Taliban officials issued statements over the weekend confirming for the first time a new round of talks on the peace process with US envoy Zalmay Khalilzad. The talks took place in Qatar, where the Taliban’s diplomatic offices are located.
The Taliban rarely admits to talks ongoing at all, but even more significantly, officials revealed that the discussions are centering on the withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan after 17 years, and that the US has agreed to that as a topic of discussion.
Taliban official Sayed Mohammed Akbar Agha says that more talks will be held in the “near future” on the US pullout, saying that he believes peace is possible, but only with the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.
US willingness to talk not just peace but a withdrawal is unprecedented. In general, the US priority has been to keep troops in Afghanistan, though years of failure has at least some within the Trump Administration open to the idea of ending the conflict with a negotiated settlement.
Even in 21st Century, with “Their Firm Belief in ALLAH SWT” Taliban have Proven that, In Shaa Allah, Foreign Occupation Forces will be Kicked Out of Afghanistan, and Currently, The Most Powerful U.S.A., along with Her Greatest Powerful Allied Forces are on Their Knees, Begging for Somewhat Respectful Escape from Afghanistan. Therefore, “Taliban official Sayed Mohammed Akbar Agha says that more talks will be held in the “near future” on the US pullout, saying that he believes peace is possible, but only with the withdrawal of foreign troops from the country.”
This is extraordinarily positive. I hope the focus of those talks will be a speedy and safe transition, towards all occupying forces being removed and a unified and representative Afghan government being formed. Ideally this will include new elections, and reparations for the horrific damage we have done to their country and people for all these years.
This ties in with the “sort of a Democrat” Mattis being excused from his SecDef position. Trump wanted out of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria and Mattis could only promise more of the same, putting Trump in a position he doesn’t want to be in, an extension of Democrat wars. Obviously that was not a smart decision and it’s correction time. This also ties in with Haley’s goodbye.
I thought we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq(twice)while Republicans were in the White House.
The invasions were a joint D/R effort with Democrats taking them over for the eight years prior to Trump, making them Democrat wars. They weren’t something fabricated in the White House and imposed upon others in government.
Obama hugely increased the troop level in Afghanistan when he came in, and (mostly) left Iraq only because Bush had signed a treaty saying so, while supporting ISIS first in Iraq and then in Syria. The war effort against Syria was Job 1 for Hillary the War Queen, when she wasn’t doing Libya.
Anyhow I’m suggesting that Mattis looks like “sort of a Democrat” to Trump because Mattis convinced Trump to continue these wars as the Dems would have done, and now Trump (having given Mattis enough rope) has perhaps changed his policy.
Mattis is “sort of a Democrat” because the Democrats would have tried to convince Trump to continue these wars? I guess Bolton, Pompeo and the little witch Haley must be “sort of” Democrats too. Actually, the Republican party would damn near all be “sort of” Democrats if their pro war agenda was the criteria for making them so.
Republicans were more for “free trade” not long ago also.
But never anti-interventionists.
Coolidge I guess.
I misspoke. I meant in my lifetime.
Yea, Sen. Robert Taft is popular here.
Trump got elected on an “isolationist” platform which included investing in the US and not on foreign wars, which is a departure from the Democrat strategy.
It’s also a departure from the Republican strategy. You said the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were a joint effort between the Democrats and Republicans but once the Democrats were in office for eight years it was their war. As if the republicans were suddenly anti-interventionists. Regardless of what platform Trump ran on, the republicans are hardly the anti-war party in comparison to the democrats.
Foreign policies are drawn by 3rd parties that contribute into congress and presidential candidates accounts and are enforced by our “intelligent” communities. Blaming a party is meaningless. You should be above this.
I’ll believe it when I see it.