Enough Already

Over the past two years, the United States has made enormous strides in Afghanistan. The U.S. military has undertaken a devastating campaign against al Qaeda and its affiliates, as well as members of the Taliban in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. This military pressure has made Americans safer -- Osama bin Laden and dozens of other top al Qaeda leaders are dead, U.S. and NATO troops casualties are down in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government has been given the breathing room it needs to bolster its security forces and its governing institutions.

U.S. policy is now entering a new and complex phase of this conflict, where diplomatic efforts in support of a robust political strategy for Afghanistan and the region will become even more essential. This effort should not become a political football in the coming election season -- it needs strong bipartisan support here at home.

U.S. political leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, and our military commanders, have consistently argued that the conflict in Afghanistan will not end by military means alone. The elimination of al Qaeda's safe havens and the establishment of long-term peace and security in Afghanistan and the region -- the key U.S. national security objectives -- is best assured by a sustainable political settlement that strengthens the Afghan state so that it can assume greater responsibility for addressing the country's security and economic challenges.

This broad political settlement must include all elements of Afghan society -- opposition groups, non-Taliban Pashtuns, ethnic and religious minorities, women, and civil society. Many of these groups are currently excluded by a government in Kabul that they rightly view as corrupt, closed, and unaccountable.

Efforts to reach a settlement should include an approach to Taliban elements that are ready to give up the fight and become part of the political process. Such an approach would not -- as some have suggested -- constitute "surrender" to America's enemies. Rather, convincing combatants to leave the insurgency and enter into the political process is the hallmark of a successful counterinsurgency effort.

The decision by Taliban representatives to open a political office in Qatar presents an important opening for such diplomatic efforts. Afghan President Hamid Karzai initially opposed this new political office and recalled Afghanistan's ambassador to Qatar last month, but he has since thought better of the idea. Karzai's decision to gain support for talks with the Taliban from a traditional loya jirga was another step in the right direction.

We are not blind to the potential pitfalls of the diplomatic path. First, the Taliban is a decentralized movement with many different voices and wings -- some of which may be open to talks, and others that may be irreconcilable. An early stage of diplomacy involves testing which Taliban representatives have the authority to speak for which parts of the movement.

Afghan politics pose another significant challenge. After two bitterly disputed and imperfectly conducted elections in Afghanistan, the relations among different Afghan factions are fraught with tensions on all issues, including diplomatic outreach to the Taliban. Many elements in Afghanistan's parliament and government rightly fear that negotiations could turn out to be a back-door route to exclude other Afghan factions and return the Taliban to power. No one in Afghanistan wants such an outcome -- nor should anyone in the United States.

The Karzai government's rocky relationship with the United States poses another obstacle. While the Obama administration has expressed great frustration with the Karzai government over its high-levels of corruption, President Karzai has made inflammatory statements critical of the United States and NATO. Discussions of a proposed U.S.-Afghan "strategic partnership" have stalled over the U.S. military's use of night raids and the control of prisoners, and this dispute could have spillover effects into any diplomatic outreach to elements of the Taliban.

12NEXT

Save big when you subscribe to FP.

POPSIQQ

9:10 PM ET

January 18, 2012

Giant Strides

Aside from building two new mega-bases the US forces have strode their way into what they are now describing as a "stalemate". Again.

You may recall that it was to restore some direction to the Afghan imbroglio that President Obama allowed himself to be 'fished in' with the old 'name that tune' version of acquiring hign military rank. ( I can defeat that insurgency in one year with 25 000 new boots, Mr President. I, sir can do it in only three months,with 20 000. Sir! Yessir!)

Well the 'surge' has surged and even before it was over Gen, Petraeus, seeing the 'mene tikal' on the wall, was making noises that he really hadn't committed himself to any time line. Then he took his just rewards leaving the mess to lesser mortals.

Bottom line, after 'banging around' southern Afghanistan (again) for a year, night-raiding and rounding-up or killing "insurgents" on a grand scale, the US Army and Marines still find themselves in the sorry state of watching a bumper crop of Taliban dope coming in, while having bad people shoot at them and make things go 'kablowie!' - just like before. STALEMATE.

Maybe a new surge is in order.

REPLY

MAXLOC

9:25 AM ET

January 24, 2012

no amount of troops will help

I am not sure if we had several more "surges" if it would even work? From my perspective it really does not matter how many resources we put into Afghanistan we will still be facing the same problems that our military troops are subject to right now.

We really don't know exactly who the enemy is. Sure, we have a name for them but just by the nature of their decentralization there really is no way for the US military to pin them all down. "Insurgents" will always be there in this type of war, no matter how many of them you flush out their will be more of them.

Especially when there are known terror bases in neighboring countries that only have one job. Train and place more "insurgents" inside Afghanistan to make life miserable for American troops.

Maybe using political channels is the only way to really make considerable progress here? At least here we have an office full of identifiable subjects that openly represent the one group of people that seem to be so mysterious and unidentifiable. I think the whole country needs a colon cleanse or some type of reboot. Giving them a break from 10 years of war, hurt and destruction.

Maybe with peace these factions that want to hurt US troops and America will subside. They will certainly have less reason for hate and animosity!

9:14 PM ET

Taliban Negotiations?

That's a Taliban joke.

How much money will the Americans give you Habib? Enough to buy 20 000 goats Jamal.

And all I have to do is give them some "actionable intel" so they can bomb the 'bad guys' from the stratosphere. They don't want peace you know, they want to win. And they'll pay for it!

BING520

9:27 PM ET

Taliban

When G. W. Bush Administration decided to defeat and eliminate Taliban 10 years ago, I thought it was a bad concept because it is extremely difficult to eliminate a popular idea and Taliban is a popular idea. An idea may evolve and change, but you can't just eliminate it by violence. It is almost impossible for someone who knows lttle about the culture and background within which the idea was originate and proagate. During the 10 year, we resorted to 80% violence and 20% bribery to get rid of Taliban. It did not work and should not in the future. We have never really confront and seek to modify the idea

By the way, when I use 80% and 20%, I don't mean it statistically. I mean to say we have two methods dealing with Taliban, violence to destroy and money to buy off.

DR. KUCHBHI

9:52 PM ET

If the Taliban is such a "popular idea",

they'll have no problems winning an election, right?

They wouldn't need to resort to violence to get what they want, either when they came to power, or when they were in power or now - right?

1:05 PM ET

January 19, 2012

"Popularity of an idea" is expressive of the large number of people aspiring to the idea. It does not necessarily mean majority.

Ideas evolve to thrive or die out. Some ideas are of violent nature, and most are not. We have this proclivity to respond with violence to new political or religious idea. Bloodsheding is the trademark of human race's struggle among competing ideas. Violence can be a very successful and efficascious tool. We were very successful putting down the Filipino independent movement after our annexation of the Philippine Island. We offered indenpence only after Japan took the Islands away from us. There are many more examples throughout the history of human race. After WW II, people have been questioning the morality of violent means to eliminate ideas we disapprove. It is time we deviate from our violent proclivity.

Now we have occupied Afghanistan for a decade. There has been no shortage of military success in killing our opponents; neverthesss, Talihan exist and grow. We should have questioned the legitimacy of continuing the same path of violence. What do those successful military operations really mean?

MARTY MARTEL

10:39 PM ET

The fog of peace is coming

After ten long years of war supported and sustained by America’s own ally Pakistan, US is ready to throw in the towel.

Obama administration is already asking Pakistan to provide access to Afghan Taliban leaders safely ensconced under Pakistani ISI/Army's protection. A facade of Vietnam-style peace deal as dictated by Pakistan will be reached with Afghan Taliban leaders chosen by Pakistan.

US will begin its drawdown and finally exit the theater of a war it is desperate not to be seen as having lost, not so much to the Taliban and Al Qaeda as to the wily Generals of Rawalpindi who have proved to be smarter than the Americans.

That facade of peace will crumble within few years after the departure of US troops and Pakistan will bring Afghanistan under its suzerainty with reimposition of Taliban rule just as it did in 1996 while tired and financially broke Uncle Sam will helplessly look the other way just as it did in 1975.

KHANJEE

4:45 AM ET

"Pakistan Obsession" - Hallmark of Indian Strategic Community

Our great Indian friends like Marty Martel miss no opportunity to malign Pakistan; come what may. True, they prove the point that "everything is fair in ....and war'. Obsession of Pakistan runs so deep in the startegic thinking in India is incredible! One of the emerging major power of the world, militarily and economically, thinking so myopic and adopting such a prejudiced view of small neighbor is hard to comprehend. Castigating pakistan has not and is not going to help the regional security environment; a lesson for saner voices in India and elsewhere.
I absolutely agree with the author - talks with the people who ultimately and truly matter in Afghanistan is the only solution for successful winding of US / NATO campaign and stability in Afghanistan. The names (Taliban, Haqanis, Tajiks, Uzbeks or Pashtuns etc) don't matter; if the objective is peace, stability and defeat of Al- quaeda in Afghanistan, so that this country does not threaten the others in future in the context of terrorism. Ultimate solution to resolve a wicked problem like Afghanistan is to "talk', hence it must be given a sincere chance. Let's not forget that all other things have been tried so far and have failed.
Pakistan is neighbor of Afghanistan, not India. This reality in view, stability and progress of both the neighboring countries is inter-dependent. Whereas Pakistan is required to respect the soverignty of Afghanistan, India has no reason to use the soil of Afghanistan for destabilizing Pakistan. Spending a billion dollars in Afghanistan by India for a "noble cause"should not make Afghanistan hostage to Indian vested interests to the extent that it is forced to allow the use of its soil to the latter for coercing Pakistan posing her ''two front threat''. Targeting Pakistan by India in Afghanistan even runs against the success of US / NATO campaign.

FLD

7:17 AM ET

@MARTY MARTEL

Obama administration got defeated in afghanistan and trying to dictate pakitan to hand overTaliban...? i think they are out of their mind. Obama administration is already trying to build relations with Taliban. Its is the second time in history after soviet union got defeated by them USA must learn lesson not to initiate war in this region again.

Every nation has full right to defend their country therefor its their right to defend 2000km border with afghanistan. It is the USA who involed Pakistan in the war during rusian invasion and left the region which resulted in seriouse humanitarian problems for neighboring countrie and Pakistan suffered most. Pakistan from first day tryied to convince USA for pilitical solotion but the problem with USA is they don't learn from their past experiences.

Its better now to leave this region and leave this region to decide their own future.
If ISI is intelligent then they should be to protect their country which is a right given by UN.

Peace

Firmenlogo

TARQUINIS

11:51 AM ET

Marty: Its not bad people, its bad policy

Conservatives or Liberals; face it now or in a decade or so. There is no successful strategy for us in Afghanistan because there is NO FEASIBLE MISSION! If nation building to our satisfaction is the bottom line, it amounts to unending war. The safe haven rational for this war is a joke, because plots can be hatched against us from just about anywhere.

Afghanistan is a country in name only. It is composed of various ethnic groups (Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%) that have little in common and much to divide them. All have different languages, traditions, religions or various interpretations of same, and social structures. It has been relatively stable only under a king, who balanced these competing ethnicity off one another. All that ended with the Soviet invasion of 1979.

Most Pashtun (Taliban) reside NOT in Afghanistan but in Pakistan, divided by the phony Durand Line that they do not regard at all. They have been radicalized by thirty years of killing and devastation. Their militant elements will never accept our domination, and the more we kill, the more they hate our guts.

Further, it is beyond dispute that the one clear result of this endless and pointless war in Afghanistan has been the progressive if not fatal destabilization of Pakistan. Bear in mind there were few major anti-governmental terrorist bombings in that country before this war began, and now they are commonplace with huge civilian death counts as we have recently seen.

Before this war, there were zero attacks of significance on the Punjabi Pak army, and now they must conduct major military campaigns against the fiercest elements of their whole population. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced in the result of such ongoing campaigns.

The Pakistanis know all this if we do not. It is the primary reason why they are DEEPLY conflicted by this war, are playing a double game via the ISI, and support our efforts in Afghanistan only to the degree they must. After all, we directly threatened to blast them into oblivion if they did not.

I argue that in terms of our true security interests, there is far more to lose in the fatal destabilization of Pakistan, than ever to gain in Afghanistan. This war is counterproductive to our real interests.

We have seen this movie before. We all know how it will end.

12:37 PM ET

Stability of Pakistan

Indian presence and anti - Pakistan activities in Afghanistan are aimed at creating instability In Pakistan. Please take this fact into consideration.
Also, remember that it was Pakistan trying to convince Bush Administration for pursuing dialogue with the Taliban to end this useless war in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, erroneous US policies, marked by high military handedness, and prejudiced advice of strategic partners like India did not encourage such engagement. Had US paid heed to Pakistani advice, the war in Afghanistan would have been over long time back; with high probability of success.

PAUL ZLOTTY

1:30 PM ET

January 22, 2012

The obsession?

As usual the Pak nation is doing what it can do best. Interfering elsewhere is its hallmark sign. The only difference between this would-like-to-be colonial power is, it lacks the wherewithal to do so. Not only does this Pak nation want to poke its nose elsewhere, it will also take every effort to castigate any help that others may offer Afghanistan. What the Pak nation wants is a subservient Afghanistan that will play to its tune. To achieve its end,it will use any means including terrorism to achieve its goal.

Inspite of being a destitute nation with a begging bowl, it will continue to think of its strategic interests. Instead of improving the lives of its people, it will continue to feed its rapacious military appetite. Not having once suffered a military invasion in recent history, it will continue to want to attempt to browbeat other nations with every means at its disposal.

Even inspite of the fact that it was not bombed into stone age, it is taking every effort to do so on its own. The rest of the world has to sit by and watch how the faithful take care of each other. This is amply illustrated in a recent video of the TTP taking care of Pak forces.

It won't be long before the wolf cry is heard again from the faithful looking out for the muslim brotherhood against the unwashed infidels.

DONKISSOTES

4:07 AM ET

Enough Already

it would be foolish if the United States still continues to survive in a country that can not contribute anything except his army and gave up land for testing new weapons

7:20 AM ET

DONKISSOTES Well...

Well said :)

8:12 AM ET

January 20, 2012

thank

thank qyu

LASCHWEIGERT2

7:31 AM ET

Pakistan Has Maligned Itself

The Pakistani security services are vile murderers and America's leaders are fools for pursuing a ten year, $24 billion policy of feeding the 'good dogs' of their behavior while starving the bad. All the while, for years, the Pakistanis have harped about how we deserted them before (in 1989) and how they fully expect us to do it again. Their actions, duplicity, perfidity and unrelenting policy of undermining the international community's efforts in restoring Afghanistan to viability will ensure this self-fulfilling prophecy. Then what Pakistan?

11:21 AM ET

I don't agree

US has used Pakistan in the past and is committed in the same exercise since 9/11 in pursuit of its national interests. The tone and tenor of the remarks, criticising Pakistan beyond limits of decency, are reflective of an extremely prejudiced mindset dwarf of rationality. Instead of arguments, hatred seems to drive the analysis.
US has not done any favor to Pakistan by giving it some billions of dollars; it is not even a compensation for the roads and other infrastructure of Pakistan destroyed for the movement of thousands of logistic vehicles every month. What to talk of other services rendered by Pakistan to this on and off friend.

1:42 PM ET

How they like to be used

The Paks have in the past 60 years liked to be used. They go for the highest bidder. To paraphrase one of their Generals "Pakistan is like a beautiful woman ...".The rest is history. What the Pak nation cannot envisage is that even this "beautiful woman" will be disposed off at some time in future. They probbaly like to be used and disposed off on a regular basis. They are unreliable and ouright liars. Does one have to look further than what Admin. Mike Mullen said on this account?

Their agenda has always been the Ummah, the muslim brotherhood.To this effect they will play every tune to achieve their ends. The US willing went into liasions with them and has repeatedly paid the price, just as many other nations have. Now they juggle with their borrowed Chinese Uranium nuggets to get some attention.

Human propensity for mistakes is well documented, what has not caught our attention is the Pak propensity to never learn. That takes the cake and the Pak nation is a good example of plain stupidity and short-sightedness.

TIMING

8:54 AM ET

it wont do any good..once troops leave, its game over

in any event, troops cant stay indefinitely. maybe it is time for afghans to figure it out for themselves...having said that, if any attacks on the US OR its allies emanate from afghanistan after the US leaves, the US ought to have a policy that they will respond HEAVILY with aerial assaults for any transgressions.

JAYDEE001

10:45 AM ET

Great picture!

These are the guys we want to have peace talks with? Did someone not tell them to check their weapons at the door?

We have allowed the US to be bogged down in a long war in which the initial goals were forgotten, and where the end we sought was never clearly defined (except for enriching the arms dealers and allowing the generals to earn more medals). After ten years we can finally debate whether we should make peace and whether a 'peace deal' with the Taliban will be something we can tolerate, if only it allows us to leave Afghanistan.

Oh, and if only the Taliban would embrace western ideals of human rights - including allowing their women to vote and have jobs outside the home! If only the Pakistanis would cease their decades of support for the Taliban who in return assist them in their struggle against Indian hegemony in the region! If only the Karzai government would become more just and less corrupt! If only we could teach the farmers of Afghanistan to grow corn and potatoes instead of opium! How is all that gonna happen?

Our reach should never exceed our grasp, and after ten years it should be obvious that we are incapable of ordering Afghanistan the way we want it, or that Pakistan will never be less duplicitous or dangerous than it is. We achieved the limited goals we set when we waded into this quagmire - we killed bin Laden, drove the Taliban underground (actually into Pakistan), and decimated al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Time to get out and leave Afghanistan to find its way - probably back to the 13th Century, but who really cares?

India would be a much better ally than Pakistan - so no great loss there. By now, we should know that we do not have to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over, so why do we?

1:28 PM ET

I agree. Our mission has completed. We have proven ourselves incapable of changing the social conditions in Afghanistan. It is time to admit our failure and leave.

The only thing I disagree is to dump Pakistan as an ally and upgrade India as our best buddy in that region. In spite of all our misgivings toward Pakistan, that country did provide numerous assistances for us. Discarding or belittling Pakistan after we leave Afghanistan would only refresh the memory of how we ignored Afghanistan after we defeated Soviet. We would create a staunch anti-American country out of Pakistan.

HECTORGREG11

10:15 AM ET

same old

Afghanistan, Iraq, these are nothing new. We have been doing this since WWI. Although the earlier wars had more of a purpose, these new wars seem to be a huge waste. The main reasons we are there are to prevent something from happening, which is why it seems so counter intuitive that we are even there. In the past at least we had a defined goal, but now we are just there basically playing keep away. lakeway realty so it seems to make absolutely no sense, but there is a hidden purpose of trying to keep world powers from emerging in that region. dallas party bus So, unfortunately after this war is over, there will be another one that will come around shortly after this one.

DANADAMS

4:55 PM ET

Wow some impressively rubbish

Wow some impressively rubbish comments on here.

The US went into Afghanistan for Osama. Now he is dead, Afghanistan will become a strategic barrier to keep Iran busy. And yet again the ordinary people in the middle will lose out but we won;t know. It will be off the TV.

And of course the Taliban don't want peace. But they'll take the money.

Karzai is done and he knows it. Expect him in Dubai and on the lecture tours soon.

FPPRO

11:34 PM ET

Mission Accomplished, Go Home

It is true that troops cant stay indefinitely, and guess what?

We don't have the MONEY to pay for it!!

We are borrowing from our children to fight a war we should not be involved in, and paying for it with money that does not exist.

US needs to start paying attention to matters at home and get their own house in order first.

Limo Services

SUPAH

3:14 AM ET

About Time

Its about time US troops leave the Middle East. Its time for the locals to take over from what the US has accomplished do there own bit of Self Improvement.

URGELT

11:41 AM ET

The Route to Failure

Having proved to ourselves over and over that we cannot, in any permanent sense, impose stable governments obedient to US interests on people who do not want them, having learned again and again that a government which derives its authority from outside nations, rather than from the people it governs, will be weak and useless, here we are again, learning the very same lessons.

The time to negotiate with the Taliban was when they offered to discuss ending support for Al-Queda and extraditing them from Afghanistan for criminal prosecution. The Taliban was open to this - they said - before we invaded. We rebuffed them. We knew the solution we wanted, and it had nothing to do with negotiation.

Enough, already. It's past time for us to see hawk rhetoric for what it is: self-serving and self-deluded. We do not need another excuse to linger in Afghanistan; the cost to us in treasure and lives and the meager, meager return for that cost is not worth remaining a single extra day.

Afghanistan will determine how it will be ruled. If they commit acts of war against us, we can use military means to punish them. But it's silly to hang around as occupiers and hope against hope that the Afghanis will obey our interests, if only we find the right mix of destruction, bribery and pleading. It's not going to happen, and because it isn't, there's absolutely no reason to drag out our presence there.

CHUYCASTILLO

12:05 PM ET

Great Work...

Yes, We have allowed the US to be bogged down in a long war in which the initial goals were forgotten, and where the end we sought was never clearly defined. Canine Training

4:06 PM ET

Not sure the writers have been reading the papers

The Taliban won't talk to us.

Or rather the ISI won't let them talk unless their so called "legitimate interests" are taken into account.

So if you want to talk to them, you need to ask the ISI to facilitate talks or your opposite number will be picked up by the ISI and locked up. Remember Baradar?

If we agree to the ISI's terms or "legitimate interests", we will return to the state of affairs before 9/11 - which means its just a matter of time before we have more planes flying into our buildings.

So our choice is ???

JANET BOLDER

10:37 PM ET

Seems Unlikely

It seems highly unlikely that people brainwashed with the kind of hatred that allows you to torture and kill innocent people could be trusted in a diplomatic capacity. I'd welcome it still, but I wouldn't trust them, and I wish our leadership wasn't so pathetic. When dealing with these kind of people, there is no book so you can't go by the book Publishing these kinds of stories seems like raising false hopes.

9:01 AM ET

January 23, 2012

Pak duplicity

As if there has not been enough Pak duplicity. They have the chutzpah to send drones to this forum demanding more money, attention and other wishes. The big Pak begging bowl of wishes, which is and has been their trade mark.

Want more proof? Read Walter Mayr's report in Der Spiegel, dated May 18th 2011. He quotes another of the Pak fauji, Asad Durrani, a former head of the ISI and Pakistani ambassador to Germany, who went on record recently as saying "... that the strategy is legitimate. Terrorism, he wrote, 'is a technique of war, and therefore an instrument of policy'."

Still having doubts about this duplicitous Pak state? Read the Long War Journal on the ISI's S Wing - Pakistani ISI 'S Wing' aids terror groups in South and Central Asia by Bill Rogio, May 28th 2011, which exposes Tahawwur Rana, the ISI stooge, who was responsible for the Mumbai massacre. Further links to the New York Times and the Guardian can be found, wherein the duplicity of the Paks is documented, and this as far back as 2009. A further dissection of the S Wing can be found in a Times of India report, Chicago trial puts focus on the shadowy S Wing of ISI, dated 28th May 2011.

The Paks do what they can do best. None of these fall under the category of a civilized state.

AFGHANGOOD

10:26 AM ET

January 25, 2012

Enough Indeed...

I click the link to this article, and started reading, and immediately started laughing! Feel good articles like this might make the writers feel warm and fuzzy inside, but they are so far from the truth, it is just astonishing that they ever make it to print. Spend a solid month on the ground, and you will know that things are not as rosy as they try to make it out to be. Has there been progress in Afghanistan for the 10 years of effort, sure, but has it been worth the estimated cost of over $3 trillion. As yourself this, what could $3 trillion have done for most of people in the US, heck what could it have done for most other countries around the world. We are no closer today to defeating the Taliban, than we were 10 years ago. The reality is that the government of Afghanistan has some good people trying to do a good job, but it doesn't matter how much effort you put forward, it is a simple fact that building igloos in the Caribbean is NOT going to work. It is very likely that Obama is going to be re-elected, and that is a very good thing for the US taxpayer, and for the world, as that is the only chance of getting the US (and therefore the world) to reduce the heavy cost and burden of continued support for the failed experiment, that is Afghanistan. The Afghans, as people, need to decide that enough is enough, and take the stance on making a better life in their country, instead of the garbage plan that currently exist by the international community's fumbling and bumbling efforts.

It's time to talk to the Taliban.

BY STEPHEN HADLEY AND JOHN PODESTA | JANUARY 18, 2012

(31)