Taliban not the Enemy: Biden - Taliban Confirm Office in Qatar

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

And here is a view from the "Right Wing' of US opinion:

Obama punting away victory in Afghanistan?

By Jennifer Rubin

Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden caused a stir. In remarks to the Daily Beast’s Leslie Gelb, he declared: “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens U.S. interests. If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us.” The White House tried to “clarify” in this exchange between ABC’s Jake Tapper and spokesman Jay Carney:

Well that settles that.

Mitt Romney’s campaign blasted the administration with this statement: “If Vice President Biden is to be believed, both he and President Obama think the Taliban ‘is not our enemy.’ This statement is bizarre, factually wrong, and an outrageous affront to our troops carrying out the fight in Afghanistan. The Taliban harbored the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on September 11th. The Taliban continues to wage war against us and our allies, a conflict in which we have lost over 1,800 troops. The Taliban receives arms and training from Iran. And the Taliban seeks to reinstate a tyrannical government that violently rejects basic notions of human rights and oppresses minorities. The Taliban is clearly a bitter enemy of the United States. Vice President Biden’s statement to the contrary calls into question the White House’s leadership in Afghanistan – or lack of it. The statement is typical of the Obama administration’s foreign policy of appeasement, which sends a weak signal to our enemies around the world and undermines our standing abroad. Both the President and the Vice President must immediately explain themselves.”

But it seems apparent what the administration is up to. As a conservative analyst critical of the administration put it, “If you have decided to quit Afghanistan, which the administration probably has, then all that is left is to negotiate the terms of surrender.” Or to make the excuse that the people with whom you are negotiating are not your enemies.

The distinction that the administration is trying to make, however, is not factually accurate. Jeffrey Dressler of the Institute for the Study of War e-mails me: “There is no question that some insurgents have been willing to give up the fight, but there have been no visible indicators that the senior echelon is amenable to a deal. The notion of confidence-building measures is common in Pashtun society but the Taliban have not been the most trustworthy and honest dealmakers in the past.” He adds: “Furthermore, releasing hardened fighters with Gitmo credentials could very easily reenergize a base that is desperately looking for leadership; We have seen this is the past with Taliban and al-Qaeda figures who have been released. Case in point, look at Mullah Zakir, a former Gitmo inmate who was released and is now rumored to be heading military operations for the Taliban.”

Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the Weekly Standard, concurs that offering to release Gitmo detainees as part of a larger negotiation with the Taliban is foolhardy:

The Obama administration is still pursuing negotiations with the Taliban, even if it doubts a viable negotiating partner sits across the table. And, as part of this ad hoc diplomatic effort, the administration is considering the transfer of Taliban members held at Guantanamo back to Afghanistan. . . .

Even the State Department, which is leading this effort, is not especially confident. Unnamed “senior officials” place “the odds of brokering a successful agreement at only around 30 percent.” That low probability of success is actually a rather high guesstimate coming from the most dovish corridor of the U.S. government.

“There’s a very real likelihood that these guys aren’t serious ... which is why are continuing to prosecute all of the lines of effort here,” one senior U.S. official told Reuters. Imagining that “these guys” – whoever they may be – aren’t serious is rather easy.

Into this amateur effort at statecraft the Obama administration has now injected the possibility that it will acquiesce to Taliban demands to free some detainees from Guantanamo. Reuters reports: “It is not known which ones might be transferred, nor what assurances the White House has that the Karzai government would keep them in its custody.”​

It’s become clear that the president, as was true in Iraq, is more interested in helping his reelection prospects than in realistically assessing the prospects for success and supporting the military in accomplishing that end. He is showing himself and the United States to be feckless, a message that is read not only by the Taliban and al-Qaeda but also Iran.

Whether he wins a second term or not, Obama risks acquiring the distinction of the president who had within his grasp, but fumbled, the chance for lasting victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

By Jennifer Rubin | 09:45 AM ET, 12/20/2011

Obama punting away victory in Afghanistan? - Right Turn - The Washington Post

 

[Pioneerfirst]

Taliban are not our enemy;USA
Taliban are have strong hold in Pakistan;USA

Hence proved, Taliban and USA both are not our friends so we should not support any of them in WOT.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Another important point to consider here is that the oft repeated canard of 'hunting with the hounds and running with the hares' used to disparage Pakistan, pretty much stands debunked.

Even if Pakistan was 'running with the hares ..' (the hare being the Afghan Taliban), well, since they are 'not the enemy of the US' and were 'not the main target/reason for the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan', then Pakistan has done nothing wrong.

 

[Doctor09]

First suck Pakistan into this mess, make them enemy against Talibs and now USA make up with Talibs and leave Pakistan behind in mess!!

this is what USA always do with its allies . but we know how to tackle this and US will remember this

 

[salmakh84]

Haha.. now where is that American BOT from CES etc who lectures us that taliban are inhumane thugs who should be eliminated? Hypocrates...

America knows it cannot defeat the Mujahideen. Now its trying (as usual) to create rifts.. inshallah the mujahideen wont fall for it. America and Its Allies will be taught a lesson inshallah!

 

[FireFighter]

Biden is absolutely right, word for word. When it comes to American foreign policy, US has no friends or enemies, only expendables that cater to their interests and then disposed off...

This is part of fight-talk-build BS us has been saying lately. So expect to see lots of flip flop on US double talk deceptions.

True. Coercive diplomatic maneuvers...as Clinton puts it "Fight, Fight, and Talk"

This wasn't necessary! he is a good moderate man among Taliban.

I don't know how authentic is this news, can't say anything but we should bear the fact that Taliban were never the enemy of USA.

Taliban have never been traditional enemies of US true but they were in agony when the US left them high and dry after the Soviet's collapse.

There are some reports that the upper echelon in Taliban wanted to trap the US into a guerrila warfare inside AFG after the soviet's collapse, which they did... not sure over what reason..I heard some reporter saying it on some Pak tv channel

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

who is US friend? The government in Kabul is getting $$$ and support from US to keep their enemies (Taliban) at the bay so that is the only reason they like them , if you look at the history They were near to Iran and Russia.
Taliban are US friends if Afghanistan goes to Russia or Iran again after 2014

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Secret US, Taliban talks reach turning point​

By Reuters
Published: December 19, 2011


WASHINGTON: After 10 months of secret dialogue with Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents, senior US officials say the talks have reached a critical juncture and they will soon know whether a breakthrough is possible, leading to peace talks whose ultimate goal is to end the Afghan war.

As part of the accelerating, high-stakes diplomacy, Reuters has learned, the United States is considering the transfer of an unspecified number of Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay military prison into Afghan government custody.

It has asked representatives of the Taliban to match that confidence-building measure with some of their own. Those could include a denunciation of international terrorism and a public willingness to enter formal political talks with the government headed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The officials acknowledged that the Afghanistan diplomacy, which has reached a delicate stage in recent weeks, remains a long shot. Among the complications: US troops are drawing down and will be mostly gone by the end of 2014, potentially reducing the incentive for the Taliban to negotiate.

Still, the senior officials, all of whom insisted on anonymity to share new details of the mostly secret effort, suggested it has been a much larger piece of President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy than is publicly known.

US officials have held about half a dozen meetings with their insurgent contacts, mostly in Germany and Doha with representatives of Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban’s Quetta Shura, the officials said.

The stakes in the diplomatic effort could not be higher.

Failure would likely condemn Afghanistan to continued conflict, perhaps even civil war, after Nato troops finish turning security over to Karzai’s weak government by the end of 2014.

Success would mean a political end to the war and the possibility that parts of the Taliban – some hardliners seem likely to reject the talks – could be reconciled.

The effort is now at a pivot point.

“We imagine that we’re on the edge of passing into the next phase. Which is actually deciding that we’ve got a viable channel and being in a position to deliver” on mutual confidence-building measures, said a senior US official.

While some US-Taliban contacts have been previously reported, the extent of the underlying diplomacy and the possible prisoner transfer have not been made public until now.

There are slightly fewer that 20 Afghan citizens at Guantanamo, according to various accountings. It is not known which ones might be transferred, nor what assurances the White House has that the Karzai government would keep them in its custody.

Guantanamo detainees have been released to foreign governments – and sometimes set free by them – before. But the transfer as part of a diplomatic negotiation appears unprecedented.
The reconciliation effort, which has already faced setbacks including a supposed Taliban envoy who turned out to be an imposter, faces hurdles on multiple fronts, the US officials acknowledged.

They include splits within the Taliban; suspicion from Karzai and his advisers; and Pakistan’s insistence on playing a major, even dominating, role in Afghanistan’s future.
Obama will likely face criticism, including from Republican presidential candidates, for dealing with an insurgent group that has killed US soldiers and advocates a strict Islamic form of government.

But US officials say that the Afghan war, like others before it, will ultimately end in a negotiated settlement.

“The challenges are enormous,” a second senior US official acknowledged. “But if you’re where we are … you can’t not try.

You have to find out what’s out there.”

Next steps?

If the effort advances, one of the next steps would be more public, unequivocal US support for establishing a Taliban office outside of Afghanistan.

US officials said they have told the Taliban they must not use that office for fundraising, propaganda or constructing a shadow government, but only to facilitate future negotiations that could eventually set the stage for the Taliban to reenter Afghan governance.

On Sunday, a senior member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council said the Taliban had indicated it was willing to open an office in an Islamic country.

But underscoring the fragile nature of the multi-sided diplomacy, Karzai last week announced he was recalling Afghanistan’s ambassador to Qatar, after reports that nation was readying the opening of the Taliban office. Afghan officials complained they were left out of the loop.

On a possible transfer of Taliban prisoners long held at Guantanamo, US officials stressed the move would be a ‘national decision’ made in consultation with the US Congress.

Obama is expected to soon sign into law the 2011 defense authorization bill, including changes that would broaden the military’s power over terror detainees and require the Pentagon to certify in most cases that certain security conditions will be met before Guantanamo prisoners can be sent home.

Ten years after the repressive Taliban government was toppled, a hoped-for political resolution has become central to US strategy to end a war that has killed nearly 3,000 foreign troops and cost the Pentagon alone $330 billion.

While Obama’s decision to deploy an extra 30,000 troops in 2009-10 helped push the Taliban out of much of its southern heartland, the war is far from over. Militants remain able to slip in and out of lawless areas of Pakistan, where the Taliban’s senior leadership is located.

Bold attacks from the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network have undermined the narrative of improving security and raised questions about how well an inexperienced Afghan military will be able to cope when foreign troops go home.

In that uncertain context, officials say that initial contacts with insurgent representatives since US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly embraced a diplomatic strategy in a Feb. 18, 2011, speech have centered on establishing whether the Taliban was open to reconciliation, despite its pledge to continue its ‘sacred jihad’ against Nato and US soldiers.

“The question has been to the Taliban, ‘You have got a choice to make. Life’s moving on,” the second US official said. “There’s a substantial military campaign out there that will continue to do you substantial damage … Are you prepared to go forward with some kind of reconciliation process?”

US officials have met with Tayeb Agha, who was a secretary to Mullah Omar, and they have held one meeting arranged by Pakistan with Ibrahim Haqqani, a brother of the Haqqani network’s founder. They have not shut the door to further meetings with the Haqqani group, which is blamed for a brazen attack this fall on the US embassy in Kabul and which US officials link closely to Pakistan’s intelligence agency.

US officials say they have kept Karzai informed of the process and have met with him before and after each encounter, but they declined to confirm whether representatives of his government are present at those meetings.

Evolving taliban position?

Officials now see themselves on the verge of reaching a second phase in the peace process that, if successful, would clinch the confidence-building measures and allow them to move to a third stage in which the Afghan government and the Taliban would sit down in talks facilitated by the United States.

“That’s why it’s especially delicate — because if we don’t deliver the second phase, we don’t get to the pay-dirt,” the first senior US official said.

Senior administration officials say that measures must be implemented, not merely agreed to, before full-fledged political talks can begin. The sequence of such measures has not been determined, and they will ultimately be announced by Afghans, they say.

Underlying the efforts of US negotiators are fundamental questions about whether – and why – the Taliban would want to strike a deal with the Western-backed Karzai government.

US officials stress that the ‘end conditions’ they want the Taliban to embrace – renouncing violence, breaking with al Qaeda, and respecting the Afghan constitution – are not preconditions to starting talks.

Encouraging trends on the Afghan battlefield – declining militant attacks and a thinning of the Taliban’s mid-level leadership – are one reason why US officials believe the Taliban may be more likely now to engage in substantive talks.

They also cite what they see as an overlooked, subtle shift in the Taliban’s position, based in part on statements this year from Mullah Omar that, despite fiery rhetoric, indicate some openness to talks. They also condemn civilian deaths and advocate development of Afghanistan’s economy.

In July, the Taliban reiterated its long-standing position of rejecting talks as long as foreign troops remain. In October, a senior Haqqani commander said the United States was insincere about peace.

But US officials say the Taliban no longer wants to be the global pariah it was in the 1990s. Some elements have suggested flexibility on issues of priority for the West, such as protecting rights for women and girls.

“That’s one of the reasons why we think this is serious,” a third senior US official said.

Risky strategy

Yet as it moves ahead the peace initiative is fraught with challenge.

At least one purported insurgent representative has turned out to be a fraud, highlighting the difficulty of vetting potential brokers in the shadowy world of the militants.

And it as dealt a major blow in September when former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, who headed Karzai’s peace efforts, was assassinated in an attack Afghanistan said originated in neighboring Pakistan.

Since then, Karzai has been more ambivalent, ruling out an early resumption in talks. He said Afghanistan would talk only to Pakistan ‘until we have an address for the Taliban.’

The dust-up over the unofficial Taliban office in Qatar, with a spokesman for Karzai stressing that Afghanistan must lead peace negotiations to end the war, suggests tensions in the US and Afghan approaches to the peace process.

Speaking in an interview with CNN aired on Sunday, Karzai counseled caution in making sure that Taliban interlocutors are authentic — and authentically seeking peace. The Rabbani killing, he said, “brought us in a shock to the recognition that we were actually talking to nobody.”

Critics of Obama’s peace initiative are deeply skeptical of the Taliban’s willingness to negotiate given that the West’s intent to pull out most troops after 2014 would give insurgents a chance to reclaim lost territory or nudge the weak Kabul government toward collapse.

While the United States is expected to keep a modest military presence in Afghanistan beyond then, all of Obama’s ‘surge’ troops will be home by next fall and the administration – looking to refocus on domestic priorities — is already exploring further reductions.

Another reason to be circumspect is the potential spoiler role of Pakistan, which has so far resisted US pressure to crack down on militants fueling violence in Afghanistan.

Such considerations make for a divisive initiative within the Obama administration. Few officials describe themselves as optimists about the peace initiative; at the State Department, formally leading the talks, senior officials see the odds of brokering a successful agreement at only around 30 percent.

“There’s a very real likelihood that these guys aren’t serious … which is why are continuing to prosecute all of the lines of effort here,” the third senior US official said.

While Nato commanders promise they will keep up pressure on militants as the troop force shrinks, they are facing a tenacious insurgency in eastern Afghanistan that may prove even more challenging than the south.

Still, with Obama committed to withdrawing from Afghanistan, as the United States did last week from Iraq, the administration has few alternatives but to pursue what may well prove to be a quixotic quest for a deal.

“Wars end, and the end of wars have political consequences,” the second official said. “You can either try to shape those, or someone does it to you.”

Secret US, Taliban talks reach turning point – The Express Tribune

==========

So, was Pakistan involved in the talks this time?

The alleged 'progress' in the talks would explain the statement by Biden at this point in time ...

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Secret US, Taliban talks reach turning point​

By Reuters
Published: December 19, 2011


WASHINGTON: After 10 months of secret dialogue with Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents, senior US officials say the talks have reached a critical juncture and they will soon know whether a breakthrough is possible, leading to peace talks whose ultimate goal is to end the Afghan war.

As part of the accelerating, high-stakes diplomacy, Reuters has learned, the United States is considering the transfer of an unspecified number of Taliban prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay military prison into Afghan government custody.

It has asked representatives of the Taliban to match that confidence-building measure with some of their own. Those could include a denunciation of international terrorism and a public willingness to enter formal political talks with the government headed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The officials acknowledged that the Afghanistan diplomacy, which has reached a delicate stage in recent weeks, remains a long shot. Among the complications: US troops are drawing down and will be mostly gone by the end of 2014, potentially reducing the incentive for the Taliban to negotiate.

Still, the senior officials, all of whom insisted on anonymity to share new details of the mostly secret effort, suggested it has been a much larger piece of President Barack Obama’s Afghanistan policy than is publicly known.

US officials have held about half a dozen meetings with their insurgent contacts, mostly in Germany and Doha with representatives of Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban’s Quetta Shura, the officials said.

The stakes in the diplomatic effort could not be higher.

Failure would likely condemn Afghanistan to continued conflict, perhaps even civil war, after Nato troops finish turning security over to Karzai’s weak government by the end of 2014.

Success would mean a political end to the war and the possibility that parts of the Taliban – some hardliners seem likely to reject the talks – could be reconciled.

The effort is now at a pivot point.

“We imagine that we’re on the edge of passing into the next phase. Which is actually deciding that we’ve got a viable channel and being in a position to deliver” on mutual confidence-building measures, said a senior US official.

While some US-Taliban contacts have been previously reported, the extent of the underlying diplomacy and the possible prisoner transfer have not been made public until now.

There are slightly fewer that 20 Afghan citizens at Guantanamo, according to various accountings. It is not known which ones might be transferred, nor what assurances the White House has that the Karzai government would keep them in its custody.

Guantanamo detainees have been released to foreign governments – and sometimes set free by them – before. But the transfer as part of a diplomatic negotiation appears unprecedented.
The reconciliation effort, which has already faced setbacks including a supposed Taliban envoy who turned out to be an imposter, faces hurdles on multiple fronts, the US officials acknowledged.

They include splits within the Taliban; suspicion from Karzai and his advisers; and Pakistan’s insistence on playing a major, even dominating, role in Afghanistan’s future.
Obama will likely face criticism, including from Republican presidential candidates, for dealing with an insurgent group that has killed US soldiers and advocates a strict Islamic form of government.

But US officials say that the Afghan war, like others before it, will ultimately end in a negotiated settlement.

“The challenges are enormous,” a second senior US official acknowledged. “But if you’re where we are … you can’t not try.

You have to find out what’s out there.”

Next steps?

If the effort advances, one of the next steps would be more public, unequivocal US support for establishing a Taliban office outside of Afghanistan.

US officials said they have told the Taliban they must not use that office for fundraising, propaganda or constructing a shadow government, but only to facilitate future negotiations that could eventually set the stage for the Taliban to reenter Afghan governance.

On Sunday, a senior member of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council said the Taliban had indicated it was willing to open an office in an Islamic country.

But underscoring the fragile nature of the multi-sided diplomacy, Karzai last week announced he was recalling Afghanistan’s ambassador to Qatar, after reports that nation was readying the opening of the Taliban office. Afghan officials complained they were left out of the loop.

On a possible transfer of Taliban prisoners long held at Guantanamo, US officials stressed the move would be a ‘national decision’ made in consultation with the US Congress.

Obama is expected to soon sign into law the 2011 defense authorization bill, including changes that would broaden the military’s power over terror detainees and require the Pentagon to certify in most cases that certain security conditions will be met before Guantanamo prisoners can be sent home.

Ten years after the repressive Taliban government was toppled, a hoped-for political resolution has become central to US strategy to end a war that has killed nearly 3,000 foreign troops and cost the Pentagon alone $330 billion.

While Obama’s decision to deploy an extra 30,000 troops in 2009-10 helped push the Taliban out of much of its southern heartland, the war is far from over. Militants remain able to slip in and out of lawless areas of Pakistan, where the Taliban’s senior leadership is located.

Bold attacks from the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network have undermined the narrative of improving security and raised questions about how well an inexperienced Afghan military will be able to cope when foreign troops go home.

In that uncertain context, officials say that initial contacts with insurgent representatives since US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly embraced a diplomatic strategy in a Feb. 18, 2011, speech have centered on establishing whether the Taliban was open to reconciliation, despite its pledge to continue its ‘sacred jihad’ against Nato and US soldiers.

“The question has been to the Taliban, ‘You have got a choice to make. Life’s moving on,” the second US official said. “There’s a substantial military campaign out there that will continue to do you substantial damage … Are you prepared to go forward with some kind of reconciliation process?”

US officials have met with Tayeb Agha, who was a secretary to Mullah Omar, and they have held one meeting arranged by Pakistan with Ibrahim Haqqani, a brother of the Haqqani network’s founder. They have not shut the door to further meetings with the Haqqani group, which is blamed for a brazen attack this fall on the US embassy in Kabul and which US officials link closely to Pakistan’s intelligence agency.

US officials say they have kept Karzai informed of the process and have met with him before and after each encounter, but they declined to confirm whether representatives of his government are present at those meetings.

Evolving taliban position?

Officials now see themselves on the verge of reaching a second phase in the peace process that, if successful, would clinch the confidence-building measures and allow them to move to a third stage in which the Afghan government and the Taliban would sit down in talks facilitated by the United States.

“That’s why it’s especially delicate — because if we don’t deliver the second phase, we don’t get to the pay-dirt,” the first senior US official said.

Senior administration officials say that measures must be implemented, not merely agreed to, before full-fledged political talks can begin. The sequence of such measures has not been determined, and they will ultimately be announced by Afghans, they say.

Underlying the efforts of US negotiators are fundamental questions about whether – and why – the Taliban would want to strike a deal with the Western-backed Karzai government.

US officials stress that the ‘end conditions’ they want the Taliban to embrace – renouncing violence, breaking with al Qaeda, and respecting the Afghan constitution – are not preconditions to starting talks.

Encouraging trends on the Afghan battlefield – declining militant attacks and a thinning of the Taliban’s mid-level leadership – are one reason why US officials believe the Taliban may be more likely now to engage in substantive talks.

They also cite what they see as an overlooked, subtle shift in the Taliban’s position, based in part on statements this year from Mullah Omar that, despite fiery rhetoric, indicate some openness to talks. They also condemn civilian deaths and advocate development of Afghanistan’s economy.

In July, the Taliban reiterated its long-standing position of rejecting talks as long as foreign troops remain. In October, a senior Haqqani commander said the United States was insincere about peace.

But US officials say the Taliban no longer wants to be the global pariah it was in the 1990s. Some elements have suggested flexibility on issues of priority for the West, such as protecting rights for women and girls.

“That’s one of the reasons why we think this is serious,” a third senior US official said.

Risky strategy

Yet as it moves ahead the peace initiative is fraught with challenge.

At least one purported insurgent representative has turned out to be a fraud, highlighting the difficulty of vetting potential brokers in the shadowy world of the militants.

And it as dealt a major blow in September when former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani, who headed Karzai’s peace efforts, was assassinated in an attack Afghanistan said originated in neighboring Pakistan.

Since then, Karzai has been more ambivalent, ruling out an early resumption in talks. He said Afghanistan would talk only to Pakistan ‘until we have an address for the Taliban.’

The dust-up over the unofficial Taliban office in Qatar, with a spokesman for Karzai stressing that Afghanistan must lead peace negotiations to end the war, suggests tensions in the US and Afghan approaches to the peace process.

Speaking in an interview with CNN aired on Sunday, Karzai counseled caution in making sure that Taliban interlocutors are authentic — and authentically seeking peace. The Rabbani killing, he said, “brought us in a shock to the recognition that we were actually talking to nobody.”

Critics of Obama’s peace initiative are deeply skeptical of the Taliban’s willingness to negotiate given that the West’s intent to pull out most troops after 2014 would give insurgents a chance to reclaim lost territory or nudge the weak Kabul government toward collapse.

While the United States is expected to keep a modest military presence in Afghanistan beyond then, all of Obama’s ‘surge’ troops will be home by next fall and the administration – looking to refocus on domestic priorities — is already exploring further reductions.

Another reason to be circumspect is the potential spoiler role of Pakistan, which has so far resisted US pressure to crack down on militants fueling violence in Afghanistan.

Such considerations make for a divisive initiative within the Obama administration. Few officials describe themselves as optimists about the peace initiative; at the State Department, formally leading the talks, senior officials see the odds of brokering a successful agreement at only around 30 percent.

“There’s a very real likelihood that these guys aren’t serious … which is why are continuing to prosecute all of the lines of effort here,” the third senior US official said.

While Nato commanders promise they will keep up pressure on militants as the troop force shrinks, they are facing a tenacious insurgency in eastern Afghanistan that may prove even more challenging than the south.

Still, with Obama committed to withdrawing from Afghanistan, as the United States did last week from Iraq, the administration has few alternatives but to pursue what may well prove to be a quixotic quest for a deal.

“Wars end, and the end of wars have political consequences,” the second official said. “You can either try to shape those, or someone does it to you.”

Secret US, Taliban talks reach turning point – The Express Tribune

==========

So, was Pakistan involved in the talks this time?

The alleged 'progress' in the talks would explain the statement by Biden at this point in time ...

chief will it be safe for Pakistan IMO will it be safe for Pakistan IMO Pakistan should be in the negotiating table for the U.S dealing with taliban on a one on one basis i don't think its safe .

 

[Sugarcane]

http://www.defence.pk/forums/u-s-foreign-affairs/148118-taliban-claim-downing-us-chopper.html

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

chief will it be safe for Pakistan IMO Pakistan should be in the negotiating table for the U.S dealing with taliban on a one on one basis i don't think its safe .

I agree - I don't think the US can be trusted, so I hope that Pakistan is either involved directly, or has a handle on what is going on covertly.


And all the animosity with India aside, I wonder how much the alleged Indian refusal to tow the US lie in Afghanistan (deploy troops etc.) has helped push the US towards seriously considering a compromise in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

 

[lem34]

As I keep saying - the decision to invade and occupy Afghanistan was a horrible mistake and has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and losses of hundreds of billions of dollars for the nations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.


Hardly a month was given to investigate the 9/11 attacks and pursue diplomacy and negotiations with the Taliban in order to arrive at some compromise along the lines of that suggested by some Taliban leaders - OBL's trial in Afghanistan or some third country.

This war has been a criminal enterprise on the part of the US, and the hundreds of thousands of innocents dead as a result are the only 'legacy and achievement' that history should remember.

I heard that taleban offered to put Osama on trial with an inter-national group of judges, ie one from america, one saudi, one pakistani etc

---------- Post added at 08:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

I agree - I don't think the US can be trusted, so I hope that Pakistan is either involved directly, or has a handle on what is going on covertly.


And all the animosity with India aside, I wonder how much the alleged Indian refusal to tow the US lie in Afghanistan (deploy troops etc.) has helped push the US towards seriously considering a compromise in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

also I was surprised that indians were not vocal in their support of american proposals at turkey summit

 

[ajpirzada]

any taliban who is in contact with ISI is their enemy.. everyone else who is in their pocket is gud.
a$$O

 

[Abu Zolfiqar]

yeah, talk about an olive branch!

i guess this means they can no longer accuse us of ''duplicity'' or ''aiding terrorists'' since for the past year + --theyve not only had contact with the SAME people we have contact with; but even they are now admitting that the people who once harboured al qaeda/foreign terrorists are now not their enemy.


i think the US government will best serve its people (forget the rest of the world) once they do a national address and clarify their position and intention....the gap between what is said and what is DONE seems to be ever so wide. Pakistanis claim to feel disenfranchised and left in the dark at times, but seems at times that this isnt a problem exclusive to Pakistanis only.



is the NATO alliance ready to accept what we've been advising/telling them for years?


YOU CAN'T WIN MILITARILY IN AFGHANISTAN. Military means alone has not gotten them anywhere since 2001. Hell -- military means alone is not enough to tame parts of FATA which still are seeing insurgency-related problems.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

also I was surprised that indians were not vocal in their support of american proposals at turkey summit

Who said our military leadership has no sense of 'strategy' and functions on blind 'ghairat' alone .... (though there have been examples of that in the past ..)


One particular comment by the DG ISPR (Athar Abbas) from an interview a few years ago has always stuck with me - in response to a question about certain Pakistani policy initiatives at that time failing, he responded:

"States never run out of options ..."

Confidence? Flexibility in analyzing and implementing policies?