Karzai government reaches out to Taliban: Desperation or Realism?

The BBC reported that President Hamid Karzai has made a tentative offer for reconciliation talks with the Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. This offer does not apply to all that falls under the broad umbrella of today's Taliban which comprises Afghanis opposed to the NATO occupation of the country, Pakistani nationals, and other foreign sympathizers. As Karzai's spokesman Hamayun Hamidzada put it, "What we're doing is opening the door of negotiation for those Taleban who are actually Afghan."

This new stance by the Karzai government appears to have several possible causes. In August the much-touted meeting of the jirga between influential Pakistani and Afghani tribal figures aimed to stem the rising tide of militant activity and recruitment was ineffectual. In fact, the aftermath of the jirga has been marked by an increase in attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan and on Pakistani forces in the tribal regions of Pakistan. The failure of the jirga is probably partially due to the fact that the Taliban and Hezb-i-Islami (a fundamentalist mujahideen party led by Hekmatyr who helped drive the Soviet army from Afghanistan in the 80s) were barred from participation.

Karzai's current willingness to reach out to the insurgency probably has alot to do with the failure of diplomatic solutions which exclude the Taliban. It remains to be seen whether such a gesture will be welcomed or even effective. The Taliban has become a diverse organization with different goals and opinions. The only common thread that seems hold the organization together is the desire for the return of an Islamist state governed by their draconian interpretation of sharia law.

While the central Taliban leadership has refused to meet with Karzai until foreign forces have left the country, it appears that local groups have been willing to talk. As Mr. Hamizada put it, the Afghan government is reaching out to talk "with those who actually wanted to join the political process, or just come back as ordinary citizens." Essentially, the Karzai government is offering amnesty to local grown anti-government forces. The very existence of diverse goals and methodologies of the various Taliban groups shows that this could possibly be step in the right direction.

Not surpisingly, Afghanistan suffers a level of suicide attacks second only to Iraq. A New York Times article which summarized a report to the United Nations stated that the number of suicide attacks by the Taliban has risen at an alarming rate from 17 in 2005, to 123 in 2006, and as of August 2007 the number stands at 103. This all points to the increasing strength of the Taliban fed by the movement's increasing strength in the Pakistani tribal regions. A 2006 article in Pakistan's Newsline magazine reported the words of a cleric in charge of a madrassa along Pakistan's border: "There is no dearth of people willing to join the fighting. The fear of American military might has vanished." The sharp increase of Taliban activity in Afghanistan and Pakistan seems to back up this dire claim. That same Newsline article also carried a brief interview of a Taliban fighter by the name of Samiul Haq. Haq claims that the insurgency is receiving support from Pakistan's tribal regions, and disturbingly (but not really surprisingly) private Saudi sources. Haq believes that local Pakistani support is key to the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan. "We cannot fight for long without support from our sympathisers in the local administration," he told Newsline.

The failure of the Karzai government to achieve any real security or economic growth in Afghanistan is the prime cause behind the Taliban's resurgence. The campaign of suicide bombings in Afghanistan did not start until 2003 two years after the fall of the Taliban regime. The US-led coalition and fledgling Afghan army have failed to crush the Taliban insurgency with military might and it appears that it won't succeed anytime soon. A diplomatic solution may be all that is left for Karzai's government. Whether or not this will be just another failed strategy in the region is still up in the air. Karzai appears to want to appeal to Afghani nationalism and to drive a wedge into what he views as a divided organization. Maybe he knows something we don't, or maybe he's desperate. Only time will tell.

Ahmadinejad does New York

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, notorious Holocaust denier who has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" is due to speak to Columbia University later today. In typical form Ahmadinejad has raised the ire of just about everyone. His request to lay a wreath at Ground Zero was denied citing security and logistical difficulties and condemned by New York officials as an insult to families who lost loved ones to 9/11. The Iranian President is expected to face large numbers of protesters organized by and composed of Jewish groups, New York city officials, and university students.

Iran has protested recently that it has no need for nuclear weaponry and down-played its effectiveness in the current international political situation. As Ahmadinejad put it in his own unique brand of rhetoric, he told CBS's 60 Minutes, "[i]n political relations right now, the nuclear bomb is of no use. If it was useful, it would have prevented the downfall of the Soviet Union. If it was useful, it would resolve the problem the Americans have in Iraq." Iran has tried to portray itself as a peace-seeker, while American governmental sources have complained that Iran is helping to arm insurgent groups and seeks to undermine U.S. efforts in Iraq.

Perhaps more disturbing that some of Ahmadinejad's outlandish rhetoric is the U.S. public's reaction to the visit. The condemnation of the President surrounding his request for a visit to Ground Zero is absolutely ridiculous. Iran has less of a connection to the attacks on New York than does that Wahibbist regime of Saudi Arabia that spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers. Although New York did turn down the $10 million offered by Saudi Arabia, Giuliani took Saudi Prince Walid on a tour of Ground Zero. The denial to Ahmadinejad is irrational on the part of New Yorkers.

Ahmadinejad does indeed represent an adversary to our interests and allies in the Middle East, but he also represents the last viable Islamist regime. He should be listened to with interest and not ostracized. People, the Bush administration included, dismiss Ahmadinejad as the crazy man in charge of a fanatical nation of Islamic extremists.

The influence of Iran on Iraq is very real and will not disappear no matter how many sanctions we place on it. Why the U.S. refuses to acknowledge reality and deal with the nation who, regardless of our preferences, will play an important role in the development of Iraq is baffling. If Iraq should have taught us anything, sanctions do not destroy regimes, they destroy the people under the regime. Important infrastructure and facilities in Iraq were destroyed by our own bombing campaigns and by cannibalizing mobs oppressed by years of hardship-inducing sanctions. If we need any further demonstration of the futility of using the threat of economic sanctions we need only to look at the ordeal of the 8 year Iran-Iraq war. Hardship and warfare only served to build support for the Ayatollah's regime.

Notes from the front line in Iraq

Michael J. Totten's excellent blog the Middle East Journal carries an interview with the 3rd Infantry Division's Lieutenant Colonel Michael Silverman and deserves a read. LtCol Silverman's work in Ramadi is encouraging and Totten's article is intriguing. His work gives insight into the region rarely seen in the blurbs we generally receive in popular media outlets.

Where there's smoke...

There was much speculation that the air strike carried out by Israel in Syria was on nuclear facilities or materiel provided by North Korea. Much skepticism surrounds this theory since one of its most vocal proponents is the controversial former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Bolton who made it his personal crusade to stem what he believed was the proliferation of WMD in the Middle East, became something of a pariah when it became clear that no WMD would be found in Iraq.

However, al Jazeera recently reported that the North Korean government hosted a Syrian delegation. North Korea was extremely quick to condemn the air strike by Israel and almost equally quick in denying providing Syria with nuclear materiel or technology. It is strange, therefore, that they would invite the Syrian delegation which can only endanger its position before the upcoming resumption of talks regarding the dismantling of its nuclear programme. Lacking hard evidence, intelligence agencies have been cautious about claiming North Korea is liquidating its nuclear programme in Syria and/or Iran. Syria has been on the United States' nuclear watch list since Syria began investigation uranium deposits found inside the country.

There remains no confirmation of the nature of the target, however anonymous Israeli military and government sources quoted in Haaretz claim the target was either a conventional weapons factory, nuclear enrichment facility, or nuclear materiel shipments. One doubts if we will ever know the actual identity of the target, but as the title of this entry states: where there's smoke, there's fire...

Here we go again...

As Israel was declaring the Gaza Strip an "enemy entity", Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert began preparations for a new round of talks in November with his Palestinian counter-part Mahmoud Abbas. Olmert has bowed recently to popular pressure following response to his Deputy Prime Minister's statements that Israel would consider dividing Jerusalem in two. The city of Jerusalem has been a sticking point in peace talks between Israel and Palestinian leaders. The Palestinians want a divided Jerusalem as a dual capital and a return to the boundary lines of 1967 following the Six Day War, as laid out in U.N. resolution 242. Deputy Minister Ramon sparked outrage and protests among Israel's Parliament, the Knesset, when he suggested that Israel adopt resolution 242 in its upcoming talks with Abbas' government.

As a result Olmert, who has been under heavy fire from opposition parties, has backed down from the plan as laid out by Ramon. He wishes, instead, to have the talks lay out "general principles." Unfortunately for Olmert, the Bush White House is having none of that. While Olmert is afraid for his legacy, Bush faces much the same dilemma as his predecessor Clinton did. Recently it seems that everyone's favorite pet project upon leaving the power is the Palestinian "problem." Bush seeks to succeed where Clinton's Camp David talks failed, and he has dispatched Condoleezza Rice to make that emminently clear to Mr. Olmert.

One of the men in line to replace Olmert is Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is seen by many Israelis as the sensible alternative to the more hawkish Binyamin Netanyahu. Barak has urged Olmert not to bow to pressure from Washington. Barak spoke with Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, and claimed Bush wanted a "withdrawal from Israeli principles that have stood for 40 years, merely to gain favor in the eyes of an American president who is leaving office in a year." Ouch....

However, this is just more posturing from Barak who seeks to recover Labor Party leadership from Mr. Olmert. Barak is widely seen as the popular candidate to restore tarnished confidence in the Israeli army with his military credentials and provide reason in the debate of the status of the Palestinians. His opponent Binyamin Netanyahu represents the right-wing Likud party and stands ready to take over should Barak and the Labor party stumble. This partisanship is precisely the reason that the November peace summit in New York will be yet another dismal failure in a string of dismal failures. Neither the Palestinians or the Israelis have ever been able to deliver on substantial promises and as a result have ceased to trust one another. Israel whose Knesset is made up of 18 political parties with shifting allegiances, struggles to make controversial concessions such as cessation of settlement building. The Palestinians, especially under the late Yassir Arafat, consistently fail to control its many militia groups. The principle cause of the failures is the inability of the U.S. and others to acknowledge the internal idealogical struggles of the Palestinians and Israelis. Until all aspects of Israel and Palestine can come to terms with an agreement there will be no Palestinian state.

Recently, the Palestinian Authority was split in two when Hamas ejected Fatah security men and officials from the Gaza strip. Abbas responded by dissolving the Hamas-led government and Gaza has been isolated ever since. President Abbas has since become become the golden boy of the West as they attempt to ply the stick-and-carrot method to the Palestinians. There are some signs that Palestinians are tiring of Hamas' heavy-handed methods in Gaza. As they have attempted to enforce more Islamic morals on the populace there, some Gazans responded with street protests.

Olmert's government probably seeks to isolate Hamas in Gaza in preparation for his upcoming summit. However, Hamas isn't just going to disappear. For one, it is not a movement isolated in Gaza, it has members in the West Bank and many of its senior leadership is in exile. If Olmert and Abbas are sincere in their wishes for a peaceful resolution to years of bloodshed, all aspects of Israel and a future Palestine should be involved. A lame duck Israeli Prime Minister and a hamstringed Palestinian President cannot possibly hope to achieve lasting peace by themselves.

Blame Syria

The Lebanese MP Antoine Ghanem, the Maronite (Christian) Phalangist and possible Presidential candidate in the looming election was killed along with several others in a car bombing in Sin el-Fil, Lebanon. This killing is the latest in a string of assassinations of prominent anti-Syrian figures in Lebanon since the killing of former prime minister Rafik Hariri in 2005.

Ghanem's death imperils the anti-Syrian coalition's majority in parliament and has implications over their ability to dominate the selection of the current pro-Syrian president's successor. The coalition was swept into power following internal and international outrage over the killing of Hariri. Many members of that anti-Syrian coalition have gone to ground following this latest bombing.

This bombing follows hard on the heels of an embarrassing few weeks for Syria. The alleged and now confirmed air-strike by Israel on a mysterious target in Syria has led to uncharacteristic silence by both nations.

The murder of this particular MP from the Pro-Israel Phalangist party whose militias allied themselves with Israel during that country's occupation of Lebanon stinks of petty retribution on Syria's part. Something terribly embarrassing happened to Syria, and Israel's success has led to much ridiculous posturing from Assad and now Iran. No doubt the coming weeks will reveal more about the bombing as well as the mysterious air-strike. One doubts however that the killing of Antoine Ghanem will work to Syria's favor.

Anbar Awakening leader Abu Risha assassinated

One of the few bright spots in the war in Iraq has been the popular movement against alQaeda in the Al Anbar province of Iraq. Recently the leader of the Anbar Awakening movement, Sattar Abu Risha, was assassinated. This is by all accounts a blow to that movement's successes. Abu Risha led an effort to recruit thousands of policemen in the region and showed a willingness to open dialogue with the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this movement's activities is its shared belief system with alQaeda. Intra-sectarian violence is an aberration that goes beyond the normal prohibition against killing fellow Muslims. Anbar Awakenings' efforts are an indictment by fellow Sunnis against alQaeda's extremist interpretations of Islam. English-speaking news sources reported that chants claiming that alQaeda was "an enemy of Allah" were heard from mourners.

It is arguable that the US military's alliance with tribal leaders is a short-sighted success. The Sunni tribal leaders have no real confidence in the Shiite led government. There is no guarantee that the thousands of young men in Anbar now on the Iraqi government payroll is a sign of reconciliation between the religious factions.

Sectarian violence remains the largest problem in Iraq. Ending these killings is the key to success in the US's efforts. The cause of the hatred hearkens back to the Iran-Iraq war when the Shiite population was suppressed in Iraq out a of fear they were sympathetic to Khomeini's regime. The Iraqi government is torn between serving two masters. There is the visible American presence in the country which the Iraqi government must work with, but there is also a heavy Iranian influence in the militias and in the government. Most troubling is the fact that Shiite Iraqis see Iran as its greatest ally, and not the United States.

Shiite Iraq has valid complaints with their Sunni former overseers, however such sectarian hatred is fruitless. It is because of this that winning in Iraq will not come from a military or political solution. "Winning the war" requires a religious solution. That is why alQaeda being called an enemy of Allah is such a significant development.

America makes a very poor arbitrator between the religious sects in Iraq. Shiites still bear a grudge against our country. The failed uprising and subsequent slaughter of the Shiites following the first Gulf war, who claim they were instigated by a CIA run radio campaign, remains very much on the minds of Iraqis. Many Shiites probably look to the success of post-Khomeini Iran as encouragement. The Sunnis, fearing retribution, distrust the Shiite dominated government. These old grudges need addressing and require arbitration. The US should withdraw itself from these debates and seek outside help in arbitrating between the sects. Unfortunately that outside help would come from an Arab world full of dictators and selfish interests. We have only to look at the plight of the Palestinians at the hands of the Arab world for proof of that.