October 7 marks the seventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. To mark the occasion, the British government, our closest allies in Europe, are sending us a message on all channels: there is no military solution, there must be a political solution, and there should be talks with the Taliban. It would be a step forward for U.S. policy if both Presidential candidates would acknowledge this reality in tonight's debate.
America is somewhat preoccupied at the moment with the economic crisis and the Presidential election. But the Brits are trying to get through to us anyway, perhaps because they fear that some of the rhetoric of the Presidential campaign risks locking the U.S. into a path of military escalation, when what is needed is a political escalation.
Over the weekend, the top British military commander in Afghanistan made a number of statements that have yet to penetrate US political discourse. The Guardian reports:
"We're not going to win this war," Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said yesterday. "It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army. We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency."
...
He said the aim should be to change the nature of the debate in Afghanistan so that disputes were settled by negotiation and not violence. "If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," Carleton-Smith said. "That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."
The British government supported the commander's statements, the Financial Times reports:
A spokesman said the UK's ministry of defense "did not have a problem" with warning the UK public not to expect a "decisive military victory" and to prepare instead for a possible deal with the Taliban.
The top United Nations official in Afghanistan added his voice in support, Reuters reports:
"I've always said to those that talk about the military surge ... what we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy," Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, told a news conference in Kabul. "We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement."
Eide said success depended on speaking with all sides in the conflict. "If you want to have relevant results, you must speak to those who are relevant. If you want to have results that matter, you must speak to those who matter," he said.
Indeed, talks between Taliban representatives and Afghan government officials took place recently in Saudi Arabia, CNN reports:
In a groundbreaking meeting, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group, according to a source familiar with the talks. The historic four-day meeting took place during the last week of September in the Saudi city of Mecca, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.
...
It was the first such meeting aimed at bringing a negotiated settlement to the Afghan conflict and for the first time, all parties were able to discuss their positions and objectives openly and transparently, the source said.
...
While Mullah Omar was not present at the talks in Mecca, the source said the Taliban leader has made it clear he is no longer allied with al Qaeda - a position that has never been publicly stated but emerged at the talks. It confirms what another source with an intimate knowledge of the Taliban and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.
Even Defense Secretary Gates made somewhat supportive remarks. AP reports:
Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday endorsed efforts to reach out to members of the Taliban or other militants in Afghanistan who may be considered reconcilable, much like what has happened in Iraq.
Of course, what is really at issue here is not whether there is a policy of bringing in low-level Taliban fighters who agree to renounce violence and support the government. That policy already exists. What is at issue is initiating a process to bring in people at a higher level, a process that might involve some political accommodation. Note that the shift in strategy in Iraq after 2006 that is now called a success involved precisely this shift - bringing in not just fighters, but leaders, and making accommodation not just for individuals, but for groups with political demands, e.g integration into the Iraqi army.
There will be a tendency to want to push off these unwelcome realities until after the election. But the downside danger is the candidates locking themselves - and us - into a policy of military escalation, which without a new political posture, is almost certainly doomed to fail. Then we'd have another round of increase in needless American and Afghan deaths before we would accommodate reality. Why not begin the process of accommodating reality now, and avoid the needless deaths?