[Marxism] "Dreyfuss endorses Taliban plan for peace"

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dreyfuss says Obama administration officials claim that the Taliban movement
or movements (I suspect it is basically one Pashtun-based movement in both
Pakistan and Afghanistan) will not negotiate because they think they are
winning. But in fact, it is the United States government that will not
negotiate because they are convinced the Taliban are winning. The idea of
having Khalizad take charge of the government as a US viceroy pretending to
be an Afghan leader stems from the realization that nothing can be gained as
long as mere Afghans are in charge of the governmental details.

Dreyfuss has never dealt with the New York Times' repeated argument that
Afghanistan is the "must-win" war. I think there is a world-strategic rather
than local or regional conception. How can Washington preserve its world
domination if they cannot dominate in Afghanistan, after having failed to
show that they can decisively control Iraq but rather having to share
control of the Shia government with Iran.

It is not hard to see how the agreement the Taliban is seeking would not
lead to Taliban domination of the country, or at best an open or de facto
split in the country between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance which,
under the conditions of this agreement, would be a strategic gain for Russia
rather than Washington. Of course, only this agreement at this moment is
totally within the civilized framework of national self-determination.

This solution is preferable in my view to US occupation and domination of
the country despite my strong opposition, for reasons perhaps different from
those of Dreyfuss in some respects, to the Taliban. It is clear to me that
the US and allied imperialist occupation has resulted in a radical worsening
of the situation of women in Afghanistan -- not just because of the
anti-people character of the entire war, but because the just demands of
women have been coopted by the imperialists as a front for their occupation.
Although I insist that the self-assertion and self-organization of women is
never simply pro-imperialist, no matter what the immediate sponsorship.
Fred Feldman

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/437572/print
Dreyfuss Endorses Taliban Plan for Peace 
posted by Robert Dreyfuss on 05/21/2009 @ 09:20am

For a long time now, Obama advisers and administration officials have been
repeating the idea that the Taliban and its allies in Afghanistan and
Pakistan won't negotiate a deal because they think they're winning. 

Now, thanks to the New York Times, we know that's not true. 

The Taliban is negotiating. And from the brilliant Times piece today by
Dexter Filkins, we also know that what they're asking for isn't
unreasonable. Here's the bottom line:

"The first demand was an immediate pullback of American and other foreign
forces to their bases, followed by a cease-fire and a total withdrawal from
the country over the next 18 months. Then the current government would be
replaced by a transitional government made up of a range of Afghan leaders,
including those of the Taliban and other insurgents. Americans and other
foreign soldiers would be replaced with a peacekeeping force drawn from
predominantly Muslim nations, with a guarantee from the insurgent groups
that they would not attack such a force. Nationwide elections would follow
after the Western forces left."

If that's what the Taliban asking for, then the Taliban and the Dreyfuss
Report are in precise agreement. Not on philosophy, of course. I hate the
Taliban and everything they stand for. But it's time for a deal. 

Unless you think that sending Zal Khalilzad to Afghanistan to run the
country as President Karzai's CEO is a good idea. (If you think that's a
good idea, then maybe you'd propose sending Richard Perle to be Iraq's CEO,
Douglas Feith to be Israel's CEO, and -- why not? -- pick a neoconservative
to be king of Saudi Arabia, too. King Michael Ledeen? None of these ideas
are stupider than Khalilzad as Afghan CEO.) 

FIlkins' piece -- which you have to read in its entirety -- says that the
talks involve top leaders of the Taliban and its allies, including warlords
Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Sirajuddin Haqqani, all of whom have had
representatives involves in talks with Karzai et al.: 


While the talks have been under way for months, they have accelerated since
Mr. Obama took office.... 

The talks under way now appear to be directed not at individual bands of
antigovernment insurgents -- the strategy suggested by President Obama --
but at the leaders of the large movements.


And Karzai's spokesman officially endorsed the talks: 


Afghan officials said they welcomed the talks. "The government has kept all
channels of communication open," said Homayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Mr.
Karzai. "This includes the Taliban and Hekmatyar."

There's no question that such talks are difficult. But the Times piece
underscores the vastly different approach between (1) escalating the war,
sending tens of thousands more US troops in, and developing a
village-by-village counterinsurgency effort, and (2) offering to exchange a
pullout of US forces for a deal. 

Part of the solution lies in the United States working closely with
conservative, even pro-Taliban forces in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. King
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's Sharif brothers, who are very close
to the Saudis, have already taken the lead in setting up Taliban talks with
Karzai's brother and other Afghan officials. 

Part of the solution involves persuading India, Iran, and Russia -- who
supported the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance -- to accept the notion of a
coalition government in Kabul. The United States might have to use some
political capital with those three countries, and others, to bring them in. 

But it's clear, now, that the Obama mantra -- that we can't talk to the
Taliban until we've gotten the upper hand militarily -- is both wrong-headed
and false.




________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu