January 21, 2008
Talking with the enemy in Afghanistan
It is time to sort out the mess in Afghanistan - and where better to start than by talking with the enemy?
For six years, Nato has been fighting Taliban insurgents in what has turned into the biggest military operation in the alliance’s almost 60-year history. But in terms of results there is not a great deal to show for it - and the European public senses it. Support for Nato’s operations in Afghanistan was fairly broad-based to begin with. But now it is fracturing - and not just in Germany and Italy, where the enthusiasm for sending troops to a war in Asia was not exactly robust in the first place.
Yet if the EU and the Americans, Canadians and others were to pull out, it would deal a damaging blow to Nato, to western security more generally, and to the EU’s hopes of running a successful common foreign and security policy. What is needed isn’t a disorderly withdrawal, but an imaginative rethinking of the whole operation.
A new report by Daniel Korski of the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank launched last October, bluntly describes the situation: "The current effort is characterised by an over-reliance on military power, a failed counter-narcotics effort, ineffectual management of governance reforms, and by an ad hoc approach to political dealings with the Taliban…Failure in Afghanistan is now a realistic prospect."
Korski knows his subject. He was once deputy head of the UK’s Post-Conflict Reconstruction Unit and an adviser to Afghanistan’s counter-narcotics minister.
His most interesting proposal is that western governments should not be afraid to talk with Taliban leaders who are not completely intransigent. Deals should be cut with them, including offers of financial incentives. "The coalition could … operate a system of ‘divide and rule’, whereby intransigent insurgents would see their erstwhile comrades rewarded with a package of financial and other incentives which add up to a better deal than that offered by the Taliban. These are not currently being offered to the extent required. Enticements could include money, paid in instalments to ensure an ongoing commitment to the government…"
This idea isn’t new. I first heard it in December 2006 from a western diplomat who was about to be assigned to southern Afghanistan, where the insurgency is particularly well-entrenched.
But in some quarters, the idea is mutating into something much more radical. In recent weeks I have heard at last one government expert pose what until now has been an almost unthinkable question: "Why not talk with al-Qaeda itself?"
This may not be so reckless a suggestion as it sounds. For let us admit it: the present strategy in Afghanistan is close to a dead end. Moreover, there have not been any devastating al-Qaeda attacks in the US or Europe for several years. Clearly, the Taliban is one problem and al-Qaeda, though there is an overlap, is another. But this year may well be the best opportunity that has arisen since the September 2001 attacks to do the unthinkable and talk to the enemy.
Thank you for an interesting update.
Posted by: derekt | January 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm | Report this commentI understand that Paddy Ashdown has been proposed for a leading role in Afghanistan. Who better has the credentials to follow through on Daniel Korski’s proposals?
Exactly! , making a deal with Taliban and alQaeda is smart and practical, it would cut out the heroin trade,the weapons trade and the bombs ……oooooops !!! i forgot that then there would be no “War on Terror” and no massive Military,Weapons and Security Contracts, darn ! so never mind,our neocon controlled Society needs terrorists,war on terror,heroin in the streets and chaos,it’s the only way to justify repression,Media control, dumb TV, national ID cards, national databases with full private information that gets stolen or lost and heavy police-military control and supervision, gentiles must be constantly under watch….so we must never make a logical deal with the Taliban and alQeda,better keep the gentiles ( christians) against the muslims and feed the War and Security apparatus, what President Eisenhower called the Military-Industrial Complex( Prison-Industrial Complex,Drug-Industrial Complex,etc.)….funny how nothing changes after all these years , it just gets worst and dumber!…and with your taxes !
the money allocated before and later can rebuild Afghanistan roads,water and electric basic grid,give them a http://laptop.org/ to all of them and launch their health and education,
but our leaders want to spend it on weapons and the result is the cheapest and most potent heroin ever and all over, and the only ones that can go in and out easy with the bags of “white powder or base” are the Contractors and Military Transports, funny,eh ? …and with your taxes , too !
but hey! look who runs the Political-Military in USA and EU !it’s the same pack of political appointees that got us into Iraq with lies and phony pictures,the “shock and awe on Baghdad ” crowd, the “Covenant” team, and we don’t have any leaders to stand up to these criminals !
Afghanistan needs mobile clinics with lots of antibiotics and vitamins,fresh water units and electric generators ,a NEW face of the “ugly americans and europeans”…the kids must run for office and change the whole equation, a new dialog,a new idea without the neocons…
Posted by: blogger | January 25th, 2008 at 8:18 pm | Report this commentmy brother in law is about to serve , in what seem`s to me to be the wild east . Like myself he is just an ordinary joe . still we need the reassurance of a polictical willpower , to stand by the decent people , who are trying to give a leg up to a repressed nation .
Posted by: jerry | February 1st, 2008 at 1:12 am | Report this commentTo Tony Barber: I would like to congratulate you on your article “Talking with the enemy in Afghanistan.” I was especially pleased that you dared to quote a government expert asking the question of “Why not talk with al-Qaeda itself?” It prompts me to write to you thinking that you and your colleagues might be interested to know about a recent publication of mine. It deals precisely with this topic – yet in a fictional satire.
As a mediator, facilitator, peacemaker, also deeply interested in opening people’s minds to see possibilities they’ve never considered before, I have recently published a thin and quite acclaimed booklet/teaching tool: a fictitious dialogue between President George W. Bush and Sheikh Osama bin Laden (see: www.reconfigure.ch/books.html). This “crazy” dialogue — framed in a night dream — has only one objective: To stir people’s and students’ minds to begin considering the necessity of talking with one’s enemy, to provoke them to begin thinking about this most critical topic, not only in the widest political context but also applied to their personal lives and specific circumstances in their communities. Though I am pretty keen to get the information about my booklet out, I am most importantly interested to promote the idea of the necessity to talking with one’s enemies – real or presumed. A brief feature article of mine about the wider topic is at: www.mediate.com/articles/zanolliN1.cfm.
Thank you for your interest and kind regards,
Noa Zanolli
______________________________
Dr. Noa Zanolli
www.reconfigure.ch
______________________________
Posted by: Noa Zanolli | June 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pm | Report this comment