Talking to the Taliban true believers

NY Times Editorial:

Afghanistan’s swift unraveling has created new — and in some quarters unrealistic — enthusiasm for talks with the Taliban.

We agree that there should be a serious effort to win over lower-level militants and tribal leaders — people who are not true believers but have allied with extremists because they had no choice, needed the money or have grown so disillusioned with the Afghan government that they forgot the horrors of Taliban rule.

President-elect Barack Obama has said that he is open to such an approach. Gen. David McKiernan, the top American commander in Afghanistan, says he is working on a plan to engage militants in local councils provided they reject the Taliban and accept the basic civil rights and political freedoms in the Afghan Constitution.

At the same time, we are deeply skeptical that there is any deal to be cut with Taliban leaders who gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda before 9/11 and would undoubtedly insist on re-imposing their repressive, medieval ways, including denying education and medical care to women.

We fear that some NATO members may be so eager to withdraw their troops that they would be willing to trade away the Afghans’ future. Or that the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, may be far too eager to compromise in hopes of increasing his re-election chances. He made aides to Mr. Obama (as well as us) nervous this week with an offer, since rejected, to draw the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar into negotiations.

...

It appears that the election of Obama has lifted the pall of BDS from the Times editorial board and they are making sense again. I guess they trust an inexperienced Democrat to do better than the Bush administration. At least Obama will not be fighting a NY Times rear guard action at the same time he is fighting the enemy which should give him some advantage.

They are right about talking to the Taliban. Pakistan's experience is pretty good evidence that the Taliban word is no good anyway.

The Taliban and al Qaeda have increased the operational tempo in Afghanistan since al Qaeda's defeat in Iraq. This does not mean they are winning or that we are losing. It means we have more work to do. Even with their increased tempo they are still well behind where the insurgents in Iraq were two years ago. In someways the situation is already improving because of action in Pakistan where the army is disrupting enemy sanctuaries and where the CIA is decapitating al Qaeda and Taliban leadership.

The recent attacks on our supply lines through Pakistan are the enemies attempt to divert the Pak army and the US from the attacks that are crippling their ability to operate. Despite the Pakistan double game, it appears that this time we are on the right side of it where they are giving lip service to the enemy and doing what needs to be down to defeat them.