Wild Like Negotiations With the Taliban
The more I think about this business of holding talks with the Taliban the more it almost seems like a no-brainer to me. If back in September of 2001, the Taliban leadership had said “Holy shit! We never thought that was going to happen! Please don’t come over here and kill us — instead lets talk about how we can cooperate on handing key al-Qaeda people over” taking the deal clearly would have been the right policy.
They didn’t say that, so instead there was a war. And for a while it looked like the war would lead to a swift and thorough American victory, but that’s clearly not the case. At the same time, the Taliban’s prospects are much, much, much worse than they were on September 10, 2001. As usual, war breaks out because people miscalculate. It would have been better for the Taliban to turn against al-Qaeda in the fall of 2001, and it would have been smart for us to take them up on any such offer. Now, seven years later, if it’s really true that Mullah Omar’s willing to turn on al-Qaeda it seems to me that it’s clearly worth trying to explore a deal.
48 Responses to “Wild Like Negotiations With the Taliban”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Actually, a few days before the bombing started, the Taliban said it would be willing to talk about handing Obama over.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:53 am
You were there weren’t you? The US issued conditions with the specific intention of the conditions being denied so the US could proceed with its war plans.
If there were conditions the Taliban would have accepted to avoid war, the US would have increased the conditions because the US wanted war with Afganistan at the time.
“Publicly renounce Bin Laden” would have been easy. The Taliban said that it could only turn him over if the US provided evidence that he was involved.
If the war was a miscalculation it was nearly exclusively a US miscalculation rather than a Taliban miscalculation.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’m not sure about this, because Taliban rule is so completely hostile to every single value that we hold. I don’t think the US can have any part of the Taliban returning to power, or sharing power, in Afghanistan. If Karzai wants to go that route that’s his sovereign prerogative, but the US and other NATO forces should leave. It’s one thing to make strategic alliances with illiberal forces in the world, but if the Taliban isn’t way past the point of “illiberalism we can deal with,” then we don’t have any values at all, except for wanting to avoid trouble.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:58 am
nice post, matt.
http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/closingarguement/
October 28th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The only way to bring an end to conflicts is through talking. War can weaken the opposition temporarily, but it only fortifies the enemy’s resentment. To fully end conflicts the two sides must negotiate and engineer a political solution.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:01 am
It might seem that way, but it might not have been so. If the Taliban turned on Al Qaeda, they would have lost a significant part of their military power in the middle of a civil war. In fact, they would probably have needed to expend military resources to accomplish the task of turning over Al Qaeda’a leadership. They might have also lost a significant part of their popular support – that of the most radical elements of society. In those conditions, an entirely indigenous rebellion could have driven them from power, with no safe haven available among a radical islamic populous. They might have been finished. By refusing, they got pummelled, but still exist. That’s a lot of “ifs” and “mights”, but I think it is probable.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
” Bush shuns latest Taleban offer
“Sunday, 14 October, 2001, 22:12 GMT 23:12 UK
“US President George W Bush has rejected an offer by Afghanistan’s ruling Taleban to discuss handing over Saudi militant Osama Bin Laden.”
October 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Actually, there was another option available to us in 2001 other than all out war with the Taliban and full cooperation with the Taliban. We could have simply dropped troops into southern Afghanistan and gone after Al Queda while ignoring the government of the country. I don’t really see how capturing and occupying the entire country and installing a new government met any strategic objectives of the United States. We could have focused all of our forces on capturing bin Laden and other top leaders of Al Queda. And then once that operation was complete, we could have gotten the hell out of there, leaving the existing government in tact.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Well, this post is no surprise. Matthew favors a policy that would have left the Taliban – probably the most repressive, anti-human rights, anti-democratic government in the world prior to 2001 – in power in Afghanistan. Just like he now supports the extremist ICU coming to power in Somalia rather than the fairly representative, internationally backed transitional government. Just like he thinks we should have left Saddam Hussein’s repressive, anti-human rights, anti-democratic government in place in Iraq.
Bacially, Matthew’s preferred foreign policy boils down to: if there’s a repressive, anti-human rights, anti-democratic government or movement anywhere in the world, Matthew supports it!
October 28th, 2008 at 10:30 am
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/30/sm.15.html
Yglesias was apparently only 8 years old back in 2001 and wasn’t aware or paying attention to all that happened. There were a number of instances where the Taliban was trying to negotiate.
A coworker of mine who was from Afghanistan said the message from the Taliban saying they didn’t know where he was, was a cultural saying. It ment that he was no longer under their protection, but they weren’t going to hand him over. If we wanted him, come and get him.
I don’t think any of it mattered though. We had to go into Afghanistan to teach a lesson. There was a desire for revenge, but the lesson had to be if you plot to attack the US, or support someone plotting such, you will pay a price.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Al is the local Republican troll, correct?
October 28th, 2008 at 10:39 am
If al-Qaeda represented an immediate and grave threat to the United States, talks with the Taliban might be justified. As that certainly does not seem to be the case, among other things there have been zero attacks in more than seven years, no talks.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:41 am
No, Al, you evil bloodthirsty fuck. Matthew’s position is that, rather than murdering hundreds of thousands of innocents, and achieving nothing positive, we should mind our own fucking business, rather than using fake humanitarian justifications, combined with murderous and indescriminate force, to impose our will upon other nations.
Get cancer and die in a fire, you twisted evil baby murdering fuck.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
By now I’m pretty used to the phenomenon that the origins of any war desired by the U.S. foreign policy establishment being lost in mythmaking and false generalities. Why interrupt that tradition now?
October 28th, 2008 at 10:54 am
I’ve never quite understood what the harm in talking is. As my mother always said: use your words, not your hands. My problems had a much better outcome when I listened to her advice in kindergarten.
http://plightofthepumpernickel.blogspot.com
October 28th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Even if the US initiates these talks, what is the Taliban’s motivation for accepting terms now? Its worth mentioning that our draw down in Iraq will invariably lead to more attention and presence in Afghanistan and the Taliban likely sees this happening and wants to secure its place. At least we’re going back to where we started before the whole Iraq mess. Hopefully we can finish the job we started in the first place.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
As usual, war breaks out because people miscalculate.
are you saying it only happens when people miscalculate? because wars can be plenty calculated. iraq’s a pretty good example…
October 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
The Taliban tend to be way more impervious than most regimes or political groups to cold, hard reasoning and cost-benefit analysis. These guys are essentially backwoods hicks with next to no understanding of the world at large.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:20 am
’m not sure about this, because Taliban rule is so completely hostile to every single value that we hold.
Well, it’s a damn good thing that WE don’t live there.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:23 am
I still don’t get why talking to someone is so bad. Help!
http://averagetodd.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/why-is-talking-to-someone-without-precondition-so-bad/
October 28th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The Taliban were an incredibly noxious regime and 9/11 provided a wonderful opportunity to take them out, instead, Bush opted to merely chase them to the hills, oh well.
And yes, those who say there were Taliban offers (and Taliban controversy) over Bin Laden are correct, don’t know how Yglesias missed this.
I think I saw one report where they held a loya jurga, 1000 Taliban leaders showed up and the majority voted for handing Bin Laden over, but Mullah Omar (weirdly, I think) overruled them.
October 28th, 2008 at 11:50 am
As posted above, actually they did say that. And there was still a war.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
If Saddam Hussein correctly perceived that the US would invade and overthrow him, leaving him to the mercy of his former subjects, would he have taken up the offer of going into exile in Libya? According to sources close to him, he genuinely believed the US would not invade – for the reasons they did not invade in 1991 plus the ongoing war in Afghanistan.
If the Bush administration had correctly calculated that Iraq would devolve into a sectarian bloodbath where their best alternative would be to accept an ardently pro-Iranian government, would they have invaded?
I think that there was certainly miscalculation involved.
October 28th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
I think that there was certainly miscalculation involved.
Gee, ya think?
October 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
As posted above, actually they did say that. And there was still a war.
As I recall, Matt was too busy scoffing at the dirty hippies at Harvard to pay attention to the actual events unfolding at the time.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Just another voice to say that Yglesias has a major gaping hole in this analysis.
It’s interesting. There are the 2 ideological peripheries, left and right. It seems that the more centrist you are, the more your views are afforded automatic legitimacy. Often, the left reacts to this reality by being hyper-vigilant to empiricism. I.e., it often seeks legitimacy through careful analysis and attention to fact (again, not always). The Afghanistan invasion is an example of this.
The right reacts quite differently and lives in pretend-world to gain legitimacy. The examples are too plentiful to enumerate.
October 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Actually, a few days before the bombing started, the Taliban said it would be willing to talk about handing Obama over.
Actually I remember them saying “he’s our guest, we won’t hand him over.” Then some on the left said “how do we even know OBL did it?” Chomsky predicted genocide in Afghanistan. Others on the left said the Bushies wanted a pipeline in Afghanistan.
Before 911, the only people making a stink about the Taliban were feminists, b/c the Taliban treated their women like chattel. The U.S. government was impressed with the Taliban’s effectiveness against the narcotics trade.
I think we should try to talk to them and separate the moderates from the nutty extremists.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Chomsky predicted genocide in Afghanistan.
No, he didn’t. He did predict enormous numbers of civilian casualties – and he was dead right, as usual. And he was steadfastly ignored by the center and by “respectable” liberals, as usual.
October 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Before 911, the only people making a stink about the Taliban were feminists
And this, too, is laughably wrong. The Taliban were a regular target of criticism pre-9/11 by every major left-of-center international civil rights organization, and were regularly cited by leftists as evidence of the evils of the Reagan-Carter intervention in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, when queried about this line of criticism in 1998, dismissed al-Qaeda and the Taliban as “some stirred-up Muslims.”
October 28th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The Taliban are Pashtuns, who are my favorite knuckleheaded barbarians in the whole world. Honor is everything to them. President Obama should appoint John McCain to serve in the role Sir Richard Burton filled in the British Office: Ambassador to the Barbarians. McCain’s the kind of knucklehead they’d respect.
His approach should be simple: Seven years of war means that honor has been served on both sides. America has no quarrel with the Pashtun people that can’t be quickly dealt with. Hand us Osama, change the name of your political party from Taliban to something else, and then we’ll go home.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Before the invasion, the Taliban agreed to turn over bin Laden for a couple mill.
Bush turned them down.
Prof.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Mr. Yglesias’ post is a classic example of why I fear the foreign policy implications of an Obama presidency.
Mr. Yglesias assumes that the Taliban are a bunch of cosmopolitan rationalists like himself. They aren’t. They don’t want the same things that Mr. Yglesias wants, and they don’t think the way he does. The Taliban want to expand the frontiers of Islam by any means necessary, fair or foul. They made their choice in 2001 when they decided to side with Osama bin Laden, and now they must pay the same price as the Nazis did at Nuremburg. As long as even one Taliban leader remains alive, anywhere in the world, the war has not been won, and the crimes of September 11, 2001 have not been fully avenged.
The Taliban are a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs with whom no compromise will ever be possible. They will not rest until the entire world is Islamized by force. They interpret the willingness to compromise as weakness, and they only respect the law of the desert: eye for eye, tooth for tooth, blood for blood, life for life.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Steve Sailer,
You seem to understand the Afghanistan situation, without all this liberal nonsense that Mr. Yglesias is peddling. Surely you can understand that the Afghans will only interpret such an offer as evidence of weakness.
October 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Actually, a few days before the bombing started, the Taliban said it would be willing to talk about handing Obama over.
Obama? What about Osama?
Actually, I think they said they would turn oSama over if The U.S. could prove that he was behind the 9/11 attacks but since they knew there was no proof, it wasn’t much of an offer.
October 28th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
We tried talking to the Taliban in 2001, but they weren’t negotiating in good faith. They were intimately tied to OBL since the days fighting the Soviets. It was extremely unlikely, no matter what evidence was presented, given the norms of Pashtun culture, that they would have turned him over.
As it turns out, the necessary evidence was on videotape in Afghanistan. If Omar and the Taliban government had had any interest in investigating what their guest and brother-in-law was up to, they could have done so. That was about as likely as GWB investigating GHB’s role in Iran-Contra.
It is possible that the Taliban have had enough, and would consider talking their way back into the government. But, I wouldn’t assume they’ve “found Jesus”. As Mao said: talk, talk, fight, fight.
October 28th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
We tried talking to the Taliban in 2001, but they weren’t negotiating in good faith.
I’m not saying that isn’t true because I don’t know if it is or not. BUT is there any other government involved with those negotiations you can think of which might not have been negotiating in good faith?
October 29th, 2008 at 5:41 am
As usual, neither Matt nor most of the commenters here get the picture.
The Taliban were IRRELEVANT to dealing with Al Qaeda. The SOLE interest – besides a PR game that the US was “doing something about terror” – was to get a pipeline and restart the heroin business for the benefit of the CIA and the usual suspects.
The Taliban would have handed bin Laden over – or looked the other way while he was snatched – had the US provided any significant evidence that bin Laden was involved in 9/11. They didn’t have any and didn’t care since their goals were otherwise, as I indicated above.
Meanwhile, we have a bunch of morons here claiming that “Gee, the Taliban are bad guys! So it must be the US responsibility to defeat 35-50 million Pashtun who don’t agree with that assessment, so we right wing morons can feel justified that we butchered hundreds of civilians for no reason.”
Said morons here also think they “understand” the Taliban, despite the fact that they have zero knowledged of the region, its history, or the fact that there are numerous tribes, factions, criminal organizations, and the like all fighting there for the last thousand years.
You morons need to STFU. The bottom line at this time is that there is NO WAY to US can defeat the Taliban in either Afghanistan or Pakistan. ZERO possibility of winning that war, no matter HOW many troops you put into those countries. Get that through your heads.
The more troops you send over there, the more recruits the Taliban get. The more recruits they get, the better they win the side of the rule that says you need 20 troops per thousand population to win a counterinsurgency. (AND those troops need to speak the language and know the culture in order to even be able to begin to deal with an insurgency – which our troops do not.) In other words, right now the US needs FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND TROOPS to even begin to deal with the insurgency there. Add in Pakistan and the number probably jumps to a million.
Obama throws in two more combat brigades. Guess what? The Taliban recruit another thousand or two thousand supporters. That sees your two combat brigades and raises you another two. The Taliban can keep those numbers going up long after the US AND NATO have run out of combat brigades.
The war in Afghanistan CANNOT be won. Period. End of story. It was NEVER winnable even if you killed every Taliban leader in 2001. Unless of course, you did that and immediately LEFT THE COUNTRY. Staying in-country in Afghanistan is the mistake every would-be congueror has made for a thousand years. It doesn’t work.
The Russians are sitting back laughing at the stupid Americans for repeating the same error they made.
An Old Afghanistan Hand Offers Lessons of the Past
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/world/europe/20russian.html?_r=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
October 29th, 2008 at 10:51 am
The Taliban have their version of Paul-Rice / Cheney-Rumsfeld nexus. Which one do you want to talk to and on what terms? Shall we also implicitly endorse the Pakistani Taliban and their position on Kashmir?
Back in 2001, which one made overtures to hand Bin Laden over the conservative hard line core which dominated the military machine and Ministry of Interior, or the more pragmatist (on occasion foreign trained, ex-Communist military men) English speaking moderate foreign ministry types?
How many factions are within the Taliban now?
Details, details, details… “We should talk to the Taliban”–let’s insist on that point!
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
Very good blog. Keep up the great work. All the best, Alfredo
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 am
levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:37 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:36 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
buy viagra online
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:48 am
Excellent site, It was pleasant to me. viagra
April 14th, 2009 at 9:40 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra