Eat Your Spinach: Time for Peace Talks in Afghanistan

In the last week the New York Times and Inter Press Service have reported that the Obama Administration is having an internal debate on whether to supports talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, including Mullah Muhammad Omar, as a means of ending the war in Afghanistan. Senior officials like Vice President Biden are said to be more open to reaching out because they believe it will help shorten the war.

Wouldn't it be remarkable if this remained merely an "internal debate" within the Obama Administration? Wouldn't you expect that the part of public opinion that wants the war to end would try to intervene in this debate on behalf of talks in order to end the war?

As an administration official told the New York Times,

"Today, people agree that part of the solution for Afghanistan is going to include an accommodation with the Taliban, even above low- and middle-level fighters."

And in fact, US and British officials have been saying for months that the "endgame" in Afghanistan includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban.

Now, suppose you tell Mom that you want to have ice cream. And Mom says, you can have ice cream when you've eaten your spinach. Wouldn't you eat your spinach? If you don't eat your spinach now, you didn't want ice cream very badly.

So if U.S. and British officials say the endgame includes a negotiated political settlement with the Afghan Taliban, and you figure, extrapolating from the last five thousand years of human history, that a negotiated political settlement typically does not just drop down from the sky, but in fact is generally preceded by political negotiations, and you want to end the war as soon as possible, wouldn't you be clamoring for political negotiations to start as soon as possible? Because the longer political negotiations are delayed, the longer the war will last. If you don't support political negotiations now, you don't want to end the war very badly. If you consider peace negotiations with the Afghan Taliban "distasteful," consider this: every month that the war continues, every month that U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan, is another month in which U.S. soldiers will die horrible deaths, be horribly maimed, and be horribly scarred psychologically, perhaps for life. It's also another month in which the U.S. military is likely to "accidentally" kill Afghan government soldiers (such episodes "are not uncommon," the New York Times notes) and kill Afghan civilians, as they have done at least twice in the last week, according to the reporting in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

I put the word "accidentally" in quotation marks, not of course because I believe that the U.S. military is killing Afghan soldiers and Afghan civilians "on purpose," but because when you repeatedly take an action (continuing the war) that leads to a predictable result (killing Afghan government soldiers and civilians) you lose the exoneration otherwise conferred by the word "accidentally."

Is this not also "distasteful"? Is killing innocent people not more "distasteful" than peace talks?

Gareth Porter, writing for Inter Press Service, reports that an official of the Western military coalition says there has been a debate among U.S. officials about "the terms on which the Taliban will become part of the political fabric." The debate is not on whether the Taliban movement will be participating in the Afghan political system, Porter reports, but on whether or not the administration could accept the participation of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar in the political future of Afghanistan.

The Afghan Taliban has insisted in published statements that it will not participate in peace talks that would not result in the withdrawal of foreign troops, Porter notes. That raises the question of whether the administration would be willing to discuss the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan as part of a negotiated settlement to the conflict.

The Obama Administration has stated publicly that it has no long-term interest in maintaining U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Therefore, should not the U.S. be willing to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops as part of a negotiated settlement? We're leaving anyway, according to U.S. officials - what's holding us back from agreeing, as part of a negotiation, to do what we plan to do anyway?

U.S. officials have said that the war is all about the relationship between the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda. When the Afghan Taliban breaks with al Qaeda the war is over, say these officials. Some say that Mullah Omar is ready to break with al Qaeda, including the Pakistani intelligence officer who trained him; while Osama bin Laden's son Omar says Al Qaeda and the Taliban are only "allies of convenience." Why wouldn't we put these propositions to the test through negotiations? If you think, for the sake of peace, the United States should be willing to agree to do on a timetable that which it claims it intends to do anyway, tell President Obama.

Oh, the Bush Administration was focused, ok on Iraq!Changes in eutlurcs don't happen overnight.How people treat their women and children and seniors, vary from culture to culture. You don't win points by telling people what to do. You can encourage and reward good behaviour. You can get the government of that country to pass laws protecting different groups. But you can't baby-sit an entire culture. I'm not saying abandon them when/if we pull out. But, in the end, Afghanistani's have to support that change. And you're talking about an ancient tribal country.' They won't make the change overnight.In the end, I'm not sure what to do, other than encourage those that want to leave to go ahead and leave. But where to? And with what support system when they get there? It's not like that part of the world has a plethora of countries with stellar womens rights backgrounds. Look at the Saudi's.Over here? I don't think in our current political environment, you can convince conservatives to allow Muslim women to come to the US. Look at the battles back in the day over allowing Vietnamese families to come here. Maybe I'm wrong about the conservatives. I just don't think so.And besides, we have our own issues with women right here in this country.We passed the Ledbetter Law just last year. And that was only 90 years after giving women here the right to vote.Options for choice get narrower every year. Hell, you have groups out there who want to limit peoples options for birth control working the state legislatures all over the country right now.And you recently had people working in the medical and pharmaceutical fields wanting the option of not selling birth control pills and prophylactics, or telling women of other options.We have our own American Taliban that we have to deal with.BTW Please don't tell me that any members of the American Taliban are arguing to stay in Afghanistan to protect the women there. I couldn't stand a dose of that level of hypocrisy.In the end, though, it's the law of unintended consequences. Before you do something, you need to think it through thoroughy. Obviously, we didn't. And no matter what we do, stay or leave fully, or only partially withdraw, it will be, as it always was before, the women and children who suffer.You need to think about these things before you unleash the dogs of war, like some people are clammoring for in Iran. Look before you leap. Then look again, and again, and again I would like to hear what other think we can, or should do.

ubhkelv no exam life insurance =-P auto insurance cqrr car insurance quotes ca 4810 cheapest car insurance 886869 cheap california auto insurance 8-]] life insurance 317 free auto insurance quotes 8-DD car insurance =-DD online auto insurance quotes cyi

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.