iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's 'Moderate Taliban' Plan A Recipe For Disaster: Experts

First Posted: 04/16/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:10 PM ET

Afghanistan Taliban

WASHINGTON, Mar 16 (IPS) - Advanced reports on the Barack Obama administration's strategy to "peel off" a majority of insurgent commanders from the "hard core" of Taliban suggest that it will be presented as a political route to victory in Afghanistan that would not require U.S. and NATO troops to win militarily.

But experts warn that the strategy is unlikely to work. And by appearing to provide a political route to victory, the strategy is luring the administration into a renewed commitment to war in Afghanistan and diverting it away from a deal with the Taliban leadership aimed at keeping al Qaeda from having a presence there.

News reports this past week have raised the possibility of negotiations by Afghan, Saudi and Pakistani officials with the Taliban leadership that could result in an agreement not to allow an al Qaeda presence on Afghan territory in return for U.S. and NATO withdrawal and assurances that they will not intervene in the country as long as al Qaeda is kept out.

The strategy of splitting off "reconcilable" insurgents may make commitment to an indefinite continuation of the U.S. military effort more palatable to key U.S. officials, including Obama himself, who know that the war cannot be won through military efforts.

The new administration strategy was reported last week after briefings of Congressional leaders by Gen. David Petraeus, head of CENTCOM, and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, the State Department special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Petraeus has been a strong supporter of the strategy of trying to divide the Afghan insurgency by offering money and jobs to those willing to accept the government in Kabul. He has said that his strategy of outreach to what he has described as "reconcilables" among the insurgents in Iraq might be applicable in Afghanistan as well.

The premise of the plan being advanced by administration officials, at least for public consumption, was articulated by Vice President Joseph Biden in a speech in Brussels last week. Biden said only 100 to 1,000 Taliban or al Qaeda members - representing about 5 percent of the Taliban insurgency - are "incorrigible", and that at least 70 percent were involved in the insurgency only because they are "getting paid".

Biden was reflecting the view of the insurgency held by senior military officials at the NATO regional headquarters in Kandahar. Officials there see the insurgency in the south as made up largely of "young freelance fighters who are motivated more by money than religious zealotry," according to a report by Rajiv Chandrasekaran in the Washington Post Sunday.

But that extraordinarily optimistic assumption is not shared by most experts on the insurgency in Afghanistan. A report by Carlotta Gall in the New York Times last Wednesday quotes "several Western diplomats and officials in Afghanistan, including those already in contact with the Taliban" as saying that attempts to split off individual commanders or groups from the Taliban leadership "would not work."

The reason, according to those officials, is that the plan would require those commanders to surrender and accept an Afghan government and a foreign military presence in which they have no trust.

Jonathan Landay of McClatchy newspapers reported from Kabul Sunday that experts on the Taliban express "serious doubts" about the splitting strategy, because insurgent leaders believe they are winning and the Hamid Karzai government is growing weaker.

In contrast to the reported premise that most insurgents are motivated by material gain, most specialists on the insurgency emphasised the dominant role of Pashtun anger at foreign military operations in their locality killing members of their family or tribe.

An alternative strategy of seeking a deal with the Taliban aimed at separating them from al Qaeda was first raised by New York University Afghanistan specialist Barnett Rubin and Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid in an article in Foreign Affairs magazine last December. The article proposed that NATO offer to end military action in Afghanistan if the Taliban agrees "to prohibit the use of Afghan (or Pakistani) territory for international terrorism."

Rubin and Rashid have been hired by Holbrooke as adviser and short-term consultant, respectively, according to a report by national security correspondent Laura Rozen at Foreign Policy.

The option proposed by Rubin and Rashid has now been given new credibility by reports that Saudi Arabia is engaged in an effort to persuade the Taliban to separate itself clearly from al Qaeda.

The London Times published a report by Christina Lamb Sunday that Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi intelligence chief, visited Islamabad, Delhi and Kabul in January to talk to both Taliban and Afghan government officials.

Lamb also reported that Taliban Chief Mullah Omar had given his approval to peace talks with the Afghan government for the first time, citing a "mediator" with the Taliban, Algerian former Mujahideen fighter in Afghanistan Abdullah Anas and an Afghan government official involved in the negotiations as the sources.

The Afghan government negotiator told Lamb that government officials "have been in contact both with Mullah Omar's direct representatives and commanders from the front line."

Asked for a comment on this development, Rubin, the Columbia University expert, told IPS in an e-mail that the Lamb story "is accurate".

A report published by Strategic Forecasting (Stratfor) last week by director of Middle East analysis Kamran Bokhari and Scott Stewart also noted the Saudi intelligence chief's trip to Pakistan and Afghanistan. In meetings with actual Taliban commanders in both countries, the Saudis have offered financial support if the Taliban agrees to divorce itself completely from al Qaeda, according to the report.

Bokhari, a Pakistani specialist on Islamist groups, has had extensive contacts with high-ranking Pakistani and Saudi officials in the past.

The Saudi regime, once reluctant to crack down on al Qaeda, has pursued a very successful political strategy against al Qaeda within Saudi Arabia since 2003. Saudi Arabia has credibility with the Taliban leadership because of shared religious beliefs and because it is one of the few foreign governments that continued to recognise the Taliban after 9/11.

The Taliban chief, Mullah Omar, had rejected U.S. and Saudi pressures to expel Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. But the question of ties between the Taliban and al Qaeda have been far less clear since the expulsion of both organisations from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Amin Tarzi, director of the Middle East Studies Programme at the Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia, wrote in an essay for the 2007 book "Taliban and the Crisis in Afghanistan" that there was "no evidence of concerted cooperation" between what he called the "neo- Taliban" and al Qaeda in southern Afghanistan.

Some factions in the north and northeast, however, had "resurrected old ties with al Qaeda" to obtain funds, recruits and technical support, according to Tarzi.

Tarzi cited a comment by Taliban spokesman Mohammad Hanif to an Italian newspaper in March 2006 that the movement had "no operational ties" to al Qaeda, but that they had "tactical alliances based given circumstances and territorial situations".

As suggested in the Rubin-Rashid proposal, any deal with the Taliban will have to include a date for withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces. In October 2007, The Guardian reported that senior Taliban commanders in Helmand province had sent a list of demands to the Karzai government through intermediaries that included control of 10 southern provinces, a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops and the release of all Taliban prisoners within six months.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

WASHINGTON, Mar 16 (IPS) - Advanced reports on the Barack Obama administration's strategy to "peel off" a majority of insurgent commanders from the "hard core" of Taliban suggest that it will be pre...
WASHINGTON, Mar 16 (IPS) - Advanced reports on the Barack Obama administration's strategy to "peel off" a majority of insurgent commanders from the "hard core" of Taliban suggest that it will be pre...
Filed by Stuart Whatley  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 69
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
03:49 PM on 03/17/2009
Is this the same concept as the moderate Republican?

If bipartisanship works in our country, why not Afghanistan?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
09:03 AM on 03/17/2009
the term "moderate taliban" is an oxymoron.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realpolitic
Proud member of the reality-based community!
06:14 AM on 03/17/2009
Well, there is no military solution to this war. If most of the Taliban is likely fighting for the money, it makes sense to pay them to fight for the Karzi government. The hardliners may never come around. This strategy worked in Iraq. Why couldn't these Taliban members at the same time be given training in a more moderate form of Islam? We can not stay in Afghanistan forever and, again, there is no military solution. Creative solutions are all we have.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USA2Sense
02:40 AM on 03/17/2009
On another note - the Khyber Pass - even after 2000 years, is still they key to the country - and has been proven so, by conqueror after conqueror - it always has been, is now, and ever will be.............as the recent ambush of supply vehicles and deaths still show......he who holds the Khyber Pass, pretty much holds Afghanistan!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
USA2Sense
02:37 AM on 03/17/2009
Anybody out there who wants to know and understand the Afghan society and it's cultural history - and why the Afghans do what they do - Taliban, Al Quaida, Mujahideen, or whatever one wants to call the splinter groups of independent (and organized) fighters - SHOULD READ - Jame's Michener's book called "Caravans"...............it gives and incredible picture of the vastness, and the wildness, of both the country and the peoples........I pray to God, that Obama and every other politician who is involved with Afghanistan - either has read it - or will read it........

And then stay the hell out of Afghanistan!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
messy
artist, writer, adventurer
09:05 AM on 03/17/2009
Unlike Iraq, We are in Afghanistan because of 9/11. They attacked US.
11:50 PM on 03/16/2009
"moderate taliban" is an oxymoron.

They are brainwashed religious fanatics. They want to impose sharia and kill all infidels. And just like muhammed who made deals with the infidels until he was strong enough to wipe them out, the taliban will do the same.

They will make a deal and bide their time until they grow strong enough to destroy the enemy. Obama is naive if he thinks he can reason with them. Just read the quran, their whole strategy is laid out there.
12:45 AM on 03/17/2009
Are America's fundamentalist Christians any different? Can anyone even define just why this country is Afghanistan? Just because Bush and his cohorts said we are fighting terrorism there does not make it so.....in fact, I suspect we are creating them, and giving them battle ground training....
02:34 AM on 03/17/2009
American fundamentalists are very different. First of all, they don't blow themselves up in public places. Second, they are not interested in converting the whole world to Christianity by force. Third, they are not in favour of imposing medeval laws that stone adulterers to death or chop off hands. Fourth, they are not against women working or being seen in public alone. I could probably think of more but you get the point...

Next, yes attacking Iraq was a mistake and it created a lot of animosity against America, but attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do. The next logical step is to attack the heart of terrorism, namely Pakistan.
11:20 PM on 03/16/2009
ah yes, the experts that NEVER fight the wars...
11:13 PM on 03/16/2009
Get out now. We should just protect our borders and sovereignty.
11:23 PM on 03/16/2009
calm down dobbs...
12:46 AM on 03/17/2009
Such a simple idea. Unfortunately, there is no money in that for our corporations and militry suppliers...nor is there "glory" for our military flag waving yahoos or the shaved headed tatooed "generals"....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PlayTOE
Morals evolved due to cooperative group living
10:56 PM on 03/16/2009
Before Bush took power the al Qaeda was a small group of fundamentalists with a big plan, a huge attack by a small group.

Now after and 7 years of war, they are a large, well armed, well financed, huge force that has expanded into at least 3 countries.
Poppy growing has increased, and the drug wars are in full swing.

This is not exactly the expected results now is it?
Dick has the nerve to say he kept people safe. Tell that to the families of military heroes who cannot return.
12:47 AM on 03/17/2009
They should not have enlisted....
12:56 AM on 03/17/2009
Why are you living (here)?
08:06 PM on 03/16/2009
Since the 7th century very little has changed in this region of the world. It is gripped by "the law" and bound by its beliefs unfortunately they are one in the same. Unlike the US in the sixties where we can think out side the box, and most of the time choose not to legislate morality. We don't live and breathe our faith or lack of faith. When we wake up(unless you are in a cult) it isn't all around us.

Because of that a western cultural revolution is infinitely more possible than it is in the middle east. The Taliban is ultra conservative and life in Afghanistan once we, and the UN leave will be back to what Americans experinced when the Puritans first stepped ashore.
If we leave my heart will ache for the women. May they sleep all day to escape.

All of that just to say.

Did the experts ask John McCain what he would do in the region?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:22 PM on 03/16/2009
The women were not helped under bush. That was simply a handy excuse.
Unless Obama brings jobs & healthcare instead of soldiers, nothing changes.
11:21 PM on 03/16/2009
pure.tan cra.p ala bohner...
07:40 PM on 03/16/2009
What I have been wondering is how much of the resistance we call the Taliban is in actuality poppy growers who want to be left alone.

Or are tribal elements who have never accepted the power of a central government.

Afghanis have been fighting the government long before the Russians came along.

The trick is to split off elements of what we call the Taliban and get them to support peace. Which the Afghan people certainly deserve.

We want Osama bin Ladin and his crew. Other than that, almost anything could be negotiable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RRK70
08:03 PM on 03/16/2009
Actually, the Taliban BANNED poppy crops when they first took power. It is only recently that they have adopted the poppy crops as a means of financial support. At least it is a good sign that the financial support for such groups has been effectively stived. I hope the US does not plan on going after the poppy crops as this country has a TERRIBLE record of going to war with flora.

Unfortunately there are also cultural issues at play in Afghanistan, while the Taliban is largely Pashtun, there are Tajeks and Uzbeks that were largely the make up of the Northern Alliance. Afghanistan is just as, if not more complex a puzzle as Iraq.

I don't even understand the "training ground" issue. If I recall correctly, most of the 911 hijackers trained in......the US.
09:02 PM on 03/16/2009
you have a basic lack of understanding about what the taliban is

please go look it up and read about it before commenting further
09:09 AM on 03/17/2009
I understand where and how the Taliban came about.

Know anything about the trucking Mafia?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RRK70
07:39 PM on 03/16/2009
A few years ago when the Northern Alliance had the Taliban scattered, perhaps we could have hoped for a better outcome. At this point however, I think the most we can hope for in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, is a somewhat stable theocratically leaning government that will not cooperate with Al Queda. There are no "redo's" or "resets" when it comes to war.
07:43 PM on 03/16/2009
i am afraid you may be right.

No do overs in real life. And the best we can hope for is a less extreme fundamentalist government.

As I understand it, many of the people we support are not that much different from what the media call the Taliban.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:09 PM on 03/16/2009
We don't need to be in Afghanistan. Get out of Afghanistan.

There is NO REASON to be there.

Out of Afghanistan.

And 50,000 left in Iraq is AN ARMY. That is not residual, you stinking liar !!!!!!
11:22 PM on 03/16/2009
levi thing got you all busted up ehh skippy.
12:50 AM on 03/17/2009
Amen
07:02 PM on 03/16/2009
the taliban, by definition, is not moderate
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RRK70
07:36 PM on 03/16/2009
True. You could also make the same statement about Saudi Arabia. Prior to 911 the Neocons, including GW Bush, seemed to have no problem doing business with the Taliban. Didn't a Taliban envoy visit visit when GW was Governor?
09:00 PM on 03/16/2009
yes and??????
07:45 PM on 03/16/2009
The politics and religious beliefs in Afghanistan are not simple. They cannot be summed up that easily.

There are different factions pursuing different agendas. The trick is to work with some. In order to obtain the best outcome possible.

Which at this late date may not be very good..
09:01 PM on 03/16/2009
the taliban is the taliban

Afghanistan is Afghanistan

and these are separate entities
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zell
06:47 PM on 03/16/2009
I thank God that President Obama is considering negoiations with the Taliban. If an agreement with the Taliban can save our American soldiers, then I am all for this agreement. I am sick and tired of our "Best and Brightest" being killed in wars that have nothing to do with protecting America. I am praying for a solution to Afganistan soon so that our soldiers will be able to come home.