[zttrftwsq]

Taliban will negotiate, but path fraught with risk | Reuters



Unthinkable a year ago and still officially beyond the pale, the idea of a political role for Taliban leaders in Afghanistan is creeping onto the agenda as war-weary governments seek to bring an end to an unpopular war.


Should we be negotiating with the Taliban?

If so then with who? High level leaders, moderate Taliban?

If not then why not?

Personally I believe that the only way to conclude a war of indigenous insurgency is one of three ways. You can lose and leave letting the insurgents control the country (i.e. Viet Nam in 1975) , you can try to win militarily but this will require draconian measures and body counts that simply will not be publically acceptable in the western democracies. (i.e. The USSR in Afghanistan in the 80’s)

The third way is to use the military force to make the conditions suitable so that both sides realize that a negotiated settlement is the best way to peace.

You may say that negotiating with the Taliban is like giving in to those who caused 9/11. This is untrue. The people who caused 9/11 were a relatively small band of Al Qaeda who were facilitated by the Taliban but generally have left Afghanistan as its simply too hot for them to operate out of here. They are in large part operating in Yemen and underground in the west.


The negotiations can take place with one of the preconditions that the Taliban will have to announce at the end that they will renounce AQ and violence as a means to achieve their political aims and work within the system. Other than that there is not much that the west wants so it’s simply a matter of deciding how much aid and reconstruction money will be spend rebuilding the country and how it will be spent.

[no02rSx2]

I would only negotiate with a party I could trust. Do you trust them? I don't.

[PefeFoesk]

I would only negotiate with a party I could trust. Do you trust them? I don't.

They could, rightfully, say the same thing about us.

[HagsPusia]

For what possible reason would there be to negotiate with a political party that held public hangings by the dozens for simply speaking out?

[gernica]

For what possible reason would there be to negotiate with a political party that held public hangings by the dozens for simply speaking out?

Hmm, sounds like the type of people the US is known for supporting in Central America.

[Grapappytek]

For what possible reason would there be to negotiate with a political party that held public hangings by the dozens for simply speaking out?

It was never your business.

Especially that you made it into a lame excuse to invade and rob another country.

[ORDERCHEAPVIAGRASOFTWARE]

I would only negotiate with a party I could trust. Do you trust them? I don't.

I do not trust them.

I did not trust the USSR but the west negotiated with them.

I do not trust North Korea but we should be negotiating with them.

Agreements can be monitored and enforced if necessary. Trust has very little to do with it.

How many more people have to die on both sides before this will be settled? There are only three ways to settle an indigenous insurgency, walk away, draconian measures and negotiation.

Since you will not negotiate are you saying that the west should walk away or use nucs?

[CuittisIL]

If so then with who? High level leaders, moderate Taliban?

I think this is possibly the most important part of your post, and will, as such, of course be ignored. The Taliban are not a single entity. Indeed, negotiating with parts of the Taliban could significantly weaken the parts that you choose not to negotiate with. Win-win.

[alexosnasos2]

They will negotiate, and then do whatever the hell they can get away with.