Revealed: secret Taliban peace bid

[gun runner]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.............. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

“We attended an Aftar dinner on the invitation of King Abdullah on 29th September which was also attended by delegates from several countries including the foreign minister of Oman,” Zaeef told Afghan Islamic Press, adding that no discussion was held on the Afghan issue on this occasion.

He said that they did not represent Afghan government or Taliban.... (more on link)

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]

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]

"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]

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.