Obama Must Isolate Al-Qaeda By Negotiating With Taliban: Analyst

Federico Manfredi strolled down to the local bus depot and started talking to people. The bus depot was in Kandahar, south Afghanistan, and it was the quickest way for Federico to get a grip on how people felt about the mess their country is in.

Manfredi, wearing civilian clothes and no threat to anyone, was able to ask local people about their concerns. What he heard underlined what he already knows as an insurgencies and counterinsurgencies specialist. The war is not working. Lack of security is a major issue, even though foreign troops are thick on the ground in southern Afghanistan. People were agitated and fearful, their sympathies have turned against the NATO forces, and yet they were anguished about the rising of the Taliban.

Manfredi became acutely aware of "the sense of helplessness [rural Afghans] experience when they hear the roar of combat aircraft approaching their villages. The coalition's tactics become even more problematic when one considers the discomforting contrast between Afghanistan's humble mud brick communities and the West's supersonic fighter jets armed with earth-shaking bombs and missiles. Coalition ground troops may request air support to win battles, but in doing so they are losing the war."

The view that Afghanistan is a military failure may come us a surprise to those who are going gangbusters about increasing troop numbers. They include John Hutton, the UK Defence Secretary who has pledged an extra 3,000 British troops for 2009, while lambasting European NATO allies for their failure to send more forces. "We don't have enough troops, and we need more," Secretary Hutton said.

The new Obama administration calls the deteriorating situation "urgent." CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus has confirmed that 32,000 US troops will head to Afghanistan by the summer (adding to the 36,000 already there).

Federico Manfredi feels that the increasing troop levels and stepping up military operations because the bipartisan view is that Afghanistan is a "good war" is just plain wrong.

In a report for the World Policy Institute, which can be read here, Manfredi says that the current US strategy in Afghanistan is failing, and that the US and their NATO allies are being led into an increasing bloody war that is straining relationships in NATO, having little success on the ground, and creating hostility with ordinary Afghans.

"Conventional military attacks on the Taliban and al Qaeda only radicalize besieged rural communities and fuel the insurgency. Instead of relying primarily on military force the United States should seek to isolate al Qaeda politically," Federico Manfredi told the Huffington Post from Kandahar. "Right now the Taliban and Al-Qaeda share a common enemy in the United States. But if the Obama administration can make it clear that the United States has no interest in a permanent occupation of Afghanistan, and that it would willingly withdraw its troops from the region if only the Taliban agreed to deny a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, then the nationalist factions within the movement might decide to switch their allegiance."

This means that the US and NATO would have to rethink their military strategies and rather than might, they would have to negotiate with terrorists. Will Obama be able to do that? Manfredi does not see a problem.

"If it was acceptable for the Bush administration to negotiate directly with the Sunni sheiks of Iraq, why not negotiate with the Taliban?" he said, "After all, the much-celebrated [Iraqi] Awakening Councils are comprised by and large by former insurgents. In August 2008, I interviewed sheik Ali Hatam, the most prominent leader within the councils, and he candidly admitted that only a few years ago he supported the insurgency wholeheartedly. One of his militiamen I interviewed in Al-Adhamiye, a former Al-Qaida stronghold in central Baghdad, told me that he was once a member of a terrorist cell. Asked why he had decided to switch sides he replied: "My sheik told me Al-Qaida was not good for us, that we had to get rid of it, and I obeyed my sheik." The United States negotiated directly with the Sunni sheiks of Iraq, even though they certainly fit the terrorist label. Now the United States should do the same in Afghanistan, and negotiate directly with the Taliban."

Comments

[some-realtalk]

READ YOUR HISTORY OF THE TALIBAN --- THEY ARE SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM, THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM ! ALL ARAB OUNTRIES HAD CUT TIES WITH THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM .
THE U.N PASSED TWO RESOLUTIONS (ONE: IN year 1999, AND ONE IN year 2000), DEMANDING THAT THE TALIBAN CEASE THEIR SUPPORT OF TERRORISM, AND HAND OVER BIN LADEN FOR TRIAL-- THE TALIBAN REFUSED!!! THEY KEPT SUPPORTING TERRORISM, THEY ALLOWED BIN LADEN, AND ALQAEDA TO OPERATE TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN, AND PLAN THE BOMINGS OF COUNTRIES SUCH AS BRITIAN, FRANCE, AND SPAIN, AS WELL AS U.S EMBASSY IN NIGERIA, AND PLAN THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11. --- THE TALIBAN ARE SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM, SUPPORTERS OF BIN LADEN, AND THEY PROBABLY STILL ARE. ---- SO NEGOTIATING WITH THEM WOULD BE STUPID!!
I AM SURE OUR MILLITARY WILL LOOK AT ALL OPTIONS, BUT THEY WOULD BE BETTER OFF GETTING THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT TO JOIN THE U.S IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ALQUAEDA, AND TERRORISM. IT WOULD ALSO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT TO KEEP THEIR NUCLEAR ARMED NATION SAFE.
THE US WOULD ALSO DO BETTER TO WORK HARD TO HELP THE STRENGTENING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN, AND INDIA (ALSO A NUCLEAR ARMED NATION), SO THAT INSTEAD OF THEM SEEING THEMSELVES AS COMPETING NATIONS, THEY CAN INSTEAD BE NATIONS JOINED TOGETHER IN A COMMON GOAL TO ERADICATE TERROR GROUPS FROM WITHIN THEIR TWO COUNTRIES.

[DaveinBrooklyn]

some-realtalk,

The Pakistani government has supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and within their own borders. while they pay lip service to fighting terrorism within their own country there is only so much the civilian government is capable of doing. Pakistan IS a military run country, the military is not interested in ending the Taliban influence in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. They helped create and fund the Taliban since the initial uprisings in 1994.
regarding the relationship between Pakistan and India...it is you who should read their history.
the extremely complicated relationship between (yes you are correct here) nuclear armed countries, goes well beyond regional competition.

[CaptainHowdy]

I can't keep things straight anymore.

Are the T a l i b a n good guys or bad guys this week???

[some-realtalk]

The Taliban are supporters of terrorism, they are supporters of AlQueda. When they were in power they refused to hand over Bin Laden, and they also refused to shut down the terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, even when a UN Resolution demanded it in 1999, and 2000. The UN Resolution demanded that they handb over Bin Laden, they refused it, the UN demanded that they shut down terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and they refused to dot hat too, and FINALLY after SEPTEMBER 11TH, when Bin Laden, and his organization, AlQueda planned, and executed the acts of Septemeber 11th, America asked one last time for the Taliban to hand over bin Laden, and they once agin refused, and so Bush ordered the US miltiary to start bombing Taliban military sites. AND finally the Taliban were run out of power in Afghanistan.
The Taliban and AlQuead are one and tha same, they support terrorism just as much as AlQueda do, they allowed Bin Laden free raeign in Afghnaistan to run his terror training camps, and plan terrorist attacks, and gave Bin Laden a safe haven after his many murderous crimes. The Taliban CANNOT be trusted, they like terrorism just as much as AlQueda does!!

[ndnndpendent]

Nice job, Manfredi, maybe the U.S. should just stop labeling people 'terrorists.'

[zukervati]

Here here. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter - quit labeling to define things in black/white, get to work and do the right thing. Taliban are indeed a disgusting lot, but you've got to talk to someone. Seems as if they're the only game in town.

I was told about three months ago that Peshawar (NWFP Capital of Pakistan) had fallen to Taliban. If you've ever seen the movie Braveheart, then it's akin to saying that York fell to William Wallace (though Taliban are nothing like Wallace). The MSM and the Bushites have been putting a lipstick on this pig for a very long time - this issue needs immediate attention.

If you think the WMD were a "potential" issue in Iraq, wait until the Taliban/their Mullah-proxies get hold of the actual nukes in Pakistan. Believe me, the barbarians are already at the gates! God help us all.

[kloche]

Yeah let's get on that. Let's negotiate with Taliban who has no problem with throwing acid on girls, forbidding them from going to school. They also like to gun down innocent Afghans in the streets and don't really have quarms about kidnapping and killing fathers and sons and leaving the rest of the family to fend for themselves. America needs to stop negotiating with dictators period! We have too many dictators all over the world that we have helped prop up.

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

Helo Kloche - therein lies the problem. At what point do you say you will negotiate and with whom? It's like whendespots like Idi Amin and Megistu are given immunity to go and live in asylum as long as they can get them out of the country and restore some kind of rule of law and safety for the citizens. So I imagine it comes down to the greater good for the greater number. But I totally agree negotiating with the Taliban, on the face of it, does not inspire any sense of justice.

Thanks for reading.

[1dogs2]

The tragedy of the US involvement in Afghanistan is that it could have been over long ago had the Bush administration done the one defensible thing it set out to do -- capture or kill Bin Laden and his cadre. Instead, they delegated that job to persons who had no interest in performing that task.

That stupidity was multiplied, consistent with Bush's announcement that "you're with us or against us," by undertaking to destroy the Tailban, which inevitably led to a war in a region that history teaches cannot be won by invaders. Ask the British and the Russians.

Along the way, the US and other countries made all kinds of promises to the Afghanis of money for the development of Afghanistan, just as we did during our support of their war against Russia -- promises that have not been not kept. In the current global economy, it is unlikely that those promises can be kept.

Now what? Don't we have an obligation to at least undo the damage we have done to the extent possible? (Obviously we cannot restore to life the civilians we have killed.) How would a policy be implemented whose first principle was to do no further harm, whose second principle was to bring Bin Laden to justice, and whose third principle was ensure that Afghanistan would not harbor al Qaeda?

[DaveinBrooklyn]

Bringing Bin Laden to "justice" while making the West feel good, would do nothing to damage Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any version of what we so easily call "Islamic Militancy".
The West could do better by fighting the image Bin Laden and Al, Qaeda etc have created of us as fighting to END Islam. identifying the roots of a problem is the first step to addressing the problem. the problem is no longer Bin Laden. do i want to see him in an orange jump suit? you bet.
do I believe that I (or anyone else) will be safer for it. Absolutely not.
ending the idea that the west is working to establish a Christian based governance upon the Muslim word is a much stronger response than seeking Western based ideas of Criminal Justice.

[1dogs2]

I agree with you, Dave. I think the time is long past when bringing bin Laden to justice might have had a positive practical effect. As a political matter, however, O probably has to remain committed to do so.

[OnwardChristianSoldier]

God bless you, Ms. Moncrieff. We feel the power of Christ coming through in your words. We must do whatever it takes, and even negotiate with whomever, in order to defeat Al Queda and do God's will.

[Chaimirija]

Have you any idea(r) how offensive that is to a Muslim?

[booboo111]

Other than global warming, organized religion is the scourge of the earth.

[Skeetshooter]

I would love to believe the Taliban can be reasoned with, but is there any evidence that this is possible?

I don't feel one can negotiate reality with conspiracy theorists who are certain we never went to the moon, or the age of the earth with evangelicals who believe man coexisted with dinosaurs. So can one negotiate with luddites who will not accept the education of women, and far far worse? These folks will not be content to live in isolated encampments like the polygamist compounds we tolerate in the four corners area. Their goal to convert the rest of the region by force of arms, is probably not negotiable.

But go ahead, Hillary, talk em smart.

[tel8034]

Has anyone really tried negotiating with the Taliban? ............... I don't think so.

I think an attempt at a "sit-down" would be more productive than current the "name calling", which I suspect just riles them up even more.

The name calling has become a self fulfilling prophecy, and at some point the approach to this conflict has to change with some sort of diplomatic attempt.

[RhodaA]

AGREED !

[some-realtalk]

I think that this would be a STUPID MOVE. It would be like supplying money, and weapons to the enemy, people who hates you. -- All your enemy is going to do is go deliver that free loot, and weapons straight to AlQueada. The Taliban are NOT our friends, they will NEVER be our friends, they are aligned with AlQueada, and will ALWAYS be aligned with AlQueada, because they have the same philosophy as AlQueada, the same hatred for the USA, and anyone who is not like them, just like AlQueada. The fact is the Taliban (even if they were to say otherwise to your face), will NEVER turn their backs on AlQueada -- and anyone who thinks that giving them money, or giving them some weapons is going to get the Talban to turn on AlQueada, are clueless, and delusional.
The best way to defeat the Taliban, and AlQueada, is to make sure that Pakistan realizes just how dangerous AlQueada's presence is to their country's safety as a nuclear armed nation.
The best way to defeat the Taliban, and AlQueada is to make sure that BOTH, Pakistan, and India realize that their governments working together, AGAINST AlQueada, and the Taliban is the best way to keep their two nuclear armed countries safe, and secure, and out of the hands of psychopaths like AlQuead, whose only mission in life is to kill anyone who is not like them, and who does not believe what they do.

[RhodaA]

AGREED !!

[balrog221]

hmmm, I wonder about this. Muslim fumdementalists in Afganistan are more closely allied with Al Q than Sunni secularist (former Bathist) in Iraq. Apples and Oranges?

[METAL]

Remember we are after Osama Bin Laden-- The Taliban were only friendly to him--

Our war is with Osama, not necessarily the Taliban. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

[some-realtalk]

There is NO WAY to isolate the Taliban from alQuaeda. They are both supporters of terrorism. The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in Afghanistan, and the Taliban also provided refuge to Bin laden, and his alQaeda organization. So what exactly has changed ?! NOTHING!! If anything the Taliban is probably more closely aligned with AlQueada than ever , they both want the same things -- USA off their backs.
HERE ARE THE FACTS: The Taliban allowed terrorist organizations to run training camps in Afghanistan from 1994 to at least 2001. The Taliban provided refuge for Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. The relationship between the Taliban and Bin Laden is close. Bin Laden has also financed the Taliban. There are deep ties there.
The United Nations Security Council passed two resolutions, UNSCR 1267 (year 1999) and 1333 (year 2000), demanding that the Taliban cease their support for terrorism and hand over Bin Laden for trial. The Taliban REFUSED to hand over Bin Laden, and they REFUSED to curb terrorist activity. It is in Afghanistan that the planning of the attack of September 11, occured, with the okay of the Taliban. --- It was after the refusal by the Taliban to hand over Bin laden after September 11, that the U.S began bombing Taliban military sites in Afghanistan. --------- So negotiating with the Taliban, who were specifically removed from power in Afghanistan because they supported terrorism, supported Bin Laden, and still probably do, would be STUPID !!!

[DaveinBrooklyn]

some-realtalk,

you are glossing over the very real and important facts (like many of us did in the beginning) regarding the relationship between Bin Laden and Mullah Omar.
the Taliban was not thrilled and elated to have Bin Laden there. He was brought in as a mediator (according to most accounts) to peacefully settle the civil war between the various factions of warlords destroying the country and slaughtering its population. BL already has his ideas and goals of Jihad against the west when he got there, but he was protected by the Taliban due to traditional Pashtun tribal conduct. he was a guest, he is to be protected.
to ignore and gloss over the role of tribal codes and ethnic divisions prior to the US invasion is to perpetuate the ignorance and cause further harm to the situation.
I am not a cheering supporter of negotiating with the Taliban. Nor am I in favor of ignoring the possibility to involve them in a future roll in the country.

[neoconscums]

Negotiation with the Taliban is certainly not a new idea. Hamid Karzai proposed this a while ago but for some inexplicable reason the proposal was totally ignored by the powers that be. Why not take him up on the offer, after all, Hamid and the Taliban are the same people. At the end of the day, they speak the same language. This is a war that WILL NOT be won militarily especially with foreign troops and I don't care how many soldiers you throw into that theater. START PLAYING SMART FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIVES, PEOPLE. Listen to Karzai.

[some-realtalk]

READ YOUR HISTORY OF THE TALIBAN --- THEY ARE SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM, THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM ! ALL ARAB OUNTRIES HAD CUT TIES WITH THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR TERRORISM .
THE U.N PASSED TWO RESOLUTIONS (ONE: IN year 1999, AND ONE IN year 2000), DEMANDING THAT THE TALIBAN CEASE THEIR SUPPORT OF TERRORISM, AND HAND OVER BIN LADEN FOR TRIAL, THE TALIBAN REFUSED!!! THEY KEPT SUPPORTING TERRORISM, THEY ALLOWED BIN LADEN, AND ALQAEDA TO OPERATE TERRORIST TRAINING CAMPS IN AFGHANISTAN, AND PLAN THE BOMINGS OF COUNTRIES SUCH AS BRITIAN, FRANCE, AND SPAIN, AS WELL AS U.S EMBASSY IN NIGERIA, AND PLAN THE ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11. --- THE TALIBAN ARE SUPPORTERS OF TERRORISM, SUPPORTERS OF BIN LADEN, AND THEY PROBABLY STILL ARE. ---- SO NEGOTIATING WITH THEM WOULD BE STUPID!! I AM SURE OUR MILLITARY WILL LOOK AT ALL OPTIONS, BUT THEY WOULD BE BETTER OFF GETTING THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT TO JOIN THE US IN THE FIGHT AGAINST ALQUAEDA, AS IT WOULD ALSO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT TO BE KEEP THEIR NUCLEAR ARMED NATION SAFE.
THE US WOULD ALSO DO BETTER TO WORK HARD TO HELP THE STRENGTENING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PAKISTAN, AND INDIA (ALSO A NUCLEAR ARMED NATION), SO THAT INSTEAD OF THEM SEEING THEMSELVES AS COMPETEING NATIONS, THEY CAN INSTEAD BE NATIONS JOINED TOGETHER IN A COMMON GOAL TO ERADICATE TERROR GROUPS WITH THEIR COUNTRIES.

[IndyReader]

Some-realtalk, I totally agree with you, what you say is rational and realistic, but "yelling" isn't going to make people listen better. I hear you, tho.

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi somereal-talk ...... it is a very tricky issue as you so rightly point out. I suppose much more has to be thrashed out and considered. You are of course right about the failure of Pakistan and to some extent India, in their strategies in delaing with these threats.

Many thanks for reading.

[canarypapers]

In the absence of a credible investigation into the events of 9-11, all this talk of war strategy in Afghanistan is like spraying various perfumes to cover the stench of a rotten fish. The source of this stench needs to be addressed.

Specifically, a thorough and truly independent investigation of integrity should be conducted into ALL of the events leading up to 9-11. The timeline should begin no later than the Reagan years and should move forward through the late Clinton years and into Bush 43, with unflinching honesty directed toward each and every player during these years. For starters:

1. The relations between the U.S.( CIA), the Saudis and Pakistan's ISI (vs. the Soviets) during the 1980s.
2. The U.S.-funded rise of the al Qaeda and the Taliban (formerly known as "Afghan freedom fighters").
3. A complete history of U.S. pipeline interests in Afghanistan and Pakistan (from the 1980s through the present, including a fully-fleshed trail of Dick Cheney's financial interests)
4. The testimonies of former ISI Lieutenant Generals (and former CIA darlings) Hamid Gul and Mahmoud Ahmad.
5. This history of the relationships (esp. financial) between the CIA, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad and the alleged "ringleader" of the WTC attack, Mohamed Atta during 2001.

In other words, follow the money.

[junebuginFL]

Well, if anyone who has paid attention would know the relationships leading up to the result. But everyone wants to blame Bush. It happened well before Bush came in to office, at least 43 that is.

[tel8034]

But it was Bush's arrogance and approach to everything which escalated the tensions.

After all Bush's arrogance and approach even miffed and distanced our international allies.

Bush was an "equal opportunity" divider ................. Friend, and enemies alike.

[hortonhearsawho2]

Isolate Bush, negotiate with congress....

[vinny]

This is a joke of an idea.

[Vieux Charles]

"But if the Obama administration can make it clear that the United States has no interest in a permanent occupation of Afghanistan, and that it would willingly withdraw its troops from the region if only the Taliban agreed to deny a safe haven to Al-Qaeda, then the nationalist factions within the movement might decide to switch their allegiance."


Ms. Moncrieff,
Your premise is flawed. In the mid-1990's the US had no intention of occupying Afghanistan, yet the Taliban willingly provided safe haven to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, assuring the Taliban that we intend to leave is no motive for them to change. Likewise, leaving the region will make it more difficult for us to return when they predictably break any promises they've made not to provide safe haven to Al-Qaida. The key to Afghanistan is Pakistan. If Pakistan can be made secure, if they can enforce sovereignty over the Northern Frontier then, and only then, will we be able to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda when they retreat to the safety of the mountains.

[Virginia M. Moncrieff - Huffpost Blogger]

Hi Vieux_Charles. Thanks for your comments.

The piece that you quoted is actually a quote from Federico Manfredi (and not me) who wrote the report for the World Policy Institute. (You can read it by hitting the link above).

I will ask Federico if he wishes to respond the posts on the site.

Many thanks for taking the time to read and respond - and best of 2009 to you.

[canarypapers]

Vieus_Charles, your premise is flawed. The U.S. has been involved from the 1980s through the present in "occupying" Afghanistan by securing pipeline interests to transport Caspian oil. To this end, the U.S. spent most of the past 20 years supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda, until they ultimately "betrayed" the U.S. in the pipeline negotiations.

Our earlier negotiations with the Taliban planted the seeds for this war. Perhaps this is the best avenue out, as well. At any rate, we must abandon the idea that this war is "win-able" or that it has anything to do with bin Laden, or that it is anything but a front for pursuing a geo-political imperialist agenda.

As for human rights issues, it'd be hard to make a case for the U.S. giving a whit about the treatment of women (or men or children) in Afghanistan -- or anywhere. Pick any spot on the globe where innocent citizens are being oppressed and brutalized, and you will find that the U.S. turns a blind eye, unless oil interests are at stake. And, then, we are most often the ones funding and arming those who oppress and brutalize innocent people (e.g. Colombia, Somalia, Gaza). Admittedly, our *concern* for the treatment of women in Afghanistan does make us appear noble, even as we, ourselves, commit atrocities against the citizens of Afghanistan, in a war that history will eventually show is just as illegal as the war in Iraq.

[zukervati]

You, Sir (assuming), are certainly an Ex-CIA operative from that region - cuz you're right on the money. Tame the beast, not the beast's extremeties! You will need a fully algined, supported and strong Pakistan to counter Afghanistan/Taliban/Al-Qaeda. Their army may be corrupt, but it's still a professional lot (The Raj was good with its discipline!). Time to prop them up, let them know that they won't be abandoned in this (unlike the 7th fleet not showing up during the 71' war with India) and they will fight until death for us.