Afghan Counterinsurgency Moves to Negotiating Table
Yesterday, the administration briefed Senators on a possible transfer of Taliban detainees from the prison at Guantanamo Bay as part of negotiations with the Taliban. A prisoner transfer would be a standard confidence-building measure of the sort laid out by a bipartisan group of experts last year in a report on negotiating peace in Afghanistan. Former Bush and Obama Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, “We have said all along that a political outcome is the way most of the wars end,” and former Bush National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley and Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta wrote recently that pulling insurgents into the political process is a hallmark of counter-insurgency success. Bipartisan support for talks and confidence-building measures reflects underlying realities: none of the prisoners is accused of having killed U.S. soldiers (although they are dangerous); the most likely option is transfer to prison or house arrest in Qatar; prisoners are not going to be “released”; and discussion of a transfer, and whether it will move the negotiating process along, is still in early stages.
The administration is discussing the transfer of Taliban prisoners to Qatar – but deliberations are still “very, very prelimary.” Josh Rogin reports, “Top Obama administration officials briefed eight senior Senate leaders Tuesday on a pending deal to transfer as many as five Taliban prisoners from the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to Qatar.” Those deliberations, though, are still in the early stages. As Reuters reported yesterday, “Retired Lieutenant General James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, said the White House had made no final decision on the detainee transfer, and stressed that the administration’s consideration of it was ‘very, very preliminary.’” [Josh Rogin, 1/31/12. Reuters, 1/31/12]
Taliban prisoners, none of whom are accused of killing Americans, would not be released — they would be moved to secure detention in a third country, likely Qatar. As AP reports, CIA Director David Petraeus has been leading the assessment of options for the transfer of Taliban prisoners to detention or house arrest in a third country, likely Qatar. AP notes that, “Petraeus said his analysts had assessed various scenarios under which the prisoners could be released to countries other than Afghanistan and Pakistan. The analysts sought to determine which countries would be best able to monitor the freed men, and keep them from returning to militancy.” AP also writes that, “Clapper said in the case of the Taliban prisoners, U.S. negotiators would first have to determine where the prisoners would be released, and how best to make sure they did not return to the fight. The defense spending bill signed by President Barack Obama in December also requires that the Pentagon certify that any release is safe. ‘Part and parcel of such a decision, if it were finally made, would be the actual determination of where these detainees might go and the conditions in which they would be controlled or surveilled,’ Clapper said.” It’s also important to note that, as AP writes, “At least one [of the Taliban prisoners] has been accused in the massacre of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan, according to U.S. and other assessments, but none are accused of directly killing Americans.” [AP, 1/31/12]
A possible detainee transfer would be part of a bigger negotiation with the Taliban, an effort which has broad bipartisan support. A bipartisan group of experts wrote last year that prisoner transfers such as the ones being discussed are part of essential confidence building measures in negotiations. Their report states that, “Selective sanctions de-listing and detainee releases may enter the mix of confidence-building measures.” The report cautions, however, that, “Detainee policy and the release of Taliban detainees generally must be tightly coordinated with other political efforts and linked to a successful political process.”
Such measures are part of a broader process, which has broad bipartisan support:
Robert Gates, former defense secretary for George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “We have said all along that a political outcome is the way most of the wars end.” [Robert Gates via NY Times, 6/19/11]
Stephen Hadley, former national security advisor to President George W. Bush, and John Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. “This effort [to talk with the Taliban] should not become a political football in the coming election season — it needs strong bipartisan support here at home. U.S. political leaders, Democrats and Republicans alike, and our military commanders, have consistently argued that the conflict in Afghanistan will not end by military means alone. The elimination of al Qaeda’s safe havens and the establishment of long-term peace and security in Afghanistan and the region — the key U.S. national security objectives — is best assured by a sustainable political settlement that strengthens the Afghan state… Efforts to reach a settlement should include an approach to Taliban elements that are ready to give up the fight and become part of the political process. Such an approach would not — as some have suggested — constitute ‘surrender’ to America’s enemies. Rather, convincing combatants to leave the insurgency and enter into the political process is the hallmark of a successful counterinsurgency effort.” [Stephen Hadley and John Podesta, 1/18/12]
James Shinn, an author of the Bush administration Afghan Strategy Review and current Romney advisor, and Ambassador James Dobbins, former Bush administration special envoy for Afghanistan. “Negotiation does not represent an easy or early path out of Afghanistan for the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, but it is the only way in which this war is likely to end in a long-term peace.” [James Shinn and James Dobbins, 2011]
Michael Semple, fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. “Without giving peace a chance, any gains that Afghanistan or the United States might have made after a decade of intervention are unlikely to last. Considering even the most significant risks, it would still be better to move forward cautiously than to not engage at all.” [Michael Semple, 1/9/12]
[Bipartisan Report, The Century Foundation, “Negotiating Peace,” 3/23/11]
What We’re Reading
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton joined Arab and European diplomats at the United Nations to advocate tougher actions against Syria despite a lack of support from Russia.
Four British citizens admitted to plotting to bomb the London Stock Exchange.
Pakistan’s foreign minister dismissed a leaked NATO intelligence report alleging that the country’s security services aid the Afghan Taliban.
France’s Constitutional Council will decide whether or not a pending bill that criminalizes Armenian genocide denial is constitutional.
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Asia Kurt Campbell encouraged warmer relations between North and South Korea in the wake of Kim Jong-il’s death.
The French defense firm Dassault will enter final negotiations with the Indian government regarding a $10 billion deal that will supply 126 fighter jets.
Senior UN nuclear inspectors plan another trip to Iran after holding what both sides described as “good” talks about Tehran’s nuclear program.
Argentina and the UK traded barbs over the announcement of Prince William’s posting to the Falkland Islands as tensions continue to simmer ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War.
Hundreds of young members of the Muslim Brotherhood attempted to block a protest march from reaching Egyptian parliament.
Two demonstrators were killed in Senegal at an opposition rally protesting the current president ahead of elections.
Commentary of the Day
Rosa Brooks examines two primary misconceptions about America’s “decline.”
The Economist says Syria is already in a civil war.
The New York Times editorial board wants more decisive action from European leaders on the Eurozone debt crisis.
