NATO backs Taliban talks: Sign of a shift in Afghanistan war?

[bemildred]

Source: CSM

Washington. NATO’s confirmation that its forces are facilitating talks between Taliban leaders and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a sign that the Afghanistan balance could be shifting from warfare to settlement – and the eventual withdrawal of Western combat forces.

With President Obama’s surge of US forces in Afghanistan complete, this was supposed to be the time for breaking the insurgency’s momentum to create more favorable conditions for peace negotiations.

Though those conditions have clearly not yet arrived, NATO decided to guarantee safe passage to senior Taliban leaders taking part in the talks – though NATO is not taking part in the talks itself.

It is an indication that the surge has not progressed as planned, forcing the US and its allies to open the door wider to other options, says Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington and a former Pentagon official.

Read more: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2010/1014/NATO-backs-Taliban-talks-Sign-of-a-shift-in-Afghanistan-war

[bemildred]

1. Eight Nato troops killed in attacks

Eight Nato troops were killed in Afghanistan on Thursday, bringing the alliance's losses over the past two days to 14.

It has been the deadliest year for international forces in the nine-year Afghan conflict.

Troop numbers have been increased to put pressure on insurgents and casualties have mounted.

The escalating toll has shaken the commitment of many Nato countries, with calls growing to start drawing down troops quickly.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jTM3D4XwwVXWEEuQHYt_ZlQ_09vw?docId=N0264941287041703480A

[rug]

2. Of the 8, how many are from the U.S.?

[bemildred]

3. Well, it doesn't say.

I mean, the odds are most of them, but in any particular case?

[rug]

4. It disturbs me that they're being rebranded as NATO troops.

[bemildred]

5. OK.

I mean I understand, there is an election, and these people have no principles, I guess I'm used to it, I expect them to lie and dissemble.

[OnlinePoker]

11. They say NATO troops to give the home countries a chance to break the news to their own population

Afghanistan is a NATO mission, not U.S., even though the States is the lead force there.

[Bragi]

16. Also creates the false impression that the war has wide support /nt

[boston bean]

13. 7

[DallasNE]

6. I Thought This Was Part Of The Biden Plan

Gen. McChrystal didn't buy in and he has been replaced by Gen. Petraeus. Increased drone attacks and talks with the Taliban were central to VP Biden's plan. It looks like all are on board with this now so I don't really see this as a new development.

[bemildred]

9. It's new in that it's being discussed in the MSM.

You are correct that the idea has been around a while now, and correct that everybody (except maybe Cheney) is with the program now.

[cstanleytech]

7. Talking with them is ok however

any settlement with them is going to have to require that they atleast cut off all ties with Bin Ladens group not to mention they probably should not be allowed to ever hold any elected position and maybe even not their children or their children's children just to be safe so they down backslide any time soon.

[Bragi]

17. Nice thought, won't happen

When the U.S finally gets its sorry ass out of Afghanistan, the drug lords, tribal chieftains and religious medievilists who have run this impoverished and backward country for the past 200 years will resume running the country exactly as they always have. There will be nothing gained by the latest round of bloodletting.

[grahamhgreen]

8. So, why are we there? Other than to make money from war?

[Bragi]

19. Because Obama made a mistake and escalated this war /nt

[onethatcares]

10. no matter,

when all is said and done, the Democrats will be blamed for losing this war because they were soft and didn't allow the troops to turn A-stan into a glass parking lot.

I noticed the "NATO" troops designation recently too. Then I noticed the military deaths in our paper being shifted to the rear pages of section 2.

Wouldn't want the folks to know we're still killing our own for corporations during this election cycle.

[DCBob]

12. or it could be an indication our efforts have "persuaded" the Talibangers to give peace a try..

I think this is a significant turn of events which may allow us to finally get out of there. I dearly hope so.

[Bragi]

15. If I had a dollar for every time that theory was floated...

Then I'd retire right now.

This war was never winnable. It is just a pointless exercise. Turns out vengeance-inspired hubris isn't the best foundation for a winning war strategy.

[pampango]

14. The prospect of a schedule for US/NATO withdrawal would tend to focus the attention of

Afghan officials on their own survival, if nothing else. (Of course, an unsuccessful "surge" combined with the prospect of withdrawal would focus minds even more.) One would think that they would not feel the need to negotiate if they believed the US/NATO was going to stay there as an effective force forever.

[Bragi]

18. There is no "surge"

Obama has increased the number of troops there, but all that has done is to create a larger gaggle of troops standing around, trying to stay alive, waiting for this foreign policy nightmare to end.

This war is unwinnable, and always has been. Obama was foolish to try to escalate it.

[gratuitous]

20. Now look at all we've won with the saber and the gun

Tell me is it worth it all?

Still miss you, Phil.