Saturday's New York Times reports that Afghan President Hamid Karzai now doubts that the US and its NATO allies can defeat the Taliban. As a consequence, these days he is seeking to negotiate some sort of peace settlement with the insurgents. However certain members of his own administration are resisting this effort and are openly decrying what he is doing. But is that which Karzai is looking for such a dangerous proposition? Isn't this exactly what the Obama Administration is itself desirous of?
Maybe, indeed, it's time to stop pouncing on Karzai and give him a break and let him try to work out his own pacific outcome to the eight year old war (or the 25 years old war if you count the Russian invasion). After all, he is a Pastun and his opponents are fellow Pastuns, so they might have common grounds on which to parley. Furthermore, President Obama has set his own date for the beginning of the withdrawal of American troops from the country as of July 2011 -- which is an implicit admission that the US will not stay forever fighting Afghanistan's own battles. Finally much of the opposition to Karzai's overtures are coming from his Northern allies who are hard-bitten foes of any compromise with the Taliban, but remain a minority within Afghanistan.
Karzai's approach does not mean that the Taliban should be treated as equals and that Karzai must give up on all of the democratic, pro-women, pro-free press gains made over the past decade in Afghanistan. No one can forget that the Taliban is renowned for its viciousness as an enemy, killing anybody who opposes its extreme Islamic ideology out of a fundamentalist rage. But if one is trying to bring an end to a bloody internal conflict that has dragged on for years, then some energy and seriousness must be given over to working out a compromise that will restore the nation to being an orderly community. So such a deed must be sought. This has proved possible in Nepal where equally destructive Maoists rebels ultimately worked out a deal with Nepalese democrats that made possible a free society. Karzai's endeavor, in the end, is about being realistic, not crazy.
As for Karzai - nobody ever thought he was crazy, just corrupt and so any dealing he does with the Taliban is suspect on the basis of how it would benefit him - that is, in money and continued power.
Besides, since he's just a colonial puppet, no deal with the Taliban woul be meaningful unless his US masters were deeply involved - and for the reasons given above, they never will be.
In Richard Clark's - Against All Enemies, he describes talks between Cheney and the Taliban just prior to the attacks. Are we fighting to grab natural resources that would go to China or Russia if we didn't have a footing and why now?
Just asking.
News of large rare-Earth mineral deposits being found in Afghanistan suggest Kharzai is quite rationally pursuing kleptocratic monoeconomy.
we are well on our way to be the next one. We should learn from the lessons of history.
Every Empire historically that invaded this country despite its advanced military prowess
has always fell short of its goals. The" REAL" enemy has and always will be a financial one. the secret of this, is they "KNOW IT" and "WE DO NOT". Lets us leave now while we have our pants. we have already lost our shirts and shoes over the past 8 years. how much more are we willing to lose is the question? let us not fall victim to false pride that somehow we are different and better of those that failed and cannot happen to us. Many of those that went before us believed the same thing. A Financial "IED" is what this war has become to our economy. Afghanistan is a FINANCIAL TRAP! A trap for a nation to fall victim of its pride. Look at the numbers, they do not add up and do not bode well for continued spending. We must Declare "VICTORY" and "LEAVE" is our best option.
This has been a growing problem of the US ever since our corporations became global enterprises. And, it is not easily fixable because we are run by two parties that first represent corporate interests, and then negotiate and compromise to death everything else.
Pakistan, too, appears to be betting on a Taliban victory. The BBC have just published a report ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_asia/10302946.stm ) that the Pakistan intelligence service is providing material support to the Taliban on a far larger scale than was previously imagined. Such a policy decision could only come from the highest political circles in Pakistan. If this report is true then Pakistan is laying the foundations for friendly relations with a Taliban-governed Afghanistan.
Karzai is widely seen in the region as a puppet of the west. His recent overtures to Iran would also point to him contemplating a political future independent of the west, and remaking his image as being his own man.
Obvious - the Taliban are an aggressive segment of the largest population group in Afghanistan, over 10 million out of 29 million total.
The 25,000 Taliban in Afghanistan are NATIVE. So, we have to kill them, risking offending their relatives - the 10 million etc. - or push them around from area to area with our various offensives.
The 25,000 Taliban also potentially can merge into that population segment when we corner them - become one of the 10 million etc. indistinguishable from the others unless they are individually fingered by someone else.
But, as we found with Guantanamo detainees, when people are fingered by other people frequently it is for motives that have nothing to do with spotting the bad guys - and we wind up with detainees who are not what we wanted to catch.
So, this whole effort of pacifying Afghanistan by chasing Taliban from here to there seems unlikely to work. Karzai seems to be trying to elevate himself from our chosen leader of the Afghan puppet government to someone who will be in charge by the will of the people - ie - warlords. Good luck with that, K.