Why talks with the Taliban are likely to fail
An odd article, especially as it coincides with the appearance in London of an ex-Taliban minister, Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef, for talks.
Quote:
The deal that Zaeef is thought to have discussed with Foreign Office officials is this: in return for power in parts of southern Afghanistan, the Taliban would accept the authority of the Kabul government and expel al-Qaeda and its jihadist affiliates.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...y-to-fail.html
For once a couple of the comments are worth reading - those by permare.
Afg former spy chief: 'Never trust the Taliban'
The former DNS chief sacked by Karzai has given an interview, which gives some context to what is happening and remarks like:
Quote:
Very simply, the Taliban are our killers, they are not our brothers...
The Taliban say they have a licence from God to kill, to torture, to marginalise women...That we don't accept. No Taliban will say my licence comes from Mullah Omar, their leader: they say my licence comes from God. Settlement with that type of group is a disaster for Afghanistan
His response, as part of an ex-Northern Alliance bloc:
Quote:
.. he and his allies were preparing for a worst-case scenario where the Taliban were allowed to keep southern provinces with "weapons and structure intact" after agreeing to a ceasefire with Mr Karzai. "That will mean fragmentation of authority within Afghanistan, emergence of another state. In that situation we will rise..It will only be a matter of time before Taliban jump into other areas."
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-Taliban.html
High profile 'nail in the coffin'?
The murder of Burhanuddin Rabbani, ex-Northern Alliance leader, a Tajik, suggests IMHO that the Taliban and others have no wish to reconcile.
An in-country BBC reporter's profile and commentary:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14996850
From Watandost:
Quote:
The killing was a strong statement of Taliban opposition to peace talks, and as the latest in a string of high-profile assassinations will increase the apprehension of ordinary Afghans about their future as the insurgency gathers pace.
Link:http://watandost.blogspot.com/2011/0...n-rabbani.html
You are making a bold assumption...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
We really don't know who put the hit on Rabbani, now do we? Based on the interests of the parties I would offer that it is every bit as likely that it came from GIRoA as from the Taliban if political in nature; if not political, then the pool of candidates widens significantly.
An alternative assumption, that is IMO more likely, is that Rabanni was making headway and that the outcome was going to shift the distribution of power in ways that someone who felt he and his affiliates would be net losers in. This is almost any Hazara or Uzbek; or even those Pashtuns whose tribes were able to move into power positions on the skirts of the US invasion (like for example the current Kandahar COP Razik and his tribe that gained control of the cash machine of the border crossing between Spin Boldak and Qetta from the very large and powerful Noorzai tribe in Kandahar).
After 10 years, we are still babes in Afghanistan when it comes to understanding the dynamics of power, its employment, and the competition to gain and hold it. The Taliban are just one group of one aspect of this.