Tweet
'No Afghan peace before US withdrawal'
Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:29AM
PressTV - 'No Afghan peace before US withdrawal'
The withdrawal plan that President Barack Obama has talked about, to bring home the “surge” troops from Afghanistan, is in fact part of a political attempt that is also included talks with the Taliban.
Press TV has interviewed Garth Porter, historian and investigative journalist in Washington, about the President Obama's plan to bring the troops home and also the US talks with groups that Washington described as terrorist groups.
Press TV: The US has suggested it will offer the Taliban an office in Turkey or elsewhere and the removal of some leaders name from the UN blacklist in return for "confidence-building measures … "What is the deal do you think, between the two sides?
Garth Porter: Well, I agree with the previous speaker that the US has not contemplated really serious political concessions to the Taliban. And these talks I do not really think should be called peace talks. I think that is playing to the hands of Obama Administration in terms of tactics or strategy. I think they are using these talks mainly for two proposes. One is to try to divide the Taliban from Pakistan or Pakistan from the Taliban by suggesting to Pakistanis that the Taliban are indeed talking with Karzai and with the US, behind the backs of the Pakistanis and therefore why not essentially cut them off. This is obviously a plan that is not likely to succeed, because the Pakistanis are not going to be so easily duped, I don't think. The other propose that the talks now serve for the Obama Administration however, is to suggest to American public that this situation is on its way to a peaceful resolution and therefore they should not worry about the fact that there are still the US troops, and will be for the next few years. I mean this is very similar to the tactics of the Nixon Administration during the Vietnam era, when Nixon succeeded in winning public support for his policy by convincing the public that the situation on its way to a resolution and that there was going to be a negotiated settlement. However, I don't think Obama is going to be successful with American public.
Press TV: As the other guest suggested there are many different Taliban factions, and without the Pakistanis' role in these negotiations, there would be no settlements with Taliban. Do you agree with that?
Garth Porter: Not entirely, I think we have to consider the reality that some of the smaller insurgent group, the Haghani networks, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin movement for example are certainly committed to uniting with Mullah Omar's [leadership of Taliban] in order to maximize the terms that they can get from the US. It doesn't make sense for those other groups who are not directly under [Taliban leadership] to negotiate separately with the US and that is why both of those groups Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and Haghani networks have made it clear that they're going to continue to support the position of Mullah Omar that there cannot be negotiations for peace without a retreat by the US and NATO forces.
Press TV: Speaking of the stand that Taliban is taking, Do you think Taliban have stronger bargaining position than Washington in these negotiation? They can simply wait out the US military engagement until the US withdrawal, so what kinds of position will Washington have in terms of face to face negotiations?
Garth Porter: Well, this is a bit of mystery. How Obama and his advisers believe two years from now even if the US has... let's say fifty or sixty thousands troops still remaining in the country, they are not going to have the NATO forces along with them. They are going to have roughly a third, at best, of what they have at the present. And the Taliban meanwhile still be there, they still be regarded by the Pashtuns population of southern Afghanistan as the strongest force in the long run, and therefore, it's really sort of like pushing water uphill to believe that the US can demand of the Taliban that they make peace with Karzai government and agree essentially to a long term military presence by the US even if it is a relatively a small Special Operation Forces present. I mean that simply not going to happened. It is not realistic and why the Obama Administration could possibly believe that, is mystifying to me.
Press TV: Do you think that the issue of talks with Taliban is for Election campaign of Obama administration really part of this political motive or there are other motives as well?
Garth Porter: We have to distinguish between the idea of eventual political settlement and what is going on right now. First of all bear in mind that the US has not said a word about its willingness to withdrawal troops on its own time line in regard to negotiations with the Taliban. On the contrary, what the US is doing is negotiating an agreement with President Karzai to station US troop permanently in Afghanistan, when I say permanently, I mean as many as decades... to keep Special Forces in there. And probably some combat troops as well and this off course is completely comparable with a negotiated settlement. They're going to have to abandon that if they are going to want a settlement. What I am concern about is that the president is boxing himself into a situation where would be politically difficult to renounce an agreement that is reached to station the US troops there,...and the president may be reluctant to abandon that. But certainly the US is going to have to make a commitment to withdrawal of all of its troops on a time table, if it hopes to have settlement with the Taliban. I mean as simple as that.
MH/MGH
Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:29AM
PressTV - 'No Afghan peace before US withdrawal'
The withdrawal plan that President Barack Obama has talked about, to bring home the “surge” troops from Afghanistan, is in fact part of a political attempt that is also included talks with the Taliban.
Press TV has interviewed Garth Porter, historian and investigative journalist in Washington, about the President Obama's plan to bring the troops home and also the US talks with groups that Washington described as terrorist groups.
Press TV: The US has suggested it will offer the Taliban an office in Turkey or elsewhere and the removal of some leaders name from the UN blacklist in return for "confidence-building measures … "What is the deal do you think, between the two sides?
Garth Porter: Well, I agree with the previous speaker that the US has not contemplated really serious political concessions to the Taliban. And these talks I do not really think should be called peace talks. I think that is playing to the hands of Obama Administration in terms of tactics or strategy. I think they are using these talks mainly for two proposes. One is to try to divide the Taliban from Pakistan or Pakistan from the Taliban by suggesting to Pakistanis that the Taliban are indeed talking with Karzai and with the US, behind the backs of the Pakistanis and therefore why not essentially cut them off. This is obviously a plan that is not likely to succeed, because the Pakistanis are not going to be so easily duped, I don't think. The other propose that the talks now serve for the Obama Administration however, is to suggest to American public that this situation is on its way to a peaceful resolution and therefore they should not worry about the fact that there are still the US troops, and will be for the next few years. I mean this is very similar to the tactics of the Nixon Administration during the Vietnam era, when Nixon succeeded in winning public support for his policy by convincing the public that the situation on its way to a resolution and that there was going to be a negotiated settlement. However, I don't think Obama is going to be successful with American public.
Press TV: As the other guest suggested there are many different Taliban factions, and without the Pakistanis' role in these negotiations, there would be no settlements with Taliban. Do you agree with that?
Garth Porter: Not entirely, I think we have to consider the reality that some of the smaller insurgent group, the Haghani networks, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin movement for example are certainly committed to uniting with Mullah Omar's [leadership of Taliban] in order to maximize the terms that they can get from the US. It doesn't make sense for those other groups who are not directly under [Taliban leadership] to negotiate separately with the US and that is why both of those groups Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin and Haghani networks have made it clear that they're going to continue to support the position of Mullah Omar that there cannot be negotiations for peace without a retreat by the US and NATO forces.
Press TV: Speaking of the stand that Taliban is taking, Do you think Taliban have stronger bargaining position than Washington in these negotiation? They can simply wait out the US military engagement until the US withdrawal, so what kinds of position will Washington have in terms of face to face negotiations?
Garth Porter: Well, this is a bit of mystery. How Obama and his advisers believe two years from now even if the US has... let's say fifty or sixty thousands troops still remaining in the country, they are not going to have the NATO forces along with them. They are going to have roughly a third, at best, of what they have at the present. And the Taliban meanwhile still be there, they still be regarded by the Pashtuns population of southern Afghanistan as the strongest force in the long run, and therefore, it's really sort of like pushing water uphill to believe that the US can demand of the Taliban that they make peace with Karzai government and agree essentially to a long term military presence by the US even if it is a relatively a small Special Operation Forces present. I mean that simply not going to happened. It is not realistic and why the Obama Administration could possibly believe that, is mystifying to me.
Press TV: Do you think that the issue of talks with Taliban is for Election campaign of Obama administration really part of this political motive or there are other motives as well?
Garth Porter: We have to distinguish between the idea of eventual political settlement and what is going on right now. First of all bear in mind that the US has not said a word about its willingness to withdrawal troops on its own time line in regard to negotiations with the Taliban. On the contrary, what the US is doing is negotiating an agreement with President Karzai to station US troop permanently in Afghanistan, when I say permanently, I mean as many as decades... to keep Special Forces in there. And probably some combat troops as well and this off course is completely comparable with a negotiated settlement. They're going to have to abandon that if they are going to want a settlement. What I am concern about is that the president is boxing himself into a situation where would be politically difficult to renounce an agreement that is reached to station the US troops there,...and the president may be reluctant to abandon that. But certainly the US is going to have to make a commitment to withdrawal of all of its troops on a time table, if it hopes to have settlement with the Taliban. I mean as simple as that.
MH/MGH