QALAT, Afghanistan - U.S. Senate Majority Leader [Republican] Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government.Making two firsts: One, the first time Bill Frist has done anything - at all - worthwhile as Senate Majority Leader. Two, the first time Jack Layton and Bill Frist have agreed on anything.
The Tennessee Republican said he had learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated by military means.
So long as Jack doesn't start diagnosing brain-dead women via VHS and saying that HIV can be passed by tears, I'll take this as a piece of good news.
6 comments:
That is really a shocking admission coming from him.
Somewhere, at SDA, heads are exploding...
John,
Isn't there a difference between allowing the Taliban to join the government (which is already offered to them), and "negotiating" with the Taliban? Assumedly, the Taliban already knows that they are able to lay down their arms and run for government office. This does not take negotiation, but rather capitulation.
To put it another way, what could the Afghan government offer the Taliban, without compromising its ultimate sovereignty over Afghan territory? Why are negotiations necessary, if there is no concievable middle ground?
"Assumedly, the Taliban already knows that they are able to lay down their arms and run for government office. This does not take negotiation, but rather capitulation."
And if they aren't willing to capitulate - witness recent events - then we only have two choices: pursue some kind of military solution, which Frist and Layton agree is impossible, which leaves only one option - negotiation.
Later in the article, another Republican concedes that as well. Any "effort to bring them in to the political process" is going to, by definition, require concessions on our part. It always does - see North Ireland, South Africa, Israel, etc.
"Why are negotiations necessary, if there is no concievable middle ground?"
There has to be a middle ground between "political disagreement" and "armed, organized, military conflict". I've confessed previously to not paying as much attention to Afghanistan as I should, but I would imagine negotiations with the Taliban would involve some territorial devolution of powers - probably less than Canada, or even Ireland.
This wouldn't change much except in law, because warlords already have a de facto federalism in Afghanistan, negotiations would just make it de jure.
It's clear that this involves making deals we'd rather not with people we detest. That's the price of fighting two wars without the resources to win either.
I would imagine negotiations with the Taliban would involve some territorial devolution of powers - probably less than Canada, or even Ireland.
That is exactly the thing I think the Afghans are rightly unwilling to do. How can you possibly reconcile the Afghan constitution and political order with a devolution of powers to the Taliban?
And, I am completely ignorant of the situation in South Africa, but what middle ground was found between an apartheid state where blacks didn't have any political power and the present (although flawed) democracy? What middle ground did they come to?
You're mixing two different points I was making. I referred to South Africa in terms of making concessions, which the whites had to do. Similarly with the British in Ireland, etc.
There was, nonetheless, a middle ground between bloody revolution (favored by extremists within the anti-apartheid movement) and continued oppression of the majority. It was - within the margin of error - what happened. Gradual liberalization and democratization.
You're still evading the basic point - if we and the Afghan army are unable to force a solution (in your words, capitulation) then negotiation is the only option available to us short of unending bloodshed. NATO, Karzai, everyone acknowledges that - for the moment - the ISAF is woefully undermanned and cannot meet its mission.
So, very simply: either we massively increase the manpower there (which Canada and the United States cannot realistically do) or we start negotiating.
Once again, I'd like to say this isn't the path I'd prefer, but if the military isn't useful, there's no other option.
Post a Comment