EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Gates: Pakistan-Style Truce In Afghanistan Acceptable

SLOBODAN LEKIC   02/20/09 05:33 PM ET   AP

Mideast Bahrain Gates

KRAKOW, Poland — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government's terms.

He was responding to a question from a Pakistani reporter about whether a deal struck by Pakistan with Taliban fighters in the restive Swat valley could serve as a model for Afghanistan.

On Monday, Pakistan announced it would agree to the imposition of Islamic law in the northwest valley as part of an agreement aimed at restoring peace after an 18-month military campaign. The pact was spearheaded by a hard-line cleric who is negotiating with the Taliban in the valley to give up their arms.

A reporter from Pakistan's Geo Television brought up the Swat deal and criticism of it by Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's envoy to the region.

The reporter asked whether, if Pakistan succeeds in pacifying militant activity in Swat, the United States would allow Afghans to make a similar type of agreement.

Gates replied: "If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government then I think we would be very open to that.

"We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan," Gates said.

Later, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said: "The secretary is too polite to take issue with the premise of the question, but he was in no way equating the prospect for reconciliation in Afghanistan with whatever deal the Pakistani government may or may not be trying to cut with militants in Swat province."

U.S. interest in the possibility of future talks with moderate Taliban elements is not new. Military commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, have suggested that such efforts, if led by Afghan officials, would be useful.

Afghanistan's government has said it wants to persuade Taliban guerrillas who are not "hard-liners" to lay down their arms in return for a political role in the country. But representatives of the Taliban, who have made significant military gains in the last two years and now control vast swathes of countryside, say they will not negotiate while foreign troops remain in Afghanistan.

A similar deal in Swat last year collapsed in a few months and was blamed for giving insurgents time to regroup.

Gates also welcomed the fact that NATO nations have signaled a willingness to provide more troops or other assistance to the war effort in Afghanistan, even though the meeting ended with no firm commitments on either.

The meeting in Krakow came amid intense diplomatic efforts to secure alternate supply routes to Afghanistan, to augment the main logistical lines through Pakistan which have been under increasing rebel attack.

Complicating matters further for the U.S. and for NATO, Kyrgyzstan, the site of a major U.S. air base used to fly troops and supplies to Afghanistan, on Friday ordered U.S. forces to depart within six months.

But Russia and several other Central Asian states have said they would allow NATO to ferry supplies by rail to the borders of Afghanistan, thus easing the supply squeeze faced by the alliance.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said a broader regional approach could one day include Iran.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

KRAKOW, Poland — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down ...
KRAKOW, Poland — U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down ...
Filed by Hanna Ingber Win  | 
 
  • Comments
  • 67
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:40 PM on 02/20/2009
most pragmatic route to take
serena1313
Condemnation w/o investigation is hgt of ignorance
04:09 PM on 02/20/2009
If the goal is to seek peace negotiatin­g with the Taliban is necessary.

Afghanista­n is a complete and utter disaster. The people are living in misery. Why are they being punished for something they had nothing to do with. Civil unrest and violence are increasing daily against the US.

If you re_member the Taliban would have handed over bin-Ladin if Bush provided proof. But he never provided any. So what was Bush's plan? A senior American contractor working in Afghanista­n said, "the original plan was to get in, prop-up Karzai, kill al-Qaeda, privatize all government­-owned enterprise and get out."

Billions of dollars spent on reconstruc­tion were chronicall­y mismanaged­. For instance The Louis Berger Group, was given $665 million dollars to build 81 clinics, but the schools are falling apart -- similar to other reconstruc­tion efforts.

UNICEF and other internatio­nal agencies reports:

* 1 in 4 Afghanista­n children will die before age 5

* literacy rate for women: 19%

* unemployme­nt in the capital: 30%

* 3.5 million (populatio­n 25 million) are hungry and reliant on foreign food rations

The longer US forces stay the worse the situation grows. Civil unrest and violence are increasing daily against the US. Why are we still there? Because UNICAL wanted to build oil and gas pipelines running north-sout­h from the oilfields of Central Asia, through Afghanista­n to the Indian Ocean, but the Taliban refused.

Military might is not the way to accomplish peace. Negotiate with the Taliban.
04:25 PM on 02/20/2009
You didn't mention anything about the oil pipeline.
04:05 PM on 02/20/2009
Ok then. let's get on with ti before more American soldiers and marines die. If the republican­s protest, draft their children for military service.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
03:16 PM on 02/20/2009
Before you spew hyperbole about the Tali ban saying they cannot be dealt with learn something about the situation.

Afghanista­n: Former Tali ban Commander Advises U.S. Ambassador

"Salaam said there are two types of Tali ban in Helmand: Afghan nationals who he described as as "true Afghan mullahs," and foreign Tali ban. He told Wood it is possible to separate Afghan and foreign Tali ban fighters because Afghans are unwilling to destroy their own country."

http://www­.rferl.org­/content/A­rticle/107­9359.html

You have the domestic Tali ban who don't want to see Afghanista­n destroyed and can be dealt with and this also comes from commanders on the ground as well as ex-Taliban leaders. Then you have the foreign fighter Tali ban who are the ones with ties to Al Qaeda and started coming to Afghanista­n to fight the soviets.

Thankfully the cowboy diplomancy mentality has ended with the for or against us mindset.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
03:06 PM on 02/20/2009
There has always been a hard and soft Tali ban. The hard core Tali ban that want to fight and the soft core Tali ban that were forced to fight. This is the major change in strategy away from Bush's cowboy diplomacy I was hoping for with President Obama. Talking with our enemies and making treaties is what diplomacy is all about.
02:06 PM on 02/20/2009
the day the taliban delivers bin laden to face justice is the day i'll believe they can be trusted. until then, no way jose.
02:06 PM on 02/20/2009
Well guys the oil pipeline thing just didn't work out, it's time we pack our bags and not waste anymore precious lives in that hell hole.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TJCole
02:02 PM on 02/20/2009
If we can drive a wedge between al-Qaeda and the Taliban then negotiatio­ns could be a way out for us from Afghanista­n as an occupier..­.but that is a big if and will be a sad day for those in Afghanista­n under their rule...who wish to live in the 21st century...
01:53 PM on 02/20/2009
The Taliban throws acid in the faces of school girls b/c they claim they aren't allowed to go to school under Islamic law. These are not the type of people to be trusted or negotiated with.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
KQuarksSuperKollider
03:09 PM on 02/20/2009
LOL you know nothing about the situation. All Tali ban are not the same many were forced to join.
01:18 PM on 02/20/2009
The Taliban give up their arms? What a joke, how do you think they impose sharia law, by throwing shoes at each other?
01:11 PM on 02/20/2009
Bravo! For anyone that doesn't know, the Taliban believe in wahhabism (fundament­alist radical form of Islam) and sharia law, if you think they'll stop with swat valley your highly mistaken, not only that, if they over throw the gov't of pakistan, they'll have access to nuclear weapons. We attacked the Taliban in Afghanista­n after 9-11, they aided and abetted bin laden and his camps, they are terrorists and are our enemy as al quaeda is. We attacked them because they are just as responsibl­e for 9-11, and negotiatin­g with them is just the stupidest thing I ever heard in the world. There people were cheering that day. They hate america and us, and we are just going to make a truce with them? Disastrous­, never seen such incompeten­ce in my life.

Al quaeda and the taliban have been working lock step together, do you really think they'll stop when they've accomplish­ed so much. I also thought Obama said this is the center stage for the fight on terror? What happened to that? Now we juts get weak watered down appeasemen­t which will do nothing more than just embolden these guys more. I really hope this doesn't happen if it does we might as just recall all our troops all over the world and just give up as being any leader in the world and watch it go to hell.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheBurdicks
Whatever happened to my yellow bus?
06:03 AM on 02/22/2009
Although I find little of value in this comment, the last line offers some redemption­.

"...we might as just recall all our troops all over the world and just give up as being any leader in the world and watch it go to hell."

Amen, brother! And maybe, just maybe, it won't really "go to hell."
"...our troops all over the world" haven't seemed to do us much good recently. Our economy is tanking; trillions of defense dollars might have helped prop us up a while longer. Obama may have given us a temorary reprieve, but our reputation has been pretty sullied all over the world. There seems to be more and more threat of terror. Most of the people we occupy don't want us.
Maybe the world needs new leadership­. We don't seem to be doing very well as the leader. A general troop recall might be just the ticket.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
riverhead
12:17 PM on 02/20/2009
Let me get this straight. We invaded Iraq because Hussein was a threat to the world, but no WMD to carry out any "threats". But now we are conceding a "truce" with the Taliban, who are now mere miles from a stock of nuclear weapons, and who behead women if they so much as make eye contact with a man? The Taliban are most oppressive regime on the planet ... they cannot be allowed to live, period.
12:16 PM on 02/20/2009
Though the headline says truce, the body of the article screams treaty.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Indedave
12:11 PM on 02/20/2009
Another unwinnable war, with a patient foe just waiting for us to withdraw, no viable government and zero prospects for one other than the Taliban, and no exit strategy. Beautiful.
12:09 PM on 02/20/2009
I thought this was rather a strange idea until it was pointed out that although they joined together to fight us in Afghanista­n, the Taliban is a religious/­government­al hybrid. The Al Quaeda is who attacked us, and who must be crushed.

If we make defeating the Taliban our goal, then we likely will never succeed, and will be bogged down in Afghanista­n for decades to come. And, this is important, will almost certainly continue to strengthen Al Quaeda.

By making a truce with the Taliban, we eliminate the need to fight them and could focus on Al Quaeda and very possibly, the Taliban would come on board as allies. The reason being that the sooner we dispatch Al Quaeda, the sooner we leave their country and interferin­g in their affairs.

So, it's actually a good plan.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Indedave
12:16 PM on 02/20/2009
And what will keep Al-Qaeda from joining forces with or co-opting the Taliban? Both are Sunni-base­d.