Holbrooke: US To Back Plan To Reintegrate Taliban

GREGORY KATZ and DAVID STRINGER   01/27/10 04:23 PM ET   AP

Afghanistan Us

LONDON — Afghanistan's president promised Wednesday to lift the defense burden from the U.S. and its allies, as senior officials gathered in London for a conference to bolster flagging support for the international mission there.

President Hamid Karzai said Afghanistan "wants to soon be defending its own territory, its own people, with Afghan means." But he cautioned the country would need prolonged "sustained support" from the international community.

"Afghanistan does not want to be a burden on the shoulder of our allies and friends," Karzai said after meeting German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin ahead of Thursday's conference in London.

The conference has been called in hope of offering Western countries a way out of Afghanistan, where U.S. and NATO forces have been taking increasing casualties from a resurgent Taliban, and where officials concede total military victory is impossible.

The U.S. and its NATO partners are trying to shift more of the combat burden on the Afghans by accelerating the training of the Afghan army and the paramilitary national police. Last month Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin complained that the U.S. strategy called for more American troops but "with too few Afghan partners alongside them."

The centerpiece of the conference is a $500 million plan to lure Taliban fighters away from the insurgency with jobs and economic incentives – a plan which supporters in Afghanistan acknowledge will take resources and skill from a government with a poor track record for success.

Karzai has said he's willing to talk to Taliban leaders – including the top commander Mullah Mohammed Omar – if they are willing to renounce violence.

Besides reconciliation, the conference will grapple with reconstruction, fighting corruption and drug trafficking and a province-by-province handover of security control from U.S. and NATO troops to Afghan forces beginning as soon as next year.

The Taliban dismissed the reconciliation plan, saying in a statement posted on their Web site Wednesday that their fighters wouldn't be swayed by financial incentives because they were fighting not for "money, property and position" but for Islam and an end to the foreign military presence in their country.

U.S. special representative Richard Holbrooke said Karzai would use Thursday's conference to outline a plan to persuade low- and midlevel Taliban fighters to give up their fight.

"The overwhelming majority of these people are not ideological supporters of Mullah Omar and al-Qaida," Holbrooke told reporters in London. "Based on interviews with prisoners, returnees, experts, there must be at least 70 percent of these people who are not fighting for anything to do with those causes."

German chancellor Angela Merkel put the cost of the plan at $500 million, a figure confirmed by a British diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of the meeting.

This will not succeed until some important steps have been taken nationally," said Wadir Safi, a political analyst and professor of political science at Kabul University.

Habib Ulah, a 77-year-old from Helmand, the southern province where the Taliban insurgency has been strongest, said Afghan hopes for the conference were high – "peace and reconciliation and also to find jobs for the Taliban and for the Afghans, for the poor people of Helmand."

The United Nations on Wednesday revoked asset-freezing orders and travel bans on five former Taliban officials, something for which Karzai had been pressing as part of his effort to draw them back into the fold. None of the five is believed active in the Taliban.

Western officials said the reintegration plan would not involve cash handouts to insurgents, but be focused on providing jobs – chiefly in the country's growing security forces and agriculture – and housing.

Diplomats insist that while the program will initially target Taliban foot soldiers, it will later work to reintegrate district-level commanders, and eventually could involve major figures in the insurgency.

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was vital to divide those not ideologically committed to extremism from ardent supporters of the Taliban, or al-Qaida.

"Military effort and civilian effort need a political purpose – the construction of a political ring within which all those not affiliated or supportive of al-Qaida can argue out differences," Miliband said.

Those goals represent a climbdown from the aim of making Afghanistan a stable, Western-style democracy touted by world leaders after the 2001 invasion that toppled the Taliban.

Major questions remain about the legitimacy and efficacy of Karzai's government. He was re-elected last year in a presidential vote marred by widespread corruption.

Karzai's main rival in the election, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, said the Afghan leader would be attending the conference with "half legitimacy" and no program.

"What is the main problem? Internally it is the growing gap between the government and the citizens of Afghanistan," Abdullah told a panel at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

___

Associated Press writers Matthew Lee, Raphael G. Satter and Jill Lawless in London, Geir Moulson in Berlin, Rahim Faiez, Kim Gamel and Amir Shah in Kabul, Edith M. Lederer in Davos, Switzerland and Sagar Meghani in Washington contributed to this report.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

LONDON — Afghanistan's president promised Wednesday to lift the defense burden from the U.S. and its allies, as senior officials gathered in London for a conference to bolster flagging support f...
LONDON — Afghanistan's president promised Wednesday to lift the defense burden from the U.S. and its allies, as senior officials gathered in London for a conference to bolster flagging support f...
Filed by Adam Taylor  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 60
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
11:24 PM on 01/27/2010
We should give heaps of money to President Karzai and he can hand it out to the Taliban. After all if you can't trust a president, who can you trust?
09:48 PM on 01/27/2010
Right, lets reward them for bad behavior. Once they get a taste of the benefits they'll simply ramp up the bad behavior & demand more blackmail....Appeasing them didn't work in the Swat Valley & it won't work here. They will always want more & more until they reach their ultimate goal, a country under the rule of islam & sharia law.
09:06 PM on 01/27/2010
If we pay the afghan people off, violence will subside, and then we can pack up and leave. Problem is we don't have enough money in the coffers. I say we pull out with our tail between our legs and head back home, SECURE the borders, patrol the skies and the oceans, and rebuild AMERICA.
11:45 PM on 01/27/2010
Afghanistan's Gross National product is less than Buffalo New York.

You think the United States is some third world economy?

What universe do you live in?

The USA still has the strongest economy in the world, despite Republicans best efforts to destroy it.
06:40 PM on 01/27/2010
Can't beat them, pay them.

I am assuming MasterCard was created in America.

Also war means winning by fighting not paying them off, US has lost. Period.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
06:53 PM on 01/27/2010
Wrong. Americans don't want to "win" in the manner of Genghis Khan. We want to be loved and admired by the world. We want to contribute to peace, stability and prosperity.

We have replaced our leadership with a different guy, and we're still hoping for better. American civilians have demonstrated our commitment to our moral obligations by our political choices. There will be more demonstrations of this commitment to moral obligations in the future.

Now we want to see the military contractors who are working at the behest of the CIA and Homeland Security Department disavow themselves of disrupting the political arrangements made between Hamid Karzai and Taliban and other warlords with the help of General McChrystal.

We need to know who has been handling the "joysticks" of the Predator Drones and they must be the ones to listen to General McChrystal, or else these CIA contractors are outside the chain of command and they must be removed from the Af/Pak theater.

If the current defense contractors in Afghanistan won't stop screwing up, perhaps Triple Canopy would agree not to disrupt diplomacy in exchange for the privilege of serving the USA in Afghanistan. On the other hand, perhaps the other ISAF member nations don't want any contractors there at all. What is the international policy on mercenaries?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
06:55 PM on 01/27/2010
No disrespect intended to admirers of Genghis Khan, but I've read historical accounts which included salting land and other forms of depravity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
12:35 AM on 01/28/2010
In regards to the question of mercenaries, more important than the preferences of the ISAF member nations is the preferences of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, especially the governments of Kabul and Karachi.

In addition, the preferences of all the people who actually live with the fear of mercenaries among them are paramount. Yes, even the opinion of those commonly referred to or assumed to be "Taliban" counts much more than my opinion.

People want security, decency and accountability. Nobody wants their security taken away and lives devalued by some private security company whose business plan which may be based on destabilizing diplomatic efforts and spreading fear and insecurity.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
06:40 PM on 01/27/2010
Nevermind this supposed Taliban website. It doesn't mean anything. It might be maintained by defense contractors anyway.

So Hamid Karzai's government in Kabul and the top General are ready to make security arrangements. And of course our military remains ready to maintain and defend security in Kabul and surrounding areas.

But now the question is this - where do the military contractors fit into this picture? Are they going to keep trying to kill Hakimullah Mehsud? He's the last Taliban leader seen on camera. He's all over the media.

Mullah Omar could be dead. The other guy - I haven't seen or heard anything from him. Just as in Iraq, when Moqtada al Sadr stepped up to the voice of the nationalist fighters, that guy in Afghanistan could be Hakimullah Mehsud.

Moqtada al Sadr made a public stand in Najaf and captured the support of his people, and he became a political anchor to represent those who did not want to be represented as if they'd accepted conquest. Having such a leader to represent the fighters who fight for the sovereignty of a nation is a prerequisite, or there will be a headless resistance, which you cannot negotiate with, and there will be no stable security arrangements. That is all there is to it.
10:10 AM on 01/28/2010
It is my understanding that Mehsud is the leader (and tribal leader) of a faction of the Pakistani Taliban. And he is being actively targeted by the USA and Pakistan. After they killed his father, the previous leader.

On the other hand the major faction of the Afghan Taliban is the Haqqani. Both tribe and leader. They appear to be more active, or at least reported on that Mullah Omar's sect.

There is no evidence I have heard that Mullah Omar is anything but alive and well.

And the Pakistanis have not gone after the Haqqani's. Except perhaps helping target drones. But the news reports that the Pakistani military may take 6 months to a year to increase their offensive referred mostly to going after Harqanni.

There is plenty of evidence that Haqqani split with Mullah Omar over problems before 9/11/01.

Those splits are what the Afghan government and the UN are trying to exploit.

An excellent strategy.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
07:20 PM on 01/28/2010
Thanks for your detailed reply.

Baitullah Mehsud was not the father of Hakimullah Mehsud. Interesting to know that Jalaluddin Haqqani is considered the leader of the Afghan Taliban.

I'm not sure if Mullah Omar is still alive. The last thing I heard about him was apparently unverifiable. Allegedly he called Hamid Karzai a "stooge" according to the translation. I thought it was unverifiable, as it was not video.

Hakimullah Mehsud can be seen in the video with the Jordanian suicide bomber who attacked the CIA drone control center. In this video, Mehsud doesn't speak.

Considering that Hakimullah has been personally targeted by these drone strikes, his antipathy for the Predator Drone operators is not a surprise. Since Baitullah Mehsud was the one accused of complicity in the death of Benazir Bhutto, I'm not sure Hakimullah Mehsud has gone beyond redemption.

For precedent, consider negotiations with Moqtada al Sadr of Iraq through intermediary cleric Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and eventually the Iraqi government. Moqtada al Sadr had openly fought with US forces form a mosque in Najaf.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balzac
07:21 PM on 01/28/2010
Going forward with the assumption that Hakimullah Mehsud's life is forfeit and he can be targeted by any CIA mercenary contractor with access to a Predator Drone (Xe?) appears rather "cavalier" to me. Leaders should not be disposed of if the goal is to make a political arrangements for regional security.

Also, one must question the loss of the moral high-ground with the mercenaries hunting a man with unmanned flying drones while his faction strikes back purely through the social intrigue of double agent. Killing him now would most likely be counter-productive to regional stability and would also alienate Haqqani.
05:08 PM on 01/27/2010
Leave the Afghanistan Talibani alone.. so they can mastermind another 911 or worse on their own terms..

/sarcasm!
08:22 PM on 01/27/2010
The Taliban offered to give us bin Laden if we provided proof of his complicity... so the Cheney Administration, under the bumbling leadership of Rumsfeld (smaller, faster military will win more quickly, he said), chose to attack instead. Then Bush declared bin Laden "irrelevent" an focused on making more enemies in Iraq while the Taliban retook most of what they had lost and engaged in a new PR campaign to promote themselves to the local people and gain more fighters while they siphon reconstruction money for weapons.

One wonders how many Afghanis fight us simply because we have killed their relatives and destroyed their country after promising to rebuild with them as partners after the USSR pulled out... like we have ANY credibility in that country... Bush installed Karzai, that alone is suspect to the average thinking Afghani....

We never should have been there to begin with, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not allies or affiliates... you need to learn a little more about the region and the history....
05:07 PM on 01/27/2010
For Holbrooke every Islamic terr0rist is a good friend to negotiate with and would surrender his little children to them for peace!
05:04 PM on 01/27/2010
Holbrooke is a failure.

FAIL!
04:57 PM on 01/27/2010
The Taliban is a movement more then a people. Its a right-wing movement but a movement. The progressive/ liberal Afghans do not want this movement controlling them but if others wish to partake then let them. It reminds me of the US with christian/ neo-con vs liberal /progressives. It seems strange that the leftists on this site seem to side with the neo-con Taliban.

I'm currently a non believer until proven otherwise
04:41 PM on 01/27/2010
Let the free market decide. Auction Afghanistan to highest bidder.
04:21 PM on 01/27/2010
Well so much for our being there to free the women. I still remember Laura Bush trilling around like a great big mo ron about how proud she was that we "freed the women".

So, what was the next excuse?
05:02 PM on 01/27/2010
"Free women" work for Victoria's secrets not their families.
photo
Whinger
I'm Just Me!
03:57 PM on 01/27/2010
It only goes to show how little they understand the Taliban mentality.

Just when they think they've won their hearts and minds they'll discover they haven't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NoMoFearNoMoHate
03:25 PM on 01/27/2010
Hell! Why not!? We put up with the Christaliban here in this country!
02:51 PM on 01/27/2010
That would be a brilliant development if true.

Most of these fighters are ad hoc part time joiners with fluid loyalties and little education.

Most of these fighters would prefer to be at their villages, with their wives, making a good living, and occasionally fighting with their neighbors.
BraveWarrior
The truth will set you free, like it or not
03:17 PM on 01/27/2010
Much cheaper than buying US congressmen.
photo
pa30
All things bright and beautiful
02:48 PM on 01/27/2010
She ought to miss it. His speech writers have nothing for him to read .Its just going to be Historic, unprecedented ,we inhereted rhetoric,that just polarizes,shows more corruption and does nothing to make jobs.The summit on Yemen is much more important, as are meetings on the fouled efforts of the OCSE and uranium bank that Bill had such a hand in creating.