Will Obama Say Yes to Afghan Peace Talks?, Truthout, May 8, 2010, by Robert Naiman, quoted verbatim:

Afghan President Hamid Karzai is coming to Washington next week to meet with President Obama. Afghan government officials have said that their top priority for these talks is to get President Obama to agree that the US will fully back efforts of the Afghan government to reconcile with senior leaders of the Afghan Taliban insurgency in order to end the war.

On the merits, saying yes to the Afghan government’s request for US support for peace talks would seem like a no-brainer.

Either Hamid Karzai is the legitimate president of Afghanistan or he is not. If Hamid Karzai is not the legitimate  president of Afghanistan, then Western forces must leave the country immediately, because they have no legitimate basis to remain. But if Hamid Karzai is the legitimate president of Afghanistan, then it’s a slam-dunk that his government’s policy of national reconciliation ought to take precedence over Pentagon demands for more killing.Either the opinions of the people of Afghanistan on questions of war and peace in their country matter or they do not. If they do not matter, then everyone in Washington pontificating about “democracy” or “governance” or “legitimacy” or “corruption” in Afghanistan please shut up immediately and remain silent. If the opinions of the Afghan public do matter, then it’s a slam-dunk that the Afghan public’s demand for peace talks ought to take precedence over Pentagon demands for more killing.

Every Western press report from Afghanistan that addresses this issue says that the overwhelming consensus of public opinion in Afghanistan supports peace talks to end the war.

Just this week, Jonathan Steele reported in the Guardian that across Afghanistan, talking to the Taliban is seen as “the only credible way” to end the war, “even among Afghanistan’s small but determined group of woman professionals.” Steele interviewed a range of Afghan professional women to illustrate his point.

Member of Parliament Shukria Barakzai explained why she supports peace talks:

“Everybody has been trying to kill the Taliban but they’re still there, stronger than ever. They are part of our population. They have different ideas but as democrats we have to accept that. Every war has to end with talks and negotiations. Afghans need peace like oxygen. People want to keep their villages free of violence and suicide bombers.”

If “Afghan women now overwhelmingly want talks with the Taliban,” Steele wrote, “the same is true of many of the country’s male politicians, particularly the Pashtun.” The perception of many Pashtun politicians is that the US invasion put the warlords of the predominantly Tajik Northern Alliance in power, marginalizing the country’s largest ethnic group, the Pashtun. These Pashtun politicians see a national reconciliation process and new political dispensation with the primarily Pashtun Taliban as a way to end this marginalization of the Pashtuns and incorporate them into the government.

US officials who want to continue the killing concede that the endgame is a negotiated political solution with the Afghan Taliban, but insist that the “time is not right” because “the Taliban have no reason to negotiate,” and that we have to kill more of them to “force the Taliban to the negotiating table.”

Like Iraq WMD (weapons of mass destruction), this is a stupid lie repeated endlessly by all the stupid people until all the stupid people believe it.

When the US government decides to attack a problem diplomatically, this is not how US government officials talk about it. Instead, they emphasize common interests and opportunities for agreement, seeking to expand the political space for diplomacy. This is equally true under Democratic and Republican administrations; it was true under the Bush administration. The fact that the US government is downplaying the prospect of peace shows you that the US government is not trying to achieve peace. So when US government officials claim that the Taliban aren’t ready for peace, they are really just restating what we already know: that the US government isn’t ready for peace.

Note that a component of the Afghan Taliban leadership has already put a peace plan on the table. In March, a delegation from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s insurgent group Hezb-i-Islami presented a formal, 15-point, peace plan to the Afghan government. A spokesman for the delegation said the Afghan Taliban would be willing to go along with the plan if a date was set for the withdrawal of foreign forces from the country.

This information is not a highly classified state secret. It was reported in The New York Times.

It’s kind of breathtaking that the warmonger Washington punditocracy can continue on its merry Energizer bunny way, insisting that there is no basis for peace talks, completely ignoring that fact that a fraction of the insurgency has put a peace plan on the table and claims that the bulk of the insurgency is ready to support the plan if foreign forces will agree to a timetable for withdrawal. But that’s what happens when your raw material for analysis isn’t what’s actually happening in Afghanistan, but what other stupid people in Washington are saying about what is happening in Afghanistan. If the stupid people in Washington aren’t talking about peace talks, then the prospect of peace talks doesn’t exist.

Of course, from the standpoint of the warmongers, a peace plan that requires a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign forces is a “nonstarter.”

But from the point of view of the values and interests of the majority of Americans, the opposite is true: the fact that the insurgents’ peace plan requires a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces is a stunningly attractive feature of the insurgents’ peace plan.

Among Democrats in particular, the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of US forces is spectacularly popular.

Already, 82 Members of Congress have co-sponsored Rep. Jim McGovern’s bill requiring a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces, including such liberal heavyweights as Barney Frank and Henry Waxman. Among House Democrats from President Obama’s home state of Illinois, it’s now 2-1 in favor of a timetable for withdrawal, with Representatives Costello, Schakowsky, Davis, Gutierrez, Jackson, Quigley, Hare and Rush co-sponsoring McGovern’s bill, leaving only Representatives Bean, Foster, Halvorson and Lipinski still on the sidelines.

When we compel the US government to accept the policy of a timetable for military withdrawal, we remove the fundamental US obstacle to peace in Afghanistan.Until now, there have been just a handful of voices in the US debate openly calling for real US support of Afghan peace talks, such as Ahmed Rashid, writing in The Washington Post; Robert Dreyfuss, writing in The Nation; Tom Hayden, writing in The Los Angeles Times; and Gareth Porter, in his reporting for Inter Press Service.

But now that President Karzai is expressly meeting with President Obama for the purpose of securing US agreement to back Afghan peace talks, it’s time to make American public support for peace talks more visible.

Jim Fine of the Friends Committee on National Legislation and I want to place an ad in the DC press next week when President Karzai visits, calling on President Obama to say yes when President Karzai asks him to support peace talks in Afghanistan. If you agree, show us some love.

Commentary by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: I remember well the process by which Vietnam fell apart and was lost. I watched our personnel being helicoptered off the roof of the embassy in Saigon, not as a YouTube news clip but firsthand, as live TV. I don’t think it will come to that any time soon in Afghanistan, but the same sort of process is going on with Washington about Afghanistan as went on with Vietnam. In Vietnam it was the “domino theory” that all of Southeast Asia would fall into communist hands if we didn’t hold the line there. In Afghanistan, after eight years of fighting, nothing really has been accomplished. The so-called Northern Alliance has marginalized the majority ethnic Pashtun peoples and they mostly support the Taliban. This is not going to change. Moreover, the Karzai government has shown itself to be corrupt and ineffective.

The answer is NOT replacing Karzai, the answer is real peace talks with the Taliban and a national reconciliation in Afghanistan. About that, Washington raises the red flag of Al Queda influence if the Taliban come into power in any major way. Could not this be part of the negotiating terms in the peace process? Is there some reason not to even have a peace process because of concerns over post-war stability? And has not Al Queda primarily enjoyed strong influence in the region mainly because of the war itself?

Remember that the Taliban are nationalists with no global agenda, and no reason not to exclude Al Queda from the country if that brings power back into their hands, even is some kind of power sharing agreement. They have expressed willingness to do so repeatedly. Their only wish is to have Afghanistan be governed by Afghans and have the foreigners leave, and they have never been a terrorist organization. This is a matter for the negotiating table, not the battlefields. It is time to end this war and stop the hemorrhage of national treasure and lives.

Watch the videos about ending the war at ReThinkAfghanistan.com.

Also watch, The Folly of Attacking Iran: Lessons from History, from JustForeignPolicy.org – 6:20.

See, KBR to Get No-Bid Army Work as U.S. Alleges Kickbacks, Michael Moore.com, May 7, 2010, by Tony Capaccio, excerpt quoted verbatim:

May 6 (Bloomberg) — KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said.

The Army announced its decision yesterday only hours after the Justice Department said it will pursue a lawsuit accusing the Houston-based company of taking kickbacks from two subcontractors on Iraq-related work. The Army also awarded the work to KBR over objections from members of Congress, who have pushed the Pentagon to seek bids for further logistics contracts.

*****

To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share, print or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top.

We know, if you come here repeatedly,
you like Evans Liberal Politics. So, all we ask is that you
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

78 Great Electronic Rock and Pop Tracks

#1 Rated by Google