Negotiate With The Taliban?
WEEKLY STANDARD BLOG
By Bill Roggio
As the security situation in Afghanistan continues to spiral downward, the notion that the United States and her allies should open talks with the Taliban has gained wide acceptance in Washington. Anonymous aides to President-elect Obama have indicated that talking to the Taliban (as well as Iran, a country that continues to aid terrorist attacks in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as throughout the Middle East) is a great idea. "Advisers also said Obama is open to supporting discussions between the Afghan government and "reconcilable" elements of the Taliban," the Washington Post reported yesterday.
The problem is that "the Taliban"--Mullah Omar's traditional organization, the Haqqani family's faction, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's faction Hizb-i-Islami--have no interest in negotiating. The so-called Taliban who attended "talks" hosted in Saudi Arabia at the end of September are really outsiders who have been kicked out of the group for being to moderate. The rumors that the Taliban have made a split from al Qaeda, a precondition for talks, are just that.
Mullah Omar issued several press releases stating that the only terms he'd agree to are the full withdrawal of Western forces and the restoration of the Taliban government. Omar has mocked the West for its defeatist statements and said his forces are "on the verge of victory." The Haqqani Network remains closely aligned with al Qaeda. And Hekmatyar, who is also aligned with al Qaeda (and is supported by Iran, interestingly enough), has been stringing along the West since 2003 with claims he's interested in reconciliation, but has yet to abandon his terror allies.
So what is the solution? In an op-ed at The Small Wars Journal, Joseph Collins, an Afghanistan expert and a retired Army colonel who teaches strategy at the National War College, tells us we should fight harder, and negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. This in turn would allow us to peel off the low-level Taliban fighters from their radical leaders.
To create favorable conditions for reconciliation and later negotiations, we must first step up our military efforts. General Petraeus is right: we can not kill our way to victory in Afghanistan. We can, however, create a more pliable enemy, one eager to negotiate, if we defeat Taliban offensive operations and threaten their sanctuaries. While wizards may imagine ways to do more militarily with less, in the short run, more Afghan and NATO troops, as well as more aid money will be essential.
Collins clearly and succinctly explains the reasons why negotiations with the Taliban are problematic, such as the political problems negotiations cause with Afghanistan's other ethnic groups. There is no quick fix in Afghanistan, and negotiations at this time would only complicate, not improve, the security situation. Read the whole thing, as they say.
Running on Fumes
By Brian Faughnan
The bailout of the Big 3 automakers is going full speed ahead--if GM can survive until the check comes, that is. Business Week reports that GM barely has enough in cash reserves to keep the doors open until the end of 2008. And President Bush seems less than eager to dispense billions in taxpayer money to prop up a company at death's door, anyway. Instead, it seems likely that Barack Obama will be forced to bail out the automakers as one of the first acts of his new administration.
And while Barack Obama seems committed to giving with one hand, he plans to take away with the other. Transition chief John Podesta confirms that the Obama administration will authorize California to impose its own emission standards on cars sold in the state. California alone constitutes 40 percent of the market for new automobiles in the United States, so imposition of state standards effectively requires the automakers to use those standards for its entire U.S. fleet.
Federal law currently mandates a fleet CAFE standard of 31.5 mpg by 2015. The California standard calls for 36 mpg by 2016. That will be difficult enough for Detroit to achieve, particularly considering how little capital is available for new technologies. But what if Sacramento enacts a more stringent standard, or what if several other states elect to do so? It may become impossible for the automakers to meet the rule--at least without massive infusions of new cash. And given the poor health of the companies, they won't get such financing in the private market anytime in the next few years.
So there's a good chance that once Barack Obama bails out GM, the company will struggle along as a Government Sponsored Entity for years. A taxpayer subsidy will be essential both to retain the jobs and union benefits, and to meet the increasingly stringent emission standards--which Speaker Pelosi and others specifically mention as one condition of Detroit receiving assistance. |
