« An aid to understanding Obama on Lieberman | artappraiser's Blog | Inconvenient facts related to the auto industry situation »
Mullah Omar:
he's baaack in the news. If Mr. Karzai gets his wish, that would sure be some fun for a President Obama: a choice of squashing Karzai or being accused of letting terrorists with U.S. bounties on their head run free.
Update: Reuters, Nov 17, 2008 7:57am GMT: Afghan Taliban prepare response to Karzai safety vow
Advertisement
It's yet another 'poison pill' Bush has left for his successor.
November 17, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Related recent news:
November 17, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
includes links to news stories including on Patraeus' review of strategy, and this analysis piece was cited itself in several news stories:
Analysts say enlisting Afghan tribesmen could aid in security. Others warn that what helped stabilize Iraq may play very differently in Afghanistan.
November 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize the terrible danger of meeting without preconditions. It's apparently contagious, the start of a worldwide epidemic of rashly optimistic negotiations, and subsequent reduced opportunities to expend expensive ordinance.
At the time of the Afghan operations I was in favor of giving the Taliban more time to come around, to yield up the fugitive. We can still cut them loose from Al Qaeda, perhaps.
November 17, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Generally I agree with your sentiments, but the problem is this
to yield up the fugitive
He is a fugitive, our government says he is a fugitive, we have a $10 million bounty on his head, and according to us, Karzai would be protecting a fugitive. He has to be decriminialized first by us in order to take it to the level of "negotiation with a leader," right now he's classifed as a terrorist. This is different from neo-cons being silly and calling Ahmenijhad a terrorist, this is on the books, and I don't think the majority public would take it lightly to suggest it come off the books, not to mention those serving in the theater, that would take an awful lot of convincing.
November 17, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points. Omar should never have been called that, as the nominal leader of the ruling political entity in Afghanistan. The criminalizing of leaders is in some ways equivalent to the demonizing of citizens in an enemy country. It makes it hard to negotiate, which is its value.
Of course I was referring to that other guy we're still looking for, the one I hoped we could persuade Omar to yield up, before we made Omar a fugitive.
November 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are forgetting that dealmakers rarely care about niceties such as official declarations by outsiders with their own interests that so-and-so is a such-and-such. Bashar Assad of Syria is a prime example....
Given the situation in Afghanistan, Karzai most likely knows that he has to cut a deal with Omar in order to prevent even more horrific bloodshed when the fighting season resumes with a vengence with the spring thaw.
So far, Karzai's offer is being rejected:
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav111708e.shtml
(The huffy response to Karzai's offer from the State dept flack certainly undercuts any illusions that Karzai and Afghanistan are sovereign entities.)
Sigh:
"The offer of an olive branch to the Taliban’s spiritual leader is nothing new. Mr Karzai, however, is using stronger language and going further than he has done before. Whether that stems from genuine frustration or is a calculated political ploy is open to debate.
Despite coming from Kandahar and being a Pashtun himself, Mr Karzai has lost most of his credibility among the very community he should be able to rely on.
Across southern and eastern and parts of western Afghanistan, where the war is taking a devastating toll, there is dwindling support for a government that has been unable to stop or even slow the bloodshed."
snip}
"The president’s appeal goes directly to a key aspect of their culture: loyalty. Guests are protected at all costs, no matter who they are. This is the reason the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, and Mr Karzai is now claiming he will do something similar for Mr Omar.
It is, though, too late for a man dubbed a puppet of the United States to start distancing himself from Washington. His comments were in all likelihood uttered in the knowledge that they would never have to be backed up with action."
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081117/FOREIGN/979015639/1103/ART
What a mess.
November 17, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the follow-up, lally. IF you haven't, check out that CFR piece I linked to upthread, it goes into some of the supporters of working with the tribes. I am wondering if Obama is going to go with those dealing out those prescriptions. Well, heck, now that I think on it, I am wondering what our CIA now is no doubt messing with in that regard....and as always, I am wondering if anyone is in charge...or if all kinds of people are just flinging stuff and seeing if something sticks....
November 17, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
aa.
I'm going to raise you one by linking to COIN hero Killcullen's conversation with George Packer about the Afghan situation; we can't do an Iraq (Sunni Awakening) in Afghanistan:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/11/kilcullen-on-af.html
We are in a heap 'o shit, aa.
November 17, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice link.
November 18, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, it seems like Bush is trying deliberately to ensure that a war with Pakistan takes place during Obama's term.
That appears to be the main engine of our Pakistan policy since Musharraf fell.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are simply convenient excuses for provoking Pakistan into starting such a war.
November 17, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
But a Pres. Obama does have some factors in his favor if he goes for talks:
General Petraeus (now head of the United States Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) is possibly in favor of reconciliation talks. (From the NY Times article.)
And from this Reuter's Q&A Talking to Afghanistan's Taliban?:
The Gates statement on US openness to talks with the Taliban was news to me. I'm looking for more on that, because it appears to conflict with this statement he made in October that the CFR article you linked to references:
"At the end of the day the only solution in Afghanistan is to work with the tribes and provincial leaders in terms of trying to create a backlash ... against the Taliban," the defense secretary said.
November 18, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
The doktor, who does not like being sidelined, would like to add a little spice into the mix:
November 19, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink