Hillary Clinton has raised the question of a US ceasefire in Afghanistan. It may be recognition that there’s no military solution to this decade-old conflict.
An all-star delegation from the United States, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus, special envoy Marc Grossman and a brace of top military officials has just completed a sweeping tour of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia.
And, while most of the focus of attention centred on Clinton’s blunt warnings to Pakistan in the wake of recent high-profile attacks on US targets – including the American embassy in Kabul – conducted by the Pakistan-based and Pakistan-allied Haqqani group, there was another side to the US delegation’s visit.
Although Clinton, Petraeus, and the others may have read the riot act to Pakistan’s military and its intelligence service, the Inter-Service Intelligence, the Americans made it clear over and over that they want to strike a political deal to bring the Taliban, the Haqqani group, and other insurgents into a settlement of the conflict. And for the first time in recent memory, Clinton specifically mentioned the idea of an Afghan ceasefire.
In a lengthy interview with a roundtable of Pakistani journalists, Clinton responded to a question about Pakistan’s concerns over the perplexing US policy of both fighting the insurgents and simultaneously seeking a dialogue, which the United States has recently taken to calling a policy of ‘fight, talk, build.’ Said Clinton:
‘To go back to the question about fighting and talking, I think that some of our Pakistani counterparts are concerned that that won’t – that’s not an effective way to proceed, that maybe what first needs to be done is try to negotiate a ceasefire. That’s just an example of the discussions that are going to be held. And that is something that we want to discuss, we want to hear the views of, but it’s done in the context of overall agreement about where we’re trying to head.’
For years, many analysts of the war in Afghanistan have argued that a unilateral ceasefire by the United States, coupled with an offer to talk to the Taliban and its allies, would be a true test of the Taliban’s willingness to make a deal. Since the start of the war, the Taliban’s principal demand has been the withdrawal of foreign forces. On various occasions, spokesman for the Taliban and its allies, including Gulbuddin Hekmatyar of the Hezb-i Islam party, have hinted that the projected 2014 withdrawal timetable, combined with a ceasefire, might kick-start talks. One prominent analyst, Gilles Dorronsoro, a former scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, has repeatedly suggested that a partial US withdrawal, linked to a ceasefire, is the only route to a meaningful dialogue with the Taliban.
The paradox of the ‘fight, talk, build’ strategy was highlighted when Clinton confirmed, for the first time, that Pakistan helped to broker talks with the Haqqani group.
Photo Credit: ISAF Media
View as Single Page
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
masmanz
“fight, build, and talk”? What kind of strategy is that? With whom would you talk if you target the leaders with drones? Pakistan made a big mistake letting US use the drones to kill the leaders of all the militias. No one is left to make a deal. No need to talk to anyone, just bring the troops back. Please.
Scout6
War can only be waged totally and violently….no rules of engagement. War is the taking of lives not having your own people give up theirs.
In Afghanistan…under a Liberal Administration a war is nothing more than a series of excuses and sellouts.
Do we have an interest there? No.
Can we trust Pakistan? No
If we developed our own energy sources…rather destroying our economy by having to buy it at VERY expensive prices……we could shut the door on the entire region. Drop the curtain on their immigration and let them solve their own issues.This was a no win situation because we did not have a national commitment or the determination to do what was necessary.
The only thing we should do is get the hell out because we are sacrificing American combat troops for nothing.
Hillary Clinton …Obama….Foreign policy? No we are paying a terrible price for totally unqualified people dealing on an international scene and dealing with professionals that are eating our lunch.
Augustbrhm
america knows her ass is broke in Afganistan and will leave with her tail between her legs.
mere mutabiq
The U.S has nothing to do in Afghanistan any more. The initial claim was to hunt down ALQAIDA AND OSAMA. OSAMA is killed and ALQIDA has shifted their focus and sanctuaries to Arab countries. Since the main goal is achieved, it is my belief that there is no excuse anymore. The presence of U.S in Afghanistan and Drone attacks on Pakistan is producing terrorists and extremists day by day. The anti Americanism is on the peak in the region and under the circumstances, I suggest to the American administration to win the hearts, minds and souls of people of the region by spending the money in welfare project. I think U.S doesn’t have to spend trillions of dollars as used in the wars so far. The U.S government can achieve this goal by spending of a few billions of dollars. This approach will help U.S to stay in the region to protect her interests for a long period of time. War is not the solution and hearts, minds & souls can’t be won. I heard a saying from my elders that WHAY SHOULD SOMEONE BE KILLED WITH THE FORCE IF THE SAME CAN BE KILLED WITH THE HONEY.