State Dept. 'Terror' Label Would Undermine Afghan Peace Talks

The majority of Americans want the Obama Administration to establish a
timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, CBS
Newsreports.
54% think the U.S. should set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.
troops from Afghanistan, with 41% opposed. Among Democrats, 73% think
the U.S. should set a timetable, with 21% opposed; among independents,
54% support a withdrawal timetable, with 40% opposed; among
Republicans, 32% support a withdrawal timetable, with 66% opposed.

Two weeks ago today, Members of the House of Representatives were
polled on a similar proposition, when the House voted on an
amendment introduced by Rep. Jim McGovern [D-MA], Rep. David Obey
[D-WI], and Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC] that would have required the
President to establish a timetable for the redeployment of U.S.
military forces in Afghanistan. That amendment failed, with 153
Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, voting yes, and 98
Democrats voting no; while 9 Republicans voted yes and 162 Republicans
voted no. So in the McGovern-Obey-Jones "poll," Democrats in the House
were 60%-38% in favor of a withdrawal timetable, while House
Republicans were 91%-5% against.

If Democratic and Republican voters in the CBS poll had been
allowed to stand in for Democrats and Republicans in the House two
weeks ago (ignoring independents, also pro-timetable), the McGovern
amendment would have passed 243-171, with 186 Democrats and 57
Republicans voting yes, and 54 Democrats and 117 Republicans voting
no.

The gap between 162 yes votes and 243 yes votes is a measure of the
gap between the House and public opinion - 81 votes. For a majority of
the House to demand a timetable for withdrawal would not require
eliminating that entire gap, but only about half of it. It is likely
that public support for a withdrawal timetable will increase, as the
war drags on and more Americans are killed without any noticeable
change in the situation on the ground - and as the federal government
continues to fail to boost the economy and reduce unemployment. But
even compared to the state of public opinion today, it would only
require the House to cut its failure to represent public opinion in
half in order to muster a majority for a withdrawal timetable. And as
the fall Congressional elections approach, it is likely that the House
will move in the direction of public opinion.

But some people in the Administration are pushing in the wrong
direction, lobbying for steps that would not only undermine
establishing a timetable for withdrawal, but would undermine the
"serious drawdown" which we were promised would begin in the summer of
2011.

General David Petraeus is pushing to have the Haqqani network, a key
component of the Afghan Taliban, designated by the State Department as
a terrorist group, "a move that could complicate an eventual Afghan
political settlement with the Taliban and aggravate political tensions
in the region," the New York Timesreports.

This move would directly undermine the policy in support of
negotiations with the Afghan Taliban that the Administration has
claimed that it is pursuing. Newsweekreported
on July 4:

Washington is eager to make [talks with senior Taliban
leaders] happen - perhaps more eager than most Americans realize.
"There was a major policy shift that went completely unreported in the
last three months," a senior administration official tells
Newsweek... "We're going to support Afghan-led reconciliation
[with the Taliban]." U.S. officials have quietly dropped the Bush
administration's resistance to talks with senior Taliban and are doing
whatever they can to help Karzai open talks with the insurgents,
although they still say any Taliban willing to negotiate must renounce
violence, reject Al Qaeda, and accept the Afghan Constitution. (Some
observers predict that those preconditions may eventually be fudged
into goals.)

A State Department designation of the Haqqani network as "terrorist"
would totally contradict the claim that we are supporting "Afghan-led
reconciliation," because if reconciliation is "Afghan-led," then the
Afghans get to decide who they will parley with. It's one thing to say
that the U.S. is going to have a say in any eventual agreement - of
course it will, a big say. It's another thing to say that meaningful
Afghan government talks with a key component of the Afghan Taliban are
off the table, which is the implication that many would draw and try
to enforce as a result of a State Department designation of the
Haqqani network as a terror group.

Such a designation would be hard to undo politically: look at what a
political ordeal it has been to try to remove former Taliban officials
from the United Nations blacklist, even people who have clearly
reconciled with the Afghan government and are clearly not involved in
any kind of terrorism.

Vice-President Biden told
Newsweek we could "bet" on "a whole lot" of troops moving
out of Afghanistan in July 2011, and Speaker Pelosi has told
the Huffington Post she expects "a serious drawdown" to
begin in the summer of 2011.

But it's hard to imagine that by July 2011, there is going to be any
kind of stability in Afghanistan or meaningful political framework for
resolution without dealing with the Haqqani network, and it's hard to
imagine that efforts to confront the Haqqani network militarily are
going to make any significant difference by July 2011. So, a State
Department designation of the Haqqani network as "terrorist" would
constitute a "backdoor escalation": it would deepen the confrontation,
in a way that would make it more difficult politically to carry out a
significant drawdown beginning in July 2011. Any State Department move
to make such a designation should therefore be preceded by as much
debate in Washington as any effort to explicitly throw away the
promised July 2011 drawdown would be, because undermining the July
2011 "serious drawdown" is a likely impact of such a move.