Negotiate with the Taliban?
May 21, 2007 · By Shane Edwards
CTV is reporting that Canadians think we should be negotiating with the Taliban for peace in Afghanistan.
I refuse to believe that 62% of Canadians believe we should sue for peace with a group that believes in keeping women draped in black with only their eyes visible, keeping them from education, divorcing them for allowing themselves to be raped, and stoning them to death for any reason at all. I refuse to believe that Canadians think we should enable a group that would kill any who dare to profess belief in anything other than Allah, to rule any part of Afghanistan, or have a voice in power in Afghanistan. I refuse to believe that Canadians don’t particularly care for the plight of Afghanis under the yoke of such men that they would not commit to protecting them as best we can.
I don’t want to turn this post into another “it’s all the media’s fault” post, but why wasn’t the question asked like this: “Negotiate with theocracy that seeks to keep women subservient to men and uneducated, and kill anyone who converts to another religion?” I don’t think the answer would have been 62% yes.
It doesn’t matter how the question was phrased. Canadians should know who the Taliban are without having it spelled out. And they DO know, that’s the problem. They’ve allowed themselves to be brainwashed by Received Liberal Wisdom(tm) about “dialogue” and “conflict resolution.”
people are talking about this poll today, which found that about 2/3 Canadians think it’s a good idea to negotiate with Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgents. To me, the most surprising part of the poll was that 57 per cent of Conservative Party members supported
It’s always the Marxist elements within these orgs. that would have us suing for piece,as if we were losing and wanted to negotiate an end or maintain face in defeat…
Giving in and even listening to these defeatists helps embolden the terrorists to a point where they feel that if they supply even a little pressure, they can effect the outcome..
What is it to us that women are being tortured, murdered and segregated, when there are the scarred souls of allegedly abused detainees to think about?
As far as our enlightened are concerned, the only humans whose rights are worth thinking about are those who’ve passed through Canadian hands.
Priorities man, priorities.
What can one expect with the mush and misinformation that we’ve been fed about the Afghanistan mission since January of 2006?
Unfortunately, I think it’s quite possible that a 62% majority of Canadians don’t give a damn about anything that happens in Central Asia or the Middle East and never did, and consider “negotiating with the Taliban” a polite way of saying “handing the whole place over to whoever wants it and getting the hell out, regardless of the consequences (which don’t really affect us, so who cares?)”.
Support for negotiation is not the same as support for capitulation. It may be that many of the people who support negotiations don’t really support allowing the Taliban into any positions of influence through those negotiations.
This poll could very well be accurate…recalling two separate occasions with two liberal minded females working at the University….1) the wearing of burquas, one stated that it was the woman’s choice….2) the other one didn’t want to hear any of the atrocities committed because it was too scary for her.
If asked, these two would have definitely said…”Let’s sit down and talk with them. I’m sure they’re nice people. The problems in the world stem from a lack of communication.”
Silly geese.
I do not think Canadians have thought on this at all. The taliban and their brothers in other lands are operating on a system centuries old and thus their thinking and reactions are in that focus. Absurd to think we can talk to them. They have Mohammed as their example to live by.
Glad I dropped by..enjoy your blog.
Support for negotiation is not the same as support for capitulation.
Right. Because the Taliban will no doubt be an honest broker for peace — kind of like Yasser Arafat was. Maybe we should call the Nobel people now and give them a heads’ up.
I don’t wish to offer up some kind of excuse for negotiating with the Taliban, but it may come that it what is a necessary evil for the allied forces. As canadi-anna points out, the Taliban are not likely to be honest brokers, or to put it more succinctly, they are likely to be dirty liars, but one must evaluate what our own intel, our own generals are saying. When it becomes clear to Canada, and to NATO, that the conflict is unwinnable, compromise must be sought. Compromise may be an ugly word with enemies too foul for speech, but if history has taught us anything, it is that sometimes we must make peace for peace’s sake.
The Taliban are a brutal regime, but insofar as they are an Afghani tribe, we are unlikely to be able to defeat them, their ancestral heritage lies deep in the roots of the land. Indeed, the Taliban as a tribe is nothing new, but what is new is the Islamist poison proffered by the false prophet Osama bin Laden. If we are to stem the tide of radical Islamic fundamentalism in the East, we must not surrender the battle. But there is certainty in that we cannot kill all who remain. What is left, therefore, is cruel compromise.
We are already seeing the effects of the jihadist influence on Western Pakistan, which is slowly changing into a Talibanesque vice squad of sorts, making all sorts of changes to laws and customs which had endured for hundreds of years.
We need to be clear what we are fighting. We are not battling a medieval tribe in Afghanistan. We are fighting the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden. And so what we must broker is peace with the Taliban, but never peace with the fundamentalists.
Because the Taliban will no doubt be an honest broker for peace
That is completely unrelated to my point.
“We are not battling a medieval tribe in Afghanistan. ”
I’m not so sure. Licia Corbella was on the radio today, and she stated from her travels to Afghanistan, that beating of children and women was commonplace on the streets, and the perpetrators were the Afghan men, not Taleban nor Al Quaeda. It just seems to be part of their culture.
It is a medieval misogynist bullying culture that we are fighting and trying to enlighten.
There is a kind of negotiation that might come in the months to come…on one side it will be karzai who tries to weed out and entice those who were coerced to join up with the taliban…they want the ones back that are not connected with al queida (sp)– and in any negotiation it is part of the “fight” so to speak…the part nato adopts ..just as reconstruction is…just one of the parts to make the whole. One must remember not to negotiate themselves into a corner…as we are seeing in Lebanon right now…as the all the faction warriors are protected in their cell communities because of a negotiation one quite a few years ago that made that police zone free…no entry — that is where all the criminals and bad guys hang out knowing the army/police cannot come in… we saw them having to wait outside the perimeter. Lebanon paying a price to get peace..now hands tied.
arg..it is early…and I want to correct – a negotiation won.. ( not one ) some years earlier…
oh well I think you get my drift…
The problem is, there is no alternative to negotiating with the Taliban. They are part of the political landscape. Ignoring them is like trying to complete a crossword puzzle without using the letter “E” because you don’t like it. Their political and religious beliefs may be repugnant, but that’s irrelevant.
The Brits finally achieved relative peace in Ulster when they negotiated with the terrorist PIRA. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and do it.
“The Brits finally achieved relative peace in Ulster when they negotiated with the terrorist PIRA. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and do it.”
The British were not dealing with the spiritually diseased. We are.
I am enjoying the spectacle today of so many principled people, including Tories, trying to square what they believe with the wisdom of the Canadian public. Let me do it for you. Canadians are stupid, don’t know what they are talking about, and should be ignored for their own good.
See, Aaron, I don’t want to go there. Democracy is based on the will of the people, and assumes an educated and informed people who understand what their rights and responsibilities to society are. Sadly, we are not doing a good job of teaching this to people, and that is our fault, but I refuse to go to the place where I hold the Canadian people as idiots needing to be governed by an “informed elite”. That is what the Liberal Party believes, and that is why I will never touch that party with a 10 foot pole.
Unfortunately your view of the level of “spiritual disease” afflicting the Taliban is simply irrelevant. They’re a political, military and spiritual force in the region, and to think that peace can be achieved without involving with them is foolish.
“Unfortunately your view of the level of “spiritual disease” afflicting the Nazi Party is simply irrelevant. They’re a political, military and spiritual force in the Europe, and to think that peace can be achieved without involving them is foolish.” – Neville Chamberlain, 1938
I invoke Godwin, and you lose.
What will the negotiating position of the Taliban be? “OK, we’ll have a bicameral upper chamber, but we also get to throw acid on the faces of women when they commit adultery. Fair?”
“Sadly, we are not doing a good job of teaching this to people, and that is our fault,…”
Really? Canadians are not aware of the brutalities of the previous Taliban regime?
Shrug. Whatever. Negotiate with them now, or wait ten years, let a thousand more of our troops die, and negotiate with them then. You prefer the second option: most Canadians don’t. The British and South Africans figured that out, and they have peace. You haven’t, yet.
“Shrug. Whatever.”
Exactly. And the women of Afghanistan can sleep well knowing that the Canadian left is so passionately committed to their well-being.
What would your counter-offer to the acid throwing offer be, incidentally?
Sorry, Aaron. I mistakenly thought you actually wanted to discuss this. My error.
You want a deal with the devil? You should learn to live with the consequences of such a deal.
And as a supremely erudite individual, I’m sure that you can live with more of this (for starters): http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WO.....buddha.02/
I think the difficulty here is that while most people recognize that if there is to be a negotiated peace, it must be negotiated with the enemy — ie the Taliban. So, the real issue is if and when is the time to capitulate? (Yes, robedger, when we get to that point, it is capitulation).
Some will say never, some will say now. I’m at a loss on this one. While I can’t see it as being ‘winnable’ in the short term, everything we hear from the troops themselves says they believe they are making a difference. At this point, I’m more apt to trust them, than those who have an automatic, knee-jerk aversion to war.
Canadianna, was the British decision to negotiate with the Provisional IRA, who murdered, bombed and tortured, a “capitulation:, in your view?
balbulican — Why would you make such an unbalanced comparison? It’s hardly the same thing. Its methods were profane to say the least, but the IRA had identifiable goals.
When two groups are at odds but each has clearly defined ambitions (and living in peace is the hoped end of both parties), negotiation is possible because compromise is possible.
Do you really believe there is any compromise that could possibly suit the Taliban? I don’t. Neither do I believe that their agenda involves peaceable coexistence with the rest of the world.
I don’t agree with the methods of the IRA. They acted as terrorists, but I do believe that behind the terror were many reasonable people who just want to live their lives. Your parallel between the two groups is tenuous at best and insulting at its worst.
A more appropriate comparison would be the Palestinians and Israelis. There can be no peace and no realistic negotiations, because the Palestinian cause has no end that ennobles itself. Its mission is destructive. Negotiation can’t happen until the Palestinians make their nation and the safety of their citizens their ultimate goal. The same is true of the Taliban.
I’m trying to extract an answer to my question from that, and it seems to me that you are saying that the British WERE justified in negotiating with terrorists. Is that correct?
balbulican — Where did I say it was — your words –’unjustifiable’ to negotiate with terrorists. Even in my reply I said that the Israelis would never have a choice — they have to deal with terrorists —so just what are you trying to prove here?
If you read my comment prior to your initial question, I said that people realize that if/when it comes time to negotiate, there is no question that we will have to negotiate with the enemy — the Taliban — terrorists. So there you go — the answer was right there in front of you all the time — I acknowledged the justification for negotiation with terrorists before you even asked, and yet you managed to miss it.
I went on to say that it’s a question of when and I even expressed uncertainty, now or later. But apparently it still wasn’t clear to you that I accept the reality of who the enemy is and with whom any peace would have to be negotiated. Was that not clear enough?
You’ve set out as your premise that I believe we should never negotiate with terrorists and yet even in my reply to you I said that there is no doubt that the only parties Israel has to negotiate with are terrorists. So, yet again I confirmed that there are circumstances where negotiating with terrorists is the only recourse. And yet you respond as though you are telling me something about myself that I didn’t already know.
It’s realistic that Israel will attempt to negotiate with terrorists, again and again and again in the hope of peace — the problem is that the other side doesn’t share that hope — which is why their situation is a more apt parallel than the IRA/Britain comparison you made. I’ve already stated this, but it seems you’re not getting things the first time around so I’m trying to clarify.
Just because I also said that I believe the Taliban will not be an honest peace partner and that they don’t have lasting peace and co-existence with the rest of the world as their goal, doesn’t mean that I don’t ‘get’ that they are the enemy and a negotiated peace has to be with them.
So what’s your point?
Perhaps the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a good corollary of the attempt at uprooting the Taliban. The Israeli-Palestinian situation has long been viewed as a stalemate. No doubt the Israelis would love to be free of the Arabs, and vice versa. The fact is that there can be no victory in that situation without total annhiliation of one side.
I fear Afghanistan, without compromise that is, is the same thing. It is not without historical precedent. In fact, it would be rather routine to broker peace with an enemy one despises. Throughout the past 2000 years the most hated and mortal of enemies who were unable to gain decisive advantage had to concede to a draw with one another.
Canadianna: briefly, you equated negotiation with capitulation. I dispute that. I appear to be annoying you by doing so, and that is not my intent.
“Shrug. Whatever”?? You have exposed yourself for the woman-hater you are.
balbulican — Anything short of absolute victory will be a capitulation, because as I have said, I don’t believe the Taliban to be an honest and scrupulous partner in peace. When it gets to the point where we’re negotiating with the Taliban, it means that we’ve given up hope of ‘victory’. Although, in modern warfare, I doubt that was ever a possibility anyway — but I think it will mean we’ve lost faith in the idea of real lasting positive change.
This is not an enemy we are ever going to completely overcome. To believe in a ‘victory’ in the traditional sense, is to fantasize. This war will never be ‘won’. When it ends, it will have to be with major compromises on both sides and I doubt conflict will ever be far from the surface. Like I said, I suppose it’s just a matter of how much progress can we get done before we are ready to admit there’s nothing more we can do. Personally, I think there’s still more we can do.
When one has to make deals with people who don’t value keeping their word and who believe negotiation is a sign of weakness, it is a surrender of sorts. That’s what I meant by capitulation — not the white flag sort, but the accepting the futility kind.
[...] the blog ThePolitic put it a while ago, why not simply ask the question like this: “Negotiate with theocracy that [...]