US considers talks with Taliban ..
It could work .............Will the definition of Taliban be changed ??
Telegraph
The US is considering official talks with the Taliban in a major policy shift to stem surging violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A classified White House review of strategy says American negotiators should participate in discussions between the Afghan central government and junior and midlevel Taliban commanders.
The policy would mark a major change in direction seven years after US forces toppled the Islamic extremist regime for refusing to hand over al-Qaeda terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks.
Afghanistan has faced its worst violence since 2001 and a recent Washington intelligence assessment concluded the country is in a "downward spiral", prompting calls to rethink strategy.
Until now, while US officials have supported President Hamid Karzai's attempts to reach out to "reconcilable" Taliban, they themselves have stressed they would not negotiate with terrorists.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the recommendation has the influential backing of General David Petraeus, who this week assumes responsibility for US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He is credited with stabilising Iraq after years of chaotic bloodshed by persuading previously hostile Sunni tribes to join the fight against al-Qaeda and improve local security. Talks with the Taliban could pave the way for a similar strategy in Afghanistan.
US officials are already considering training or arming tribal militias in turbulent provinces to root out foreign fighters and extremists.
Senior White House and military officials are said to believe talking to some moderate Taliban elements, while excluding their leaders, could stem violence which has killed more than 220 foreign soldiers this year.
Negotiations would aim to strengthen the central government in southern provinces where it has become nearly powerless and persuade fighters to halt attacks on US and Afghan targets.
US officials would play a supporting role in the talks which would feature the Afghan central government, powerful tribal figures and lower-ranking and midlevel Taliban figures.
"We'll never be at the table with Mullah Omar [the fugitive Taliban leader]," one official told the paper.
However even without dealing with senior Taliban commanders, talks would need to address controversial areas such as paying fighters to lay down their arms or offering the group political power. Some analysts also doubt whether influential Taliban elements are willing to negotiate.
The recommendations have yet to be finalised and are not expected to be published until after the presidential election, but the influential backing of Gen Petraeus will put pressure on whoever wins to accept the policy.
The Saudi royal family are already mediating talks between former Taliban leaders and officials in Hamid Karzai's regime after a request for help from the president.
Qayum Karzai, the president's older bother, is said to have attended a recent meal hosted by King Abdullah with other guests including former Taliban leaders and Nawaz Sharif, former prime minister of Pakistan.
At the end of the Muslim festival of Ramadan, Mr Karzai also made a direct plea for peace to Mullah Omar.
could have been that little thing called 9/11....kinda distracted the US a bit.
Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked,the good fortune to run into the ones I do,and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Rather than waste more money and years making war with them and never even caught Osama Bin Laden since...
"Everything in this book may be wrong." Illusions: The Adventures of The Reluctant Messiah by Richard Bach
The nature of politics is that you learn to "accomodate" and negotiate with everyone.
Look at the UK, they negotiated with the IRA and brought them into the fold.
Spain is negotiating with ETA.
Nearer to home, the USA has already used this tactic in Iraq, where they have been able to "split" the insurgents and thus bring control to the situation.
In Afghanistan, The Taliban are actually part and parcel of their society. So, it would no be too difficult to "buy" the off ..
major part of the conflict and bloody war there, so what would be the problem in negotiating with them? You can't close your eyes and pretend that they are not there because you don't like them, anyway that land is their land what's about the others?
Was just wondering ... this world is really the world where everyone are contradicting each other opinions without even knowing what are they talking about ...
Do not dwell in the past, do not dream of the future, concentrate the mind on the present moment. (Gautama Buddha)
Exactly written word means nothing, it is just blinding the general public.
It is a great mistake to even think of negotaiting with Talibaan...whether they will be ready or not is not of importance.
Taliban as an organization is not a responsible entity like any other state which CIA or US state dept. can sign a deal and be happy with that.
If today US thinks that by going back to Soviet era of Afghanistan and signing deal with Taliban by offerring them $$ to lay down arm will relieve the world from Religious terror then it is US's short sightedness.
Although if Taliban under lust for US money might promise not to hurt AMERICAN interests for time being....but definately it will hurt and destroy the new goverment and any hope for democracy and rebuilding in Afghanistsn.
Also terror attacks inside India will Rise.
ISI must be proud of the way they are playing their cards...so there are two Taliban now one Good and other Bad because ISI told so to CIA -- wowww....we are back to square one.
I disagree profoundly, because what they write and what they mean are not the same, they did not manage Iraq before Saddam, now they can't manage Irag and they managed to bring Afgahnistan to ash and rubble, a country that was living in prosperity and good business relationships all over the world they killed.
It says what people want to believe, just nothing.
its not a fresh news... i think first time it came couple of weeks ago in media...
The report is quite clear. In order to address the problems in afghanistan, one option being looked at is direct negotiations with The Taliban. It will be similar to the tactics used in Iraq - A type of divide and rule..
Perhaps theer is now a realization that The Taliban is part of the Afghani society and must be accomodated..
but wud the Taliban want to negotiate with the US and Karzai? especially since they are on the rise and this change in strategy can be perceived as a desperate attempt?
---Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer---
What position has CIA taken, and who is organising this, because if I remember rightly, "peanuts Carter" ruined the Middle East in 1979 by taking the CIA out of Iran?
Then let us ask ourselves who is responsible for the Taliban and Irak crises??? Who is selling weapons to these countries Britain and the US of course?
The report is as usual a piece of rubbish, it says nothing, but allows people to believe that there is a system in the system, foreign fighters are being recruited by the US who else???
There is NO GOOD OR BAD TALIBAN.
They are Only ONE Taliban--- a highly radicalised religious nutjobs ready to enforce oppression and violence for their silly ideology.
This has been consistent POSITION of India much before US got attacked on 9-11 and all that "You are with us or against us" kind of verses started getting recited by Rev. Dubya Bush and his cronies.
fact is -- US whenever finds it harmful to themselves can make declare an organization terrorists and when some factions of that same very radicals are not harmful to Americans or American interests they will be ready to project them through well oiled media machinery as "good".
With such kind of Opportunist policies, the two countries which will suffer most are moderate Afghanistan-- northern alliance folks and of course India.
The Only party gaining here is notorious ISI+Pak Military which has a record of supporting and sustaining Taliban like terror organizations and extracting money from world.