Negotiating with terrorists

Peace talks with the Taliban might help end 12 years of war in Afghanistan, but the radical Islamist group's objectives may be so extreme — and so hated by Afghans — that any compromise risks toppling the U.S.-friendly Afghan government and sparking a civil war, experts say.
"Talks are ultimately what is necessary to have a sustainable peace in Afghanistan," says Nora Bensahel, an analyst at the Center for a New American Security.

"For there to be peace," the Taliban has to stop attacking the Afghan government, agree to become part of it and accept the Afghan constitution, Bensahel says. The Taliban hasn't accepted it, but "that's part of what the talks are designed to try and reach."

The Taliban continues to rule with vicious brutality in areas it controls, garnering no trust with its chief rivals in Afghanistan's north, says Ryan Evans of the Center for the National Interest and one of the authors of the report "Talking to the Taliban," released Thursday.

Allowing the Taliban back into a government role as part of negotiations will probably lead to a war between Afghans once U.S. troops depart in 2014 as scheduled, he says.
"We're likely to see something similar to 1990's civil war," Evans says. "The big danger once we leave is Afghan security forces will fracture."

The Taliban continues to fight to try to regain the country it ruled before the U.S. invasion of 2001 after the Sept. 11 attacks. A clerical movement of Islamists, the Taliban sheltered Osama bin Laden and allowed al-Qaeda terror training camps to operate in Afghanistan.
The U.S.-led invasion ousted the Taliban and over 12 years, the coalition secured major population centers from Taliban fighters, whose leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, a wanted terrorist, is in hiding in Pakistan. The invasion paved the way for free elections and a democratic government.
The U.S. government has had discussions for years with representatives of the Taliban. The Obama administration announced this week it planned to enter negotiations with the militants about reaching a peace deal.
Plans for State Department envoy James Dobbins to meet with Taliban officials in Qatar have been put on hold, however, after Afghan President Hamid Karzai objected to the talks.

Karzai was angered that the Taliban leaders used the name of the country they once ruled, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, and flew their former flag, while announcing plans to negotiate directly with the United States. Karzai says the Taliban's actions show it still claims to be the legitimate government of Afghanistan and it will seek to rule unfairly and brutally as before.

"The Afghan government is a house divided," Evans says. Powerful factions, especially among the country's Tajik and Uzbek minorities, oppose the talks because "they're afraid the Taliban will gain concessions. They're afraid of paying too high a cost to end the war."

Since the talks have not begun, it's unclear whether the Taliban will demand control of sensitive ministries, such as Education, Interior, Defense or Intelligence.

Two prominent northern warlords, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum and Ismail Khan, "have hinted they would rearm their forces as a hedge against what happens after we leave, with the Taliban in the rest of the country," Evans says. "From the beginning of the year until now, they've been saying things like this."



The country's police forces are likely to split along tribal and ethnic lines, and the Afghan national army, which is dominated by ethnic Tajiks and northerners, is likely to withdraw to the north, Evans says.
The Taliban has never renounced al-Qaeda, which launched the Sept. 11 attacks from Afghan territory. It continues to rule its territory according to a severe interpretation of Islamic law that includes executing enemies and those accused of moral transgressions such as adultery, Evans says, citing what he saw while doing cultural research for the Defense Department in Afghan areas recaptured from Taliban control in 2010 and 2011.




Which side usually approaches the other for a peace deal? The losers.

Yep.  Vietnam all over again.  Here are some headlines from around the world.
 
Humbled US makes concessions to Taliban to start talks (The Times of India)
 
Taliban makes demands in Afghan peace talks (The Telegraph - UK)
The Afghan Taliban is demanding names of its senior leaders are removed from US and United Nations terror blacklists and that a number of prisoners are released as a precondition of further peace talks, according to a key insurgent negotiator.
 
US soldiers killed hours after US announces peace talks with Taliban (NY Daily News)
Four US soldiers were killed by insurgents just hours after the US announced it would hold formal direct talks with the Taliban. The US is no longer demanding that Taliban cut ties with al-Qaeda in order to progress
 
Taliban Rejects All US Demands (Pakistan Defence)
In a conference call from Northern Ireland where President Obama is attending the G8 summit, US officials said they expected Taliban to issue a statement opposing the use of Afghan soil to threaten other countries (which implicitly meant not sheltering al-Qaida); and second, that they support an Afghan peace process.

As it turned out, the statement released by the Taliban was stunning in its implicit rejection of even the minimum US demands and assertive in its own assumption of Afghan leadership and how it would achieve its objectives: “It is well known to all that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan has been waging jihad to put an end to the occupation and form an independent Islamic system,” it said, assuming the Afghan leadership and making no reference to the Karzai government, the rights of women and minorities, or recognizing the Afghan constitution.
 
The world is laughing at us.  The Taliban is definitely in control of these so-called peace talks.  I wanted to get out of Afghanistan but I want to do so on our terms.  We're going to give in to many of these demands and leave, then the Taliban will return and take up right where they left off.
 
The Islamic world has no fear or respect for Obama and the US.  They feel they have us on the ropes.

Well theyre playing hardball, and were trying to set up the tee. Why we would even think we could negotiate in good faith is beyond me. Were having bilateral talks, AND THEY ARENT EVEN THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN!!

Well theyre playing hardball, and were trying to set up the tee. Why we would even think we could negotiate in good faith is beyond me. Were having bilateral talks, AND THEY ARENT EVEN THE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT OF AFGHANISTAN!! And by having such talks (as the article from the brookings institute touched on) it gives them more legitimacy. Especially when its leader is still in hiding in pakistan, its still ideologically in line with al qaeda, and i dont think you can really separate the two. Theyre still beheading ppl, killing nato troops, and in every way are a terrorist organization, which we supposedly dont negotiate with. I dont care if they have a political arm or not. Hizbollah also has a political wing, but theyre still a terrorist organization. But lets just say they do take back over, drones cant take care of it.

Amen to that.  The only reason I think we should even possibly attempt to talk with these thugs is because they have 1 of our soldiers as hostage.  I hate the thought of negotiating with terrorist though, but we ought to try to get that guy back.
 
You know, I was thinking of this situation yesterday while fishing.    As you guys know, I'm not a PC guy.  They are the enemy so I'm not too worried about their comfort.  I was thinking, the Taliban are demanding the release of 5 of their guys from Guantanamo.
 
Wouldn't it be interesting to implant something under their skin like they do for dogs and cats to track them.  Then you could release them, track them and pick em up again later!
 
You could even do so without their knowing it if you put em to sleep and placed a tracking chip somewhere on them that they would never look (ie...where the sun don't shine). 
 
What reason would you use to drug them to sleep?  There are any number of reasons, but 1 could be to give them something to make them think they needed an operation.  Say maybe an appendicitis attack, or something similar.  Heck, you could do it under the pretense of removing their wisdom teeth, or something else.  Point is, put them to sleep, and implant the small chip under the skin.
 
Then let em go and let the CIA pick em up later.

Yeah his ass is gonna have to write some more books come 2016.