U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

double standards?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-speeds-up-direct-talks-with-taliban/2011/05/16/AFh1AE5G_story.html

U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

By Karen DeYoung, Tuesday, May 17, 8:45 AM
The administration has accelerated direct talks with the Taliban, initiated several months ago, that U.S. officials say they hope will enable President Obama to report progress toward a settlement of the Afghanistan war when he announces troop withdrawals in July.

A senior Afghan official said a U.S. representative attended at least three meetings in Qatar and Germany, one as recently as “eight or nine days ago,” with a Taliban official considered close to Mohammad Omar, the group’s leader.

State Department spokesman Michael A. Hammer on Monday declined to comment on the Afghan official’s assertion, saying the United States had a “broad range of contacts across Afghanistan and the region, at many levels. . . . We’re not going to get into the details of those contacts.”

The talks have proceeded on several tracks, including through nongovernmental intermediaries and Arab and European governments. The Taliban has made clear its preference for direct negotiations with the Americans and has proposed establishing a formal political office, with Qatar under consideration as a venue, according to U.S. officials.

**An attempt to open talks with the insurgent group failed late last year when an alleged Taliban leader, secretly flown by NATO to Kabul, turned out to be a fraud. **“Nobody wants to do that again,” a senior Obama administration official said.

Other earlier meetings between Afghan government representatives and Taliban delegates faltered when the self-professed insurgents could not establish their bona fides as genuine representatives of the group’s leadership.

But the Obama administration is “getting more sure” that the contacts currently underway are with those who have a direct line to Omar and influence in the Pakistan-based Quetta Shura, or ruling council, he heads, according to one of several senior U.S. officials who discussed the closely held initiative only on the condition of anonymity.

The officials cautioned that the discussions were preliminary. But they said “exploratory” conversations, first reported in February by the New Yorker magazine, have advanced significantly in terms of the substance and the willingness of both sides to engage.

Rumors of the talks have brought a torrent of criticism in recent weeks from Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s political opponents, who say that he will ultimately compromise Afghan democracy. In one indication of U.S. eagerness to get negotiations moving, however, administration officials described the criticism in positive terms as evidence that Afghans were starting to take the idea of negotiations seriously.

The Taliban, one U.S. official said, is “going to have to talk to both the Afghans and the Americans” if the process is to proceed to the point that it would significantly affect the level of violence and provide what the Taliban considers an acceptable share of political power in Afghanistan.

Such an outcome is likely to be years away, officials said. They said that the United States has not changed its insistence that substantive negotiations be Afghan-led. “The Afghans have been fully briefed” on U.S.-Taliban contacts, an American official said, and “the Pakistanis only partially so.”

Officials said representatives from the Haqqani network, a group of Afghan fighters based in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal region whom the administration considers particularly brutal and irreconcilable, have had no part in the discussions.

Although U.S. officials have said that Osama bin Laden’s killing by American commandos early this month could facilitate progress, initiation of the discussions predate bin Laden’s death. During a Feb. 18 speech, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States and the Afghan government would no longer insist on a public break between the Afghan Taliban and al-Qaeda as a precondition for talks. Instead, such a declaration could be made at the end of negotiations.

The U.S. and Afghan governments also insist that any settlement process result in an end to Taliban violence and a willingness to conform to the Afghan constitution, including respect for the rights of women and minorities and the rule of law.

Asked what Obama hoped to announce in July, an official said the president would not offer details of any talks. “It would be something like this,” the official said. “ ‘Here’s my plan on troops, here’s my overall vision for Afghanistan. The secretary [Clinton] said we were going to produce some diplomacy and laid out our desire to speak to the enemy. . . . I want to tell the American people . . . we’re making that policy real.’ ”

The Taliban has transmitted its own list of demands, most of them long-standing, another official said. They include the release of up to 20 fighters detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — eight of whom are thought to be designated “high value” by the United States and two of whom have been designated for trials by military commissions — withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghanistan, and a comprehensive guarantee of a substantive Taliban role in the Afghan government.

The Taliban proposal of a formal office has raised two immediate questions, one U.S. official said. “One, where is it? Second, what do you call it? Does it say ‘Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’ across the door? No. Some people say you can call it a U.N. support office and the Taliban can go sit there.’ ”

“If the Afghans want it in Kabul, that’s okay,” the official said. “If they would support it in Qatar, that’s fine.”

Events over the past six months have contributed to the administration’s determination to get substantive talks underway as well as its belief that a successful political outcome is possible, even if still years away.

In a November meeting, NATO contributors to the 140,000-troop coalition in Afghanistan — all under economic and political pressure to end the long-running war — set the end of 2014 as the deadline for a complete withdrawal of combat troops. By that time, they said, enough Afghan government forces would be recruited and trained to take over their country’s security.

Obama had announced that he would begin drawing down U.S. forces, who form about two-thirds of the international coalition in Afghanistan, in July. The U.S. budget crisis, which prompted the election of more deficit hawks last fall, brought increasing political pressure on the administration to decrease the $10 billion monthly bill for the war.

On the ground in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the coalition military commander, has cited increasing progress against Taliban fighters in the south, although there is some disagreement with the U.S. military’s conclusion that heavy losses have made the Taliban more amenable to negotiations. U.S. intelligence officials have offered a slightly different interpretation, saying that replacement commanders inside Afghanistan have made the Pakistan-based leadership nervous of losing control over its fighters and more anxious to make a deal.

Officials said senior diplomat Marc Grossman, who was appointed as the administration’s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan after Richard C. Holbrooke’s death in December, was told that the White House expected him to concentrate his efforts on a negotiated settlement.

At the same time, U.S. relations with Pakistan — the home base for the leading Afghan Taliban groups — have become increasingly frayed. The endgame in Afghanistan clearly requires Pakistani cooperation, and Grossman began trilateral discussions on the subject with top Afghan and Pakistani diplomats in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital, this month. Officials said that he has also visited other regional players interested in talks, including India and Saudi Arabia, and that Iran has been approached through intermediaries.

**The administration now thinks that talks with the Quetta Shura and other groups do not necessarily require Pakistan’s cooperation.

“Some people who have met with the Taliban say that among the reasons [the insurgents] want to establish their own office is so they can get out from under the Pakistanis,” one senior administration official said.**

Correspondent Joshua Partlow in Kabul and staff researcher Julie Tate in Washington contributed to this report.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

10 year + and the american finally know they cannot defeat the afghan mujahideen now here comes exit strategy

so called super power please go and don't come back!

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

@ali - how is it double std?

@javed - you don't think USA is a super power?

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

What so taliban don't necessarily have to break with AQ? ****, that seems like US is cutting its losses and running...

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

Was...............

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

^ and IS.

on the descent but still IS. Chinese still try to steal technology from US. Chinese still hold mostly dollars. Chinese still clamor to stock the shelves in Walmart,

India still wants H1B visas. India still clamors for tech deals, university seats, uranium

Every country in the world awaits call from Obama.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

America has no interest in Taliban and their khariji ideology, as long as Taliban do not shelter Qaeda and others planning attacks against Americans.
Saudis have similar pathetic society as Taliban's, and yet they are America's best friends in the Middle East.

This fact should be disturbing for Pakistan.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

you are right in being jealous because you can clearly see Haq is winning and batil the kufr is losing the battle

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

well said. summarizes a lot of things.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

The sooner Ameicans are out this region the better it is... they can go to Africa and continue with their hobby of killing people around in Libya and Algeria....

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

^ you are right but the Americans love this region partly because of it's strategic importance otherwise the alqaeda is flourishing in Yemen and africa but America is sleeping

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

Its a double standard because if Pakistan were to deal with the same Taliban, they are double dealing. If the US makes deals with the same Taliban, they are supporting a peacful resolution.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

^ difference being Pakistan's interest in such dealings have been to extend the conflict while the US interest is to end it.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

So you think Taliban munafiqeen and their fasaad against Muslims is Haq?

I am not jealous. I am concerned that US will leave when its interests would be over, and Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan will be left with to deal with the Taliban khariji munafiqeen.


This is what naive idiots like Imran can not understand. He justifies his suggestion of negotiating with Taliban by citing US will to negotiate with them. He can not see that US has no interest in conflict with Taliban. This is why it has no problem negotiating with them. But Pakistan can not afford it. Because US will leave Afg tomorrow under Taliban occupation and Pak will be left to pay the price.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

Why would Pakistan want to extend a conflict which is costing itself dearly?

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

Double standards in the sense that the Americans keep on harping about do more to Pakistan while they are themselves trying to negotiate the end of the war in Afghanistan and possibly give them a slice of the government in southern Afghanistan. As far as prolonging the war is concerned that's due to American presence, the reason that the taleban have at present is American aggression and occupation of their land when the Americans leave the region that excuse will end. Personally I think if the Americans had left the taleban alone in 2001 after a few years the afghans would themselves have booted them out but American aggression has given them new life .

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

That's what Taliban apologists like Imran harp about all the time.
The fact is that Taliban were waging their fasaad on Afghanistan (with Pakistani and Saudi help) long before America entered the scene. And America would never have gotten involved if Taliban had not given shelter to international fasaadis who were targeting American interests.

Bottom line is that Taliban's fasaad against Muslims is independent of America's involvement.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

No, Pakistan wants a resolution that involves a govt that isnt a threat to Pakistan. Americans want a govt that isnt a threat to American interests. Both want the same thing. Why would Pakistan want to prolong a war? That makes no sense. Pakistan's interest is in seeing an Afghanistan that is relatively stable and not a threat to Pakistan.

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

Yesterday, some Dailies which are the mouthpiece of the Western Colonialism and other media outlets that toe their line, once again, circulated a baseless rumors, following their other futile propaganda campaigns and tried to create suspicions about the policy of the Islamic Emirate. They claimed that representatives of the Islamic Emirate are engaged in direct talks with the Americans and are seeking to have an office opened in a given country.

We would like to say in clear words that the report of negotiation with the invaders or direct contact with them are mere futile rumors. Similarly, the allegation that Taliban want to open office in a certain country is not true. We have not asked for the opening of office in any country including Qatar. More than half of the country is under our control and we have active presence there. This is our permanent address which is evenly well known both to friends and enemies. None can deny our presence there nor we are people who lack address and country. The American invaders repeatedly spread rumors of negotiation without any proof instead of focusing on the essential and rationale solution of the issue. This portrays their weakness and is a sign of their uncertain policy. It seems, they are facing defeat in the war of Afghanistan and are confused and on the verge of losing the battle field. Moreover, they have entirely lost their patience versus the unprecedented sacrifices of the Afghan nation. This is why they catch at a straw like a drowning man and are trying to boost the morale of their defeated and fleeing Allies by resorting to rumors.

We want to say that the current struggle and jihad of our Muslim and Mujahid nation is not aimed at obtaining government slots, mundane amenities and comfortable life but we have a lofty objective before us and that is a complete freedom of the country, independence and establishment of purely Islamic regime and prosperity of the people. This is the objective for which we are braving the Global Colonialism with our chests as shields. We have never been deterred by any danger in this way and will keep up the sacred Jihad and struggle by offering our blood until complete freedom of our country is attained, the current invaders like the former ones are forced to flee our country. *Thus, we will prove to the world once more that none can turn our country into a colony, nor the invaders will reach their wicked goals through this misadventure.
*

alemara-iea.info

Re: U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban

America and its slaves are the biggest fasad on the face of the earth and Taliban will win the war and believe me the day Taliban will take over you will find out that Imran Khan was far more moderate than you every thought but by that time it will be too late INSHALLAH