Isn't this the natural progression of conflict?

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

If we are unable or unwilling to sustain casualties and take the fight to the Taliban, they will have the upper hand in any discussions and our bargaining power will be none. For that reason, fighting the Taliban to a standstill is necessary to set the conditions for successful peace talks.

Support for the Taleban in Afghanistan is rising not falling. The time to negotiate with them was in 2002 when they were on the ropes - if you wanted to talk at their weakest. But 'we' didn't. Why?

Now 'we're' having to talk with them because 'we' don't have any option. The longer 'we' postpone the inevitable, the stronger their support becomes.

All this talk of fighting them to a standstill is self-deluded nonsense.

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

Talking to the various enemy factions in Afghanistan is also a necessary part of drawing to a conclusion the war there. The footsoldiers may be in it for their 'faith' and to 'repel the invaders', but make no mistake - many of their leaders have simple ambitions of money and power.

Indeed they do. And why it would have made sense to bring them round the table in 2002.

Originally Posted by DeltaDog

We can either continue to fight a war that will never end, no matter how powerful our military - or we can play the smart game.

Indeed. Just seeing the game for what it actually is would go a long way too.

Originally Posted by whitecity

There comes a time when a foreign occupying force has to negotiate with the locals before departure. It makes sense to discuss with all local parties and especially those which clearly have a substantial following.

The Taleban may not be to our liking. They may not uphold or aspire to the standards of governance that 'we' do. But we cannot deny that they have political support and it is their own country.

The only reason we find the notion of discussions with the Taleban so vile is because of the narrative about them presented by 'our' political leadership who have 'bigged-up' their 'badness' to make 'our goodness' seem supreme.

There is that yes, but the Taliban have shown that they can't be trusted to keep promises they make during "discussions".

Originally Posted by sneeky_turd

There is that yes, but the Taliban have shown that they can't be trusted to keep promises they make during "discussions".

No more than the collective 'we'. If I was a Taleban negotiator, I'd be rather skeptical about the ability of 'us' to keep 'our' promises.

President Gerald Ford said, on the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, 1975:

History will judge this Conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow - not by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.

In 2008, that document/agreement was ignored by most European signatories when they recognised Kosovo UDI.

There are plenty others too that could be presented.

The Taleban do not have a monopoly on political deceit, you know. Still, it's so much easier to believe in the good v bad, us v them, black v white narrative, isn't it?

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by sneeky_turd

There is that yes, but the Taliban have shown that they can't be trusted to keep promises they make during "discussions".

No more than the collective 'we'. If I was a Taleban negotiator, I'd be rather skeptical about the ability of 'us' to keep 'our' promises.

President Gerald Ford said, on the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, 1975:

History will judge this Conference not by what we say here today, but by what we do tomorrow - not by the promises we make, but by the promises we keep.

In 2008, that document/agreement was ignored by most European signatories when they recognised Kosovo UDI.

There are plenty others too that could be presented.

The Taleban do not have a monopoly on political deceit, you know. Still, it's so much easier to believe in the good v bad, us v them, black v white narrative, isn't it?

To a certain extent I agree with you. I'm aware of the fact that we Brits are historically one of the biggest devious bunch of cnuts going, but in Afghan I think we have so far played a pretty straight game with Terry. There’s nothing that springs to my mind instantly that makes me think that they would have any reason not to trust us. We held our side of the MQ agreement back in 06, until they went back on their promises. I’m happy to be told otherwise though, since low life grunts like me rarely take in the whole bigger picture.
I'm personally undecided whether trying to find a term with the Taliban is a good thing or not. I don't think that the total defeat of the Taliban is ever going to be a realistic outcome so maybe talks are the only way to go, so we end up with a similar situation as N.I?

Originally Posted by sneeky_turd

To a certain extent I agree with you. I'm aware of the fact that we Brits are historically one of the biggest devious bunch of cnuts going, but in Afghan I think we have so far played a pretty straight game with Terry.

Well, for starters, it would be worth recognising that 'we' have decided to take sides in what is a pretty nasty civil war. Second, it would help if 'we' recognised that much of the insurgent violence experienced by UK forces has more to do with disgruntled locals than card-carrying Taleban members. The Taleban happily take the claim as it raises their profile and prestige, and 'we' are happy to broad-brush label as it suits the political narrative.

Although we should recognise that the Taleban have genuine political support in some areas, we should also ensure that we don't overplay their hand to their advantage. Local support for the Taleban has grown exponentially over the past 3 years not because of military success, but for their socio-economic efforts in rural communities. They are winning the 'hearts & minds', not us.

Originally Posted by wedge35

Originally Posted by leveller

This isn't based on the same idea some UN negotiators had a couple of years ago and the US booted them out?

I think the difference is that the US considers it necessary to fight the Taliban to a standstill prior to starting negotiations. Something the OP appears to have missed in the article...

From the FT:

...
By using the reinforcements to create an arc of secure territory stretching from the Taliban’s southern heartlands to Kabul, Gen McChrystal aims to weaken the insurgency to the point where its leaders would accept some form of settlement with Afghanistan’s government.

“As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there’s been enough fighting,” he said. “What I think we do is try to shape conditions which allow people to come to a truly equitable solution to how the Afghan people are governed.”

Asked if he would be content to see Taliban leaders in a future government in Kabul, he said: “I think any Afghans can play a role if they focus on the future, and not the past.”
...

Very pragmatic.

I'm not sure is Stan is crafting his message too well though. Talk of equitable solutions will play well domestically but without a pile of high value scalps accompanying it that will be interpreted as lack of resolve by the enemy.

It obviously a response to Hekmatyar recent slippery approaches:

...
"It's just a convenience for Hekmatyar to be with the Taliban," says Marc Sageman, a terrorism expert who, as a Central Intelligence Agency officer in Pakistan, worked with Afghan insurgent leaders in the late 1980s. "Hekmatyar's main goal is Hekmatyar. He'll do anything that will help him out—it all depends on the deal he's going to get."

In the tape, Mr. Hekmatyar outlined his political program, calling for elections under a neutral caretaker government once U.S.-led forces withdraw, predicting that Hezb-i-Islami will win 70% of the votes, and saying that he would accept an impartial international peacekeeping force. While the Taliban brand Mr. Karzai a traitor, Mr. Hekmatyar promised to support the Afghan president should he stop being subservient to his American backers.

"Negotiations with the Afghan government will not be fruitful unless the foreigners give the Afghan government the authority to start negotiations independently—but unfortunately it has not been given this authority yet," Mr. Hekmatyar said in the tape.

Similar overtures by Mr. Hekmatyar in recent months failed to produce any breakthrough. And, while some Afghan and American officials have already explored indirect contacts with Mr. Hekmatyar, the U.S. government so far refuses to make a meaningful distinction between him and the two other man insurgent chiefs.
...
These days, some American officials say, Mr. Hekmatyar has managed to rebuild his fortunes in part because of help from elements of the powerful Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. Mr. Hekmatyar's movement uses the area around the Pakistani city of Peshawar, with its teeming Afghan refugee camps, as its logistics hub. His daughter and son-in-law reside in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. Pakistan denies it is giving any aid to the Taliban or its insurgent allies.

"Hekmatyar could be turned if the ISI wanted him to be turned," says Bruce Riedel, a Brooking Institution scholar and former senior CIA officer who oversaw President Barack Obama's Afghanistan and Pakistan policy review last year. "He is too closely tied to them to operate for us without their okay."

Note he clearly demands a US withdrawal. This is not a warlord pleading for terms he is offering them and I doubt it's in his interest to be too hasty about it. After all a US offensive can be directed against potential future competitors as he haggles for a bigger chunk of the Kabul trough all well and good.

The Afghan talibans are not stupid either and I can't see either Haqqani or Omar turning coat easily even if their forces are decimated. The Pak Army have said they'll not be troubling their chums rear basing in FATA in 2010. That may deny Stan any quick conclusion and he now needs one. Barry is on the ropes, the mid terms looming and the race for 2012 is up for grabs. All the talibans need to do is keep the Pak Army onside to ensure their survival and wait. Do that and they'll cut a much better deal in 2011 with Barry desperate for a second term and even the GOP ruthlessly hammering him as an inept CIC incapable of devising a viable exit strategy. The prize then may be Karzai's head and a Kabul government packed with Rawalpindi's assets. After decades of blood letting unfortunately I'd say they have it in them to endure Stan's assault and he has just telegraphed a similar opinion to them.

Is it worth the treasure in terms of blood and money? Frankly - NO.

The window of opportunity provided by the 2001/02 Op has been and gone, fighting into increasing headwinds since then. Usual crap intel and strategic assessment from CIA/GOP and weak/pathetic/compliant UK Govt/Foreign Office, rolled over far too easily on the distraction of Iraq - Massive mistake.

Wonder what Mrs T makes of it all..

Pity the Iraq Inquiry can't tie in the current problems and terrible loss of life in Afg with decisions taken by UK Govt on Iraq Invasion. I suppose we'll have to wait for British troops to withdraw from Afg before anyone starts pointing fingers.

30 years time then?

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by sneeky_turd

To a certain extent I agree with you. I'm aware of the fact that we Brits are historically one of the biggest devious bunch of cnuts going, but in Afghan I think we have so far played a pretty straight game with Terry.

Well, for starters, it would be worth recognising that 'we' have decided to take sides in what is a pretty nasty civil war. Second, it would help if 'we' recognised that much of the insurgent violence experienced by UK forces has more to do with disgruntled locals than card-carrying Taleban members. The Taleban happily take the claim as it raises their profile and prestige, and 'we' are happy to broad-brush label as it suits the political narrative.

I must say that this differs from my own experiences. The vast majority of action I've seen has been against trained Taliban fighters. Tactics/tattoo's/ equipment/chatter is normally the give away. Your average narked civie wouldn't and probably couldn't take on the British Army in the way that we have seen the Taliban do in Helmand. I've seen pissed off civies in action in Iraq, the odd shoot and scoot at a patrol is generally the best they can muster. The practice of the local recruited 10dollar Taliban seems to of died down also. The Narcotic gangs have been mistaken for Taliban in the past but it's not a regular occurance. I would say that a very low proportion of TIC's are against afghan civpop.

Although we should recognise that the Taleban have genuine political support in some areas, we should also ensure that we don't overplay their hand to their advantage. Local support for the Taleban has grown exponentially over the past 3 years not because of military success, but for their socio-economic efforts in rural communities. They are winning the 'hearts & minds', not us.

Out of interest, what areas are these? In Helmand the civpop seem to support whoever poses them the biggest threat at the time. I would be suprised if the Taliban have any real support outside these sort of areas. My own impressions from your average Helmand civpop is a hatred of the Taliban for causing the trouble, I've heard them accuse the Taliban of being foreigners in several cases.

To me this is good news and I'm glad that there are senior officials in the US who are of this opinion.

A political solution is the only one IMHO even if this can seem like a defeat of sorts.