What's new

Taliban 'prepared to work with US on security in Afghanistan'

Sher Malang

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
2,800
Reaction score
-2
Country
Afghanistan
Location
Afghanistan
The Taliban is prepared to completely disown al-Qaeda, allow the US to retain several military bases in Afghanistan and agree a ceasefire deal to end its 11 year conflict with Nato, a major report released on Monday discloses.

The group, which was ousted by the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, is now willing to cooperate with the US on security and take part in peace negotiations in return for international political recognition, the study says.

The report was compiled by the respected Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) following interviews with four senior Taliban figures close to the organisation’s leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar. These included former government ministers, one of the group’s founding members and a Mujahideen commander.

It sets out a detailed path to a negotiated settlement for Afghanistan that could allow the majority of western troops to withdraw in 2014 without the country descending into renewed chaos.

According to the report, the Taliban representatives believe there is “no natural enmity” with the Americans, and that they would be prepared to accept a long-term US military presence in the country if it helped Afghan security.

Under the plan, five US military bases could operate in Kandahar, Herat, Jalalabad, Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul to help rebuild Afghanistan up to 2024. The Taliban figures expressed hope that military assistance would translate into economic assistance over time.


According to the paper, the group’s leadership and 'base’ deeply regret their past association with al-Qaeda and would obey a command to completely renounce the group once a ceasefire had been agreed.

The four Taliban representatives, who did not want to be named, said that while they could not speak for the more hardline military commission, Mullah Omar had broad control over all factions and he supported the plan.

However, they imposed several conditions on the deal. These would include rejecting the current Afghan constitution so that any ceasefire would not be considered a “surrender”, a refusal to negotiate with the “utterly corrupt” President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban being re-accepted into the international fold.

The four representatives also said that the US would have to guarantee not to launch any attacks on Pakistan or Iran from its Afghan bases, with the deal terminated if they did. America would also have to end drone strikes from the country.

They added, however, that the US would be free to attack Iran from the Persian Gulf.

“They all stated, in different words, that the Taliban now recognise their links to al-Qaeda before 9/11 were a mistake,” said the report that is due out on Monday, adding that the Taliban now considered al-Qaeda responsible for their ousting from power in 2001.

“The report shows that the outlook of the Taliban leadership has changed over the last three years,” explained Dr Rudra Chaudhuri, one of the report’s authors along with Michael Semple, Anatol Lieven and Theo Farrell. “There is an acceptability now that this conflict cannot be won and an outright victory is almost unforeseeable.

“They understand that the US military machine will stay on after 2014, and allowing bases to stay would be similar to those in Iraq — with clear red lines on what is and is not acceptable. They see the Americans as a safe bet.

“It will obviously be difficult for David Cameron to sell a deal with the Taliban when British troops are dying in Helmand. It will be equally difficult for the Taliban to sell negotiating with the so-called infidels. But a narrative is needed that is acceptable to both sides.”

Making reference to the Coalition and the political relationship between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, one of the Taliban members dismissed rumours of division within the Quetta Shura.

The leader responsible for military affairs, Qayum Zakir, challenged the group’s coalition from within, but only to a “tolerable extent”.

“We think of Zakir as Nick Clegg,” he said.

Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy leader of Hamid Karzai’s High Peace Council and himself a former Taliban envoy, confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that some Taliban figures had discussed negotiating a “package”, including a ceasefire, to try and find a settlement to the conflict.

However they rejected current demands that they lay down their weapons and abide by the constitution, saying it would be tantamount to a surrender. Mr Karzai has said in the past that acceptance of the constitution was not negotiable.

Concessions to the Taliban are likely to face deep opposition from the influential remanants of the Northern Alliance who fought the Taliban regime throughout the 1990s.

America and its allies have made concerted efforts in the past 18 months to get an embryonic peace process underway, but talks have failed to materialise.

Taliban negotiators in Qatar earlier this year cancelled plans to open a political office to foster peace contacts, saying America had broken a promise to release five of their leaders from Guantanamo Bay prison.

Violence in Afghanistan has in the meantime continued unabated and many in the country doubt the insurgents’ sincerity.

The United Nations estimates 1,145 civilians died in the first six months of the year, about four fifths killed by insurgent bombings or shootings. The White House refused to comment on the report.


Source: Taliban 'prepared to work with US on security in Afghanistan' - Telegraph
 
Highly doubt that taliban will work with US...NO chance of this happening. Not in next hundred years. US /Nato killed hundreds of there family and children ,they would prefer to die than to work with US. Peace is not gonna come in AFG.
If Taliban wanted to work with US that would have happened 11 years ago...Just bull sheet news every where.
 
Is Pakistan Losing The Plot In Afghanistan?

What would happen to Pakistan’s so called desire for ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan? Things don’t look so rosy since the Afghan Taliban are now deciding to work with the U.S. instead, for the security of Afghanistan after the withdrawal in 2014.

So where does that leave Pakistan? Their whole game plan was to install a 'pliable' government in Afghanistan with the help of the Haqqanis and allied groups so that they could have sufficient leverage to dictate terms including policy issues related to security as well as access to energy sources from the CIS Republics through Afghanistan.

But if the Taliban prefer to break bread with the US instead, Pakistan may be left out in the cold. The desired 'strategic depth' doctrine will come a cropper.

What next for Pakistan? But there's one thing Pakistan should be happy about. The dollars will continue flowing as the Americans will need to stick with the logistics supply routes through Pakistan. The National Logistics Cell (NLC) run by the Army would still be rubbing their hands in glee! Something is better than nothing, what? :smokin:
 
ahhah **** BUllshit of Americans... just want to shift WAR into Pakistan and need permanent terrorist bases in Afghanistan.... now showing the world... LOOK now Talibans with us and we will go for war against haqqani LOL sorry on those ********* who are actually believe on this nonsense!

Talibans *** Americans in Afghanistan simple they don't want any kuta bila superpower in A-Stan!!
 
if true thats good...

Is Pakistan Losing The Plot In Afghanistan?

What would happen to Pakistan’s so called desire for ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan? Things don’t look so rosy since the Afghan Taliban are now deciding to work with the U.S. instead, for the security of Afghanistan after the withdrawal in 2014.

So where does that leave Pakistan? Their whole game plan was to install a 'pliable' government in Afghanistan with the help of the Haqqanis and allied groups so that they could have sufficient leverage to dictate terms including policy issues related to security as well as access to energy sources from the CIS Republics through Afghanistan.

But if the Taliban prefer to break bread with the US instead, Pakistan may be left out in the cold. The desired 'strategic depth' doctrine will come a cropper.

What next for Pakistan? But there's one thing Pakistan should be happy about. The dollars will continue flowing as the Americans will need to stick with the logistics supply routes through Pakistan. The National Logistics Cell (NLC) run by the Army would still be rubbing their hands in glee! Something is better than nothing, what? :smokin:

Do you know behind door secrets? Sit and watch then worry about Pakistan.
 
So this means we got American Talibans in Afghanistan now, backed by US military. I guess now US shold admit that openly that AlCiaDa/alqaida is also backed by them to attain political gains around the world..........damn!!!!.......:lol:
 
Is Pakistan Losing The Plot In Afghanistan?

What would happen to Pakistan’s so called desire for ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan? Things don’t look so rosy since the Afghan Taliban are now deciding to work with the U.S. instead, for the security of Afghanistan after the withdrawal in 2014.

So where does that leave Pakistan? Their whole game plan was to install a 'pliable' government in Afghanistan with the help of the Haqqanis and allied groups so that they could have sufficient leverage to dictate terms including policy issues related to security as well as access to energy sources from the CIS Republics through Afghanistan.

But if the Taliban prefer to break bread with the US instead, Pakistan may be left out in the cold. The desired 'strategic depth' doctrine will come a cropper.

What next for Pakistan? But there's one thing Pakistan should be happy about. The dollars will continue flowing as the Americans will need to stick with the logistics supply routes through Pakistan. The National Logistics Cell (NLC) run by the Army would still be rubbing their hands in glee! Something is better than nothing, what? :smokin:

Any peace between US and Taliban will be facilitated by Pakistan. Why do you think Karzai is always asking for Pakistan to help in negotiations? Plus if this report is true (which I doubt) that would mean they are accepting Taliban into power and removing the current constitution of Afghanistan?!?! Sounds suspect at best.
 
Any peace between US and Taliban will be facilitated by Pakistan. Why do you think Karzai is always asking for Pakistan to help in negotiations? Plus if this report is true (which I doubt) that would mean they are accepting Taliban into power and removing the current constitution of Afghanistan?!?! Sounds suspect at best.

Kinda agree about the falseness, probably some factions of the Taliban could have sent some feelers in those lines to test the reaction. Or it could be a ploy to divide the Taliban faction into pro and anti.
 
Kinda agree about the falseness, probably some factions of the Taliban could have sent some feelers in those lines to test the reaction. Or it could be a ploy to divide the Taliban faction into pro and anti.

Hey, long time Illusion. :D

Yes but also there is the fact that US did not outright deny it so maybe they are just feeling each other out.
 
Hey, long time Illusion. :D

Yes but also there is the fact that US did not outright deny it so maybe they are just feeling each other out.


On and off, how about you? seen very few posts from you too.
There was news that the taliban will be given three provinces in Afg to run over :D, the move is most probably to keep them at bay so that US can achieve it's strategic goals in Afg.
 
On and off, how about you? seen very few posts from you too.
There was news that the taliban will be given three provinces in Afg to run over :D, the move is most probably to keep them at bay so that US can achieve it's strategic goals in Afg.

Same been busy college and all and that news was a lie and was denied immediately by US government.
 
The Taliban may be prepared to renounce terrorism and sever links with al Qaeda, accept a power sharing role in a new Afghan government and even tolerate American bases in their country, according to a new report.
A panel of four experts from the Royal United Services Institute interviewed four senior figures - each one part of the "pragmatic" or "moderate" part of the Islamist movement - at a secret location in the Arabian Gulf.
The four figures, among them two former Taliban ministers, a Mujahideen commander and a well-connected negotiator, surprised the experts by insisting that they had no enmity towards the United States.
They also held out the prospect that the Taliban could even join efforts to rid Afghanistan of al Qaeda if the movement was part of a national government.
Michael Semple, one of the authors of the report who has lead negotiations with elements of the Taliban in the past, said: "This derives from the understanding that there is not going to be a military solution in Afghanistan, that the war being fought is unwinnable, and from a strong sense among some of the 40-something Taliban leadership that they don’t want the country to disintegrate into civil war when foreign forces leave the country in 2014."
The report said: "The Taliban leadership and base deeply regret their past association with al Qaeda."
The United States and the Afghan government have made negotiations with the Taliban conditional on recognition of the Afghan constitution and of Mohammed Karzai's position as the country’s president.
The Taliban sources who spoke with Mr Semple, Professor Anatol Lieven, Professor Theo Farrell and Rudra Chaudhuri from Kings College war studies department, insisted that the Taliban would not agree to any preconditions to talks - and that they would not recognize the Karzai government "because they see it as totally corrupt".
This view is shared by many donors who have been horrified by the extent of corruption and the influence of drug barons in the Kabul administration.
But Mr Semple said Taliban moderates were driven by an understanding that the movement did not have universal support in Afghanistan and might only rely of 30% approval.
Foreign forces are due to end their combat role in Afghanistan by 2014. Diplomats are keen to try to bring the Taliban into a peace process by then to avoid the sort of carnage which destroyed much of the country in the mid-1990s civil war.
There have been repeated attempts to get negotiations under way either between the US and the Taliban or the Karzai government and the Taliban.
Mr Semple said the latter have been undermined by a strong feeling within the movement that Karzai is "an American puppet and therefore it’s not worth talking to him but to who is pulling his strings".
All of what the Taliban appear prepared to contemplate are concessions to their public policy to re-establish an Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan.
They could only be offered as part of a 'general settlement’ that would include a cease fire, renunciation of al Qaeda and an agreement to allow modern subjects to be taught in schools - which would be strictly segregated.
The renunciation of al Qaeda is based on the belief among many Taliban that it was "responsible for wrecking our work to create an Islamic state in Afghanistan", a founding member of the Taliban told the experts.
The Taliban has been selling itself as a more moderate force in Afghanistan for the last two years.
It has steered away from its deeply fundamentalist past and tried to portray itself as a viable alternative to the central government by ending attacks on schools and providing viable judicial services in areas under its control.
How deep this goes is unclear.
Also unclear is the extent to which the Taliban would be allowed to seek an accommodation in Afghanistan with their enemies by its principal backer, the Inter-Service Intelligence agency in Pakistan.
The ISI has traditionally favoured an unstable Afghanistan as a buffer against Indian influence on Pakistan’s western front.
The experts admitted that when Pakistan's role came up for discussion their Taliban sources "went quiet".

Taliban 'Could Cut Links With Al Qaeda' - Yahoo! News UK
 
Pakistanis are taking it with a pinch of salt as they are seeing their strategic ally (i.e Taliban and not USA :) ) moving away from them. Let the Talibanis think abt the best interest of Afghanistan as they are Afghans.Why Pakistanis are so bothered abt it ?
 
Back
Top Bottom