Obama Reaches Out to Taliban: This Might Actually Work

I felt 'lively apprehension' after reading that President Barack Obama wanted "to reach out to Taliban" in Afghanistan. (AP) President Obama's background and style during the election reminded me of the 'good old days' of my youth, with its values of peace, love, and spitting on soldiers.

This isn't the sixties, and (so far) President Obama hasn't fulfilled my worst-case scenarios. And I'm not at all disappointed.

Reaching Out: to the Taliban?!

Reading past the headlines, always a good idea, I discovered that Barack Obama seems to have the idea of opening doors for Afghans who support the Taliban, but aren't utterly committed to the Taliban's no-trouser ideology.

That actually makes sense. Parts of Afghanistan aren't all that cosmopolitan, and quite a few 'pro-Taliban' Afghans may have heard about Western civilization mostly through the Taliban and people like professor Ward Churchill.

Once they find out that westerners can be reasonable people, and aren't as touchy about dress codes as the death-to-men-wearing-pants outfits, quite a few Taliban supporters might change their minds.

Reaching Out to the Enemy: Sound Familiar? It Should

President Obama isn't the first western leader to try dealing with non-fanatic supporters of terrorists. The "diabolical" George W. Bush's administration did the same thing, around 2006, in Iraq. That time it was Al Qaeda, not the Taliban: but the principal was the same.

Between turn-arounds like the Anbar Awakening and the Surge, Iraq is now relatively terrorist-free, and following the American Way of squabbling over election results.

Reaching out worked in Iraq, it might work in Afghanistan.

Reaching out, Yes: Giving In, No

One reason that I think President Obama's gambit in Afghanistan may work is that Afghanistan is not Pakistan.

Afghanistan's national leader doesn't have military leaders under him who gave orders to shoot American and Coalition soldiers if they chased terrorists in his country. In fact, the Afghan government seems quite willing to let western forces help them get control of their country.

Pakistan, on the other hand, recently handed the Swat Valley over to the Taliban. That's not quite how the deal was spun, but that's the gist of it.

There are No Rice Paddies in Afghanistan

Finally, "quagmire" is back. An op-ed in the Boston Globe sports this in the second paragraph: "However, the 17,000 new troops may actually help avoid a quagmire. The long-term challenge Obama faces in Afghanistan...."

"Quagmire" was a very effective metaphor for the Vietman War mess. Between rice paddies and natural landforms, Vietnam has quite a lot of sincerely soggy ground. For Americans who had been fed a steady stream of images from Vietnam, "quagmire" resonated.

Afghanistan, like Iraq and Pakistan, isn't a very damp country. At least one alert writer called America's 'failure' in the Middle East "quicksand."

I like to think that, as years go by and the more adventurous writers and thinkers in America become familiar with realities in the Middle East, terms like "quicksand" will replace "quagmire" as a metaphor for America's 'racist oppression' of indigenous people and 'popular uprisings.'

It would be nice, if more of America's 'better sort' found out what a sweet deal they've got: but I'm not holding my breath. One of the drawbacks of having freedom is that, after a while, it's easy to forget about the alternatives.

More-or-less related posts:

• "Goodbye Quagmire, Hello Quicksand: Champions of Relevance Catch Up"
  (January 5, 2009)
• "Marines Abandon Fallujah!!! (Or, Let's Keep Quiet About This)"
  (October 17, 2008)
• "More - What Else? - Dreadful News from Iraq"
  (March 30, 2008)
• "Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Foreign Troops: One Issue, Two Approaches"
  (September 16, 2008)
• "Good News: Anbar Province is Just About Ready for Hand-Over"
  (January 11, 2008)
• "No Casualties in Anbar - Violence Down in Iraq"
  (October 26, 2007)
• "Locals Join American Forces, Purge City of Terrorists"
  (September 11, 2007)
• "Watch for Weird Words: Election's Coming Up!"
  (August 9, 2007)

News and views:

• "Karzai welcomes Obama call to reach out to Taliban"
  The Associated Press (March 8, 2009)
• "Afghan leader Karzai backs Obama's call on Taliban"
  Reuters (March 8, 2009)
• "Afghan President welcomes Obama's consideration to talk with moderate Taliban "
  Xinhua (March 8, 2009)
• "Obama's Afghan challenge"
  The Boston Globe (March 8, 2009 )
• "Dreaming of Splitting the Taliban"
  The New York Times (March 7, 2009)
• "A New Afghanistan Nightmare"
  The Los Angeles Times (March 7, 2009)

Background:

• "IRAQ: Political differences threat country’s reconciliation plan"
  IRIN, via GlobalSecurity.org (October 6, 2006)

More - What Else? - Dreadful News from Iraq

About a week ago, the Iraqi government decided to attack the Mehdi Army, radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's enforcers. Last Friday, a major news network told America how things are going.

I don't think anyone was surprised at the headline: "Analysis: Iraqis' Basra fight not going well"
CNN (March 28, 2008)

The body of the analysis was routine, too. Excerpts:

"The Iraqi military push into the southern city of Basra is not going as well as American officials had hoped, despite President Bush's high praise for the operation, several U.S. officials said Friday. ...."

"The president also hailed the operation as a sign of progress, emphasizing that the decision to mount the offensive was al-Maliki's."

"But since the beginning of the government offensive four days ago, violence also has picked up in a wide area of southern Iraq, including in Baghdad's International Zone -- also known as the Green Zone -- which has been targeted by rocket and mortar attacks."

Familiar Pattern: Military Force Doesn't Work

I recognize the pattern of thought, or association: America (or, in this case, a surrogate for America)

• Faces threat from armed and ideologically driven force
• Ignores opportunities to continue negotiations, talks, and talks about negotiations
• Decides to use military force against the armed ideologues
• The armed ideologues fight back
• Thus proving the dangers of using military force

Even today's headline isn't hopeful, once you read the article:

"Al-Sadr calls off fighting, orders compliance with Iraqi security"
CNN (March 30, 2008)

"Al-Sadr calls off fighting?" That sounds like good news. The first four paragraphs show that there's a catch:

1. "Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr called on followers to stop shooting and cooperate with Iraqi security forces Sunday, a move Iraq's government praised as a step toward ending six days of fighting that has left hundreds dead.
2. " 'We announce our disavowal from anyone who carries weapons and targets government institutions, charities and political party offices,' al-Sadr said in a nine-point statement issued by his headquarters in Najaf.
3. "The statement was accompanied by demands that the Iraqi government issue a general amnesty to his followers and release any being held. The statement was distributed across Iraq and posted on the Internet.
4. "The move was welcomed by Iraq's government, whose forces have been fighting al-Sadr's militia, the Mehdi Army, in six days of clashes with so-called "outlaws" who had taken control of much of the southern city of Basra. U.S. and coalition troops have been supporting the Iraqi offensive."

That's right: not surrender, another cease-fire.

And, the cease-fire is curiously limited. al-Sadr says his enforcers won't hit government institutions, charities and political party offices. That leaves a lot of potential targets.

Military Force, America, Iraq, and a Dangerous Cleric

So, the Iraqi government's use of military force is a failure, right?

Not necessarily.

Here's another analysis, from an international source, published today.

"New Shiite battle is a marked shift from the past"
International Herald Tribune (March 30, 2008)

This discusses the situation two days after the first analysis, but I think there's more than the developments of 48 hours involved here.

Excerpt:

"For starters, the Shiite rebels are mainly fighting Iraqi soldiers, not American 'infidels.' Their leader, Moktada al-Sadr [!], is not defending against attacks from a redoubt inside the country's most sacred shrine, but is issuing orders with a tarnished reputation from an undisclosed location. And Iraq's prime minister, a Shiite who Americans had all but despaired would ever act against militias of his own sect, is taking them on fiercely.

"The differences represent a shift in the war, whose early years were punctuated by uprisings against Americans by a vast, devoted group of Sadr's followers, who were largely respected by Shiites. As their tactics veered into protection rackets, oil smuggling and other scams, Sadr's followers began to resemble Mafia thugs more than religious warriors, splintering and forming their own gangs and networks, many beyond Sadr's direct control."

Military force isn't the only factor here. Muqtada al-Sadr made the same sort of mistake Al Qaeda did: bullying the people he depends on for support. But military had an effect.

Anti-War Enthusiasts Notwithstanding, There's Hope

Something like the al-Sadr/Basra situation happened last year.

Then, tribal leaders, fed up with Al Qaeda's treatment of Iraqis, formed groups like the Anbar Awakening. Meanwhile:

• The Surge made performing acts of terrorism inconvenient, at best
• Demonstrated to Iraqis and the Iraqi government that
  • The coalition was able and willing to act against terrorists
  • Military action against terrorists was possible, and produced terrorists who were no longer able to terrorize

I think that there's a lesson or two here.

• Military force can stop bad people from doing bad things
• The surge worked
  • Giving the Iraqi military time to prepare for action
  • Showing that terrorists can be defeated
• Diplomacy, defined here as unending talks, isn't effective against someone who doesn't want to give up

Finally, here's a pair of observations, and a thought.

Tribal leaders in Iraq, at considerable personal risk, formed organizations like the Anbar Awakening. As a result, Al Qaeda in Iraq and other terrorists now have a much harder time spreading death and destruction.

A religious leader, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mehdi Army, can reasonably be defined as a terrorist/crime lord and his enforcers.

Religious leaders have their place in any culture. That place is not a secular leaders.

Good News: Anbar Province is Just About Ready for Hand-Over

Marine Major General Walter E. Gaskin says that between less violence in Anbar, and Iraqi security forces who are ready to take over, Anbar is ready to get handed back to Iraqi control.

So far, half of the 18 Iraqi provinces have gone back to Iraqi control. It's gone slower than President Bush wanted: but it's happening.

The latest province to go back to Iraqi control is where the "Anbar Awakening" happened. I think there's a lesson to be learned here: When people get fed up with a problem, it gets solved. Al Qaeda was certainly a problem in Anbar, and the people got fed up, and - with quite a bit of help - the people of Anbar are getting their province back.

Ten Iraqi Sheiks Kidnapped: Who's Promoting Islam Here?

Gunmen in Iraq kidnapped Ten Iraqi Sheiks who were returning home to Diyala province from a meeting in Baghdad. Since they were part of an 'Awakening Council,' a term used by organizations in Iraq like the Anbar Awakening, the odds are that Al Qaeda in Iraq snatched them.

I didn't find any details about the sheiks, except that seven are Sunnis and three are Shiites.

Although it's unlikely, I hope that these brave men escape, or are rescued.

I continue to be impressed by Iraqi leaders: those at local and regional levels, at any rate. Their heroic decision to defend their people, and their country, against Al Qaeda in Iraq may save Iraq from the sort of tyranny Afghanistan experienced.

Another point: These sheiks are Muslims. They oppose Al Qaeda in Iraq, that claims to promote Islam. I don't doubt that the sheiks follow Islam. I do think that Al Qaeda in Iraq, and other "Islamic" terrorist groups, may be no more representative of Islam, than the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas is representative of Babtists, or Christianity in general.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.

No Casualties in Anbar - Violence Down in Iraq

Good news from Iraq.

Yesterday, for the first time since March of 2003, there were no military casualties in Anbar.

No American casualties, No Iraqi casualties.

None, zero, zip.

Joint Chiefs spokesman Major General Richard Sherlock made that statement Wednesday.

This looks impressive:

	Violence in and around Baghdad	down 59 %
	Car bombs	down 65 %
	Casualties from car bombs and roadside bombs	down 80 %
	Casualties from enemy attacks	down 77 %
	Operations against Iraqi security forces	down 62 %
	Assassination attempts for sectarian reasons	down 72 %

I may be over-simplifying, or being naive, but this really does look like good news. For America and Iraq, at least.

Two things happened in Iraq this year:

• The Anbar Awakening - sheiks decided that Al Qaeda in Iraq wasn't good for Iraq.
  (They were thinking about it before September, when Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha's assassination helped make up their minds.)
• The troop surge that peaked in June, 2007.

At the risk of being simplistic, I think that talking with the sheiks in Iraq, while making a determined effort to weed out terrorists who were beheading and blowing up Iraqis, may have resulted in today's good news.

Stressed-Out by Iraq? You're Not the Only One

Different people react differently to stress, and the war on terror has stressed quite a few people, one way or another.

"Tens of thousands of anti-war demonstrators" marched in Washington D.C., and had a die-in. Their chant made their desire clear: "What do we want? Troops out. When do we want it? Now."

One of the peace movement's stars, Cindy Sheehan, addressed the multitude. "It's time to lay our bodies on the line and say we've had enough," she said. "It's time to shut this city down."

There were some U.S. veterans at the march and die-in, including 25-year-old Justin Cliburn. "We're occupying a people who do not want us there," he said about Iraq.

I saw a reporter interviewing one of the die-iners. It was like a scene one of those old 'grandson of Dracula's nephew's cousin' movies, except the blood-stained ersatz corpse was in bright sunlight. In answer to the reporter's question, she said that U.S. soldiers are dying 'for nothing, for no reason.' I wouldn't swear to those being the exact words, but it's a close paraphrase.

Meanwhile, over in southern Iraq, the Migasees tribe's leader in Wasit province, Sheik Majid Tahir, has his own interests in the country. He says tribal leaders in Iraq have talked about creating an American-trained brigade of Iraqis. The brigades' purpose would be to help local security and help patrol the Iranian border.

Although Iraqi politics at the national level impress me no more than that of the American Congress, I admire the courage of Iraqis at the local and regional level.

Faced with the death of one of Iraq's leaders, Sheik Majid Tahir said that the assassination of Abu Risha increased the resolve of Shiite tribal leaders. "The death of Sheik Abu Risha will not thwart us," he said. "What matters to us is Iraq and its safety."

Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha pulled 25 Sunni Arab clans together, and organized them as the Anbar Awakening Council. The Council's purpose was to oppose Al Qaeda, and run terrorists out of sanctuaries where they had flourished after 2003 the U.S.-led invasion.

Abu Risha was killed on Thursday, September 13, 2007, when a roadside bomb near his house exploded. It was the first day of Ramadan.

Al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq claimed credit for the assassination on Friday. Allah enabled your brothers ... to track down and assassinate the imam of infidelity and apostasy ... one of the dogs of (U.S. President George W.) Bush," the Web statement said.

It's going to be interesting, seeing who makes the most difference: Sheik Majid Tahir; Al Qaeda, or Cindy Sheehan and company.

Related posts, on Individuals and the War on Terror.