You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Afghanistan
Taliban's Afghan allies tell Barack Obama: 'Cut us a deal and we'll ditch al-Qaeda'
2009-10-19
Down a rutted street in a quiet suburb of south Kabul lives a man the CIA once locked in a cage for months as an enemy combatant.

Seven years later, Mullah Wakil Ahmed Mutawakkil, 38, who served as foreign minister when the Taliban ran Afghanistan, may prove to be President Barack Obama's best chance of ending the gruelling war in Afghanistan - by enabling negotiations with America's enemies.

Such a prospect would have seemed far-fetched only a year ago; but now, as Mr Obama grapples with difficult Afghanistan decisions, faced with a faltering Kabul government and a spreading insurgency, all options are on the table.

Some of them may seem distinctly unsavoury for a president elected as a liberal idealist - in particular the notion of doing deals with Taliban commanders, and empowering former warlords and tribal leaders who have blood on their hands and in many cases hatred in their hearts.

But America's desperation to regain the initiative in an increasingly unpopular war has already produced some remarkable changes, and uncomfortable moral compromises are now on the agenda.

Among them, the Obama administration has indicated that it intends to make a fresh attempt to engage more moderate Taliban groups in talks with the Afghan government - in a determined effort to woo at least some of them away from the fighting that is claiming increasing numbers of American and other Nato forces' lives.

Mullah Mutawakkil, once a confidant of the one-eyed Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar, was held at a US base in Kandahar in 2002 after he gave himself up to American troops.

Now he is being politely wooed by a stream of senior US officials who make discreet visits to his villa, which is guarded by armed police, to hear his thoughts on what the Taliban mood is like and whether any of its leaders are ready for talks.

A soft-spoken and intelligent man who was one of the Taliban regime's youngest ministers, Mullah Mutawakkil is cautious about what can be achieved, but even so his thinking is music to tired Western ears.

He believes that the Taliban would split from what he called their al-Qaeda "war allies" if a deal was within reach. Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph in the guest room of his Kabul home, he insisted that a settlement to end the war was possible -- and that it would be the West's best chance of stopping terrorists from turning Afghanistan back into their base again.

"If the Taliban fight on and finally became Afghanistan's government with the help of al-Qaeda, it would then be very difficult to separate them," he warned.

But there is, he says, another option. Taliban leaders are looking for guarantees of their personal safety from the US, and a removal of the "bounties" placed on the head of their top commanders. They also want a programme for the release of prisoners held at the notorious Bagram US air base in Afghanistan, and at Guantanamo Bay.

In return, he says, the Taliban would promise not to allow Afghanistan to be used to plan attacks on America -- the original reason for American invervention, and the overriding aim of US policy in the region.

"The United States has a right to be confident that every government, whether Taliban or any other kind of government, would guarantee not to threaten America," he said.

The former foreign minister believes the Taliban understands that Afghanistan has changed since they were driven from power. They want a nation governed by strict Islamic laws but realise they cannot turn the clock back, he said.

He cautioned that negotiations would not be easy. "I am not an optimist. But talking would be better than war," he said.
Give us the jizya and we'll talk, little kaffir.

Posted by:Fred

#11  TALIBAN CONTROL APPROXIMATELY 97% OF AFGHANISTAN

The Pakistan Defence Forum is dreaming opium dreams.

The other bit about Indians joining the British Army I read, too. Interesting.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-19 21:04  

#10  PAKISTANI DEFENCE FORUM > TALIBAN CONTROL APPROXIMATELY 97% OF AFGHANISTAN; + INDIANS FLOCKING TO JOIN BRITISH ARMY TO FIGHT TALIBAN.

* TIMES OF INDIA > OPIUM, ORGANIZED CRIME [Mafias], AND PAK INTELLIGENCE FEED TALIBAN WAR CHEST.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-10-19 21:01  

#9  We certainly heard that melody sung on these pages, g(r)omgoru.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-19 15:35  

#8  So the net consequences of 9/11 for the Taliban are that they get to rule an Afghanistan with an improved infrastructure and that they will receive direct subsidies courtesy of western taxpayers?

As I understand it, many concervatives just coudn't bring themselves to vote for McCain.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-10-19 15:12  

#7  Binny's checks a bit late and/or a bit short, perhaps?
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-10-19 15:03  

#6  Yeah because the muzzies wouldn't lie to us.
Posted by: Hellfish   2009-10-19 13:46  

#5  The Warmonger has my vote. If (s)he also vows to clean up the political scene in Washington, I'll hero worship him. If the next president also downsizes the government and stimilates business, then I'll experience rapture. If we get another McCain, I'll merely shoot off a gun or two in a paltry demonstration of my support.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon   2009-10-19 13:01  

#4  Aaa-and, they promise not to... well, you know.
Posted by: mojo   2009-10-19 11:51  

#3  Vote for the warmonger in 2012, regardless of party.*

*Only partially joking.
Posted by: trailing wife   2009-10-19 09:27  

#2  So the net consequences of 9/11 for the Taliban are that they get to rule an Afghanistan with an improved infrastructure and that they will receive direct subsidies courtesy of western taxpayers?

How does that not amount to surrender + danegeld?

How does that not fatally undermine a policy of containment and deterrence vs a nuclear armed Iran?

Indeed, is western deterrence any more credible than Comical Ali's?

"These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate., but if the don't we will negotiate with the Taliban and support and subsidize the Taliban regime."

George W. Bush, Statement To Joint Session Of Congress September 20th 2001
Posted by: Slinese Barnsmell1557   2009-10-19 06:36  

#1  See also COUNTERTERRORISM BLOG > LASHKAR-E-TAIBA: PAKISTAN"S HEZBOLLAH; + WHY THE SOUTH WAZIRISTAN OFFENSIVE WON'T HELP THE US IN AFGHANISTAN [OOOOOOOPPPPPPPSIES > Major Militant Groups fighting the US-ALlies-AFPAK Govts aren't from South Wazir region]???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-10-19 02:06  

00:00