Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
War Won With Talks, Not Troops
The answer to ending conflict in Afghanistan does not lie in guns and money
The U.S. and its NATO allies are losing the nine-year-old war in Afghanistan. So Washington and London, both in dire financial straits, say they are now ready for a possible face-saving peace deal with the Pashtun Taliban and its nationalist allies.
If you can't bomb them into submission, buy them off.
A conference was held in London last Thursday to raise tens of millions of dollars to try to bribe lower level Taliban to co-operate with the western occupation and/or lay down its arms.
Bribery is a time-honoured tool of war. But it's not the answer in Afghanistan.
The bloody Afghan conflict can only be ended by genuine peace negotiations and withdrawal of all foreign troops.
U.S. commanders in Afghanistan admit they have lost the military initiative.
The resistance is steadily gaining ground. Increasing U.S. and allied troops to 150,000 won't be enough to defeat Taliban.
By year end, U.S. and NATO forces will only equal the number of Soviet forces committed to Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Meanwhile Pakistan, without whose co-operation the U.S. cannot wage war in Afghanistan, is in turmoil.
The U.S. is infiltrating Xe (formerly Blackwater) and DynCorp mercenaries into Pakistan to protect U.S. military supply routes north from Karachi to Afghanistan, and to operate or defend American air bases in Pakistan.
American mercenaries are being used to assassinate militants and enemies of Pakistan's U.S.-installed government and to target Pakistan's nuclear installations for future U.S. action.
This, and increasing attacks by American killer drones, have sparked outrage across Pakistan and brought warnings of creeping U.S. occupation.
U.S. and Canadian forces in Afghanistan are like a man trying to fix a chimney on the roof of a burning house. As Pakistan burns, so will Afghanistan.
Washington lacks the men, money and understanding to deal with chaotic Pakistan - never mind chaotic Afghanistan.
Washington, London, Ottawa, Berlin and Paris share the same problem: Their war propaganda has so demonized Taliban as terrorists and woman abusers that western politicians are petrified to deal with the tribal movement, and risk being accused of sending soldiers to their deaths in a futile war.
The far right will howl "appeasement," "giving in to terrorism" and "betraying our boys."
Ignore the advocates of permanent war and torture. Afghans have suffered more than 3 million deaths in 30 years of wars. They desperately need peace, political stability and rebuilding, not the current western-installed puppet regime of thieving war lords, drug mafias and thugs of the old Afghan Communist Party.
The best thing we can do for our soldiers is to get them out of the Afghan hell hole before they die in this pointless war.
The west can't "win" in Afghanistan. In fact, Washington cannot even define what victory means. The intelligent, straight-talking American ambassador to Kabul, former general Karl Eikenberry, as well as VP Joe Biden insist it's time to start peace talks. We should heed their sensible advice.
Real peace talks are the answer. Not the ruse long proposed by U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal to try to bribe away low-ranking Taliban and so split the Afghan resistance. This stratagem worked to a degree with Sunni tribesmen in Iraq, but it is unlikely to succeed with the proud Pashtun tribes who value honour more than money. Theirs is an antique concept most westerners cannot understand.
The Taliban, an anti-Communist religious movement, knew nothing about al-Qaida's plans to attack the United States.
That plot was hatched in Europe, not Afghanistan. Many members of the anti-Communist Taliban and its allies were former allies of the West and were hailed by former president Ronald Reagan as "freedom fighters."
After 9/11, the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden to the enraged United States without proper evidence of his guilt because he was an honoured guest and hero of the anti-Soviet jihad.
The Taliban chose war with the U.S. before betraying a guest. Such men are not to be easily bought.
22 Comments so far
Show AllStop War: WMD (WithMassDrawal)!
- Washington cannot even define what victory means. -
Public Law 107-40 (9/18/01)
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force...to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States...
(Pres. Obama 12/1/09 - 'an authorization that continues to this day').
Define victory? Preventing future terrorism!
And that's DAFT, the Defense against Future Terrorism.
- The best thing we can do for our soldiers is to get them out of the Afghan hell hole -
I'll say that the best thing would be to get them out of all the hell holes, not just one theater of the absurd war.
The American People must end this war, by ending the insane law that caused it. At least, can we mention it in public?
The Tonkin Gulf resolution was ignored and the 'Vietnam' conflict cost 58,000 US and millions of other deaths before it could be ended.
Stop ignoring the DAFT law. It is the mechanism that drives this insanity.
- Real peace talks are the answer-
Yes, by all means.
That might solve the war against al-Qaeda in AfPak.
Then we can move on to end the other wars against al-Qaeda - in Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, etc.
Why not end them all at once? Repeal Public Law 107-40.
Every country deals with future terrorism but only America declared war against it.
That's DAFT.
Even if we end the 'war' in Afghanistan against al-Qaeda, how do we avoid more 'wars' against al-Qaeda?
Wherever 'al-Qaeda' is found, manufactured or imagined, that's where the President can send US troops/weaponry (Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Nigeria?, Congo?)
This won't stop just because the US leaves AfPak (if ever).
'Pres. Obama 12/1/09 - 'an authorization that continues to this day'.
The President has the duty to wield US force to prevent future terrorism.
Anywhere, anytime, forever.
Running from Afghanistan won't change that. We need real change.
America needs to know that this is DAFT.
US can either change its evil ways . . . or it goes down as a result of its own stupidity.
Either way, I win.
'Pres. Obama 12/1/09 - 'an authorization that continues to this day'.
I suggest that we end this insane authorization.
In how many countries will President Petraeus* find future terrorists?
How many more 'wars' against 'al-Qaeda' do you want?
And Progressives will continue to shout "We'll stop them one at a time, alphabetically!"
* or President Palin.
I predict Petreus will run fo a NY senate seat in 2012, and run for President in 2016. He is too smart to recommend Palin as a running-mate.
The Taliban were called freedom fighters by Ronnie Raygun, because they were our thugs then, but now that they are not our thugs these same people are demonized as al Qaida and the average American sheeple believes it! My wifes nephew is fighting in Afghanistan for what he believes is altruistic purposes, like so many other young men. All I can say is what a shame that America uses these brave soldiers who are willing to die for their country, for nefarious ends!
It is curious to note that Soviets, recalling the Cold War, remark that they went down competing with another SuperPower.
Future histories of the US will recall that the US lost it's SuperPower status by competing with goat herders.
Duh.
Obama's biggest blunder is to conflate his war in Afghanistan with "national security". Actually that war is doing more to undermine national security.
which is why I know it as notional security.
You're right, technically, but in a larger context it's still a blunder-- economically, politically, international relationally, and indeed, even on national security or terrorism. The war is a blunder, the pretext for war is a blunder, and the lying about it is a blunder.
0 knows but lies: far better to be guilty of political miscalculation than hundreds and thousands of coldblooded and considered murders.
How long were the Israelis prosecuting Nazis?
0bama has committed enough capital crimes already to roll a small village of heads from the guillotine (and no, I'm not asking to re-institute it).
Again, never forget why we're there: The TAPI pipeline. Sen. Feingold was perplexed on the Sunday talk-shows following Obomber's escalation announcement. Why were the troops being sent to Afghanistan's south if the point was to engage Al Qaeda remnants on the (northeast) Pakistan border? Well, the answer is, that's where the pipeline is going. 30,000 American nose-guards to protect Unocal's pipeline. The former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, who quit in disgust, said he'd seen the documents proving it, although ample corroborating evidence lies all over in public view. The forces that control America's 2 major parties (MIC, Banksters, corporate CEO's, oil/coal industry) are so vicious and uncompromising that most of us are emotionally incapable of comprehending the situation we find ourselves in.
How do you suppose the dynamic would change if, say, the Obama admin came out and said we're expanding operations in Afghanistan to secure pipeline routes and prevent the Chinese from getting a foothold in the area?
Would the Congress and the people go along with that? Would the armed forces go along with that? What would the international repercussions be?
Is there a serpent encircling the earth, squeezing it to death? Is this what we are seeing?
Every square inch of the earth is battleground. War is permanent. The enemy is eternal.
We are approaching, thus, thermonuclear holocaust and the total obliteration of human life on this planet.
"A conference was held in London last Thursday to raise tens of millions of dollars to try to bribe lower level Taliban to co-operate with the western occupation and/or lay down its arms."
So CHEAP!! Tens of MILLION to get co-operation for something they have already spent 2 TRILLION on. If I were the Taleban, I would be negotiation for a fixed percentage of the value of the oil that flows through the piplines. It has to be a written legal contract - the USA does not normally honor verbal promises that were made in the past.
the USA rarely honours any kind of promise, verbal or written - ask the Red Man - unless it's a threat.
Greg Mortenson, author of "Three Cups of Tea" is saying the same thing. Even General Stanley McChristal has conceded that America cannot win the war militarily. Interestingly, the General met with Mortenson, who is in Afghanistan building schools for girls (you educate a boy and you educate an individual, you educate a girl and you educate a community) and sought advice from him. Of course, the military industrial complex, along with the corporate driven presstitutes will have nothing of it since they are enjoying the financial windfall of perpetual war while dishonest Republicans and Democrats wrap themselves around the flag and howl patriotism all the while condemning those who challenge their baldfaced and deceitful lies.
"you educate a boy and you educate an individual, you educate a girl and you educate a community"
Everyone deserves an education regardless of sex.
"The west can’t “win” in Afghanistan. In fact, Washington cannot even define what victory means. The intelligent, straight-talking American ambassador to Kabul, former general Karl Eikenberry, as well as VP Joe Biden insist it’s time to start peace talks. We should heed their sensible advice."
Exactly right. And has been all along.
We tried the Pentagon plan. It failed. Miserably.
Now let's see if a smarter approach is possible (considering the buildup of bad blood, negotiation will be tough).
Glad to see that Biden is finally getting heard.
Afghanistan is a toll road between east and west. The poor bas+ards that live there have very little natural resources to live on. They have always been a corridor for trade and they have always lived by collecting the tolls. When some arrogant power tries to blow up the toll booths and shoot the toll collectors, the rest of the Afghan people rise to defend. The Taliban AND the warlords would be fine with having a pipeline run through their country IF the owners of the pipeline would agree to pay the toll. H3ll, they'll provide security for it if it's the source of local sustenance (Actually, Clinton was on the verge of a $40Million down payment to the Taliban that was ostensibly for their help in reducing the flow of Opium but was more likely the opening tranch of security contracts. 9?11 disrupted that.).
The whole problem has been our insistance that this pipeline be built through their land without compensation, that we will maintain security for it against the local population. Just plain stupid.
Pay the toll.
I do not know what Mr. Margolis has been drinking but his thesis of "Winning a war with talks" is arrant nonsense in the case of Afghanistan. What began as a sort of illegal police action to capture the evil spirits of 9/11 was soon illegally enlarged by us into a war. When one loses a war one either surrenders or withdraws. Talking is only done to achieve an armistice. The Taliban knows that. Their demand is: "leave now, then we may talk". Good luck Mr. Margolis.