posted
Either I'm reading more into it than there really is, or the importance is being understated, but apparently, the Taliban has split with Al Qaeda and is pursuing peace talks in Mecca with Saudi Arabia as a negotiator in a role usually filled by Pakistan.
quote: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.
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 in four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, says the source. ****
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. *****
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. ******
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. *****
Saudi sources say perceived Iranian expansionism is one of Saudi Arabia's biggest concerns
The talks in Mecca took place between September 24 and 27 and involved 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a representative of former mujahadeen commander and U.S. foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar, and three others.
If this is true, I guess I could see why the Taliban would want to keep it under wraps. I would have to imagine that it could cause a civil war within their ranks, and for that matter, peace talks might hurt Republicans in the US with all their talk about defeating the Taliban. A brokered peace agreement I would thing would include power sharing between the Taliban and the Karzai government, and I can't imagine that's anything like the total victory that the War on Terror's proponents want. But if they've already broke with AQ, then isn't that already a huge victory? I'd want to scream it from the roof tops.
I guess what took place in Mecca was just step one with like 10,000 steps to follow, but with Winter setting in in Afghanistan, the fighting will likely die down until the Spring. Isn't now the time to intensify diplomatic efforts? It almost makes you wonder if we could have achieved this faster had Iraq not distracted us, and it makes me wonder where AQ would have gone for refuge if Iraq hadn't been available. Would they all have been holed up in Waziristan? Coulda shoulda woulda I guess, as we'll never know, but you have to wonder.
Either way, I hope this is true, and if it is true, I hope we hear more and more good things that follow in the coming months.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as it doesn't lead to a slow return of the Taliban to ruling power in Afghanistan, yes, this could indeed be good news. I very much wonder how it will play out, though. If the Taliban succeeds in breaking free from Al-Qaeda without a major schism in the ranks and does indeed share power with the current Afghan government, what does that do to Afghanistan's international status if the U.S. continues to regard the Taliban as a terrorist organization? More isolation would probably mean Afghanistan continues to be the major opium exporter in the region; more dialogue risks the appearance of a double standard.
Still, if the U.S. could withdraw the vast majority of troops from Afghanistan and Iraq in the next few years, it would definitely leave us better equipped to handle the next international crisis...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If the Taliban succeeds in breaking free from Al-Qaeda without a major schism in the ranks and does indeed share power with the current Afghan government, what does that do to Afghanistan's international status if the U.S. continues to regard the Taliban as a terrorist organization?
It'll never come to fruition without a major US stake. Without US military and probably financial support, the combined government would easily be toppled without such aid. So I think you can be assured that if such a deal actually gets made, the US will accept it.
The problem you point out is going to be a matter of determining what the coalition government will look like. Obviously we don't have a problem with legitimizing these guys under the right circumstances, we supported them like crazy in 1980. Now that they've disavowed AQ, it gives the American leadership enough room to claim victory and push for a unity government. In reality, it's likely to be some some of agreement that sets the current situation on the ground in more realistic political terms. The Karzai government wields immense power only because the US uses it as a puppet. Outside of Kabul a great deal of the country is still run by local warlords under the tacit control of the Taliban leadership.
The government will have to involve the ceding of local control to the central government in return for a major voice from those regional warlords in how the national government works. The biggest problem I really see will be from poppy fields. It's a massive, massive part of their economy, and removing it, as I think the US will try and demand, would cripple them and probably start the whole go around all over again. That likely means huge financial investments from the US and the EU, and likely from Saudi Arabia too, who would love to see a stable Afghanistan in place to check Iran's growing influence in the region. That's the whole reason they're stepping up to the plate to begin with.
Lots of stuff has to come together, but the fact that they even want to talk is probably the biggest step of all. Now it's all nuts and bolts, but at least they've decided they want to build something.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:peace talks might hurt Republicans in the US with all their talk about defeating the Taliban.
Successful peace talks almost certainly help the Republicans. Promising peace talks probably do, too.
Unsuccessful ones might hurt them.
This is what I was thinking.
Though in a best case scenario where the Taliban are granted a stake in the government, and the whole country stabilizes, I suppose we can only watch and see if the Afghan people really want some of the liberal values we have pushed for since entering their country. Things such as equal rights for women, education that includes Western thought, etc.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... it would definitely leave us better equipped to handle the next international crisis...
Better equipped to create/invade the next international crisis anyways
Edit to add: On a slightly more cynical note, I suppose it has to be said that there is one possibility that has yet to be mentioned. The Taliban with or without AQ (I don't know how reliable that information is, it could be a fabrication or a ploy to get foreigners out) can still be an ambitious force on its own. It could very well attempt to topple over the 'legitimate' government or instigate a coup even without the help of AQ.
quote:peace talks might hurt Republicans in the US with all their talk about defeating the Taliban.
Successful peace talks almost certainly help the Republicans. Promising peace talks probably do, too.
Unsuccessful ones might hurt them.
Whoops, I meant to edit that statement out. I repeated it again in my second post and immediatley changed it, but I didn't realize I'd say it before.
Successful peace talks will likely benefit both sides. Democrats were never against the war in Afghanistan. In fact, Democrats may be able to successfully argue that had Republicans not diverted our attention, Afghanistan would have been won sooner and AQ wouldn't have Iraq to take refuge in. But it will depend on a number of factors. Well, I don't know if Democrats as a whole will be able to do that, but I think that Obama certainly could if Republicans try to claim sole credit for the issue. If they were smart, both sides would claim shared credit instead of fighting over it, assuming anything actually comes of it.
But it'll all depend on how the talks go. I think by the time US reps are actually sitting down with the Taliban, Bush will be out of office and Obama will be doing the negotiating, and will likely take a lot of the credit if anything good comes of it, and if not, he'll blame his predecessor for the situation, as is generally the case with inherited messes.
It all depends on how the talks go, and what end result comes of it, as in, how will they structure a shared power deal there? I'd like to think that Afghanistan could actually be a foreign policy measure that both Democrats and Republicans could unite over and share in the success as a nation rather than trying to claim yardarge over it, but, I'm not sure how hopeful I am of that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though in a best case scenario where the Taliban are granted a stake in the government, and the whole country stabilizes, I suppose we can only watch and see if the Afghan people really want some of the liberal values we have pushed for since entering their country. Things such as equal rights for women, education that includes Western thought, etc.
Do we really care? As long as they are not supporting terrorists in blowing up our citizens, I feel they can do whatever they like to their own. Otherwise you end up in the situation of using military force to push your values on people who do not want them; that cannot be good. Give the Afghan government genuine sovereignty, give the Afghan people the right of exit, and let the best culture win.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't Afghanistan have all those things before the Taliban took over and took them away by force?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, very roughly, before the Taliban was the civil war, before the civil war was an insurgency between a Russian invasion and Islamic terrorists, before that was a Communist regime sympathetic to Russia, before that was a number of colonial European puppets ...
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Though in a best case scenario where the Taliban are granted a stake in the government, and the whole country stabilizes, I suppose we can only watch and see if the Afghan people really want some of the liberal values we have pushed for since entering their country. Things such as equal rights for women, education that includes Western thought, etc.
Do we really care? As long as they are not supporting terrorists in blowing up our citizens, I feel they can do whatever they like to their own. Otherwise you end up in the situation of using military force to push your values on people who do not want them; that cannot be good. Give the Afghan government genuine sovereignty, give the Afghan people the right of exit, and let the best culture win.
Of course, hence my statement, "Watch and see..."
If we decided things were good and we left, and then a few years later the people opted for a militant Muslim regime, I'd likely be angry if we just marched in there all over again.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
