Gates Says Talks with Taliban "Conceivable" -- Let's Get Started

Defense Secretary Gates said Thursday that the U.S. could "ultimately" contemplate the idea of negotiating with the Taliban to secure a political settlement in Afghanistan, if the Afghan government were to pursue such talks, the Financial Times reports. Gates said a political settlement with the Taliban was "conceivable."

"There has to be ultimately, and I'll underscore ultimately, reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this," Gates said.

Eventually, Gates seems to be saying, we're going to have to talk to the Taliban. But not yet. If this is where we're going, why not get started now? Although Secretary Gates and General Petraeus have acknowledged what the British are saying - that there should be talks with the Taliban - and even made supportive comments, neither Presidential candidate has yet acknowledged what the British are saying. Call on them to do so.

Back in June, Anatol Lieven wrote in the Financial Times,

We need to start serious negotiations with the Taliban leadership now, not because such talks promise any chance of results by next year's Afghan elections, or by 2011, but because the great majority of settlements to such conflicts have been achieved only after many years of negotiations.

Lieven noted that poll data suggest that the majority of Taliban fighters are primarily motivated by the desire to drive foreign troops from the country. So, we're staying in Afghanistan to fight people whose primary motivation is getting us to leave. What's wrong with this picture?

Of course, with the US election a month away, the great temptation is to keep whistling past the graveyard. But the danger is that both major Presidential candidates are on track to lock us into a military escalation, which without a political change, will almost certainly fail, needlessly killing many Americans and Afghanis.

Gates' comments followed statements by the top British general in Afghanistan that there is no military solution, there must be a political solution, and that there should be talks with the Taliban. The general's comments were backed by the British government, and also backed by the top UN official in Afghanistan.

One obstacle seems to be that our politicians have painted our country into a rhetorical corner through years of demonizing the Taliban, without acknowledging that, regardless of their crimes, they might have some legitimate aspirations - like driving foreign troops out of the country. [How would you like having foreign troops stationed in your neighborhood?]

So we need to start introducing reality into the conversation. We've started a group on Facebook: "I Can Find 1000 Americans Who Support Talks with the Taliban." Join our group on Facebook. Prove there are at least a thousand Americans who are willing to state the obvious.

Comments

[readytsf]

Yeah, shame on us for "demonizing" that cute bunch of misunderstood rogues. So what if they're terrorists, drug traffickers, and allied with Al Qaeda. And all that genocide? Just western propaganda. Let's have a tea with them. Obama can organize it...........

[Robert Naiman - Huffpost Blogger]

Sigh. This is sort of know-nothing jingoism that is powering the Palin-McCain campaign. I take some comfort from the fact that the Palin-McCain campaign is tanking.

Are our British allies terrorist appeasers? How about Gates and Petraeus? It's long past time for our armchair imperialists to teleport back to the home planet.

[mydogshakespeare]

Oh, come ON! Hey Cons: where are your thousand posts about "Gates the Appeaser"?

Say it ain't so, conmen! Say it ain't so that Gates seems to be willing to talk to our enemies in an effort to achieve peace. Say it ain't so that the Obama Initiative of talking to our enemies is being supported by Bush's hand-picked Secretary of Defense!

Say it ain't so! Please, make the case so often insinuated: Talking to our enemies causes harm, and makes us less secure! Tell how that makes the sky fall.