Is the U.S. coming to terms with the Taliban?
What do possible peace talks between the U.S. and the Taliban mean for Afghanistan's future?
The Stream on Al Jazeera English
Cross-posted with full permissions
The announcement that the Taliban will open a political office in Qatar marks the first public step towards negotiations with the United States. Critics argue that talks will diminish the role of the Afghan government and strengthen the Taliban.
Many believe there is no clear role for Afghan President Hamid Karzai and this could undermine his power in future negotiations. Advocates for civil society groups similarly believe that too much of Afghan society is being ignored by the proposed peace talks.
In this episode of The Stream, we talk to Fariba Nawa (@FaribaNawa), author of Opium Nation and Ahmad Shuja (@AhmadShuja), who writes the Afghanistan Analysis blog.
What do you think? Will talks with the Taliban promote national reconciliation or lead to greater divisions and conflict in Afghanistan? Send us your thoughts and comments on Facebook or Twitter using hashtag #AJStream.
Comments
Afhganistan is one of the places on the planet where the lunch is now completely naked (Pakistan is heading towards being one too). This has its advantages; Negotiations can be conducted frankly and cleanly (though not yet publicly, since the wider world is not yet ready for such frankness) on the basis of actual ability to carry out threats and deliver rewards....if the US has a clear policy of protecting some of its old collaborators, that would count for something significant, since the US ability to deliver damage and provide rewards is still substantial.
But if the US is relying on some "promise of good behavior" as a fig leaf to use in getting out, then the collaborators goose is cooked in large parts of the country and green cards should be arranged for as many as possible..or at least a realistic arrangement should be made with other powers to help balance Pakistani support to the taliban in the inevitable civil war that will follow...
After meeting with Taliban commanders in 2010 my view shifted to one which could be described as "mutual strategic respect". The locals at the time had never seen their Provincial Governor or District Governor - and their police commander Petang was a thug, but they had plenty of interaction with the Taliban.
As long as the local Taliban dont allow any trans-national non-state terrorist organisation to set up shop with the aim of targeting our national interests, then we should leave the community or valley to them. Hell, there are still plenty of nations in the world where we do not share their belief systems or social order. If however they allow trans-national terrorists to use Afghanistan as a base and to train for acts in against our interests or citizens, then the terrorists and their hosts will face a drone strike or SOF raid. Isnt this what we are already doing in the lawless regions of Pakistan? If the ANSF can carry out the kinetic action required, then that of course is preferable. Apologies for the bluntness and lack of academic language. Is this technically an international CT approach? The point being that any negotiations should consider introducing an unequivocal line in the sand for people who respect strength.
There are places where our money and technical support is welcome - just target these areas for stability and development assistance. The mindset of the Taliban that conspires to construct an ideological framework is well and truly part of the farbic of many parts of Afghan society. No amount of bullets or money will extricate this entirely - as with belief systems that remain in our own nations and in others.
On a broader political level many coalition governments are formed around the world where two or more political parties share power when many aspects of their policy platforms are an antithesis of the other. Politics creates strange bedfellows.