Gates: Afghan Peace Talks Should Wait Until More Troops Arrive

[bigtree]

Mar 29, 2010

The Afghan government met last week with members of the militant Hizb-i-Islami group as part of a push for a broad-based reconciliation effort outlined in January by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill that it was too early to reach out to militant leaders, the Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported Monday.

"The shift of momentum is not yet strong enough to convince the Taliban leaders that they are, in fact, going to lose," said Gates.

Gates said the Karzai government should hold off on further talks until more foreign troops arrive in the country as part of a surge announced by U.S. President Barack Obama in December.

"It is when (the Taliban) begin to have doubts about whether they can be successful that they may be willing to make a deal," he said. "And I do not think we are there yet."


http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212292516.shtml

[tekisui]

1. We need more war before we can metion peace.

More fighting for peace bullshit.

[bigtree]

2. it's a rhetorical staple of this President

'winning the peace'

It's mostly due to the lack of any significant challenge from our mostly illiterate public.

[LakeSamish706]

3. We'll get that peace thing happening one of these days, not holding breath though. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

4. It's not an unreasonable argument

The Taliban are going to be more likely to agree to our terms if they believe we are going to do whatever it takes to win. But the question then becomes, is the cost of doing whatever it takes to win worth the benefit of getting the Taliban to negotiate on our terms? Personally, I think the answer is no. Furthermore, if the Taliban sees things as I do, we're going to have to do a hell of a lot of demonstrating before we convince them.

[bigtree]

5. I think they're fooling themselves

... if they actually believe the resistance is primarily 'Taliban'. To me, the Afghan govt. talks were more sincere than the coercion the Pentagon has in mind. Even then, the U.S. military assaults on Afghan resistance fighters will have almost no connective effect on the Taliban leadership which invests their power in individuals, anywhere, willing to confront the U.S.. That leadership thinks nothing of sacrificing lives to that effort.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. Coercion is a part of bargaining

The only difference between the Afghan Government and the Pentagon is that they probably have different goals in the bargaining process and different tools at their disposal to attempt to achieve them.

Gates is acting on the theory that wars are only fought when the outcome is uncertain because if the outcome is certain, both sides can do better by negotiating rather than fighting. And I certainly subscribe to this theory as well.

But what Gates thinks he can do is use displays of force to convey to the Taliban that the outcome is certain and therefore they should just give up and agree to our terms. That, IMO, is something we can't do unless we're willing to carpet bomb the place Dresden style or pull out the nuclear arsenal (neither of which I think we should do).

Gates has an incentive to misrepresent American resolve to the Taliban and the Taliban knows this. That's why I don't think this strategy is going to work.

[bigtree]

17. I think he's mis-characterizing the 'threat'

The insurgency doesn't appear to be as much directed by the Taliban leadership as it is encouraged and propagandized. The. offensive plays into the Taliban leadership's hands as resistors identify their anti-occupation cause with our Taliban nemesis, adopting their moniker or just becoming subject to our own generalizing of their resistance.

I see the Taliban as the other side of the coin of violence there, ALL sides of leadership in this conflict expecting the violence they're perpetuating and recruiting others to emulate to prevail. That's why I don't believe our display of force can be targeted in a way that convinces the disparate elements of resistance to refrain.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Russia pretty much killed anything that stuck its head up.

Didn't seem to faze them in the least.

[EFerrari]

10. As long as the Taliban has access to resources, they keep going.

There is no way to deny them weapons, food/water or fighters. They keep going.

Obama would do better to send Gates out there with a checkbook, not more troops.

[maxsolomon]

13. cutting off their access to Marjeh opium was part of a denial strategy

i think that the pentagon, at least, must believe they can deny internal safe havens & operating funds.

don't know about weapons - they've probably got enough to last awhile.

[EFerrari]

14. I was listening to Ahmed Rashid last night and he pointed out

that you can't kill the millions of fighters they have at their disposal, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. It's just not possible.

And poppy is only a part of their funding.

Check him out. He knows a great deal about this mess. If your machine doesn't do video, some of his presentations have trascripts, fyi.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/person/83782

[maxsolomon]

16. "millions" of fighters?

i'll buy 1000s. not millions.

[EFerrari]

18. It could be that I'm misremembering what he said but I don't think so.

If I get a chance, I'll go back and check it.

[EFerrari]

20. Yay for searchable transcripts.

. "ENDLESS SUPPLY OF RECRUITS. YOU CAN'T KILL 30 MILLION PEOPLE IN ORDER TO STOP AN INSURGENCY SO..." at 53:02

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/190836

[maxsolomon]

21. well, a "supply of recruits" is not the same a million taliban.

theoretically, the Hutaree have 300 million potential recruits, too.

[EFerrari]

22. Fair enough. Although, the Hutaree don't have 3 million people

bound together tribally.

I still think he makes a good point. And if you watch the video, he's not really interested in making a political point but more of a logistical one.

[maxsolomon]

23. americans aren't all in the same tribe?

;)

[EFerrari]

24. No, we're really not. Lookit how easy it is to set us against ourselves

along race or ethnic or religious lines.

:)

[Hippo_Tron]

15. I think he's going to have to do just that

But right now I think we're in the stage of making it look like we "won" when we do that.

[EFerrari]

25. I may just be too PTSD'd from BushCo, but I don't think we're getting out

any time soon. We're settling in to Iraq and Afghanistan. And, btw, Latin America and the Carribean are being militarized apace, plus, we looking to fund the same forces in Indonesia that carried out massacres.

Something has been let loose because there is a definite expansion ongoing.

Who's going to stop the MIC? The Democrats? The Democratic president? I don't even believe they can if they wanted to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. More troops, more money, more time....that worked ever so well in Vietnam. K&R

[msongs]

8. the welfare gravy train for the military industrial complex rolls on with a new engineer nt

[Echo In Light]

11. .

[unhappycamper]

12. The old Fighting For Peace bullshit again.

When the United States can no longer print money to keep these charades going, out troops will come home.

[amborin]

19. +10000