Negotiations, or endless war and chaos in Afghanistan

The Guardian newspaper (UK), published the following editorial on October 7, 2010, titled "Afghanistan: War Without End." The position taken by the editors is that the war (and occupation) of Afghanistan should be ended. In the first sentence, they write: "There is a clear and pressing need to end the monumental folly of prosecuting a war in Afghanistan." They justify their position with a number of points, which I list below from the editorial.

(1) The war is spreading "in intensity into the tribal areas of Pakistan and could yet rattle a weak civilian government in Islamabad to bits."

(2) The US and its allies operate under the "illusion" that they can build a Afghan state that has the capacity to bring stability to the country. This "claim is being routinely undermined by corrupt elections and a president in Hamid Karzai who packs his administration with his relatives."

(3) The US-led occupation intensifies the insurgent and Taliban oppostion to the foreign occupation of Afghanistan, and "has become both a magnet for, and training ground of, no less than two generations of jihadis, each more determined than the last."

(4) Moreover, the war/occupation, now in its tenth year, serves as a "rallying cause for terrorist acts against civilian targets across the world."

(5) There are huge and increasing resources devoted to the fight against the Taliban, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, including 150,000 US and allied troops, tens of thousands of private contractors, and "140,000 Pakistan military in the tribal areas alone." The increase in the growing military presence and operations has only "accomplished...a larger battlefield and more intense battle."

(6) The counterinsurgency plan of the Pentagon to increase the US troop level, push the Taliban out of Marjah, then out of "Helmand and Kandahar has faded...." No hearts and minds won in these battles or anticipated battles.

(7) Only a negotiated settlement can bring an end to this wide-ranging war. The Karzai government has begun talks "with the Haqqani network, a group based in North Waziristan and one of the most feared insurgents in Afghanistan," and, in separate secret talks "with
the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban organisation based in Pakistan." The Guardian editors think that "taken together there is now credible evidence of a desire in Washington [?] as well as in Kabul to address the leadership of the main Taliban groups, to reconcile the so‑called irreconcilables, and not rely on a policy of removing them."

(8) It is not clear why principal Taliban groups are entering into negotiations, "how far these talks have gone, and "whether indeed they present a viable alternative to the Taliban strategy of waiting the Americans out."

(9) If negotations don't gain traction, there is the prospect of more years of fruitless war and occupation in Afghanistan, and the escalation of military actions in Pakistan, further undermining an already tenuous Pakistan government. Without a negotiated settlement, the US and its allies may face "chaos, the inability to stick to one course of action and to bend competing actors to that end. The war could continue simply because its momentum is now unstoppable."

We agree with the Guardian editorial. The Obama administration should make explicit plans to end US military involvement in Afghanistan, end drone attacks in Pakistan, and do what it can to support and advance negotiations with the principal Taliban groups.

Such a process does not now appear likely. One of the biggest obstacles is that negotiations require a legitimate Afghan central government which does not exist. Among some of the other major obstacles are that the Obama administration continues to bend to the influence of the Pentagon, the rising power of the military-industrial complex in a stagnant economy, Republicans in the Senate and House who want more military resources sent to Afghanistan, and the seeming political momentum in favor of hawkish voters who want US military power to prevail.