just trying to acheive on paper what they cant on the battlefield. Can you make peace with a hydra ? I dont think so. The Predator campaign against their leadership is paying off. They dont know who to trust. Their heavy handed tactics in the areas they control dont win them any friends. Killing innocent people doesnt pay either as AQ in Iraq found out.


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> He has also visited London to speak to Foreign Office and MI6 personnel. A delegation from Saudi intelligence has also visited Kabul.



Sounds like Timmy is going to give somebody up?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Sep 2008)

As long as drug money is to be made one can forget any peace,...the drug lords will find someone else to play "stooge" for them.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2008)

Folks, folks, folks, nothing to see here - just check out this forum posting attributed to the Taliban


> The media reports abut the peace process' between Taliban and kabul sponsored by Saudi Arabia and supported by Britain is untrue.  or that the unprecedented talks" involved a senior ex-Taliban member traveling between Kabul, the bases of the Taliban senior leadership in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia all of that was baseless.  The ex_member of Taliban which were surrender or under surveillance they were not delegacy of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.  The enemy is using this propaganda campaign,is at it again with its distortion to engaged Muslim in order to weaken the Muslims. our struggle will be continued until the departure of foreign troops.



Also, on the official Taliban web site here


> ....  Afghanistan Islamic Emirate leadership council consider such baseless rumours as a failed attempts of the enemy to create mistrust and concerns among Afghans and other nations and Mujahideen.  *No official member of the Taliban is currently or in the past have negotiated with the US or the puppet Afghan government.* A few former officials of Taliban who are under house arrest or have surrendered do not represent Islamic Emirate .... Our struggle will continue until the departure of all foreign troops.



They wouldn't be lying, would they?  C'mon, say it ain't so...  

However, if the English translation says exactly what the Taliban mean to say in the second quote (and since it's on the Taliban's official web page, I'd take that as an "official" translation), there are some tea leaves to be read in the bolded-underline statement.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2008)

I for one am inclined to believe the Taliban.

I mean why wouldn't I?



> Taliban assassinate top Afghan female police officer
> 
> The highest-ranking female police officer in Afghanistan was gunned down Sunday in Kandahar City as the Taliban finally made good on their threats to assassinate her.
> The Taliban was quick to take credit for her murder...etc..



Oh right. :


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2008)

NO NEGOTIATIONS NONE NADA NIL.

This sounds like the Paris Peace Talks all over.....forget it, its designed to buy time. 

Our negotiations should be done through a C-79 sight, mounted on a C7, whatever variant we use.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> NO NEGOTIATIONS NONE NADA NIL.
> 
> This sounds like the Paris Peace Talks all over.....forget it, its designed to buy time.
> 
> Our negotiations should be done through a C-79 sight, mounted on a C7, whatever variant we use.



Hell ya! Except maybe a better sight


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2008)

OK then a 25mm sight....


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2008)

I mean the sight of a 25mm Bushmaster or .50 cal sniper rifle....


----------



## 1feral1 (30 Sep 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> NO NEGOTIATIONS NONE NADA NIL.
> 
> This sounds like the Paris Peace Talks all over.....forget it, its designed to buy time.
> 
> Our negotiations should be done through a C-79 sight, mounted on a C7, whatever variant we use.



I'd rather it from further away.

In KT's  

We must remember a leopard does not change its spots. Once a cancer, always a cancer, and radiation seems to work there too.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Sep 2008)

We have two options.
First option: we kill all Taliban.  This, folks, ain't gonna happen.  In my professional opinion, we don't need to kill all of them.  Heck, some nazis survived WW2.
Second option: accept their surrender.  This, folks, is how wars are won.  Whether or not there are conditions to that surrender is up to President Karzai (and his successors).  
Until Option 2 is realised, then we keep working on option 1.  (And by "kill", I don't just mean in the temporal sense, but also in terms of their support and so forth)


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> We have two options.
> First option: we kill all Taliban.  This, folks, ain't gonna happen.  In my professional opinion, we don't need to kill all of them.  Heck, some nazis survived WW2.
> Second option: accept their surrender.  This, folks, is how wars are won.  Whether or not there are conditions to that surrender is up to President Karzai (and his successors).
> Until Option 2 is realised, then we keep working on option 1.  (And by "kill", I don't just mean in the temporal sense, but also in terms of their support and so forth)


Good points.
Taking into consideration the Talibans most recent action of assassinating a female police officer, do you think;
The Taliban are actually serious about peace and are willing to accept such heresay as females treated like human beings?
Would they actually put down their hate and accept something they've fought so hard to exterminate?
Would one body be able to speak for the Taliban or are there so many different leadership personalities that some of their commanders would just say screw this and continue. IS the Taliban capable of being a single identity?
Will they just loose interest in the peace talks and revert back to their former self?


Nazi's did survive WW2 but they didn't have much of a choice as far as surrendering went, I don't think the Taliban are that desperate yet. 
I guess I just don't really see the Taliban accepting peace and abiding by it, hope I'm wrong.


----------



## GAP (30 Sep 2008)

We all know what Karzai is going to do, but nobody is willing to admit it.

He'll eventually get his peace deal with the Pastun Tribes (under a whole host of names), but at the expense of a few government seats, and the subjugation of the very same area we are working and dying to free. The "Taliban" will get their areas back under their interpretation of Sharia Law and brutal domination, we'll wipe our hands of the whole mess and shake our diplomatic heads tutting tutting all the way back to our western abodes......

The western nations have done it repeatedly, but we lie to ourselves that we did some good....


----------



## Harley Sailor (30 Sep 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> We all know what Karzai is going to do, but nobody is willing to admit it.
> 
> He'll eventually get his peace deal with the Pastun Tribes (under a whole host of names), but at the expense of a few government seats, and the subjugation of the very same area we are working and dying to free. The "Taliban" will get their areas back under their interpretation of Sharia Law and brutal domination, we'll wipe our hands of the whole mess and shake our diplomatic heads tutting tutting all the way back to our western abodes......
> 
> The western nations have done it repeatedly, but we lie to ourselves that we did some good....


Well Said, and 10 years after everyone pulls out all will be back to the same as before you all went in.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2008)

Speaking of speaking to the Taliban, this shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._ - highlights mine, link to Taliban statement in English and original Arabic below news text....

*Afghan president calls on Taliban leader for peace*
Jonathon Burch, Reuters (UK), 30 Sept 08
Article link

*Afghan President Hamid Karzai has made a call for peace to Taliban leader Mullah Omar and has asked the king of Saudi Arabia to help in talks with the militant group responsible for a surge in violence.*

Karzai's plea comes hours after Omar urged U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan to withdraw or face a similar defeat to occupying Soviet troops a generation ago.

"A few days ago I called upon their leader, Mullah Omar, and said 'My brother, my dear, come back to your homeland, come and work for the peace and good of your people and stop killing your brothers'," Karzai told reporters on Tuesday.

*Earlier, a Taliban spokesman told Reuters that Omar had said: "Reconsider your wrong decision of wrong occupation, and seek a safe exit to withdraw your forces."

If the occupation persisted, "you will be defeated in all parts of the world ... like the former Soviet Union", Omar said.*

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to prop up a Marxist government against mujahideen fighters, but was ground down by guerrilla warfare and finally withdrew in 1989.

"NO NEGOTIATIONS"

*Karzai denied reports that negotiations with the Taliban had taken place in Saudi Arabia, but said he had written to the Saudi king to ask him to help bring peace to Afghanistan and the region.*

Britain's Observer newspaper said on Sunday that peace talks with the militant group were being mediated by Saudi Arabia and backed by Britain. Karzai rejected the claim saying the article was incorrect.

*The Taliban leadership on Monday also denied the report that they were negotiating with the Afghan government to end the war and repeated their pledge to keep fighting. *Saudi Arabia was one of the few countries to recognise a Taliban government when they ruled most of Afghanistan in the 1990s. The hardline Islamists were ousted in late 2001.

*"There have been no negotiations in Saudi Arabia. If any negotiations take place, it will be in our own land," Karzai said after prayers on the first day of celebrations following the fasting month of Ramadan.*

Karzai is an ethnic Pashtun, the country's biggest ethnic group that includes Mullah Omar and most members of the Taliban.

Karzai also said he would assure the protection of Mullah Omar and other Taliban members who wished to make peace with international forces in Afghanistan.

"They should come back and not be afraid of the foreigners. I will stand in front of the foreigners," said Karzai.

Omar's exact whereabouts is not known but he is thought to be hiding in the mountainous area straddling the Afghan-Pakistan border.

U.S. officials say he is in Pakistan's border areas next to Afghanistan from where he directs insurgency operations across the border, a claim Pakistan has consistently denied.

The U.S government has set a $10 million bounty for the one-eyed elusive militant.


Omar's statement offering clean getaway to Coalition troops (in Arabic) - English version


----------



## gun runner (1 Oct 2008)

I still believe in peace through superior fire power, M777 up the @ss talifuks!!! Ubique


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Oct 2008)

The attitudes in here are, IMHO, dangerous.  If one wishes to fight for the sake of fighting, so be it.  I just think that, in the end, we must force these dudes to the table through focussed violent action.  It is not our role, nor is it ethically acceptable, to "kill them all".  Their violent actions must stop, but in the end, as I've already said before, even the most hard-lined Nazis were "De-Nazified" at the end of World War Two.  Remember, we're talking about people who marched others off to Gas Chambers because of their race, sexual and political preference as well as for their religious views.
If Mullah Omar wishes to stop the killing, he can do so.  Until such time, we will continue with great success, albeit with some heartache along the way.  In the end, it is up to our political masters to decide that.  M777 "up the@ss" is certainly not going to win this war.  Getting them to the table is our job as a military.  Getting them to stop is the job of the politicians, and in this case, that is Mr. Karzai and his successors.


----------



## Teflon (2 Oct 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> The attitudes in here are, IMHO, dangerous.  If one wishes to fight for the sake of fighting, so be it.  I just think that, in the end, we must force these dudes to the table through focussed violent action.  It is not our role, nor is it ethically acceptable, to "kill them all".  Their violent actions must stop, but in the end, as I've already said before, even the most hard-lined Nazis were "De-Nazified" at the end of World War Two.  Remember, we're talking about people who marched others off to Gas Chambers because of their race, sexual and political preference as well as for their religious views.
> If Mullah Omar wishes to stop the killing, he can do so.  Until such time, we will continue with great success, albeit with some heartache along the way.  In the end, it is up to our political masters to decide that.  M777 "up the@ss" is certainly not going to win this war.  Getting them to the table is our job as a military.  Getting them to stop is the job of the politicians, and in this case, that is Mr. Karzai and his successors.



Well said and despite it not being what many want to hear - It is our role


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2008)

So far, Taliban response is "Thanks, but no thanks":


> .... "We reject an offer for negotiation by the Afghan's puppet and slave President Hamid Karzai," Mullah Brother told Reuters by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location.  He said Karzai had no right to negotiate. "He only says and does what he is told by America."  The harsh rhetoric against Karzai is a departure from recent Taliban statements which have taken a softer line on the pro-Western president who has led Afghanistan since U.S.-led and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban after the September 11 attacks.  It also appears to reverse a statement by Brother in March in which he said the Taliban could cooperate with Karzai's government and called for a negotiated ending to the fighting....


----------



## gun runner (3 Oct 2008)

TEFLON, you pose a great opinion and I am humbled to respond to such empowering logic. If the Taliban do not chose to go to the negotiating table, or the government of the day cannot persuade them to go as well, what then? If you cannot accomplish this task through political means then the military option is the, as always,last resort. These people have been at war for what 30+ years? And who are we "the infidels" to tell them what to do. They will resist us to the bitter end. And we will lose more of our brave for what... so the government of the day can say 'well lads, we have fought well, but it is all for naught', and call it a day? I say that would be the most disrespectful thing done to these brave soldiers yet! I say give'm the pointy end and let them make a choice... peace, or more of the same. There has to be reason at some point.. no? Ubique


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2008)

A bit of refinement - it appears someone's now saying Taliban _CLERICS_ met with Saudis.  Highilghts mine, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Taliban Set Conditions before Serious Negotiations*
Mohammed Al Shafey, Asharq Al-Awsat (UK), 2 Oct 08
Article link - .pdf version if link doesn't work

London, Asharq al-Awsat -- Mohammad Siddiq Tashakkuri, the former Afghan information minister, confirmed in a telephone interview with Asharq Al-Awsat that *Afghan President Hamed Karzai did indeed send a letter to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Abdullah Bin-Abdulaziz two months ago asking him to intervene to end the violence in Afghanistan.*

Tashakkuri expressed to Asharq Al-Awsat *his belief that trusted clerics from the Taliban visited Saudi Arabia to perform the minor pilgrimage during the month of Ramadan and said that Kabul is in discussions regarding 11conditions stressed by Taliban movement before holding serious negotiations, most notably the foreign forces' withdrawal from Afghanistan, appointment of ministers from the fundamentalist movement in the principal ministries, and drawing up a new constitution for the country which underlines the importance of establishing an Islamic state on the land of Afghanistan.* Asharq Al-Awsat has learned that *one of Arab Afghans' leaders during the years of jihad against the Russians is leading the ongoing negotiations between the Taliban and the Kabul government.*

On his part, a former commander of Afghan mujahidin in the capital Kabul asserted when Asharq Al-Awsat telephoned him that there are negotiations at present between the Taliban and President Karzai's Government and said that *national reconciliation aims to open up to the moderate elements among the Taliban's leaders.*

He pointed out that some of Taliban's clerics and imams have been in Saudi Arabia for some days and stressed that *one of the Arab Afghans' leaders who is in Britain and is a jurisprudence expert known for his strong relations with the brothers of leader Ahmad Shah Masud, the lion of Panjsher assassinated by Al-Qaeda two days before 9/11, is the official architect* who opened the channels of dialogue with the Taliban for ending the violence in Afghanistan.

He said the *Taliban's official announcement that there are such negotiations would weaken the fundamentalist movement's image in the media because these reports come at a time when Mullah Omar took a more hard-line stand in his recent statement on the occasion of Al-Fitr feast.*

On their part, government sources close to 10 Downing Street, the British cabinet office, said "our policy is to support the Afghan elements which renounce violence and terrorism" and pointed out that the armed insurgency in Afghanistan cannot be defeated by military action alone but by dialogue and reconciliation with the moderate elements." They added that Gordon Brown's Government had repeatedly stressed in the past the importance of reconciliation in Afghanistan in order to end the insurgency and violence in the Afghan street and said reconciliation with the Taliban elements "should concentrate on renunciation of violence, not having any contacts with Al-Qaeda, and total acceptance of the Afghan constitution.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2008)

More on Saudis facilitating alleged talks, shared with the usual disclaimer...

*Source: Saudi hosts Afghan peace talks with Taliban reps*
Nic Robertson, CNN, 5 Oct 08
Article link



> Story Highlights
> - King Abdullah hosted talks in city of Mecca at end of September, source says
> - Saudi Arabia has generally dealt with Afghanistan through Pakistan
> - Talks are the first aimed at bringing a negotiated settlement to the Afghan conflict
> - All parties agreed only solution to Afghan conflict is dialogue, not fighting



More on link


----------



## GAP (5 Oct 2008)

I watched that on CNN also. Apparently this has been going on for about 2 years as a counter by Saudia Arabia to Iran's influence in the Moslem world...


----------



## Franko (5 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> NO NEGOTIATIONS NONE NADA NIL.
> 
> This sounds like the Paris Peace Talks all over.....forget it, its designed to buy time.
> 
> Our negotiations should be done through a C-79 sight, mounted on a C7, whatever variant we use.



How about an EMES15 wrapped in 70 tons of steel?        

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> .............. Apparently this has been going on for about 2 years as a counter by Saudia Arabia to Iran's influence in the Moslem world...



This is something that is lingering below the surface of all the troubles in this Region.  It has been going on for more than just two years.  There is quite a debate/competition amongst several Islamic States as to whom is the real "Seat and Center of the Islamic Faith".  Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have all argued their roles in this matter.


----------



## Teflon (5 Oct 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> TEFLON, you pose a great opinion and I am humbled to respond to such empowering logic. If the Taliban do not chose to go to the negotiating table, or the government of the day cannot persuade them to go as well, what then? If you cannot accomplish this task through political means then the military option is the, as always,last resort. These people have been at war for what 30+ years? And who are we "the infidels" to tell them what to do. They will resist us to the bitter end. And we will lose more of our brave for what... so the government of the day can say 'well lads, we have fought well, but it is all for naught', and call it a day? I say that would be the most disrespectful thing done to these brave soldiers yet! I say give'm the pointy end and let them make a choice... peace, or more of the same. There has to be reason at some point.. no? Ubique




Arn't we snide,

Maybe you should read the post little mind, and see:

1. I wasn't even bothering to talk to you but expressing agreement and support to Mortarman Rockpainter's post

2. If you bother to read his post that I quoted it tells you what is proposed if they don't wish to come to the table that you use focussed military action to convince them to come to the table 

3. Nowhere in my post or Mortarman Rockpainter's did we advocate withdraw - that is something that came from you



I suspect I am wasting my time here so please go be HUMBLED by someone else

Thanks


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Oct 2008)

How do you compromise with someone who doesnt know the meaning of the word ? Democracy vs theocracy I just dont see it happening. Our task is to buy time for the ANA to get to the point where they can provide security for the government. That will take time just as it has in Iraq. Meanwhile we continue to wack the bad guys.


----------



## Teflon (5 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How do you compromise with someone who doesnt know the meaning of the word ? Democracy vs theocracy I just dont see it happening. Our task is to buy time for the ANA to get to the point where they can provide security for the government. That will take time just as it has in Iraq. Meanwhile we continue to wack the bad guys.



I agree - Victory for us is not every Taliban dead (not going to happen) but the ANSF and Afghan Government at the point that they can maintain the country themselves, Now if on our way to achieving that we can bring more-moderate forces arrayed against us to the table then good, it eases or burdens and takes from our enemy.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2008)

Now a Brit officer has come along and stated that the Afghan war is not winnable. A propaganda victory for the Taliban and their buddy Jack. Well done sir.

The Taliban have stated that they will not negotiate as long as foreign troops are on Afghan soil. I would surmise this means that once all foreign troops have left, the negotiations would take place once the Taliban have executed/assassinated anyone who could lead a democratic Afghanistan.
That is where negotiations will go. And taliban Jack will have his wish. And Afghanistan will be in the same state prior to 9/11.


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Now a Brit officer has come along and stated that the Afghan war is not winnable. A propaganda victory for the Taliban and their buddy Jack. Well done sir.
> 
> The Taliban have stated that they will not negotiate as long as foreign troops are on Afghan soil. I would surmise this means that once all foreign troops have left, the negotiations would take place once the Taliban have executed/assassinated anyone who could lead a democratic Afghanistan.
> That is where negotiations will go. And taliban Jack will have his wish. And Afghanistan will be in the same state prior to 9/11.



I agree with your sentiments, with one exception....based on a tv clip yesterday....that the Taliban is saying it will not negotiate with foreigners....well, we never wanted them to us, talk to Karzai.....but it may be their justification to talk to Karzai thru Saudi Arabia...



> The Taliban have stated that they will not negotiate as long as foreign troops are on Afghan soil


 This is what I originally heard and understood to be the case, maybe they've changed the case.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2008)

GAP said:
			
		

> This is what I originally heard and understood to be the case, maybe they've changed the case.....



Based on the latest I've found here:


> Seems that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is best explained the advantage of *the presence of deep commitment and determination of solid obedience between the leadership and underneath, and God will continue this commitment*.  Not only failed to mask and exposed and all attempts to internal enemies and arrows so far in the shake and remove this link strong and solid origin; conquest, but by God the great strong worthless, and broken, *darkened by all the tricks and conspiracies of external enemies "foreigners" and black networks as well.....*



In other words, "we're all united, talk of these talks is a foreign conspiracy/trick."


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2008)

CNN's Take on it

Sources: Taliban split with al Qaeda, seek peace
By Nic Robertson CNN Senior International Correspondent
Article Link

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country's bloody conflict -- and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.

King Abdullah of Saudia Arabia hosted meetings between the Afghan government and the Taliban, a source says.

 The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden's terrorist network, has been involved four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, says the source.

The talks -- the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan -- mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies.

They also mark a sidestepping of key "war on terror" ally Pakistan, frequently accused of not doing enough to tackle militants sheltering on its territory, which has previously been a conduit for talks between the Saudis and Afghanistan.

According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar -- high on the U.S. military's most-wanted list -- was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.

Details of the Taliban leader's split with al Qaeda have never been made public before, but the new claims confirm what another source with an intimate knowledge of the militia and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.

The current round of talks, said to have been taken two years of intense behind-the-scenes negotiations to come to fruition, is anticipated to be the first step in a long process to secure a negotiated end to the conflict.

But U.S.- and Europe-friendly Saudi Arabia's involvement has been propelled by a mounting death toll among coalition troops amid a worsening violence that has also claimed many civilian casualties.

A Saudi source familiar with the talks confirmed that they happened and said the Saudis take seriously their role in facilitating discussions between parties to the conflict. 

A second round of talks is scheduled to take place in two months, the Saudi source said. 

The Afghan government believes the Taliban cannot be defeated militarily, and the Taliban believe that they can't win a war against the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Saudi source said. 

The involvement of the Saudis is also seen as an expression of fear that Iran could take advantage of U.S. failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2008)

Seen:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80171/post-765649.html#msg765649

I should have been clearer - the last thing the Taliban has said "officially" is "no talking - we continue to fight the foreign infidels...."

Interesting tea leaf reading exercise, nonetheless....


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2008)

The latest denial from Timmy Taliban....
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/80219/post-766198.html#msg766198


> Former ambassador of Taliban to Pakistan, Mull Abdul Salam Zaeef , who recently visited Saudi Arabia also  and said, “The Saudi Government had invited me, former foreign minister of Taliban Abdul Wakil Mutawakil and Mauliv Arsala Rahmani for performing Umrah.”
> 
> He continued that a delegation of Afghan government led by former chief justice of Afghanistan Maulvi Abdul Hadi Shinwari was also in Saudi Arabia at that time to perform Umrah.
> 
> ...




The latest conditions Taliban wants for talks?  No conditions at all...


> .... Asked what was the solution of the problem, Zaeef said, “I believe talks should be held without putting any condition by either sides. Putting condition by Afghan government for talks with Taliban is not right. The government’s condition means to recognize the government which Taliban will not accept.  The talks should be unconditional and the US should also present their stance while the withdrawal of foreign troops, the future of Afghanistan and several other issues should be discussed,” he stated ....


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Oct 2008)

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE49607N20081007?sp=true

U.S. dismisses Afghan war comments as "defeatist"
Tue Oct 7, 2008 5:58am EDT
By Jonathon Burch and Kristin Roberts

KABUL (Reuters---Source) - Britain's military commander and ambassador in Afghanistan are being "defeatist" by thinking the war cannot be won, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, as Washington seeks more troops for the conflict that started exactly seven years ago.

The comments by the officials from Britain, a key ally to the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, were echoed by the top United Nations official in Kabul, who said success was only possible through dialogue and other political efforts.

After the invasion of Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 to oust the fundamentalist Taliban government in the wake of the September 11 attacks on the United States, security has deteriorated markedly over the past two years.

"While we face significant challenges in Afghanistan, there certainly is no reason to be defeatist or to underestimate the opportunities to be successful in the long run," Gates said on Monday on his way to Europe to meet defense ministers.

Washington is reviewing its Afghan strategy in a similar way to the 2006 reappraisal of its Iraq policy that led to a "surge" of 30,000 troops and helped pull the country back from the brink of civil war.

Gates said part of the solution in Afghanistan would be negotiating with members of the Taliban willing to work with the government in Kabul. He compared that to reconciliation efforts in Iraq, where tribal leaders have switched sides to fight the insurgency and al Qaeda.

"What we have seen in Iraq applies in Afghanistan," Gates said of the possibility of peace talks with the Taliban.

"Part of the solution is strengthening the Afghan security forces. Part of the solution is reconciliation with people who are willing to work with the Afghan government."

Talk of negotiating with the Taliban also featured in the comments by the British commander and the U.N. official.

"What we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy," Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, told a news conference on Monday. "We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement."

MORE TROOPS

The Taliban have repeatedly rejected the idea of talks unless all 70,000 foreign troops leave the country.

"As we said before, as long as the invader forces are in Afghanistan, we won't participate in any negotiations," Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousuf told the Pakistan-based Afghan news agency, AIP.

He also denied reports that negotiations had taken place between the Taliban and the Afghan government in Saudi Arabia.

The British commander, Brig. Mark Carleton-Smith, told the Sunday Times the war against the Taliban could not be won and that the goal was to shrink the insurgency so it was no longer a strategic threat and could be dealt with by the Afghan army.

If the Taliban were willing to talk, he said, that might be "precisely the sort of progress" needed to end the insurgency.

Britain's ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, saw an "acceptable dictator" as the best solution, with a troop surge only creating more targets for the Taliban, according to parts of a diplomatic cable published in a French newspaper.

In another sign of shifting opinion, Germany said it will no longer provide troops from its KSK special forces to support U.S.-led counterterrorism missions in Afghanistan.

The U.S. general commanding NATO forces in the country said last month he needed three more brigades -- possibly around 15,000 troops -- on top of an extra 4,000 soldiers due to arrive in January.

Faced with reluctance of some of its European allies to send more troops, Washington has asked Japan and NATO countries to help foot the $17-billion bill to build up the Afghan army.

The Afghan Defense Ministry says the cost of one foreign soldier in Afghanistan is equal to more than 60 Afghan troops.

Washington's review of its Afghanistan policy has been characterized as a serious study of current thinking. But U.S. officials concede it will probably yield only recommendations for the next president -- either Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama -- who will take office in January.

(Kristin Roberts reported from a U.S. military aircraft)


----------



## Greymatters (7 Oct 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> "What we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy," Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, told a news conference on Monday. "We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement."



And the only reason they will be willing to come to the negotiation table is when they realize that they cant win with military force, or they want to use the negotiations as a tool or tactical advantage...


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Oct 2008)

The ONLY time negotiations should take place is when WE (NATO and the Afghan government) have the UPPER hand.  Example...when we have the cowardly terrorists who use mentally challenged people as suicide bombers and hide amongst women and children when they perpetuate attacks against NATO, on the run, in total dissaray. 
Then negotiate the peace...with the provisio that the legitimate democratically elected Afghan government can call on NATO for help if the Taliban ever want to try this again. In other words....try this again and we'll squish you like the vermin you are.

I know this is very not politcally correct speech, but I'm not Jack Layton either.


----------

