Afghanistan: Will US Back Taliban Talks?

Gareth Porter writes for Inter Press Service:

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's very cautiously-worded support for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban leadership, in an interview published Monday, is only the first public signal of a policy decision by the Barack Obama administration to support a political settlement between the Hamid Karzai regime and the Taliban, an official of McChrystal's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) command has revealed in an interview with IPS.

Speaking to the Financial Times, McChrystal couched his position on negotiations in terms of an abstract support for negotiated settlements of wars, saying, "I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome." The ISAF commander avoided a direct answer to the question of whether the Taliban could play a role in a future Afghan government.

When pressed by the interviewer on the issue, McChrystal would only say that "any Afghan can play a role if they focus on the future and not the past".

Afghanistan-Pakistan Special: Mr Obama’s Revenge of the Drones

The ISAF official, who spoke with IPS on condition that he would not be named, was much more candid about the centrality of peace negotiations with the Taliban leadership in the Obama administration's strategy in Afghanistan and about the understanding of the ISAF command that the Taliban leadership is independent of al Qaeda and is already positioning itself for a political settlement.


The official said the objective of the troop surge and the ISAF strategy accompanying it is to support a negotiated political settlement. "The story of the next 18 months is the story of establishing the conditions under which reconciliation will take place," said the official.

"Reconciliation" is the term used within the U.S. military for an understanding between the Karzai regime and the leadership of the insurgency, whereas "reintegration" refers to a strategy for bringing mid-level Taliban commanders and their troops back into society.

The counterinsurgency strategy now being mounted in Afghanistan by ISAF "is aimed at providing time and space" for "reconciliation", according to the official, as well as governance reforms and increasing the capacity of the national army and police force during that 18-month period.

The ISAF official said there has been a debate among U.S. officials about "the terms on which the Taliban will become part of the political fabric". The debate is not on whether the Taliban movement will be participating in the Afghan political system, however, but on whether or not the administration could accept the participation of a specific individual -- Mullah Omar, the leader of the organisation and former chief of state of the Taliban regime from 1996 to 2001 -- in the political future of Afghanistan.

Some U.S. officials have argued that the Taliban leader should be barred from participation, because of his role in protecting Osama bin Laden before the 9/11 terror attacks and refusing to hand over the al Qaeda leader in the weeks that followed the attacks.

The official suggested that the Obama administration and its NATO allies need to reach a consensus about the issue, and that recent events make the present moment "seem like a good time to deal with that."

Despite their interest in that issue, the ISAF official said, the United States won't determine the outcome of the negotiations. "Reconciliation is considered to be in the purview of the Afghan government and international mediators," the official said.

Nevertheless, the official left no doubt that the United States will participate in the negotiations. "I don't think anybody is under the misconception we are not going to negotiate," he said.

Read rest of article....

Afghanistan Bombing: Taliban's "Boldest & Most Ambitious Assault"

Juan Cole evaluates this morning's attack in Afghanistan, which reportedly killed 5 and injured 38 people:

The Taliban mounted their boldest and most ambitious assault on the capital of Kabul in recent years on Monday, with a series of well-coordinated bombings in the vicinity of the presidential palace and a platoon-sized expeditionary force wreaking havoc. The Afghan Voice Agency reports in Dari Persian that numerous bombs were set off near the presidential palace, shaking Kabul. The first was detonated at 9:45 am local time at the five-star Hotel Kabul Serena, 500 meters (yards) from the presidential palace, where many diplomats and journalists stay. The Serena was still on fire Monday night. As ambulances raced to the site to pick up the wounded, the attackers set off a second bomb at the Malik Asghar intersection in the capital. This blast was close to the central government ministries of foreign affairs, the economy, education, and Kabul municipality.

Afghanistan “Hearts and Minds” Special: Take a Photo, Win a Camera!

This tweet from Kabul says that there were lots of bombs going off.

Other news sources speak of machine gun fire echoing through Kabul all day, as streets were deserted.

The gunmen then engaged with Afghan National Army troops. Afghan government and NATO helicopters arrived to give air support against the attackers. Eyewitnesses report that the attackers killed and wounded dozens of people.

Then the shopping center caught or was set on fire, and the fire brigrades raced toward it and toward the Hotel Serena. A second shopping center, Gulbahar, was also bombed or set ablaze, according to AFP.

The News (Pakistan) reports that by mid-afternoon Afghanistan officials were saying that the situation was under control. At least ten persons were left dead, including four suicide bombers. AFP reported 13 injured. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that 20 guerrillas, some armed with suicide belts, had come into the city to target the presidential palace and government edifices.

The terrorist tactic here, of targeting nice hotels, shopping districts and government buildings, seems to me to be modeled on what Sunni extremists did twice in 2009 (August and November) to Baghdad, though this Kabul operation was not nearly as sophisticated or destructive. The choice to use a guerrilla platoon, some with vest bombs, limited its scope, as compared to what could have been achieved with car bombs (but perhaps NATO is better at searching trunks than are the Baghdad authorities.)

The attack seems likely to have aimed at making Karzai look weak and not in control on the eve of his attendance at the upcoming London international conference on Afghanistan. It may also have been a reply to Karzai's appointment of about half the ministers on the way to forming a new government.

At the same time the bombs were being set off, a platoon of armed insurgents holding a five-story downtown Kabul City Center shopping mall began firing at nearby government buildings and banks.

The gunmen then engaged with Afghan National Army troops. Afghan government and NATO helicopters arrived to give air support against the attackers. Eyewitnesses report that the attackers killed and wounded dozens of people.

Then the shopping center caught or was set on fire, and the fire brigrades raced toward it and toward the Hotel Serena. A second shopping center, Gulbahar, was also bombed or set ablaze, according to AFP.

The News (Pakistan) reports that by mid-afternoon Afghanistan officials were saying that the situation was under control. At least ten persons were left dead, including four suicide bombers. AFP reported 13 injured. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said that 20 guerrillas, some armed with suicide belts, had come into the city to target the presidential palace and government edifices.

The terrorist tactic here, of targeting nice hotels, shopping districts and government buildings, seems to me to be modeled on what Sunni extremists did twice in 2009 (August and November) to Baghdad, though this Kabul operation was not nearly as sophisticated or destructive. The choice to use a guerrilla platoon, some with vest bombs, limited its scope, as compared to what could have been achieved with car bombs (but perhaps NATO is better at searching trunks than are the Baghdad authorities.)

The attack seems likely to have aimed at making Karzai look weak and not in control on the eve of his attendance at the upcoming London international conference on Afghanistan. It may also have been a reply to Karzai's appointment of about half the ministers on the way to forming a new government.