Taliban prepared to work with US on security in Afghanistan.

Mehrushka

Prime Minister (20k+ posts)
[h=1]Taliban 'prepared to work with US on security in Afghanistan'[/h] [h=2]The Taliban is prepared to completely disown al-Qaeda, allow the US to retain several military bases in Afghanistan and agree a ceasefire deal to end its 11 year conflict with Nato, a major report released on Monday discloses.[/h]
taliban_2054989b.jpg
According to the report, the Taliban representatives believe there is no natural enmity with the Americans, and that they would be prepared to accept a long-term US military presence in the country if it helped Afghan security Photo: EPA









By Barney Henderson, and Ben Farmer in Kabul

12:01AM BST 10 Sep 2012



The group, which was ousted by the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11, is now willing to cooperate with the US on security and take part in peace negotiations in return for international political recognition, the study says.

The report was compiled by the respected Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) following interviews with four senior Taliban figures close to the organisations leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar. These included former government ministers, one of the groups founding members and a Mujahideen commander.

It sets out a detailed path to a negotiated settlement for Afghanistan that could allow the majority of western troops to withdraw in 2014 without the country descending into renewed chaos.

According to the report, the Taliban representatives believe there is no natural enmity with the Americans, and that they would be prepared to accept a long-term US military presence in the country if it helped Afghan security.

Under the plan, five US military bases could operate in Kandahar, Herat, Jalalabad, Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul to help rebuild Afghanistan up to 2024. The Taliban figures expressed hope that military assistance would translate into economic assistance over time.


According to the paper, the groups leadership and 'base deeply regret their past association with al-Qaeda and would obey a command to completely renounce the group once a ceasefire had been agreed.
The four Taliban representatives, who did not want to be named, said that while they could not speak for the more hardline military commission, Mullah Omar had broad control over all factions and he supported the plan.
However, they imposed several conditions on the deal. These would include rejecting the current Afghan constitution so that any ceasefire would not be considered a surrender, a refusal to negotiate with the utterly corrupt President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban being re-accepted into the international fold.
The four representatives also said that the US would have to guarantee not to launch any attacks on Pakistan or Iran from its Afghan bases, with the deal terminated if they did. America would also have to end drone strikes from the country.
They added, however, that the US would be free to attack Iran from the Persian Gulf.
They all stated, in different words, that the Taliban now recognise their links to al-Qaeda before 9/11 were a mistake, said the report that is due out on Monday, adding that the Taliban now considered al-Qaeda responsible for their ousting from power in 2001.
The report shows that the outlook of the Taliban leadership has changed over the last three years, explained Dr Rudra Chaudhuri, one of the reports authors along with Michael Semple, Anatol Lieven and Theo Farrell. There is an acceptability now that this conflict cannot be won and an outright victory is almost unforeseeable.
They understand that the US military machine will stay on after 2014, and allowing bases to stay would be similar to those in Iraq with clear red lines on what is and is not acceptable. They see the Americans as a safe bet.
It will obviously be difficult for David Cameron to sell a deal with the Taliban when British troops are dying in Helmand. It will be equally difficult for the Taliban to sell negotiating with the so-called infidels. But a narrative is needed that is acceptable to both sides.
Making reference to the Coalition and the political relationship between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, one of the Taliban members dismissed rumours of division within the Quetta Shura.
The leader responsible for military affairs, Qayum Zakir, challenged the groups coalition from within, but only to a tolerable extent.
We think of Zakir as Nick Clegg, he said.
Abdul Hakim Mujahid, deputy leader of Hamid Karzais High Peace Council and himself a former Taliban envoy, confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that some Taliban figures had discussed negotiating a package, including a ceasefire, to try and find a settlement to the conflict.
However they rejected current demands that they lay down their weapons and abide by the constitution, saying it would be tantamount to a surrender. Mr Karzai has said in the past that acceptance of the constitution was not negotiable.
Concessions to the Taliban are likely to face deep opposition from the influential remanants of the Northern Alliance who fought the Taliban regime throughout the 1990s.
America and its allies have made concerted efforts in the past 18 months to get an embryonic peace process underway, but talks have failed to materialise.
Taliban negotiators in Qatar earlier this year cancelled plans to open a political office to foster peace contacts, saying America had broken a promise to release five of their leaders from Guantanamo Bay prison.
Violence in Afghanistan has in the meantime continued unabated and many in the country doubt the insurgents sincerity.
The United Nations estimates 1,145 civilians died in the first six months of the year, about four fifths killed by insurgent bombings or shootings. The White House refused to comment on the report
 

seekers

Minister (2k+ posts)
"mutual natural enmity" with Iran and Pakistan is main cause of this deal , This is a bad news for both Iran and Pakistan
 

Lawangeen

Minister (2k+ posts)
we have heard this kind of news in the past from U.S but then later on we found the guy who they were dealing with was someone else and he ran away with the money ... so i would say lets wait for some sort of confirmation from taliban themselves about this, till last news taliban were sticking to their idea of not talking till a single american soldier on afghanistan soil...
 

amir_ali

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Nothing but Propaganda; Taliban have categorically denied these rumors repeatedly, however, they accept that they would have to talk, but it would be on their terms and why not, they are winning.

Following is a link of official website of Taliban, u can check their statements from there:

http://shahamat-english.com/
 

Mullah Omar

Minister (2k+ posts)
far better than their sister organization TTP in Pakistan? .Thanks for admit mutual natural enmity with Iran
While it is correct that Taliban are against Iran this article makes it clear that Taliban will not allow US to attack Iran from Afghanistan.
 

Mullah Omar

Minister (2k+ posts)
Nothing but Propaganda; Taliban have categorically denied these rumors repeatedly, however, they accept that they would have to talk, but it would be on their terms and why not, they are winning.

Following is a link of official website of Taliban, u can check their statements from there:

http://shahamat-english.com/
Taliban can act like they're winning but the fact is that the situation in Afghanistan is at most a stalemate so no side can negotiate strictly on their own terms. Whatever the outcome, if Taliban come back into power in any form, at least it will reduce indian influence in Afghanistan.
 

Islam4globe

MPA (400+ posts)
PROPAGANDA BY X-BAGARAT-GENERAL-MUSHRAF supporters.


Caution: Stop supporting Mushraf else he will sell you for Dollar$ to US.

Here is a treat for you. Enjoy Hardcore Action Movie.


NATO Helicopter Destroyed by Taliban

By GRAHAM BOWLEY

Published: September 11, 2012

KABUL, Afghanistan — A coalition heavy-transport helicopter parked inside the sprawling Bagram Air Base was hit and destroyed by insurgent fire late Monday, killing three Afghan service personnel who were on board, NATO said Tuesday.

us_war_deaths_coffins_DoD.jpg

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

NATO service members also on the helicopter, a Chinook CH-47, at the time of the attack were injured, but there were no other fatalities, said Lt. Col. Hagen Messer, a spokesman for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
“We can confirm that an ISAF helicopter was destroyed by indirect fire,” he said, describing in general terms the use of either mortar or rocket fire, though he said it was not clear precisely what weapon was used. “The helicopter caught fire after it was hit.”
Colonel Messer said the service members were part of a crew conducting routine nighttime maintenance when the attack struck, around 10:30 p.m. Monday. But Roshna Khalid, the spokeswoman for the governor of Parwan Province, where Bagram is, said the helicopter had been hit by rocket attack as it came in to land. She identified the three dead Afghans as belonging to the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan’s intelligence agency.
In a statement, the Taliban claimed responsibility.
Indiscriminate attacks involving mortar shells or rockets fired by insurgents hiding outside the heavily fortified Bagram Air Base, one of the biggest American military bases in Afghanistan, occur frequently, but they rarely result in such serious damage.
Last month, insurgents fired a pair of rockets that damaged the parked C-17 transport plane used by Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was visiting Afghanistan.
General Dempsey was asleep at the time, and not near the plane, American officials said, but the damage to the C-17 was enough to force General Dempsey to leave Afghanistan a few hours later than planned on another aircraft.
Bagram Air Base sits in the Shomali Plain, an important strategic link between the north and south. A main road passing north through Bagram and the Salang Tunnel, and eventually into Uzbekistan, is an important resupply corridor. But in the past few years some recent security gains in the province have deteriorated.
In the western province of Herat, a suicide bomber killed a commander for the Afghan Local Police, his two guards and seven civilians. The attack on the commander, Arbab Abdul Hakim, happened in a store in the Keshk-e-Kohna district.
An employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Bagram, Afghanistan.

 
Last edited:

ambroxo

Minister (2k+ posts)
u ll never see the winners begging for negotiations


Taliban can act like they're winning but the fact is that the situation in Afghanistan is at most a stalemate so no side can negotiate strictly on their own terms. Whatever the outcome, if Taliban come back into power in any form, at least it will reduce indian influence in Afghanistan.
 

Islam4globe

MPA (400+ posts)
http://world.time.com/2012/09/11/afghanistan-after-911-a-mission-unaccomplished/

Afghanistan After 9/11: A Mission Unaccomplished


The legacy of the war in Afghanistan will be about much more than the attacks of 9/11 and the defeat of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda
By ISHAAN THAROOR | @ishaantharoor | September 11, 2012 | +
Log In with Facebook
Sharing TIME stories with friends is easier than ever. Add TIME to your Timeline.
Learn More




us-casualties.jpg


MUSADEQ SADEQAP
8 US Soldier die in an ambush north of Kabul, Afghanistan, Sept. 10, 2012.


Long gone is that smoke-em-out-of-their-caves bravado. 11 years after the horrors of 9/11, the U.S. war to punish al-Qaeda has turned into a global headache. With no decisive military victory in sight in Afghanistan, the Americans and their allies are rushing, albeit as discreetly as possible, for the exit. The official date of withdrawalby the end of 2014hangs like an oversized albatross around the neck of policymakers in Washington, Brussels and Kabul. Yes, Osama bin Laden is dead and his jihadist enterprise in retreat. But the legacy of the longest conflict in American history and the future of war-ravaged Afghanistan are both shrouded with dark uncertainties.
Two events yesterday highlighted the shadowy world 9/11 wrought. On Sept. 10, the U.S. military confirmed that an unnamed inmate in Guantanamo Bay died while in detention from unknown causes. This was the ninth such death since the facility opened in 2002. An extraterritorial, extrajudicial site for those swept up in Afghanistan and Pakistan amid the U.S.s quest to root out al-Qaeda and its proxies, Guantanamo became a metaphor for the darker practices of the war on terror. This extraordinary renditioning of supposed American values was illustrated most recently by revelations published by Human Rights Watch alleging the CIA once colluded with the regime of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi to torture suspected Islamist extremists. Some of those detained in Guantanamo have been found to have had little connection to bin Ladens jihad; near 170 prisoners remain in a legal and moral limbo.
The journey to Gitmo often wound its way through the vast American facility at Afghanistans Bagram Air Base. Also on Sept. 10, the U.S. officially transferred the operation of the detention center and the over 3,000 prisoners in custody there to local authorities. Reuters quoted a top Afghan official making this unintentionally bleak statement:
Today is a historical and glorious day for Afghanistan where Afghans are able to take the charge of the prison themselves, acting Defence Minister Enayatullah Nazari told a large crowd including U.S. military officials.
That the Afghan government is slowly reassuming direct control over stretches of the country and, indeed, a notorious prison is a metric of progress. But, according to a report issued this past week by the Open Society, a George Soros-funded pro-democracy group, with Bagram, the Afghans are inheriting an internment system where detainees were kept arbitrarily by the U.S. and often without trial, something that may be in contravention of Afghanistans own constitution. And theres every indication the Afghans will simply pick up where the Americans left off. If Afghanistan truly wants to bring legitimacy to national security detentions, creating their own unlawful internment regime is a bad way to start, says Rachel Reid, an Afghanistan specialist for the Open Society.
While the U.S. has spent at least half a trillion dollars on the war and lost more than 2,000 of its soldiers, the gains made the liberation of much of the country from tyrannical Taliban orthodoxy could yet be reversed. Moreover, a decade of U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan, while not unpopular back home, has possibly sewn the seeds of greater discord to come. Earlier this year, Robert Grenier, a former CIA counterterrorism chief under George W. Bush, warned of the human cost of a wayward and at times indiscriminate campaign of drone strikes on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield, he said.
Given the resilience of the Taliban, its become all too clear that a negotiated truce and political settlement must be forged sooner rather than later. An important, somewhat encouraging report put out recently by the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based think-tank, suggests the Taliban are ready for ceasefire talks and compromise as wellthough its a solution that few Washington hawks could have countenanced 11 years ago.
The report, based on a number of interviews with senior Taliban figures (though their identities remain anonymous) conducted by four British and American South and Central Asia experts, makes a number of significant claims: the Taliban leadershipknown as the Quetta shuraafter the Pakistani city where top leaders like Mullah Mohammad Omar are thought to have found safe havenprofoundly regrets its dealings with al-Qaeda and is prepared to renounce any ties to international terrorist outfits; despite certain bullish public utterances, the Taliban are willing to commit to parliamentary democracy, allow for modern education in schools and for girls to attend them; they are even willing to accept a U.S. military presence in the country beyond 2014, though insist for an end to drone strikes.
Of course, even if these Taliban assurances are true, there are major stumbling blocks. The most glaring one is the Taliban refusal to cooperate with the supposedly corrupt government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a politico who, despite his growing unpopularity at home and in the West, will not disappear quietly from the public stage. Moreover, the role of Pakistan and the jihadist-sympathizers in its military remains pivotal, and theres no sign yet of a clear break between the Afghan Taliban and their bases of support in Islamabad. At the same time, regional powers in India and Iran will be bent on preventing the Taliban from making their way back into power. A messy geopolitical conflagration looms, with Afghanistan yet again at risk of becoming the site of regional proxy wars.
The one reassuring conclusion of the RUSI report is that, unlike in the 1990s, the Taliban know they dont have the resources to pull off a complete military victory in the country they once ruled through the backs of their Toyota pickups. Yet even for the worlds only superpower, the prospect of a decisive victory in Afghanistan has long dimmed. For all its initial zeal and the blood and treasure spent the U.S. wont be able to author a happy ending in a part of the world it sought to remake 11 years ago.
 

adnan_younus

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
yes... they were far better than karzai and the northern aliance.. bus dimaagh mein bhoosa bhara thaaa.. agar us kutttteeey osama bin laden ko pakaer ker saudia ko deport kerdeytey .... to Allah hee janta hai ke mamla shayad doosa hota...
Afghan Taliban never had enmity with Pakistan. They were far better then the pro indian Karzai government.
 

amir_ali

Chief Minister (5k+ posts)
Taliban can act like they're winning but the fact is that the situation in Afghanistan is at most a stalemate so no side can negotiate strictly on their own terms. Whatever the outcome, if Taliban come back into power in any form, at least it will reduce indian influence in Afghanistan.

There might be a stalemate for US but for taliban these are good times, America invaded Afghanistan to eliminate Taliban, till now they are not eliminated and I don't see anything like that happening in the future as well, so US has failed to achieve its objective while the Taliban are still here, growing stronger and are time tested, so obviously they are winning.

Fact is that this war has has caused US fatal economic blow, they can't keep it going, they would have to go, at that time who would take control of Afghanistan, the strongest group; that is Taliban.
 

Back
Top