I admit, writing about a specific topic we discussed in class is lame an unimaginative, but having been to Afghanistan recently, I thought the topic that Prof. Henderson brought up concerning the Taliban opening a political office in Qatar is one that I am both interested and informed on.
I believe that engaging with our adversaries can in many ways be a productive endeavor. The trouble is, which one? There is a gross misperception in the American public that the Taliban are a single group insurgency. Rather, to me the term "Taliban" is more of an umbrella term the media uses for a multitude of different factions. The Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Hezbi-Islami (HIG), and small factions of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan all share the similar goals of defeating the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), overthrowing the Karzai-led Afghan government, and establishing a traditional Islamic emirate in Afghanistan, similar to the one that was forced from power in 2001 by the coalition. All the news I have read seems to indicate only that the Afghan Taliban is showing the willingness to engage. Will other extremist groups be willing to talk as well?
Which brings up the second problem: The Taliban seem willing to only negotiate with the U.S. The statement that was released by the group made the glaring omission of leaving out the Afghan government from peace talks. How can any talks be initiated when one of the preconditions for the U.S. is the Taliban's acceptance of the Afghan Constitution-- even though the Taliban views the government of Afghanistan as a "puppet" of the U.S. Is it realistic to assume that the Taliban will come full circle and reintegrate into Afghan society? Why not wait until 2014, when the bulk of coalition troops leave the country, and make a push for more influence in Afghanistan.
The third, and clearly the largest problem for the U.S. is Pakistan. Since the accidental killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in an air strike in late November, Pakistan has cut off virtually all communication with the U.S. They refused to attend the meeting in Germany in December to discuss the future of Afghanistan and have forced Americans based at a covert drone base to leave the country. Not to mention that the Pakistani version of the CIA (The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, ISI) has been playing a double game for years by supporting various factions of the insurgency to bleed the coalition while still receiving substantial aid. How can we reasonably assume that we can force an endgame in Afghanistan when the most critical part of the equation refuses to even talk to us?
The real losers in the whole situation are the ones who have been the losers since the Afghan Civil War broke out in 1978: Afghan Civilians. The Taliban continue to indiscriminately kill civilians, even though the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, has issued directives to avoid civilian casualties.
In my view, there are no "moderate" Taliban. The Taliban's brutality and acceptance of global extremist groups like Al-Qaeda is notorious. Joe Biden recently asserted in Newsweek that "The Taliban per se is not our enemy." While I have great respect for the Vice President, I strongly disagree with that statement. This is the same group that harbored Al-Qaeda while they were planning the attacks of September 11. The same group that continues to kill and attempt to kill coalition forces. This is the same group that prohibited education and healthcare for girls and women. This link was published in August 2010, almost 9 years after the invasion. I don't think the Taliban have changed very much in that time.
I believe that engaging with our adversaries can in many ways be a productive endeavor. The trouble is, which one? There is a gross misperception in the American public that the Taliban are a single group insurgency. Rather, to me the term "Taliban" is more of an umbrella term the media uses for a multitude of different factions. The Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani Network, Hezbi-Islami (HIG), and small factions of Al-Qaeda and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan all share the similar goals of defeating the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), overthrowing the Karzai-led Afghan government, and establishing a traditional Islamic emirate in Afghanistan, similar to the one that was forced from power in 2001 by the coalition. All the news I have read seems to indicate only that the Afghan Taliban is showing the willingness to engage. Will other extremist groups be willing to talk as well?
Which brings up the second problem: The Taliban seem willing to only negotiate with the U.S. The statement that was released by the group made the glaring omission of leaving out the Afghan government from peace talks. How can any talks be initiated when one of the preconditions for the U.S. is the Taliban's acceptance of the Afghan Constitution-- even though the Taliban views the government of Afghanistan as a "puppet" of the U.S. Is it realistic to assume that the Taliban will come full circle and reintegrate into Afghan society? Why not wait until 2014, when the bulk of coalition troops leave the country, and make a push for more influence in Afghanistan.
The third, and clearly the largest problem for the U.S. is Pakistan. Since the accidental killing of 24 Pakistani soldiers in an air strike in late November, Pakistan has cut off virtually all communication with the U.S. They refused to attend the meeting in Germany in December to discuss the future of Afghanistan and have forced Americans based at a covert drone base to leave the country. Not to mention that the Pakistani version of the CIA (The Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, ISI) has been playing a double game for years by supporting various factions of the insurgency to bleed the coalition while still receiving substantial aid. How can we reasonably assume that we can force an endgame in Afghanistan when the most critical part of the equation refuses to even talk to us?
The real losers in the whole situation are the ones who have been the losers since the Afghan Civil War broke out in 1978: Afghan Civilians. The Taliban continue to indiscriminately kill civilians, even though the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, has issued directives to avoid civilian casualties.
In my view, there are no "moderate" Taliban. The Taliban's brutality and acceptance of global extremist groups like Al-Qaeda is notorious. Joe Biden recently asserted in Newsweek that "The Taliban per se is not our enemy." While I have great respect for the Vice President, I strongly disagree with that statement. This is the same group that harbored Al-Qaeda while they were planning the attacks of September 11. The same group that continues to kill and attempt to kill coalition forces. This is the same group that prohibited education and healthcare for girls and women. This link was published in August 2010, almost 9 years after the invasion. I don't think the Taliban have changed very much in that time.
Usually, a topic such as this would not interest me. However, it was very informal. I would not have read this on my own, but you summarized the basics. I think everyone needs little informal readings to catch up on issues going on in the world. More people could be informed and it would take no time at all. I learned something new today, so you're doing something right!
ReplyDeleteBrandon, I completely agree with the majority of the content with which you wrote. I completely agree that Taliban poses much more fear to Afganistan if there were no coalition-based government in place. However, I feel that the vice president is not complelety wrong with his stance on the Tailban. From his views on the Taliban, I feel that he is wrong to say they are not quite our enemy, but I think he meant that the U.S. has other priorities that are of more concern to national security to sort out with before considering its options with the taliban in Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteBrooke-- Glad I was able to get you interested in a topic that a lot of people don't care about.
ReplyDeleteBen-- I think the Vice President advocates a focused counterterrorism mission to rid the region of Al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist groups. I favor a more robust counterinsurgency mission to empower the Afghan Security Forces to be able to take more responsibility for the security of their country. I believe this will be the quickest way to leave the country, rather than maintaining a presence for some unlimited amount of time so we can make sure that Al-Qaeda doesn't come back. If the United States wants to improve its image around the world, how would it make us look if we allowed the Taliban to enforce its extreme interpretation of Islamic law on the Afghan people once again?
I agree with you that the Taliban could have potential serious threats to the US and to the world. I believe that the US and the UN needs to be more "on top of" this Taliban party situation because no one wants another 9/11 situation to occur again. I also agree with Brooke that this post was very well written and made it easy to understand a complicated topic. Good job!
ReplyDelete