Refer to this Frontline program if you are able. <http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/pages/frontline/warbriefing/> Pakistan is a tinder box with a weak government and very much part of the next phase. The terrain of Afghanistan and tribal areas make it a very different ground war than Iraq.
On Oct 29, 4:59 am, "\"Lone Wolf\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is behind US-Taliban talks? > 29 October 2008 > > Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported on US plans to open direct > negotiations with Taliban leaders in Afghanistan. The fact that the > Journal, a conservative financial paper, broke the story shows that it > was not a journalistic exposé, but a deliberate public declaration of > a shift in state policy. > > According to the Journal, "The US is actively considering talks with > elements of the Taliban, the armed Islamist group that once ruled > Afghanistan and sheltered al-Qaeda, in a major policy shift that would > have been unthinkable a few months ago." It reported that such talks > were included in a "draft recommendation in a classified White House > assessment of US strategy in Afghanistan." > > These plans seek to address a serious deterioration of the US position > in Afghanistan. Violence has spread through the country and into > neighboring tribal areas of Pakistan, whose US-backed government has > been discredited by its acquiescence in US bombings and ground > incursions into Pakistan against Taliban militants. The US war on the > Taliban has also antagonized important US allies that helped the US > organize the Taliban militias in the interests of US pipeline politics > in the mid-1990s: the Saudi clerical establishment and Pakistan's > powerful military espionage agency, Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). > > Notwithstanding US "war on terror" rhetoric, which portrays the > Taliban as monsters, US-Taliban talks are not new. The 2001 US > invasion of Afghanistan deployed relatively few troops and the US > occupation of the country has depended on manipulating Afghanistan's > fractious tribal elite. A State Department official told the Journal: > "We and the Afghans negotiate with the tribes every day on the > district level. Sometimes they're Taliban or their supporters. Often > they say: ‘If we get what we want, we'll lay down our arms.'" > > The Journal also reported that officials of the US-controlled Afghan > regime had negotiated with Taliban representatives "in recent weeks in > Saudi Arabia." > > US officials have, however, been constrained in their attempts to > create a workable Afghan policy by restrictions on negotiations with > the Taliban. An intelligence official told the Journal, "some US > officials quietly conducted informal outreach to Taliban leaders, but > the military was more interested in taking them into custody." The > leaking of plans for US-Taliban talks is a signal to opinion-makers, > as well as to observers abroad and particularly in Afghanistan and > Pakistan, that Washington will no longer impose such limits on itself. > > The change in US imperialism's ruling personnel—with the impending > presidential election and the promotion of General David Petraeus to > head the US Central Command, giving him authority over US forces in > Afghanistan—provides US policy makers the opportunity to carry out a > certain recalibration of the "war on terror." > > Petraeus' history is particularly significant in this regard. He is > being sent to Afghanistan to replicate there the "surge" operation he > oversaw as commander of US forces in Iraq. > > In Iraq, he bought off local proxies--Sunni tribesmen in Anbar > province, parts of the Mahdi Army and Sunni militias in larger cities. > Then, with a "surge" of US troops throughout Iraq--Anbar province, > then Baqubah, Baghdad, Basra, etc.—American forces massacred those who > refused to ally with them. Following the deaths of untold thousands of > Iraqis and hundreds of US troops, Iraqi resistance to the US > occupation has decreased. US media and political circles have hailed > the surge as a great success. > > Now the surge is to come to Afghanistan. At least 12,000 more US > soldiers will soon arrive there. The Journal notes that Petraeus > publicly endorsed the policy of US talks with the Taliban. In an > October 8 speech on Afghan policy at the Heritage Foundation think- > tank, he said, "You have to talk to enemies. You want to try to > reconcile with as many of those as possible while then identifying > those who truly are irreconcilable." > > Petraeus will accordingly oversee a policy of carefully sorting out > Afghan tribal leaders and making each one the proverbial offer they > cannot refuse. For militia leaders who align themselves with US > military policy there will be suitable rewards. For "irreconcilables" > there will be air strikes and special operations raids. > > This policy shift is particularly significant in that the candidate > now considered the likely winner, Democrat Barack Obama, has long > attacked the Bush administration for being distracted from the war in > Afghanistan and called for strikes against targets in Pakistan. > > The Journal noted that both presidential candidates, Obama and > Republican John McCain, were supporting US-Taliban talks, helping > "ensure that the policy is put in place regardless of who wins next > month's elections." > > This underscores a central reality of the 2008 US elections: With the > likely victory of Obama, more tactically adept but no less ruthless > representatives of the US ruling class will come to power. > > Alex Lantier --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
