Reconciliation and COIN in Afghanistan

[Woland]

I think that what is glossed over in the overall reconciliation debate is that GIRoA must be worth reconciling with. Given that the farcicial elections came part way through a relatively successful year in the south for the Taleban, it's pretty difficult to imagine any commanders whose lives are not in frequent danger giving it so much as a second thought.

Take a random Taleban leader esconced in Quetta. What precisely is his motivation? He never travels into Afghanistan so his life is not under threat that way. So long as he doesn't upset the Pakistanis, or other Talebs with ISI connections, he won't be arested in Quetta either. In addition, there is barely any chance for the drone strikes in Waziristan to be replicated in Quetta. He's as safe as safe can be. Correctly, we speak of the requirement for both carrot and stick in the context of reconciliation, but for a great many key individuals, nor we nor GIRoA can even locate a suitable tree, never mind find a stick.

This is an instance where the reality on the ground is about, at a conservative estimate, 7 or 8 years behind the public debate in London and Washington. OK, if the tide is shown to be turning in GIRoA's favour some individuals may flip, but let's be blunt, GIRoA is in a chronic state and the Quetta led Taleban, for the time being, is doing just fine, thank you.

[Bob's World]

"Reconciliation" is a two-way street; and certainly should not be seen as the insurgent member of the populace simply dropping his cause and apologizing to the government member of the populace. That solves nothing except possibly keeping a questionable actor in office, and keeping what are likely many legitimate concerns of the larger populace unaddressed.

So reconciliation must be between the populace and the government, and the insurgent really need not be invited. Far better that those legitimate leaders within the populace step forward to sit with governmental leaders at the table to work out true reforms that address legitimate needs and put in place legitimate vehicles for the populace to address such concerns in the future short of rising up in insurgency.

The insurgent will have performed his function, providing the forcing function that got the government to evolve. This does not grant him some fiat of entitlement to a leadership role in either the negotiations or any future government...but it should not automatically preclude him either.

Family squabbles can get ugly, but when they are over you still have to live with each other and get on with life.

[Jedburgh]

RFE/RL, 26 Nov 09: Ex-Taliban Ambassador Says Work Needed To Bring Taliban To Talks

Although the United Nations never formally recognized the Taliban regime in Afghanistan as the country's legitimate government, Abdul Hakim Mujahid served as a Taliban representative and point of contact for the UN. He also served as the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan -- which was one of just several countries to recognize the Taliban government. Years ago, Mujahid reconciled with the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. In an interview with RFE/RL's Radio Free Afghanistan correspondent Ahmadullah Takal, Mujahid discusses the possibility of reconciling today's Taliban insurgents through a traditional Afghan Loya Jirga -- a grand assembly of elders.....

[Steve the Planner]

From Jedburgh's post:

"Mujahid discusses the possibility of reconciling today's Taliban insurgents through a traditional Afghan Loya Jirga -- a grand assembly of elders..... "

Until we hear something on that front, the top will continue to spin.

How do you implement peace, and post-conflict stabilization/reconstruction until the majority parties reach an agreement?

Steve

[Jedburgh]

CSRC, 19 Jan 09: Negotiating with the Taliban: Towards a Solution for the Afghan Conflict

This paper discusses the debate on reconciliation and negotiations with the Taliban, its future prospects and the role of the United Nations within it. It provides an outline of the current conflict as well as a discussion of the role of the UN and ISAF within it, from both a political and a legal perspective. We argue that the very fact the conflict in its various phases has been going on for so long offers opportunities for reconciliation. The bulk of the paper is inevitably dedicated to analysing the position of the different actors vis-à-vis negotiations. We deal with both pro-Afghan government and anti-government players, as well as with international actors. We review in detail past initiatives aimed towards reconciliation and explain why they did not succeed. In our conclusion we highlight some possible future steps to be taken.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Zenpundit and from Col. Joseph Collins, in AFJ:

(Last paragraph) Political reconciliation, first with individual fighters and then with the Taliban factions, will be difficult but not impossible. It represents a potential way to end the 32 years of war that have beset this land. It will require great Western political, military and economic efforts during the reconciliation period and close attention to U.S.-Afghan relations in the long-term future. The cooperation of regional partners, especially Pakistan, will be critical. This process is likely to take years, but it carries with it the promise of the first peace in Afghanistan in three decades. It will be risky, but it is a chance we should take.

Link:http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2010/03/4491210