The latest in a long line of failed “Taliban” talks is reportedly reaching a “critical juncture,” according to officials talking with Reuters, who say that they will soon know if a breakthrough is “possible.”
The latest round of talks, which is said to include “representatives of the Taliban,” has US officials considering transferring a number of Taliban detainees at Gitmo into Afghan government custody in return for “confidence building measures,” which may include agreeing to formal talks with Karzai’s government.
Previous talks of this sort have been an absolute disaster, with the representatives usually former Taliban with no real contacts to the current groups and, in one particularly embarrassing case, just a scam artist looking to bilk NATO out of money.
The Taliban has repeatedly insisted that they only want one thing out of NATO, and that is to leave. They have also repeatedly said that they would talk to Karzai only after that foreign troops leave, because while the troops remain he has no real power of his own.
Still, officials seem to be betting an awful lot on negotiations, believing that sooner or later they will find the actual Taliban and negotiate some sort of actual deal with them. Whether this is that deal remains to be seen, but officials don’t seem particularly hopeful, saying it is unlikely that the deal will lead to serious diplomacy.
This is merely Part III of on-going, "Secret US-Taliban Talks." After all, when did the CIA termionate Operational Control of the Taliban and of al Qaeda: on September 12, 2001?
Part I. Early-to-mid 2001. Cheney Administration negotiations to clear a pathway for massive US presence in Afghanistan "that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline…through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. This would have secured for the US another huge captive and alternate oil resource centre….At one moment during the negotiations, US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs'…"
Part II: Following up on a February, 2001 offer by the Taliban to turn bin Laden over to the US States (which the Cheney White House refused), the offer was repeated in October, 2001, shortly after the pre-Invasion/Occupation bombing of Afghanistan started…but again the US rejected it.
…. to be continued
Why was "Tenor2001" permitted to make a 680-word, 6-paragraph comment 2 days ago on the http://antiwar.com/radio/2011/12/15/glenn-greenwa… thread, and every time i (and i assume others) attempt anything longer than 180 words i get a "Sorry, your comment is a bit too long…can you shorten it or break it up" message.
What's so special about Tenor2001, other than that she or he closed the "Dear Scott" message with "With loving appreciation for your fine interviews and commitment to peace and liberty,…" ?
In an exchange of e-mails, antiWar's Angela Keaton explained that Tenor2001 has an Intense Debate (ID) account access to aW Comments, and that that might explain the problem with requirements to truncate Comments. Only problem is that i have an ID access-to-aW account as well. So….. i've contacted ID.
Thanks for your prompt response and assistance, Angela.
jeff