On Reconciliation . . . Posted by Michael Cohen

So I've been meaning for a few days now to write something on this issue of Afghan political reconciliation; but every time I delve into the issue I find myself more confused. Take for example this quote from today's New York Times:

Any grand bargain is bound to be messy, with the Taliban most likely to demand government jobs or control of large areas of territory in Afghanistan's south, where it now rules by fear. What the United State would be willing to tolerate has become a hot issue inside the Administration. Already, the Pentagon has expressed skepticism about coming to terms with high-ranking Taliban figures anytime soon.

Forgive me for perhaps asking an impertinent question; but what the hell was that whole Afghan strategy review about last year?

How does a question like whether the US is willing to come to terms with high-ranking Taliban figures not get debated and decided then? If, as the President suggests, the goal of US policy is NOT to destroy the Taliban then how far you are willing to down the road of political reconciliation is an utterly crucial issue to decide. In fact, you could argue that IT IS the crucial question: to not have a plan in place to achieve reconciliation - and an answer to the question of whether you'll cut a deal with Mullah Omar - is truly a head-shaker.

For what it's worth, this is pretty much a no-brainer: of course the United States should be willing to cut a deal, particularly since Obama has already announced that troops will begin withdrawing in 18 months. Considering that the US has made clear that it's not going to be in for the long haul I'm not sure how we think that we have any leverage to demand that top Taliban leadership will not get a starring (or at least best-supporting) role in a future Afghan government.

And it seems clear that the Afghan government is on board as well; in fact President Karzai is expected to announce a new reconciliation initiative at the the London Afghan conference this week. According to the NYT:

The Karzai government envisions a two-track program. One track is reintegration of fighters - to entice the Taliban's rank and file fighters to lay down their weapons and rejoin Afghan society. The core of that is a massive jobs program and an amnesty for the estimated 20,000 to 30,000 fighters in Afghanistan's villages and mountain redoubts.

This all sounds well and good on paper; but of course wars are not fought on paper - and I can't help but feel skeptical about this. First this assumes a consistent level of support from Western donors to fund this effort; it assumes that the Afghan government will rise above its usual incompetence and corruption to implement the plan effectively and finally it assumes that the Taliban core fighters will even be interested in switching sides, particularly since they are basically winning the war militarily.

I guess I'm just having a hard time seeing how this plan works. And what's more I don't see how it interacts with US policy. For example, from a political standpoint, the US has made clear that the clock is ticking on its military engagement in Afghanistan and the troop withdrawals may begin in June 2011. If you're the Taliban and you're already winning the war - and your biggest military rival is searching for an exit - why would you make a deal? And from a military standpoint, if you enjoy an unmolested sanctuary across the border in Pakistan and the US military has adopted a population-focused rather than enemy centric tactical approach . . well it seems like your interest in compromise is even more remote.

Along these lines, the Times quotes Vanda Felbab-Brown who is at Brookings saying, "The more there is talk of negotiation, the more the Taliban view it as a sign of weakness. How do you make sure the reconciliation process does not embolden the Taliban to go on the march?" It's a good question and it seems like the answer would be to put greater military pressure on the Taliban, but that isn't the strategy being espoused by General McChrystal.

This is not to say that reconciliation and Taliban reintegration should not be a goal; but it just seems like the way we are going about it is poorly integrated and not terribly well thought out. 

Comments

[cheap coach purses]

Yes, that's cool. The device is amazing! Waiting for your next one!

[cheap r4i]

Hi,
Really there must be reconciliation before reintegration. Reconciliation means we need to reconcile with past injustices. That is the Taliban but it is also the warlords from the civil war. It is no less realistic or expensive than making a deal for peace and paying off the Taliban in order for them to drop their arms without really reconciling with an absolutely misogynistic ideology. Women cannot be at the decision-making tables if the Taliban is in power.

[rado watches]

If you have PANERAI Watches , I still have my idea to achieve.

[seslisohbet]

That is the Taliban but it is also the warlords from the civil war. It is no less realistic or expensive than making a deal for peace and paying off the Taliban in order for them to drop their arms without really reconciling with an absolutely misogynistic ideology

[sesli sohbet]

Thank You Editors..sesli sohbet sesli chat

[shelving]

We all know these years china pallet racking in china develop very fast, now the design capacity of racking is very strong in china.
You can see every kind of china racking in china, includingDrive in racking,
cantilever racking, shelving,Longspan shelving, dexion racking,. We also have very experienced engineer to do the design and instlaation job.

as a whole contractor for refrigeration equipment, design, manufacturing, installation of cold store.

[ray ban 2010 sunglasses]

Yellow lens of Ray ban wayfarer can 100% filter UV, allowing infrared and 83% visible light through the lens.

Its greatest feature is that you can filter the sun's most dazzling blue.

Sunlight through the atmosphere, the most performance is the blue light, which is why you see the sky is blue. Yellow lens filters blue light, the natural scenery can be seen more clearly. So driving with a yellow lens Ray ban 2010 sunglasses, you can more clearly see from the vehicle.

Ray ban sunglasses sale

ray ban 2010 sunglasses sale

ray ban sunglasses sale

ray ban wayfarer message from http://www.eyewear-rayban.com

[güzel sözler]

Simdi şarkı sözleri sitesinde ozgun icerigimizle tek geceriz. ek olarak menüde şebnem ferah şarkı sözleri - emre aydın şarkı sözleri - hande yener şarkı sözleri ceza şarkı sözleri - konserler - sagopa kajmer şarkı sözleri gibi cesitlerde bulabilirsiniz

[TıkLa-SohbeT]

seslisohbet siteleri arasında ekol bir adres sestonum hemen sohbette başlamak icin sestonum 'tıklayınız..! seslisohbet ve seslichat adreslerinin gözdesi hemen tıklayarak seslisohbet yapmaya başlaya bilirsiniz..!

sestonum
seslichat
seslisohbet

[QodesQoM]

Türkiyenin ilk Hiphop Sitesi için tıkla -> Hiphop <-
Gekko G Fan Sitesi için tıkla -> Gekko G <-
Mask Animasyon sitesi için tıkla -> Mask animasyon <-