Page 2 of 3 'We're not going to win this war'
By China Hand
diplomat in Kabul, reporting that the British ambassador, Sherard Cowper-Coles,
believed that a) Afghanistan was going all to hell b) the Karzai regime was
doomed and c) the presence of foreign forces only made things worse. From the
International Herald Tribune:
"The current situation is bad, the
security situation is getting worse, so is corruption, and the government has
lost all trust ... The presence of the coalition, in particular its military
presence, is part of the problem, not part of its solution," Cowper-Coles was
quoted as saying. "Foreign forces are the lifeline of a regime that would
rapidly collapse
without them. As such, they slow down and complicate a possible emergence from
the crisis."
And more from the Danes, in a report from AFP:
Danish
Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller said in an interview published Wednesday he
supported the idea of the Afghan government holding talks with the Taliban,
albeit with some conditions. ...
The rights women have regained since the Taliban were driven from power in 2001
should also not be negotiable, he said.
"We should civilize the Taliban so Afghanistan is not 'Talibanized' again,
otherwise we'll have to leave the country," said the Danish foreign minister.
Japan's Asahi Shimbun joined the chorus in an October 18, 2008, editorial on
"MSDF Refueling Bill", pointing out that "The best strategy now is to explore
reconciliation through talks with moderate members of the Taliban for a peace
agreement to isolate the terrorist organization al-Qaeda."
Even the new commander of the British Army, General Richards, while calling for
his 30,000 troop surge into Afghanistan, had to concede the need for
negotiations:
General Richards also believes that a negotiated
settlement may be necessary to end the conflict, but that any talks must take
place with the Afghan government and NATO in a position of strength.
Contrary to General Richards, negotiations have not only already begun, but
have already yielded concrete outcomes.
International Peace Day, September 21, was marked in Afghanistan by a truce
between Taliban, international, and Afghan government forces to permit the
delivery of polio vaccinations to Afghan children:
Medics with polio
vaccinations pushed into some of Afghanistan's most volatile provinces on the
United Nations' Peace Day Sunday with a Taliban pledge they should not be
harmed during the three-day drive.
The Taliban had also agreed to not carry out any attacks on Peace Day following
a call from President Hamid Karzai that resulted in the Afghan and
international military forces agreeing to refrain from offensive operations.
...
The Taliban said Saturday it had ordered its followers to allow the vaccinators
safe access to their areas. They had copies of a letter from the group's
leadership asking for them to be unharmed, [WHO representative Peter] Graaff
said.
In a further sign that the international community sees
Taliban political and military strength as signs of a significant domestic
insurgency that can and must be negotiated with, and no longer through the lens
of the American Global War on Terror (GWOT) as a target for utter annihilation,
the UN's envoy to Afghanistan, Kai Eide also gave a cringing shout-out on the
UN website to the Taliban to help the UN deliver humanitarian aid in
significant swaths of the country in which the Karzai writ apparently does not
run:
"I will take this opportunity to appeal to the Taliban and to
appeal to its leaders to ensure access for food distribution and to expand the
humanitarian agenda that we should share," he said. "There are disagreements on
so many things – but let us demonstrate that we can share this humanitarian
agenda."
Most worrisome for the United States, Afghan president
Hamid Karzai - aware that America's peripatetic viceroy, Zalmay Khalilzad, has
his eyes on Karzai's job and perhaps resentful of the overbearing US
micromanagement of his administration as a result - apparently slipped the
leash and did not wait for a change in US policy to conduct talks with the
Taliban.
While American pundits fulminated about terrorist havens in South Waziristan,
Karzai sent his brother to participate in a meeting with the Taliban under
Saudi Arabia’s aegis in September.
In an article entitled "Source: Saudi hosts peace talks with Afghan, Taliban
reps", CNN reported on September 28:
LONDON, England (CNN) - In a
groundbreaking meeting, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted talks
between the Afghan government and the Taliban militant group, according to a
source familiar with the talks.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia hosted meetings between the Afghan government and
the Taliban, a source says.
The historic four-day meeting took place during the last week of September in
the Saudi city of Mecca, according to the source, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity due to the sensitivity of the negotiations.
King Abdullah broke fast during the Eid al-Fitr holiday with the 17-member
Afghan delegation - an act intended to show his commitment to ending the
conflict. . . .
The current round of talks is anticipated to be a first step in a long process.
According to the source close to the talks, it has taken two years of
behind-the-scenes meetings to get to this point ...
During the talks, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan's
conflict is through dialogue, not fighting.
Saudi Arabia - a US
ally and critical security and economic asset in the region for the last six
decades - is also the homeland of most of the 9/11 hijackers, protector of the
Sunni faithful, and a long-time ally of the Taliban and other conservative and
largely anti-American forces in the Middle East. As US credibility and clout
waned in the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, Saudi Arabia has been quietly
but determinedly playing its own hand in Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Pakistan,
often to the detriment of US clients elevated to power as part of the US
democracy crusade.
In US eyes, there's only one thing that Karzai could do that's worse than
participating in a competing regional diplomacy initiative spearheaded by the
Taliban-friendly Saudi Arabia. And he's already done it.
From the Pakistan media outlet Dawn:
KABUL: Afghan President Hamid
Karzai advised the Taliban leader in Afghanistan, Mullah Omar to return to
Afghanistan and guaranteed his safety.
In an exclusive interview to Geo television channel, Karzai said, I propose
Mullah Omar to get back to Afghanistan as I will be wholly and solely
responsible for his security and I shall be answerable to the whole of the
world on his behalf.
Karzai also invited Mullah Omar to join him in the political process of
Afghanistan by being hopeful for the next presidential election as Karzai
reckoned Omar's return in the best interest of the prosperity and safety of the
country.
Mullah Omar is, of course, the head of the Taliban,
brother-in-arms (and according to unconfirmed sources, brother-in-law) of Osama
bin Laden, whose government was toppled by Operation Enduring Freedom. From
Dawn's tortured syntax, it appears that Karzai is inviting Mullah Omar to
participate in the presidential elections scheduled for next year.
Mullah Omar's return to Afghanistan political life would be an intolerably
vivid illustration of the futility of the world’s six-year effort to remake
Afghanistan.
As Bloomberg reports, US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, was compelled to
say that he drew the line at talks with Mullah Omar. "I, in my wildest
imagination, would not consider Mullah Omar a reconcilable,'' he said.
If that wasn't enough, Karzai further hedged his bets by opening talks with the
notorious Gulbuddin Hekmatayr of death by shipping container fame, according to
The Independent:
According to diplomatic sources the Karzai government
opened channels to Hekmatyar through members of his family who visited Kabul.
Three months ago the warlord's son-in-law, Dr Ghairat Baheer, was released
after spending six years in an Afghan prison and is said to be playing a part
in ongoing negotiations.
Although his forces are engaged in fighting inside Afghanistan, Hekmatyar has
remained independent from the Taliban and is said to be at odds with its
religious leader Mullah Omar. Some of President Karzai's advisors believe that
a truce, in which he will be rewarded by being given a government post, may
encourage other militant leaders to consider negotiations.
US
dissatisfaction with Karzai can be divined from the flood of negative press
concerning Karzai's inept and faltering government and the allegation that
another brother, who is nominally in charge of Kandahar province, the Taliban
stronghold in the southeast, is Afghanistan's biggest opium-trafficker.
It appears that the key job before General Petraeus will be to co-opt the
regional impetus toward a negotiated settlement, prevent Saudi Arabia from
mid-wifing a power-sharing arrangement favorable to the Taliban, assert
American control and direction over the process to assure America's continued
presence at the center of Afghan's security equation, and spike the loose
cannons that threaten his plan.
Near the top of the list of leaders to be sidelined may well be Hamid Karzai,
who apparently does not enjoy the confidence or affection of any of the NATO
nations who are being asked to prolong their involvement in Afghanistan, and
who have pressed for a housecleaning in Kabul and accommodation with the
Taliban.
Britain's acerbic ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, is apparently
ready to wash his hands of Karzai, according to the leaked French cable
reported in the IHT:
Within 5 to 10 years, the only "realistic" way to
unite [Afghanistan] is for it to be "governed by an acceptable dictator", the
cable said, adding that "we should think of preparing our public opinion" for
such an outcome.
However, finding a suitable replacement for
Hamid Karzai, perhaps from the nascent Afghan army if the available warlords
are too unsavory, is not the only issue for General Petraeus.
Even if NATO, the central Afghan authority, and the Afghan Taliban get on the
same page, there is still the question of how much collateral damage to
tolerate - or provoke - in Pakistan.
US drone attacks and border raids targeting Taliban sanctuaries in the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) are threatening to turn localized
unrest in the mountainous fringes of Pakistan into an existential threat to the
Pakistani state.
Inside Pakistan, enthusiasm for US aims and tactics in the "war on terror" -
especially non-stop rummaging through Pakistan's border territories in search
of bin Laden and al-Qaeda assets - is conspicuously lacking. Support for
Pakistani casualties on behalf of the stabilization of the US-backed regime in
Kabul is virtually non-existent, especially given the extensive sympathy for
the Pashtun and conservative Islamic character of the Taliban inside Pakistan.
The Pakistani Taliban have exploited this apathy with an urban bombing campaign
targeting US interests such as the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad and Pakistan
government security organs.
Veteran South Asia and Taliban watcher, and Asia Times Online's Pakistan Bureau
Chief, Syed Saleem Shazad reported on the message that the Taliban sent the
Pakistani elites with its latest outrage, a bomb hidden in a basket of sweets
that destroyed the
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
