I'm never a fan of categorically refusing to negotiate with any government or organization. There are three ways to put pressure on another government: military, diplomacy and economy. Any time you say 'we absolutely will not negotiate with x under any conditions', you limit your options and weaken your stance. It's the same problem with the approach the US has used with Iran until recently. That said, I don't think it's in NATO's best interest to negotiate with the Taliban; for one thing, there isn't a clear top-down structure within the organization and there's no guarantee that deals made with top members will be honoured by others. Secondly, it's difficult to imagine that a reasonable agreement can be reached. As with Iraq, the difficulty is that recruitment of Pashtuns into the Taliban will not stop until NATO withdraws, and yet withdrawing before the Taliban is clearly defeated would be disasterous. Despite the good news posted in the original article, redevelopment of infrastructure does not equate with defeat of the Taliban. It means that we're doing good work there, but it doesn't mean we're any closer to winning. Good news, yes. But let's not get ahead of ourselves and pretend that the end of this conflict is in sight either for us or for the people of Afghanistan.
|