Policy Battle Over Afghan Peace Talks Intensifies

[Jefferson23]

Policy Battle Over Afghan Peace Talks Intensifies

Negotiating With the Taliban
By GARETH PORTER

The struggle within the Barack Obama administration over Afghanistan policy entered a new phase when the president suggested at a meeting of his "war cabinet" Friday that it might be time to start negotiations with the Taliban, according to a report in the New York Times Saturday.

Obama said that the success of the recent operation to take control of the "insurgent stronghold" of Marja, combined with the killing of insurgent leaders in Pakistan by drone attacks, might be sufficient to "justify an effort to begin talks with the Taliban", two participants in the meeting told the Times.

That proposal puts Obama directly at odds with key members of his national security team, especially Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Both Gates and Clinton have argued in recent months that attempting to negotiate with Taliban leaders would be fruitless unless and until they have been convinced by U.S. military operations that they are losing.

In an indication that Gates and Clinton intend to resist Obama's proposal to start talks soon, the Times reported that two unnamed officials who attended the meeting said any plans for "reaching out" to the leadership of the Taliban are likely to be delayed until after U.S. forces launch a major military offensive in Kandahar province.

That, of course, is the Gates-Clinton position on the issue, which is also held by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

in full: http://www.counterpunch.org/

[bemildred]

1. These arguments are so Alice-in-Wonderlandy.

"Both Gates and Clinton have argued in recent months that attempting to negotiate with Taliban leaders would be fruitless unless and until they have been convinced by U.S. military operations that they are losing."

Any yet, if they were losing, we, in the same way, would see no reason to compromise either, so basically, there is just never any reason to negotiate.

[Jefferson23]

3. You're so rational and introspective bemildred, you are

going to have to stop that.

[NJmaverick]

2. "directly at odds with" the author seems clueless as to what that phrase means

"directly at odds" would me that Gates and Hillary oppose any or all negotiations with the Taliban. What you have here is a differing of opinion as to what the Taliban's current mindset is. I would suspect this article was written with an agenda in mind. An agenda that didn't include factual and unbiased reporting.