A few things to say.
1. This not the first time the US State Dept has negotiated with an enemy, Nixon did in Vietnam and it at least allow the US to salvage something from a basic total loss in Vietnam.
2. Historically the Taliban was the only force strong enough and vicious enough to stand up to Afghan war lords and drug dealers. What was basically proved after the Russians left is that the Afghan people preferred the Taliban to war lord and drug dealers that thrived in Anarchy. Then 911 came along due to Al-Quida, Nato was powerless to do much of anything about Al-Quida, so somehow in some weird mission creep, Nato decided to try to eliminate the Taliban instead. Coming in most of the Afghan people had hoped that Nato would be that third better choice, superior to war lords and drug runners, superior to the crazy ideas of the Taliban, because the USA would eliminate the anarchy needed by war lords and drug runners, eliminate the ability of the Taliban to impose their crazy ideas on a terrified population, a good basic plan that should have worked. Except we sentway way too few troops to even give the Nato plan a chance to work, and now the Nato, the drug dealers, and the Afghan war lord are all in bed together spreading anarchy where ever they go. As Nato somehow manages to take second prize in a beauty contest with the Taliban. Of course Nato can decide to win at anytime, all its going to take is some 400,000 more troops and the building of Afghan infrastructure. I can respect soldiers like JOS for trying, but they totally lack the resources need even start trying to win. So they resort to ever bigger and more indiscriminate weapons, that just anger the Afghan people even more than before.
3. The Taliban is a local group and able to get popular support in only Afghanistan and the Tribal areas in Pakistan. Every where else their ideas won't sell. And as rotten as they were and still are, they are still a better alternative to drug runners, war lords, and anarchy.
4. Al-Quida on the other hand is a pure terrorist organization not in any way tied to any given country. And they will take shelter any where there is anarchy. Worse yet they are serious bad news to the local people anywhere they take shelter, because their objectives are furthered by getting everyone in the country at each others throat.
5. Almost every time there is an insurgency, the home team will win against the foreign force unless the foreign force is far more popular. We learned that lesson in Vietnam and we are now learning it in Afghanistan. My guess is that our best US hope is in a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, at least there is the hope we can salvage some human rights for people in Afghanistan. Once there is peace, and the modern development that will inevitably follow, its the Taliban itself who will modify their wacky and reactionary ideas just given some time.
Meanwhile Afghanistan will be a pretty bad place but still better than what we have now.
6. Of course if we don't like alternative 5, we can pony up the money and 400,000 extra Nato troops.
Facebook
Twitter