Talking Afghan peace while the Taliban strike

[bigtree]

KABUL, January 19 (Reuters): Two minutes into an interview about how best to reintegrate the Taliban into Afghan society, a giant boom stopped a top presidential adviser mid-sentence. "Oh my God, again it's a suicide (bomber)," said Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, adviser to the Afghan president on home security and the man in charge of devising a plan to reintegrate the Taliban.

"This is how you work in a country in war," he added, after which several more blasts followed, most probably grenades. A volley of gunshots was heard as Afghan security forces battled insurgents nearby. Seemingly unfazed by the background noise, Stanekzai said he wanted to continue with the interview, offering tea.
Not quite. Monday's attacks, in which suicide bombers blew themselves up at several locations in Kabul and heavily armed militants fought a pitched battle with security forces, were brazen even by the standards of this country. For months, Stanekzai has been working on a plan to reintegrate lower to mid-level Taliban fighters and bring them down from the hills, offering job training and protection once they make the decision to lay down their arms.

"This is why we have to prevent more people from joining this madness," said Stanekzai, who later heard his nephew was among those injured in Monday's strikes. The new reintegration programme "is one of the most important things that we are doing, but hopefully this kind of violence will turn people against them," he said in an interview in the vice-presidential compound near the scene of the attacks.


People in Afghanistan were tired of the war and wanted to live in peace, he said. The hope was that with increased military pressure, there would be an opportunity for insurgents to give themselves up and realize "they are not on the winning side." However, he stressed the young men with explosives strapped inside their jackets who caused mayhem in Kabul on Monday were not on the list for reintegration.

"These are the ones who have to be brought to justice," he said. "The long-term impact of these programs is to prevent these kinds of incidents from happening." "This is a tough life. It is a pity we have been like this for the past 30 years. Something has to be changed. Every day people are sacrificed without knowing for what," he said.

read: http://www.morungexpress.com/international/41778.html


related:

Reconciliation with Taliban leaders unlikely: Gates

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday said it was unlikely Taliban leaders would reconcile with Afghanistan's government but that lower ranking insurgents might be open to making peace with Kabul.

"Just speaking personally, I'd be very surprised to see a reconciliation with Mullah Omar," Gates told reporters aboard his plane en route to India.

"I think it's our view that until the Taliban leadership sees a change in the momentum and begins to see that they are not going to win, that the likelihood of reconciliation at senior levels is not terribly great," he said.

But he added that "we may see a real growth of reintegration at the local district and provincial level" as insurgents "come under pressure and know they're not going to win."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world/Reconciliation-with-Taliban-leaders-unlikely-Gates/499449/H1-Article1-499173.aspx

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. " People in Afghanistan were tired of the war.." So, we send more troops to kill them.

A brilliant strategy that worked ever so well for the Soviets. :banghead:

[bigtree]

2. our grudge match against the ghosts and remnants of al-Qaeda

. . . will never serve the interest of stability in Afghanistan. As long as we're staging that fight from Afghanistan with our military forces, these types of retaliatory attacks will continue and probably increase in scope and impact. Our vengeful policy never accounts for the blowback. Those leading the charge merely add the retaliatory violence to their list of justifications; stubbornly escalating our own response in a self-perpetuating cycle of attacks and reprisals. But we're Americans, and we assume that all goodness automatically flows from our best intentions through the blunt instrument of our military.

Any real progress toward peace in Afghanistan will begin wherever our military decides to stand down. Of course, then Afghans will be left to defend themselves against whatever opportunistic and aggravated elements of the militarized resistance still prevail. But it's not like the equation of our military presence and activity has prevented these catastrophes; even with an increased force and a retooled mission.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. It's ridiculous and pathetic.

Our "mission" there is a flop by any reasonable standards. It's also a mission without a purpose, other than PR. To appear to be "doing something" to stop the spread of terror, create stability, guarantee homeland security, (whatever that is). None, not one, of those alleged goals are even remotely achievable.

I believe that Obama's plan is to create an illusion of success so he can get out of Afghanistan without losing face. A replay of Nixon's "Peace with Honor" catastrophe.

And, just like Nixon's plan, it's simply going to provide more needless death and destruction until enough troops have "made the ultimate sacrifice" and the American people finally grow weary enough of paying for his political ambitions with their children and money and demand that it end.

[bigtree]

7. I do believe the president wants to achieve something resembling 'success'

. . . as an outcome of his escalation of force. He's boxed in by the rhetoric he relied on during the campaign, but I attribute his willingness to escalate the occupation to a tragic misunderstanding of how the region views the American military and a naivete about the consequence and effect of force, more than I'd readily conclude he's put so many soldiers at risk just to save face. I think Nixon actually believed he could 'win' something behind his escalation, but he quickly realized he didn't have the political support for an extended, escalated commitment. I think President Obama believes he can achieve some sort of favorable outcome through his combination of force and aid-based diplomacy.

This president will likely realize a stalemate a lot sooner than Nixon did, and it will remain to be seen how he'll handle that. He'll either pull back or triple-down. That'll be the point where remaining engaged would be a 'face-saving' exercise for Mr. Obama.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Perhaps. But, the evidence is in and written in neon.

The insurgency, which isn't limited to the Taliban, is growing. Karzai, and his government, is a rotting corpse awaiting burial. Pakistan is rebelling against the disaster inflicted upon it by our demands that they fight our war for our purposes.

I believe that we will be forced out and that the regional powers will take over, China, India, Russia, who simply allow Afghanistan to fall back into it's tribalism and deal making.

I don't see this mess as some great crusade against "terrorism", or even as some fantastic struggle over pipelines and oil. It's much more like a 19th century colonial war, with a number of players, who are stuck in quagmire of their own making. Instead of simply admitting it to be a problem without a solution, they are playing at "cutting the Gordian knot" with very blunt and antique swords.

Eventually, poor Afghanistan will again be relegated to the backwater it emerged briefly from as a focus of American revenge and political ambition.

[Robb]

3. The Taliban have stepped up attacks

...on elements of Karzai's government.

[bigtree]

4. Taliban attack shows tactical skill, military limits

KABUL (Reuters) - The Taliban scored a strategic and political victory with brazen, well-timed attacks in the heart of Kabul on Monday, but the failed assaults on key government buildings also showed the limits to their military capacity.

The raids carried out by at least 10 gunmen, including suicide bombers, were well coordinated and bold even for Afghanistan and paralyzed the capital for several hours.

However, while the militants spread out across a strategic area near government ministries and a luxury hotel, they failed to seize any of their declared targets and instead holed up in a poorly defended shopping center . . .

more: http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE60G0TW20100119

[Robb]

5. Efficacy notwithstanding, of course. nt