Mon 6 Oct 2008
The Taliban Seek Peace Through Saudi Diplomacy
Posted by Andrew Blanco under International, Politics
Say what you will about negotiation with terrorists, but it appears that diplomacy is finally yielding a breakthrough in the War on Terror.
The News
According to a CNN report, on September 24-27, the final days of Ramadan, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia held talks with 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a representative of former mujahadeen commander and U.S. foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar, and three others.
The purpose of these talks was to come to some sort of negotiation about how best to end the current conflict in Afghanistan. Both parties agreed that continued violence would not yield peace any time soon. Rather, the Taliban admitted that they cannot match the U.S. led coalition.
During the meetings the Taliban emphasized the fact that they have severed ties with al Qaeda.
How does this change the game?
These are only the first of many scheduled talks between Saudi Arabia and the Taliban. The information that is already being revealed from these meetings seems to suggest that Iran is playing the role of instigator.
Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said Iranian officials and diplomats who are investing in business and building education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul. Coalition commanders regularly accuse Iran of arming the Taliban, and Western diplomats privately suggest that Iran is working against U.S. interests in Afghanistan, making it harder to bring peace. (CNN)
If what the Taliban say about al Qaeda is true, and if these talks are any indication that an Arab coalition may be forming that will help the US achieve its military goals, then it is clear that a confrontation with Iran is inevitable.
The Key to Ending the War on Terror
Al Qaeda, the embodiment of Radical Islam, is the door. What lies beyond the door is a fruitful alliegiance between the West and the Middle East. The door is currently locked. The lock is a unified Arab Coalition. The key is Iran.
By defining Iran as the key, we are faced with a dilemma. We can either approach Iran as an enemy that needs to be forced out of the way, or we can approach Iran as a future-friend who has yet to understand how cooperation would be to their advantage.
In my opinion, diplomacy is the only choice. If we continue acting from the belief that Iran is an “axis of evil” and destined to be a force of destruction in the Middle East, then we close ourselves off from any possibility of a unified Arab Coalition. Likewise, we also close ourselves into an inevitable conflict with Iran.
Without cooperation from Iran, peace in Afghanistan will take that much longer. And the longer it takes to achieve peace, the longer it takes to bring our troops home.

October 6th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
OK, for the sake of this discussion I am willing to play along…
My question though is what do we have to offer Iran that would be to their advantage and gain? If there is going to be diplomacy there must be things that each side covets. We, the U.S., clearly covet peace, stability, and economic prosperity. But what does Iran want from us?
October 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
This is truly puzzling to me. I fail to see what the Taliban hope to gain from this situation.
Can there be any future for the Taliban in a Democratic Afghanistan? Perhaps the Taliban remnants hope to exist as a politcal party in the country that renouncs violence. In this case - a definite victory for the US and Democracy as a whole.
Moreover, Osama Bin Laden formed Al Queda mainly in spite of the Saudi Government reaching out to the US when Saddam first threatened the Kingdom of Saud in the first Gulf War. In this case, any slap to the face of Bin Laden is a definite win for the US.
I am hopeful but VERY skeptical of Taliban intentions here.
October 6th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Also,
I beleive that as long as the current government in Iran exists, the War on Terror will continue. The only alternative I can possibly imagine to war with Iran is if the people of Iran overthrow the Iatola. It worked against the Soviets so it might just happen here.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Great points Jack…
Yeah, I mean, I guess the Taliban would be a political party, but they would die off quick - their ideology is pretty much incompatable with democracy. So, in my opinion we’re witnessing the death of the Taliban.
As for Iran, ha, well…
My beliefs are that democracy needs to be spread to all corners of the Earth. Not through violence, but rather through persuasion. Let’s face it, our society rocks. Everyone knows it, and that’s why no matter how much people try to hate us, they’ll always loathe the freedoms we enjoy.
But, I think right now we need Iran’s cooperation to get Afghanistan over quicker. In the long run the people will need to revolt against the Iatola.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Greg,
Also a good point…the only thing I can think Iran really covets is a sanction from the international community to build nuclear energy plants…I’m sure there’s a compromise we can achieve along those lines. Maybe we can offer them some kind of long term investment in our own alternative energy research to keep them from imploding when oil runs out.
October 6th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I unfortunately disagree with this entirely. The Taliban are hoping to pull off exactly what Hamas did - sure, let there be a democratic election, but what happens when the Taliban wins?
Do not forget that before U.S. involvement, the Taliban, while abhorring our values, protected and served their local communities in the way that THEY saw fit. Again, I do not agree with their ideology, but there are Afghans who see the Taliban as a protecting and balancing force in certain localities.
Iran - oh, boy. Even if you got Iran on your side, you still have nothing. The Middle East has been at war for thousands of years and will continue to do so without end. That’s a bold statement and I stand by it, fully, based on history and observation of current happenings which mirror historical behaviors perfectly.
I encourage diplomacy, but why are they trying to call for peace now, even as the fighting intensifies in their homeland? Do not tell me that coalition forces are beating them into submission, because these are the people who are glorified for dying in what they view as a holy war. It would be prudent to be very skeptical of this whole situation before Western nations start running around, jacking each other off.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:48 am
There’s nothing like an international circle jerk.
Jay, we aren’t breaking them into submission, but we also aren’t losing. It’s kind of a limbo period in battle…At least that’s what the Taliban are reporting. And it seems they want to take advantage of the situation to shake up the structure of Afghan government.
Food for thought:
Afghan president Karzai has actually invited Taliban leader Mullah Omar to step forward as a presidential hopeful in the election next year. So yeah…the Taliban could be legally in control of Afghanistan come 2009.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
As for Iran, we probably don’t need their help in this situation if we are able to convince the Taliban to forsake Iranian help. By doing this we’d effectively isolate Iran by acquiring two of their neighbors as allies - Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, Iran is in kahoots with Russia, so in that respect diplomacy still becomes necessary even after the Afghan battles subside.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Or we could just shock and awe them both. With a McCain-Palin ticket, there will be “drill, baby, drill!” and “shock and awe, baby, shock and awe!”. Then Palin will wink at the camera while McCain grabs her ass as she pushes the big red button. Then they will make out and cigars will come into play…again.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Milk chocolate cigars…
October 7th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
One thing you guys havn’t considered:
Iraq is not over, but we have throughly turned the tide in that country and are on the verge of victory.
The Taliban no longer have Iraq to support their cause on a second front (at least not like in 2004-2005).
General Petreaus is now in command of US forces in Afghanistan and has shown the allies the blueprint for success in counter insurgency.
US attemtion is again on Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban are facing anihilation and they are reaching out to a US freindly Arab state to attempt to win peace and save face at the same time.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Unlike Obama, I admit it: the surge worked despite my initial opposition. But seriously, what are you supposed to do when the real problem lies in Pakistan and the militants are merely crossing the border to raid in Afghanistan?
October 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Therein lies the key to victory in Afghanistan. Pakistan is also a central front in the War on Terror.
The key there lies on applying enough politcal pressure on the Pakistani Government to squeeze the Taliban from the east and drive them right into our forces in the west.
If we are forced to cross the border the Pkistani government will have to answer to it’s own people, I don’t see how they have a choice but to help us.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
What do you think of Obama’s promise to strike Pakistan if we get Osama in sight while he’s in their country?
October 7th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Don’t miss
October 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Andrew, I really thought you had better comprehension skills than that. Obama never once said he would strike Pakistan. He said he would not hesitate to strike Bin laden, even if he was in Pakistan’s territory. That ain’t even the same thing.
October 8th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
It would be if you were Pakistan, no?
October 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
No, it wouldn’t be. He did not pledge to attack Pakistani forces, only terrorist forces inside of Pakistan with the caveat of, “If the Pakistanis are UNABLE OR UNWILLING” - did you miss that part?
October 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Yeah so lets say another country was looking for a terrorist in the US and we were unable and unwilling to do the job and so the other country let loose on whatever city or countryside the terrorist was hiding…I’d consider that an attack on America, not just the terrorist who was targeted.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
If Obama attacked Pakistan (as a whole in a conventional war sense), there would be major dung hitting the fan.
If Obama snipered Osama in Pakistan, it would be justified.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
We aren’t talking about cities and civilians in regards to Bin laden. We are talking uninhabited caves and inhospitable regions. Again, you try to compare apples and oranges for the sake of proving your point, whose premise is inherently flawed.
The US is ALWAYS willing and able to fight someone. If we are “unable or unwilling” to assist in the attack of a terrorist on our own soil, then shame on us and we deserve to have another country step in and do the job. You get what you deserve.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
All I’m saying is ask a Pakistani what they would think about that kind of action taken on their territory. They have nukes for the love god! I just think we shouldn’t assume that Pakistan would be necessarily be OK with that action.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Well then what Andrew, would you have us climb a tree?
October 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
I think capturing bin Ladin is a big political game to get votes, and its not as important as crushing the structure of the al Qaeda organization. And I think that can be done by first settling and then working with Afghanistan and Pakistan.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
He would have us put on sandals, robes, veils and walk hand in hand singing the extremist Islamic version of Kumbaya, which is probably something like, “ji-ji-had allah” as Pakistan sells nukes to al Qaeda who ships them into NY harbor in one of the 90% of cargo containers that are not scanned for radioactivity. That is what it sounds like, anyway.
If Pakistan isn’t “willing” to take out Bin laden, then they aren’t our allies and we shouldn’t care about attacking a terrorist organization in their country. If they are “unable” then they certainly would not mind if we performed the strike, and if they did, they aren’t really our allies. Either way, you clearly overestimate Pakistan’s nuclear capability. They have no means by which to deliver said nuclear weapons to anything anywhere near the US. If they strike a US ally in retaliation against the us with a nuclear weapon, then most of the rest of the world will alienate or go immediately to war with Pakistan. They can’t afford that, so don’t be silly with this nuke-talk.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
The fact that you bring up alternate ways that Pakistan could react proves my point that they MIGHT react to an attack on bin Ladin as an attack on their land worthy of retaliation.
It’s a possibility, that’s all I’m saying. And its foolish not to take into account the possible perceptions and reactions of a culture and nation that isn’t our own.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
i MIGHT die driving to work tomorrow, it doesn’t mean I’m not going to get in the car an go.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Ha, true enough. But would you take the risk if it meant Pakistan might get pissed enough to cooperate with al Qaeda to bring nukes into Iran or other unfriendly countries, or help in planning terrorist attacks on our country and cities. I just don’t think getting bin Ladin is worth that kind of unpredictability.
I really believe getting bin Ladin is just a symbolic action and not nearly as important as finishing the job right.
October 8th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I think you fret too much over scenarios that are POSSIBLE, but improbable.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
True, but who would have thought al Qaeda was bold enough to fly a plane into the twin towers? I’ve seen the improbable happen in the last decade, so I’m done assuming the improbable won’t happen.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I’m done with this. I am glad you aren’t the president, because you would have us subservient to everyone by now with your attitude toward foreign policy.
October 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I’m advocating caution and cooperation. I don’t believe that would result in subservience.
But if you do, then are you telling me you advocate the opposite?