Lurching Toward Negotiations with the Taliban

by: Brandon Friedman

Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 15:05:03 PM EDT

Of course, it didn't have to be this way in Afghanistan.  When you use overwhelming military force first, before shifting to a sound counterinsurgency strategy with integrated, international reconstruction efforts, you have a shot at success.  In the case of American and NATO efforts in Afghanistan, however, there never was any strategy.  All we got was clumsy blustering from a Bush administration that spoke of never negotiating with the Taliban.  And once the administration grew bored with the fighting there, they moved on to Iraq--a decision that would ultimately sow disaster for Afghanistan.

And now that the initial approach has failed miserably, Western governments are looking for a way out of the fight against the Taliban.  They're looking for any way possible to negotiate an end to the fighting, while saving face at the same time.  And while I'm not comfortable at all with this altered tack, I think it's important to take a brief look at the rhetoric from 2001.  Then we'll see what's being said today, in 2008, and compare.

This is was the attitude seven years ago:

21 September 2001

In a speech on Thursday night to a joint session of Congress President Bush demanded that the Taliban promptly deliver Mr. bin Laden and the rest of his network to American authorities and "immediately and permanently" close down terrorist training camps inside Afghanistan.

"These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion," Mr. Bush said.

28 September 2001

GEORGE W. BUSH: First, there is no negotiation with the Taliban. They heard what I said, and now they can act.

30 September 2001

WH CHIEF OF STAFF ANDREW CARD: Well, first of all, the president has said we're not negotiating. We've told the Taliban government what they should be doing. They've got to turn not only Osama bin Laden over but all of the operatives of the al Qaeda organization. They've got to stop being a haven where terrorists can train and roam and do their dastardly deeds.

And it's not negotiable, but we know that they know what to do. I'm not sure that they will do the right thing, but we're ready to respond.

30 September 2001

But as we've already heard from the White House this morning, negotiations is not on the menu, at least not from the Bush administration, apparently no interest in negotiating with the Taliban.

They say they have presented their case, the evidence is mounting, and the time, they say, is running out.

5 October 2001

The United States has rejected the idea of negotiating with the Taliban.

15 October 2001

Bush, returning from a weekend at Camp David, said the bombing would not cease unless the Afghan regime turned over bin Laden and others in his al Qaeda network, and released eight aid workers on trial in Kabul.

"If they want us to stop our military operations, they've just got to meet my conditions," Bush said on the South Lawn of the White House.

"When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations."

15 October 2001

As he returned from Camp David yesterday to the White House, the president answered a few questions on the lawn. When asked if he would negotiate with the Taliban, Bush replied that "maybe they hadn't heard we aren't interested in negotiating."

8 November 2001

Prime Minister Tony Blair ruled out any negotiation with Afghanistan's ruling Taliban government yesterday, and said the regime had "virtually merged" with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network.

He said Britain had no alternative but to join the US in the fight against terrorism, as the Sept. 11 attacks were "aimed at civilized values and the civilized world everywhere."

"Our information is ... that effectively the Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda network have virtually merged now," said Blair, according to a transcript of his interview on CNN's Larry King Live, seen by Britain's Press Association.

"Their forces are the same, probably their military structures are virtually the same. So there's no negotiating with them." Blair said the international coalition against terrorism remained "remarkably strong" and paid tribute to US President George W. Bush for his "magnificent" handling of the crisis.

Asked during the wide-ranging interview how bin Laden and al-Qaeda could be dealt with, Blair said: "Well, you defeat them. I mean, you can't negotiate with them . . . We have to take action and shut the whole of that terrorist network down. I mean eliminate it, eradicate it."

That was a lot of tough talk.  And the ones repeating it had no idea what they were talking about--because they weren't willing or able to back it up.  And that was key.  Because if you have a plan, you don't necessarily have to negotiate.  But there was no plan.  There was no thought given to "What happens if. . ."  And because of that, we're now left in a quandary.  Just listen to these words--all uttered this month, seven years after the statements made above:

1 October 2008

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sept. 30 said he was seeking assistance from Saudi Arabia to negotiate with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. While Kabul has negotiated with the Taliban in the past, this is the first indication that the Karzai government is ready to deal with Omar. Successful negotiations will require the involvement of the Saudis, the Iranians and the Pakistanis -- and will need buy-in from the United States as well.

5 October 2008

Britain's commander in Afghanistan has said the war against the Taliban cannot be won, the Sunday Times reported.

It quoted Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith as saying in an interview that if the Taliban were willing to talk, then that might be "precisely the sort of progress" needed to end the insurgency.

"We're not going to win this war. 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," he said.

He said his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008" but that troops may well leave Afghanistan with there still being a low level of insurgency.

NATO commanders and diplomats have been saying for some time that the Taliban insurgency cannot be defeated by military means alone and that negotiations with the militants will ultimately be needed to bring an end to the conflict.

"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."

6 October 2008

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has said that, if elected Oct. 14, he would pull troops from combat in Afghanistan by the end of 2011. Mr. Harper fought to extend Canada's military mission to 2011, and it is under his government that nearly 100 troops have died.

The Conservatives said any negotiations with the Taliban must be led by the Afghan government. Mr. Dugas said yesterday that Canada would be supportive if the Afghan government wants to involve all sides as long as "they renounce violence, and respect the rule of law and human rights."

7 October 2008

Mr. Gates, who oversaw the improvement in the war in Iraq, said the coalition would have to negotiate with more moderate Taliban members who were willing to work with the central Afghan government.

"Part of the solution is strengthening the Afghan security forces," he said. "Part of the solution is reconciliation with people who are willing to work with the Afghan government."

8 October 2008

U.S. Army Gen. David Petraeus said on Wednesday that negotiations with some members of the Taliban could provide a way to reduce violence in sections of Afghanistan gripped by an intensifying insurgency.

"If there are people who are willing to reconcile (with the government), then that would be a positive step in some of these areas that have actually been spiralling downward," said Petraeus, who will soon take up responsibility for U.S. operations in Afghanistan.

8 October 2008

NATO-led forces alone cannot bring peace and stability to Afghanistan, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday, a week before Canada votes in a general election.

"I don't believe -- and I've said many times I don't believe -- that we can pacify every corner of Afghanistan as foreign troops," said Harper in an interview with CBC television.

"I don't think it's viable, knowing the history of Afghanistan, what we know about it, to believe that foreigners are going to be able to run Afghanistan or Afghan security on an ongoing basis."

9 October 2008

Seven years after U.S.-led forces overthrew the Taliban following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Britain's military commander and ambassador in Afghanistan gave gloomy assessments of the effort to stabilise the country and said they thought the war against the Taliban could not be won.

Gates has dismissed such comments as defeatist but said part of the solution would be negotiating with members of the Taliban willing to work with the government in Kabul.

So there you have it.  In 2001, negotiating with the Taliban wasn't an option.  Now, seven years later, it's viewed as "a way to reduce violence."  This is classic.  Unfortunately, we may not have many choices left.  While turning Afghanistan back over to the Taliban is not an option, to defeat them militarily in a proper counterinsurgency operation, we'd essentially have to start over--with forces we don't have, with friends who are no longer around.  

At this point, it appears that the least bad approaches would include possibly installing a friendly dictator.  Or maybe allowing more moderate elements of the Taliban back into the government.  Or maybe we shift 50,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan from Iraq over the course of the next year.  Either way, it's clear now--as it should have always been--that blustering, rudderless talk will get you nowhere if you can't back it up with a smart, effective plan.

Who knew?