Leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, green lights peace talks to end the War in Afghanistan

[Каие]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5908498.ece

Taliban chief backs Afghan peace talks

Mullah Omar approves talks aimed at ending war in Afghanistan and is participating in Saudi-sponsored peace negotiations

THE TALIBAN leader, Mullah Omar, has given his approval for talks aimed at ending the war in Afghanistan and has allowed his representatives to attend Saudi-sponsored peace negotiations. “Mullah Omar has given the green light to talks,” said one of the mediators, Abdullah Anas, a former friend of Osama Bin Laden who used to fight in Afghanistan but now lives in London.

One of those negotiating for the Afghan government confirmed: “It’s extremely sensitive but we have been in contact both with Mullah Omar’s direct representatives and commanders from the front line.” The breakthrough emerged after President Barack Obama admitted that US-led forces are not winning the war in Afghanistan and called for negotiations with “moderate Taliban”.

“A big, big step has happened,” Anas said. “For the first time, there is a language of . . . peace on both sides.”

His words were echoed by the brother of the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who has been attending talks on his behalf. “I have been meeting with Taliban for the last five days and I can tell you Obama’s words have created enormous optimism,” said Qayum Karzai. “There is no other way left but talks. All sides know that more fighting is not the way.”

As Britain and the US have increased troop numbers over the past two years, security has worsened, leading many to doubt the wisdom of sending in more. A Sunday Times poll published today found that 64% of respondents favour talking to the Taliban to achieve a deal. Some 69% said the aim of stabilising Afghanistan was not sufficiently worthwhile to risk the lives of British troops and 64% thought the war could never be won.

Although observers question why the Taliban would agree to talks when they appear to have the upper hand in the conflict, Anas said its leaders knew they could not retake power without a bloodbath. “Taliban are in a strong position now but that doesn’t mean they can control the state,” he said. “They are well aware that it’s a different situation to 1996 when they swept to power because Afghans saw them as bringing peace.”

Britain is also backing talks with the Taliban that could lead to their inclusion in the Afghan government and is pushing for a “reconciliation czar” to coordinate efforts. “Economic development and a workable reconciliation strategy are as crucial as boots on the ground when it comes to dismantling the insurgency,” said David Miliband, the foreign secretary.

British death toll hits 150

A British soldier was killed in an explosion yesterday while on foot patrol in northern Helmand, Afghanistan. The soldier was from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Welsh Regiment. His death brings the number of British service personnel killed in the region to 150 since 2001. Brigadier-General Richard Blanchette, spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force, said: “We are saddened by this brave soldier’s death, and offer our heartfelt condolences to the soldier’s family and friends.”

[Babur]

Can Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban really be trusted though?.

[Каие]

Can Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban really be trusted though?.

Neither can the Americans, but we do our best

[Quadratus]

Neither can the Americans, but we do our best

Wow, wow wow wow....

Please rephrase that sentence..

[justicar5]

Wow, wow wow wow....

Please rephrase that sentence..

why he was absolutly correct.

[Babur]

Neither can the Americans, but we do our best

But I don't think that Mullah Omar exerts direct control over the Taliban in Waziristan or the NWFP though.They probably wish to take advantage of the political and economic instability in Pakistan though

[IrishHitman]

Neither can the Americans, but we do our best

An excellent point.

This has also shown a clear rift and difference of interest between the Taliban and Omar, and original Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Divide and conquer lads, divide and conquer.

This too.

[Erik]

Can Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban really be trusted though?.

I think Mullah Omar can be trusted, but the Taliban isn't one unified body and maybe some Taliban members will choose to keep fighting regardless of what Mullah Omar does.

Sure talk to the taliban, Its just a question if you want the lives of the afghans to suck. If you give in to peace with the taliban then of course its better for the US and the EU,
But is it better for the afghans? Sure they would certainly be more proud if the "foreigners" left, but is it actually a better life for them? So far the region thats in a "ceasefire" where the taliban is ruling has been horribly opressed

As long as the war continues, life for many Afghans suck anyways.
I think I'd rather live in a theocracy than in a war zone.

But why not ask the Afghan people?
Maybe hold a referendum?

Damn it, I wish the Taliban would just stop hiding like rats, come out of their hidey-holes and face the West like men.

I'll bet the Taliban would love the US invaders to stop shooting from helicopters, come out of their armored vehicles, and face them like men.

You can say a lot about the Taliban, but their soldiers are at least 10 times as brave as the Americans.

[Farnan]

As long as the war continues, life for many Afghans suck anyways.
I think I'd rather live in a theocracy than in a war zone.

But why not ask the Afghan people?
Maybe hold a referendum?

Umm...

Polling shows the Afghans believe the opposite and prefer a war zone to a Theocracy.

[Erik]

Umm...

Polling shows the Afghans believe the opposite and prefer a war zone to a Theocracy.

That's why I said we should ask the Afghans themselves, we can't make that choice for them.

[Carach]

Can Mullah Omar and the rest of the Taliban really be trusted though?.

that, and will their demands be anything near reasonable?

You really think the occupiers will install an anti-occupation government? What would be the point of that? When Washington's men wanted the British out of their country, they didn't stand in the coming elections either. Also keep in mind that the US's aim in Afghanistan is to stay for strategic reasons, democracy and freedom are only tools to deceive the naive.

the iraqi government werent exactly pro-occupier.. so i guess ur already disproved in part (i wont even bother with the american independence one.. how could states legally/officially declare their rebellion against Britain without the politicians?)

The good thing about democracy is that its all about compromise, so u can have a faction in power that is somewhat anti-American, but will be diplomatic in how it deals with the situation.. so the US can stall for time at worst case scenario.

[Primvs Sextvs Loverlord]

that, and will their demands be anything near reasonable?

Can the US be trusted to keep its word?

[Carach]

Can the US be trusted to keep its word?

in what ways? (its pretty well known ur an anti-american so.. please, 'enlighten'..)

[Quadratus]

If peace talks go successfully and the war does end in Afghanistan, the credit will go to Obama, not Bush..

Same thing in Iraq..

/awaits flame

[Holger Danske]

If peace talks go successfully and the war does end in Afghanistan, the credit will go to Obama, not Bush..

Same thing in Iraq..

/awaits flame

Oh buhu, sport... Bush deserves little credit anyway...

/flame delivered

[Pielstick]

We can speculate as to the reasons why elements of the Taleban may want to sue for peace, but let's not forget to look a little closer to home first...

First of all, there are new men in charge of the two main players in Afghanistan... Obama and Brown are very different to their predecessors who took us into that war. It could be argued that Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. The Bush Administration had to be seen to be doing something... "Let's bomb someone!". Likewise in London Blair was continuing to have delusions of grandeur and trying to be a great statesman.

Afghanistan looked like an easy target... a backward country run by religious extremists with links to the guys who carried out the 9/11 attacks. No match for the high tech, sophisticated and well trained US military...

...right?

Here we are eight years later, the Taleban are not beaten, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan is questionable and there is no end in sight.

I'm not sure how much strain the US military is under right now, but I remember reading that National Guard and Reserve units are doing tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, surely an indicator of overstretch in the post-Cold War US military? All that money spent on super duper high tech whizz bang weapons isn't much use in fighting an insurgency.

The UK military is overstretched and under resourced, with Blair committing forces to both Afghanistan and Iraq without increasing the resources available - a situation that has continued under Brown. There have been very well publicised stories in the UK media about UK forces engaged in the heaviest fighting since the Korean War without adequate or suitable equipment.

Here's a recent story about a UK commander who resigned in protest at the way things are going in Afghanistan, which he described as "worthless"

http://www.reuters.com/article/world...52618C20090307

Afghanistan itself is completely remote and detached from the day to day lives of people in the US and UK. Sure there is great support on the home front for the troops, but support for the operation itself? Have operations in Afghanistan really made our countries safer? I don't think so, there have been terror attacks since 2001, and there are still groups plotting and attempting to carry out attacks.

Should we be fighting a war we cannot realistically win? There is no end in sight to operations in Afghanistan, just a continuous stream of flag-draped coffins arriving home every week, massive strain on over stretched militaries, and an extra burden on recession afflicted economies, all for rather questionable benefits.

Ask yourselves this:

Who really wants to end the war, the Taleban, or us?

[Last Roman]

If peace talks go successfully and the war does end in Afghanistan, the credit will go to Obama, not Bush..

Same thing in Iraq..

/awaits flame

for all the crap that Bush gets (and deserves) the peace in Iraq I will give indirectly to him (through Petraeus) Afghanistan belongs to Obama.

[Kamos]

Talking should always be the first choice and the last choice, the only problem I see with it is that no reasonable terms could be brought about.

[Barry Goldwater]

Omar had best bring acceptable terms with him to the table...

But Obama speaks of the 'moderate' Taliban. Surely if there is a 'moderate' side to the black coin that is the Taliban, there has to be a 'radical' side to it too? What about those guys? :hmmm:

[Каие]

This has also shown a clear rift and difference of interest between the Taliban and Omar, and original Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Divide and conquer lads, divide and conquer.

Wow, wow wow wow....Please rephrase that sentence..

Swore I wrote it in English. America, in general, can't be trusted when it comes to alliances and it's interests. That statement has even more relevance when linked to Afghanistan.

But I don't think that Mullah Omar exerts direct control over the Taliban in Waziristan or the NWFP though.

Not sure about that, but he is still their 'legal' leader if you like. they follow his orders, blind warriors. Whatever left can easily be destroyed. What would be hilarious is if Omar joined us, and killed the rest.

But Obama speaks of the 'moderate' Taliban. Surely if there is a 'moderate' side to the black coin that is the Taliban, there has to be a 'radical' side to it too? What about those guys? :hmmm:

The moderate Taliban are the people who area allied to the Taliban, but not a believer of their ideology. I.e. anti-government Warlords. Pashtun nationalists.