Make a deal with the taliban and ... and it seems, from the LA Times, that that is exactly what has to happen if their outline were to occur ...................
Obama shifting focus to Al Qaeda over Taliban
The evolving strategy could help the administration avoid the major troop increase being sought by U.S. military commanders in Afghanistan.
By Christi Parsons and Paul Richter
October 9, 2009
The Los Angeles Times
Reporting from Washington
President Obama and his top advisors are moving toward a strategy on Afghanistan that defines Al Qaeda as a greater threat to U.S. security than the Taliban, a view that could help them avoid the major troop increase sought by military commanders.
The evolving strategy represents a subtle shift for the administration, which has considered Osama bin Laden's network its top enemy while viewing the Taliban as a close ally of Al Qaeda that supports its ambitions. White House officials now are taking pains to make distinctions between the two groups, branding Al Qaeda a global terrorist group and the Taliban a local movement.
Such a strategy could let U.S.-led forces concentrate on their successful strategy of using unmanned aircraft and missile strikes against Al Qaeda operatives and outposts in the remote region along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
A senior administration official indicated that in the fight against the Taliban, at a minimum the extremists would not be allowed to regain the strength to control Afghanistan or offer help to Al Qaeda, whose leadership is thought to be based in Pakistan.
"Are they violent adversaries? Yes," the official wrote of the Taliban in an e-mail exchange. "And we would not tolerate their return to power as they were before 9/11."
The new emphasis rekindled an 8-year-old debate about how closely Al Qaeda and the Taliban are aligned. Many experts agree they are distinct, but others see them as virtually interchangeable sets of militants.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the administration considered Al Qaeda a "global, transnational, jihadist movement" that has attacked the U.S. before and would again.
The Taliban, meanwhile, is an "indigenous" movement centered in Afghanistan and Pakistan that includes "homegrown political actors with localized ambitions and concerns," the senior administration official said.
In comments this summer, Obama indicated that the administration saw a link between the two groups.
In an address Aug. 17 to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Obama said:
"We must never forget. This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans."
Bruce Riedel, a CIA veteran who led the Obama administration's overhaul of its Afghanistan and Pakistan policies this year, said it was "a fundamental misreading of the nature of these organizations to think that they are anything other than partners."
"Al Qaeda is embedded in the Taliban insurgency, and it's highly unlikely that you're going to be able to separate them," he said.
Obama meets today with national security advisors as part of his review of Afghanistan strategy, and officials said he is at least a week away from any decisions on a new U.S. policy or troop levels. Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has recommended sending up to 40,000 American troops, in addition to the 68,000 already there.
Top administration officials are skeptical about sending so many troops without a close examination of U.S. aims. That view has been influenced by a series of dismal developments, including the extremist violence in Afghanistan, a fraud-tainted presidential election there, and plummeting support for the war among the U.S. public and lawmakers.
Influential Democrats on Capitol Hill have expressed unease about a strategy that requires a major increase in the number of troops. But it is far from clear that they would undercut Obama by refusing an administration request for funds to pay for the conflict.
"People are unsure what do to," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), a critic of the war who gathered more than 50 signatures on a letter to Obama opposing a troop increase. "I think people want to give the president more space and wait for his decision. But I thought it was important to try to send something to him before a final decision is made to let him know there is a lot of concern."
Daniel Markey, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the White House emphasis on Al Qaeda may be a sign that the administration is unlikely to send the full complement of troops sought by McChrystal. The views of Al Qaeda and the Taliban are "presumably an argument for why a heavy emphasis on Afghanistan and the Taliban is misplaced," said Markey, a former State Department official.
The Taliban inserted itself into the debate this week by posting a statement in English on one of its websites asserting that the group poses no threat to the West.
"We did not have any agenda to harm other countries, including Europe, nor do we have such agenda today," said the statement, according to a report in the British newspaper the Guardian. "Still, if you want to turn the country of the proud and pious Afghans into a colony, then know that we have an unwavering determination and have braced for a prolonged war."
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, in an appearance at George Washington University this week, said it was unclear whether Al Qaeda would move back into Afghanistan if given the opportunity.
But he added, "There's no question in my mind that if the Taliban . . . took control of significant portions of Afghanistan, that would be added space for Al Qaeda to strengthen itself and [begin] more recruitment, more fundraising."
"They're not just a threat to the people of Afghanistan," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Thursday. "The Taliban hosted and encouraged Al Qaeda. And the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- the idea for them -- was hatched in the Taliban-run Afghanistan. So I think that we do see the Taliban as a threat to U.S. security for that reason."
A strategy centered on eliminating extremist enclaves in Pakistan carries additional risks. Though the U.S. and the Pakistani government have been successful in killing senior insurgents, U.S. officials acknowledge that they have limited influence in Pakistan. The U.S. strategy of using drone airstrikes there is deeply unpopular with Pakistanis.
This week, even U.S. aid sparked controversy. Pakistani political figures and military leaders were offended by the strings attached to a just- approved $1.5-billion-a-year aid package, and some have been pressing for revision of the U.S. legislation.
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments