The April edition of The Washington Quarterly has a fascinating article by Daniel Byman entitled, “Talking with Insurgents: A Guide for the Perplexed.” The article is well-reasoned, in-depth, and succinct. I strongly suggest you read it.
The Gist
Here is what you need to glean from the article:
| Costs of Talks
They often fail Provide legitimacy to insurgents Give time for regrouping May anger allies Insurgents only talk when they’re losing |
Benefits of Talks
Make violence look unnecessary Strengthen moderates May divide groups Provide intelligence benefits Small successes |
Deciding Factors U.S. carrots Chance of military success Popularity of insurgents Rigidity, solidarity, and capability of insurgent leaders Domestic concerns |
The article goes on to look at Afghanistan specifically. Byman concludes that the U.S. should negotiate with tribal leaders, criminal groups, and even the taliban itself.
Negotiating in Afghanistan
I can’t convey how strongly I think negotiating with the taliban would a mistake. I love the idea of giving diplomacy a chance, but I don’t think we are willing to pay the price that would be required. The U.S. went into Afghanistan because it was a breeding ground for al-Qaeda. If our main goal now is to prevent the base in Afghanistan from being reestablished, giving the taliban autonomous areas would be a mistake. The Islamicism practiced there is the harshest kind, resulting in gross human rights violations. I think I can speak for many when I say that we don’t want to be complicit in these abuses. Local autonomy would only weaken an already weak central government. In short, we’d be back to square one in Afghanistan, except that a lot of people would have died along the way. Byman’s article was great, but having read it I came to a very different conclusion.
Am I wrong here? I don’t normally find myself on the hard line, but I don’t see any concessions that the U.S. could make to convince insurgents to put down their arms. I’d love to hear your opinions. Does the U.S. have something we live with offering to insurgents? Are there any carrots we have other than an end to the war? What do you think?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Recently on the news, I saw a woman from Code Pink calling for “peacemaking” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Frankly, anyone who believes in this is jaded. Idealism is not the way of the Taliban, and I encourage anyone who thinks this is possible to google “radical Islam” or “Sharia law.”
I don’t imagine negotiating with the Taliban is a bad idea- it just is not the right time to do it.
If we were going to negotiate, we should have done it back in 2004, when NATO forces had dominance. However, at the moment, we do not have any such dominance. Extending the olive leaf when we lack the ability to place pressure on the enemy will backfire. (I didn’t work for LBJ either.)
You are focusing on the wrong aspects of Taliban policy, Kristi. I recommend reading the recent spate of BBC articles on the implementation of Shari’a law in northwest Pakistan. The Taliban, like any politically motivated group, does not implement, nor do they support the implementation of, Shari’a law according to traditional Muslim doctrine. Their form of law is indeed their own, and where Islamic dogma and their own political ideology diverge, they of course support the path that most benefits their own views. For instance, Taliban executions of highway robbers are undertaken with Kalashnikovs rather than the Islamically mandated punishment of crucifixion. The Taliban, like any other modern political party, must appeal to constituents–though their methods are completely atavistic and outwardly brutal. Negotiation is the only way to move forward unless the US feels it is in the position to truly bolster the Pakistani government and re-up our commitment in Afghanistan.