US About to Re-Start Once-Secret Negotiations to Give Afghanistan Back to Terrorists

Since early in the Obama administration,and even before his inauguration, stories were leaking that behind-the-scenes negotiations were taking place with groups and governments hostile to American interests; once considered "terrorists" for whom the US would show "zero tolerance," and with whom we would "never negotiate."

In 2011 Afghan president (for as long as US soldiers die to keep him propped-up) Karzai admitted to foreign journalists that the US had begun secret negotiations with the Taliban.
Karzai says US in talks with Taliban

Updated June 18, 2011 23:07:00
Afghan president Hamid Karzai says the United States is holding talks with the Taliban, in the first official confirmation of such contacts after nearly 10 years of war. ... But the US has declined to confirm or deny Mr Karzai's claims, made in a speech in Kabul. ... Mr Karzai said an Afghan push towards peace talks had not yet reached a stage where the government and insurgents were meeting, but their representatives had been in touch.
"Peace talks are going on with the Taliban. The foreign military and especially the United States itself is going ahead with these negotiations," Mr Karzai said.

Afghanistan's Karzai: US 'in peace talks with Taliban'
U.S. Negotiating to Cede South to Taliban in Afghanistan
Now, sources agree that the US has not only continued laying the groundwork for formal talks with the Taliban, but that those talks will also include anti-government insurgents battling NATO forces under former Afghan warlords.

These talks are being conducted through a "representative" who re-joined the killing of US-led forces upon his release from US military detention.

Top-level U.S. officials have held talks with a representative of an insurgent movement led by a former Afghan prime minister branded a terrorist by Washington. ... Dr. Ghairat Baheer, representative of longtime Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, told A. P. this week that he had met separately with David Petraeus, former leader of NATO forces (now CIA director), and had face-to-face discussions earlier this month with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and U.S. Marine Gen. John Allen, currently the top commander in the country.
Baheer, who was released in 2008 after six years in U.S. detention at Bagram Air Field in Afghanistan, described his talks with U.S. officials as nascent and exploratory. Baheer says the discussions show that the U.S. knows that in addition to getting the blessing of Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar - a bitter rival of Hekmatyar even though both are fighting international troops - any peace deal would have to be supported by Hekmatyar, who has thousands of fighters and followers primarily in the north and east.
In Washington, National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden would not confirm that such meetings took place."

AP Exclusive: US talks to Afghan insurgent group

These talks follow on-going efforts to bring the Taliban into negotiations about dividing the country after American withdrawal. Under these negotiations, the Taliban and US are planning the release of prisoners from Guantanamo to Qatar, with the Taliban opening an office there for future discussions.

Overtures to Hekmatyar's group show not only the degree of U.S. interest in pursuing a settlement but also the complexity of putting together an agreement acceptable to all sides in factious Afghanistan. The U.S. formally declared Hekmatyar a "global terrorist" in 2003.
He declared war on foreign troops in his country and rebuilt his military forces, which by 2008 had become a major threat to the U.S.-led coalition.
Contacts with Hekmatyar's group as well as parallel efforts to negotiate with the Taliban have taken on new urgency following the NATO decision to withdraw foreign combat forces by the end of 2014.
On Sunday, the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman, completed two days of meetings about the peace process with Karzai and other Afghan officials. Grossman, who was to travel to Qatar on Monday, urged the Taliban to issue a "clear statement" against international terrorism and affirm their commitment to the peace process "to end the armed conflict in Afghanistan."
U.S. officials also have reached out to the Pakistan-based Haqqani militant network to test its interest in peace talks.

Despite administration efforts to keep the process under wraps, the New York Times last week reported that resumption of concessions to the Taliban is in the works.

KABUL, Afghanistan — No peace talks with the Taliban this week: That was the short message on Sunday from the American envoy charged with starting those negotiations.

What is obvious, however, is that the first steps are being taken by American officials, working through the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, and President Karzai’s aides had expressed concern that they might be sidelined.

Talks With Taliban a Long Way Off, American Envoy Says

Although the NYT has adopted Obama's position about talks w/the Talib, Time has been more forthright.

U.S. to Engage Taliban in Peace Talks
The Obama administration is moving ahead with plans for negotiating with the Taliban, confident that talks offer the best chance to end the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan. But the military worries things are moving too fast, and intelligence agencies offered a gloomy prognosis in their latest Afghanistan report. U.S. officials said the most discussions to date between U.S. and Taliban negotiators could happen in the next week.
.
U.S. outreach to the Taliban are. The diplomatic, military and intelligence branches of the U.S. government differ over the value of talks with the Taliban or whether now is the right time to so publicly shift focus away from the military campaign that targets Taliban insurgents. The official said negotiators are talking to intermediaries for the main Taliban command in Pakistan.

www.time.com...

The Obama administration will resume talks with the Taliban as soon as Afghan President Karzai formally blesses the negotiations, the process could be underway within weeks.
Marc Grossman, who shepherded a series of secret U.S. meetings with the insurgents last year, will meet with Karzai to ensure he is on board.
“If Karzai were to tell [Obama] to go ahead, then we’d start talking again,” said one official on the condition of anonymity.A tentative U.S.-Taliban deal, including the transfer of five Afghan detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to Qatar and an insurgent renunciation of international terrorism, collapsed in December when Karzai refused to go along with it. An official said meetings with an aide to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, began in November 2010.www.washingtonpost.com...< br />
This will ramp-up as the election draws closer and poll numbers need a bump.

jw

They'll just give it back to their friends, the pro-opium terrorists.

The Talibans had to be kicked out because they killed the opium production to nearly 0.

reply to post by jdub297


Excellent post!

I wouldn't mind ending the war in Afghanistan. It's HOW I'd like the war to end that is at issue.

We could end it today. Just wave the white flag and go home (which sounds alot like what Obama is doin).

Or,

We could win the war, and ensure the safety of people in the future.

Dunno. But I think Obama's approach is cowardly and short-sighted.

Originally posted by beezzer


We could win the war, and ensure the safety of people in the future.

How do you win the war?
Who is the enemy?

The people who are shepards when the Marines are there , and Taliban when they are not?

You gonna kill everyone?

How do you win?

reply to post by beezzer


Perhaps you're not realizing that it is an unwinnable war; how do you win a war when, for every civilian victim of "American Liberation," ten more people join the resistance movement against us? Oh right, kill them all.

We need to "liberate" congress.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


You hit those "sheppards" so damned hard that they will NOT try to blow up markets, ships, American interests anymore.

You hit them so hard that they fear any future retaliation.

Alas, that time is passed, though. We tried to fight this war in a kind and gentle manner (winning hearts and minds) and they laughed at our weakness.

THEY don't have the respect for life that we have.
THEY acknowlege strength.
THEY sneer at "negotiations".

Face it, THEY have already won.

I am not sure who people expect will take receivership of the nation
anyways?

It is not like there is a large pool of non Islamist groups to pick from
or a different culture and religion to appeal to.

It is the built in idiocy which was never considered when this war was initially
pursued and waged. Bullets will not and cannot change the bent and sentiment
of the indigenous people. The Taliban, their power and role in the region are
natural manifestations of the culture and the ideology.Expecting some miraculous
gentrification was and still is the unreasonable expectation in the whole affair.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

You hit those "sheppards" so damned hard that they will NOT try to blow up markets, ships, American interests anymore.

Magical thinking... People who engage in combat are not subject to a full blown group
think. People in Texas still smoke pot even though the consequences can be 15 years
in prison for a first offense. A jihad type isn't going to confer with a data base of past
and present US retaliatory practices, there will always be more, until the practice
is shunned enough within the society.

The US has lost any concept of how exactly one exits a war--particularly when there is no way to "win" it. I think it speaks to the fact that our National Product now IS perpetual war--not the winning of wars.

It should be prettly clear to TPTB that with few job prospects, there will always be plenty of enlistees--paid for by the taxes of those of us remaining who actually pay taxes. Free labor for the warmongers! No need to pay a labor force! The returns are in the spoils and the "rebuilding." And then on to the next one....

reply to post by mastahunta
Oh please!

For some in the middle east, the Crusades was YESTERDAY!

Tell that to the countless bombing in Europe, the USS Cole, 2 attacks on the world trade center, countless market bombings!

These people attack because thery know they can get away with it!

Or they may need the troops back in the US before long and have to negotiate a way out. Or to go invade Iran. Either way, they have something more important to do than run around in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan popping terrorists that most don't even know how to drive a car (even get into them apparently from training reports trying to train drivers for the Afghan National Police).

Considering the potential theories and what may happen this year on ATS, I just can't see the most technologically advanced military staying there. They are needed somewhere else for something else.
Maybe related to 2012 conspiracies.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by mastahunta

 

Oh please!

For some in the middle east, the Crusades was YESTERDAY!

Tell that to the countless bombing in Europe, the USS Cole, 2 attacks on the world trade center, countless market bombings!

These people attack because thery know they can get away with it!

They can get away with it, what is gonna change that?

Having MILLION troops in one city will not prevent 1 person from blowing themselves up,
or 10 for that matter.

Plus, you do realize that people who blow up due are not concerned about being caught???

come on man...

reply to post by jdub297


lol
for all it's efforts, the American empire has failed at breaking the spirit of the afghan people,
like all the previous empires that had a go at it

now it's focusing all it's efforts at APPEARING to have won :shk:

flag but no star
because i disagree with your title
the taliban were freedom fighters when they were fighting the soviets, but the terrorist label was slapped on when the US became the invader.

a terrorist is somebody who frightens the TCOTBIP by going against their will/interests
yeah right.

see below for more details

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by beezzer


We could win the war, and ensure the safety of people in the future.

How do you win the war?
Who is the enemy?

The people who are shepards when the Marines are there , and Taliban when they are not?

You gonna kill everyone?

How do you win?

what most people don't realize is that Afghanistan is an anarchy
Karzai is really only the mayor of Kabul, no one outside the city acknowledges him.

when the taliban outlive their welcome they'll be kicked out too

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

You hit those "sheppards" so damned hard that they will NOT try to blow up markets, ships, American interests anymore.

You hit them so hard that they fear any future retaliation.

umm, hello beez when did anybody from afghanistan attack america, or it's interests
outside the invasion and heroin production, that is.

THEY don't have the respect for our lords and masters that we have.
THEY acknowledge strength.
THEY sneer at "negotiations" with cannibal savages, who have delusions of grandeur.

Face it, THEY have already won.

i fixed the quote, bolded part [try not to take it personally]

:shk:ZOMG, beez, let me guess, times are tough,no jobs, and you've gone and re-enlisted, WTF were you thinking? especially when your family needs you the most.:shk:

reply to post by Ex_CT2

indeed They have no incentive to stop, and a cheap labor force with no other choices, and with no unions.
it angers me that beezer fell for it, but i don't want to start screaming at him.

Originally posted by mastahunta

They can get away with it, what is gonna change that?

Having MILLION troops in one city will not prevent 1 person from blowing themselves up,
or 10 for that matter.

Plus, you do realize that people who blow up due are not concerned about being caught???

come on man...

No effective defensehas ever existed against those that Want to die.
the "Genius Strategists" should know that, after all, it's the real reason behind "don't ask don't tell"
whether it's homosexuals or religious fanatics, once a person has been pushed to the point were they actively seek death, they can not be stopped, except at too great a cost

I thought the whole Afghanistan thing was all about heroin and mineral mining and oil.

Heroin production has increased 10 fold I think.

Why haven't the military forces eliminated the poppy fields ?

Hmmm.

Everything else looks secondary.

China already has some kind of oil deal there too.

And how 'bout the mining companies ?

Afghanistan is just a big smuggling ring.

Once again the Mujahadeen have proven to be better soldiers than the US Marines. Even with all that technology we have been defeated.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

Alas, that time is passed, though. We tried to fight this war in a kind and gentle manner (winning hearts and minds) and they laughed at our weakness.

THEY don't have the respect for life that we have.
THEY acknowlege strength.
THEY sneer at "negotiations".

Face it, THEY have already won.

I come from a large extended family, many of them still serving in almost every branch of the US armed forces.

Two former officers who have served in Afghanistan agree that it is impossible to pacify or unite disparate peoples who've fought over sand, tradition, and grazing land for 2 millennia. They each describe the non-urban residents as "tribal" and "savages" who, if anything are indiffernet to what goes on in Kabul and are mostly concerned with their tribe, family and subsistence.

The "grunts" I know tell me that there is no loyalty or alliegiance to anything that is not of their own creation or control.

The US government perceived a threat from the Taliban ties to al Qaeda. They attempted to eliminate the Taliban, but only caused them to disperse, hide or move elsewhere to regroup.

We have no business "marshalling" disputes among indigenous peoples, so long as they present no threat to us.

However, having identified the Hizb-i-Islami and Taliban fighters as "terrorists," and having lost soldiers and allies to their insurgent militias, it seems we are forced to accept one of three miserable outcomes:

Finish the job we started (which Obama at first seemed compelled to do with his own "surge" of troops, but has now distanced himself from);

Abandon the job ( which is the path we are npow on, but at such a slow pace to all but ensure future deaths for nothing more than face-saving and political gain); or,

Pass off the job to the Afghan puppet "government, divided up among the Talib, the warlords, and the few cultivated "nationalists," each of which sees Afghanistan as little more than teritory to dominate and exploit to the exclusion of others.(which is what these mis-guided "peace talks" are lamely attempting).

Regardless of the path, the Obama administration needs to begin thinkinbg about being "transparent" and honest with us about its intentions, no matter how misguided, chaotic and counter-intuitive they are.

Why lie?
Why try to keep this a "secret, slowing down the process and killing more needlessly?"
Why can't the Obama administration show some balls, make a decision, accept it and carry it through in the open?

Because the political fallout is more important than coherent policy, respect and American lives.
This is all being done solely so as not to disrupt a re-election campaign and to provide the best oppportunities for "spin" that remain that can come from such an abomination.

jw