A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
Claire Berlinski is up in arms over a) the possibility that the Taliban might be permitted to open up an office in Turkey, and b) the rumor that the US actually supports this idea. She writes:
If it is true, I've got a question for my government. Are you out of your minds?
The proposal makes more sense than she and Michael Rubin have given it credit for. Consider:
1. The Turkey office idea first surfaced last December when Afghan President Hamid Karzai said discussions were underway to find a neutral location where Taliban officials could safely come and begin reconciliation talks.
2. We can argue here about whether such talks are desirable, but General David Petraeus has been open to them for quite some time. In an October 2008 address to the Heritage Foundation, he stated: "You have to talk to enemies." He repeated this view in an August 2010 interview with NBC. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on board with negotiations, in theory, even before President Bush left office: "There has to be ultimately -- and I'll underscore ultimately -- reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this."
3. While you need reconciliation to end the war and you need negotiations to achieve reconciliation, it will have to be the Afghan government that brings this about primarily, not just the United States. Petraeus laid out the framework in August 2010 in an interview with CBS:
We're not the ones calling the shots. At the end of the day those who will determine whether reconciliation goes forward or not are those who lead the Afghan government, and that is why it is appropriate that they lead these efforts, perhaps facilitated in some cases, supported in some cases, by the United States. But those are going to remain behind the scenes, and that's where they should remain. President Karzai has established the Afghan government's redlines if you will. They must respect the constitution, lay down weapons, cut off ties with al Qaeda and essentially be willing to be productive members of society.
Steve Coll's reportage in the New Yorker on secret US-Taliban talks was consistent with the framework Petraeus outlined above.
So, basically what you have here is the US quietly supporting Afghan-Taliban talks, letting the Afghan government take the lead because their legitimacy and reconciliation with the Taliban will ultimately end this war. Karzai has expressed a desire for a neutral location for those reconciliation talks. Since the US is supporting Karzai and Karzai is in the lead, and negotiations are in our own interest, it seems to make perfect sense that we would support the creation of an office Karzai believes is necessary for those talks to take place.
- Comment (10)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
We can argue here about whether such talks are desirable, but General David Petraeus has been open to them for quite some time. In an October 2008 address to the Heritage Foundation, he stated: "You have to talk to enemies." He repeated this view in an August 2010 interview with NBC. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on board with negotiations, in theory, even before President Bush left office: "There has to be ultimately -- and I'll underscore ultimately -- reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this."
Do you really think it's a good idea to let the Taliban return to power? Because this is what is going to happen especially after the US bugs out.
Jan '11
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
You've got the Quetta Shura Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and other networks operating with a variety of goals there. Parts of the insurgency will have to be destroyed, to be sure, but other parts -- and certainly individuals, especially in the low- and mid-levels -- can be brought into the fold. As every single counterinsurgency expert will tell you, the Taliban is not a monolithic entity. Some can be negotiated with, others cannot.
Oct '10
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
Protecting iraqis from Al Queda foreigners was a key part of the Surge. But allowing the Mullah Omar's group to regain power in Afghanistan-- is that smart? cuz who else are you negotiating with?
Edited on Apr 12, 2011 at 11:09pmJun '10
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
What has having a Hamas office located in Damascus done for us?
Jan '11
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
Comparing the relationship between Hamas and Syria and the relationship between the Taliban and Turkey is a bit of a stretch...
Dec '10
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
http://youtu.be/NovWSBJUlCg
The fellow at 0:52 states "our jihad against American troops will continue and one day we will reach the gates of America." Yes, this is probably just a grunt paying lip-service to the camera, yet the more elder gent 1:45 states "the whole area is secure and sharia is being implemented." Negotiate with whom exactly and for what ends?
Edited on Apr 12, 2011 at 11:39pmJan '11
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
1. The Hezb-i-Islami Gulbuddin (a.k.a., HIG), led by the infamous Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, is one option. The Haqqani network is doubtful.
2. Petraeus: "It doesn’t mean that Mullah Omar is about to stroll down Main Street in Kabul anytime soon and, and raise his hand and swear an oath on the constitution of Afghanistan. But every possibility, I think, that there can be low and midlevel reintegration and, indeed, some fracturing of the senior leadership that could be really defined as reconciliation."
3. David Kilcullen, counterinsurgency theorist: "I see the Taliban as a loose confederation of shifting tactical alliances of convenience, and there's a lot of opportunity for negotiation and for splitting that Taliban alliance. But we've got to do that from a position of strength so that we are not negotiating for stay of execution (for Western forces), but we're negotiating for genuine national reconciliation."
Jan '11
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
Mike Visser: http://youtu.be/NovWSBJUlCg
The fellow at 0:52 states "our jihad against American troops will continue and one day we will reach the gates of America." Yes, this is probably just a grunt paying lip-service to the camera, yet the more elder gent 1:45 states "the whole area is secure and sharia is being implemented." Negotiate with whom exactly and for what ends?
Thanks for the link. To get a sense for how complex the insurgency is, please see this graphic from the Department of Defense. The argument is that parts of this insurgency, and individual leaders within these different groups, can be pulled away from the rest and reconciled with Kabul. This is what Petraeus is talking about. No one is talking about giving the presidency to Mullah Omar.
Oct '10
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
i'm not against talking with the enemy, but having obama as the leader of this afghanistan effort means that you are negotiating from a weak position. (read the rolling stone article that got mcchrystal fired and woodward's book)
karzai knows this and lately he is sounding like he'd rather be on the taliban's side. and it doesn't help in negotiations that the enemy knows you have a fixed timetable to bug out of afghanistan.
Re: A Fair Hearing for the Taliban's Turkey Office
I'll come back to this issue, Tristan, but it's so important that I'm going to wait for the President to stop speaking and for everyone to stop talking about that. Let's give it a few days and hope for a news lull.