Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: USA in peace talks with taliban
eu    6/18/2011 3:44:21 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13821452 so what would michael scheuer say to all of this?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Reactive       6/18/2011 4:24:01 PM
Negotiating with elements of the Taliban is an attractive idea becuase it enables you to declare some sort of victory or advantageous state of affairs and pull out as intended.
 
The problem is that both sides know full well that without the coalition presence in Afghanistan things will deteriorate to the point that it once again falls under control of the militants. This might (if true) be a plan B.
 
My own view is that it will have about as much value down the line as chamberlain's famous agreement with Adolf Hitler, you are negotiating with people who have no respect for any conventions or laws that do not follow their own, they may honour any agreement for a period of time in order to allow the coalition forces to pull out in phased withdrawls, the crucial question is whether the afghan state and armed forces will be viable once the firepower leaves, one suspects not.
 
This has been long-anticipated, other than keeping a large body of troops there for at least another decade there is no easy way out, and it may well be that this, or what follows, is an admission of defeat. The Taliban's optimal strategy to attain some form of eventual victory is to wait the coalition out.
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

LB       6/18/2011 10:58:04 PM
Peace can only be made with one's enemies.  The notion that negotiating is a negative is beyond ignorant.  Moreover,  it's up to Afghanistan to decide who gets amnesty and who does not.  Our main goal was always to keep Afghanistan from being a terrorist bastion along with conducting operations from there into Pakistan.  Frankly the main problem being Pakistan.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       6/19/2011 2:25:24 PM

Peace can only be made with one's enemies.  The notion that negotiating is a negative is beyond ignorant.
 
But if your enemy has absolutely no interest in any sorts of legal framework beyond their own fundamentalist Islamic belief system and are in themselves a fragmented entity without much in the way of centralised leadership it's a pointless endeavor. As I said, you can make whatever agreement/negotiated settlement/ceasefire you want with elements of the Taliban but once your firepower leaves the area those agreements mean nothing.
 
The best case scenario is that a negotiated settlement allows troops to pull out in line with BO's original (and massively counterproductive) timeframe. I would respectfully suggest that what is actually beyond ignorant is to ignore everything you know about the Taliban itself, and their ideology, and to subscribe to the wildly optimistic premise that they will suddenly start obeying written agreements or conventions when their history suggests the exact opposite.
 
Moreover,  it's up to Afghanistan to decide who gets amnesty and who does not.  Our main goal was always to keep Afghanistan from being a terrorist bastion along with conducting operations from there into Pakistan.  Frankly the main problem being Pakistan.

It's not about amnesty, this has simply got to the point that none of the coalition partners have any confidence in the near-term viability of the Afghan state, the administration needs a way out and a (temporary) negotiated peace gives enough leeway to achieve a withdrawl in line with the original idiotic timeframe. I'm not arguing that the primary mission has to be to prevent proliferation of international terrorism but that pulling out a long way before Afghanistan is a functioning entity is an admission, rightly or wrongly that the current conflict is unsustainable. It has massive parallels with Vietnam, and the net result will be similar.
 
R
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       6/20/2011 7:09:21 AM
Without in any way underestimating the capabilities of individuals, I seriously doubt the "western coalition" is able to pull just about any of the levers needed to take Taliban into meaningful solutions. 
 
For what I know the common man in Afghanistan is negotiated with in very down-to-earth terms such as day-to-day feeding of the family and personal security. As long as it is the Taliban dictating those issues in the countryside there is probably very little to do for a manageable and sustainable peace agreement.
 
M 
 
Quote    Reply

eu       6/20/2011 11:26:22 AM

the afg govt and army are still not effective? i know that i've read that there are complaints about the professionalism of the ANA (incl. stealing pay by officers, if i'm not mistaken) and that they are (were) more or less combat ineffective, when the * hits the fan.

i don't know anything much about the govt, except that they were voted for in the elections.
 
Quote    Reply

JTR~~    initial thoughts on the matter   6/20/2011 11:47:33 AM
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/22/2011 3:41:03 AM
Given past successes in this area, I give less than 1 in 4 odds that the US representative is actually speaking to an active member of the Taliban leadership.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics