Thoughts on "Flipping the Taliban"

In a July/August 2009 Foreign Affairs article titled, "Flipping the Taliban: How to Win Afghanistan," Fotini Christia and Michael Semple argue that it is possible to "flip" Taliban commanders, and convince them to put down their guns and take part in the democratic Afghani national government. Christia and Semple write that "For all their reputed fanaticism...Taliban commanders will leave the movement and shift allegiances if the conditions are right" (37).

That's a pretty big if that will take lots of work for the US, Afghani government, and international actors. Nonetheless, although the climb may be steep, it's surmountable. Christia and Semple briefly look at Afghanistan's recent history--3 plus decades of war. Fighting that's involved feuding Afghani factions, Islamist from near and far(Tajik and Uzbek Islamists, as well as al Qaeda), and international powers (the erstwhile Soviet Union, and the US). 3 Decades. That's an incredibly difficult thing for me to imagine. However, Semple and Christia argue that it has bred a pragmatism among Taliban commanders. They see Afghanistan's recent history as "replete with examples of commanders choosing to flip rather than fight" (36). What's more, there's popular support on the ground for mediation between the Taliban and national government.(They cite a February 2009 poll where 64% of Afghani respondents stated they wanted the two to negotiate a settlement whereby the Taliban puts down its guns and is allowed to hold office).

Their prescription for flipping the Taliban is pursuing a political surge to accompany the military surge that is currently underway. Despite the difficulty of executing this "surge", it all sounds pretty common sensical: provide better security for Afghans, strengthen a reconciliation program that can protect and reintegrate Taliban fighters that choose flip, target networks and midlevel commanders (rather than just low level recruits), and work on building towards a comprehensive peace agreement while an incremental political and military strategy is being implented.

Their prescription strikes me as smart and well thought-out. So, I guess I don't have any particularly strong feelings about the details of their ideas.

My mind is on bigger concepts. I feel sympathy for Afghan's rough history, and I believe it's regrettable that the US is involved in Afghanistan. I don't think that nation building and military invention in politically unstable nations is a sustainable foreign policy. Yet, in the case of Afghanistan, I believe the US is stuck between a rock and a hard place (Afghanis are stuck between two rougher and scarier things..) A military surge--as well as a political surge that the US must help organize--is necessary to keep al Qaeda out. And I believe that at this point, the US must do all it can to bring stability and safety to Afghanistan. But the change trying to be accomplished takes patience. It must be incremental and must be a result of sustained political (and military) policy. Christia and Semple offer patient and pragmatic suggestions for future US policy in Afghanistan--for instance, looking ahead, they write that " 'patriotic' Taliban must be allowed to claim some of the success for the Afghanization of the country's security"--but that still doesn't make it easy. And from these difficult times, the US must learn and figure out a foreign policy that balances concerns of stability and protection from religious extremism, while also conserving troops and money.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____
Here's a NYTimes article that among other things, reminds me that social problems and inequity lie at the base of much of the extremism and instability that adversely shapes US foreign policy. Kyrgyzstan

i don't get this

ughhh...man, can conservative media be idiotic. what a bunch of douches:

jerk

the real reason why i link the above it, like so many other articles i've seen about the convention, talk about hillary clinton. a commonly cited fact is "only 52 percent of whom are now supporting him, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll." but i don't get this?! each article seems to make reference to some generic angry, bicurious, vengeful, near-sighted, embittered hillary supporter. but i don't think there are that many of these. are hillary supporters really so myopic and bitter? many some, but even with the above poll, i'm not convinced it's many. here's an over-simplification of the three hillary supporters i envision (sorry for the cartoonish stereotypes):

1. liberal, feminist women
2. clinton-lovers (southern democrats and the like that loved bill clinton and the clinton brand of democratic politics)
3. salt of the earth working class rural folk in west virginia (and other rural states where obama was creamed)

of these three, i think #2 shouldn't be a problem. people who are truly clinton-lovers, are deeply partisan. as much as they dislike the primary results, their democrats and will grit their teeth and put aside resentment to vote obama. with #3, i think this group is always tough for a democratic candidate. had clinton gotten the nomination, i still think it would've been a tough job to keep from losing these votes to a republican ticket. obama is actively working to gain these votes with the biden selection, and i think just as in the primaries it's gonna be tough. and these are the important votes. painting mccain as disconnected and shrouded in multi-house luxury is good tactic for obama. the #1s, however, seem to be the most often-cited disgruntled hillary supporters. but i don't think they're a large contingency and i don't think any would really vote for a pro-life, drill and kill gop candidate.

it's all about securing #3. it was this demographic that obama struggled with in the primaries. and mccain thus far seems like a much less formidable candidate than hillary in securing these votes. they're the 52%, and they're what ultimately matters.