Time to talk?

[Loosehead]

The front of the independent has the headline that GB thinks we should talk to the Taliban. Is it possible to reason with extremists who are pledged to convert or erradicate us?

[jno]

I'm al in favour of talk - jaw-jaw better than war-war and all that, to quote Churchill. I thought Brown missed a trick by refusing to meet Mugabe, thus giving Angela Merkel the credit for being the one who told him off. I think he should be talking to Iran, and I don't think talking to the Taliban can hurt either. If nothing comes of it, at least he can say he tried.

[Haggisdj]

I used to be of the opinion that Britian should never talk to terrorists but I do think that it has helped things in Ireland...

[Gromit]

If we want to sort out of the hell-hole that is Afghanstan, then some kind of dialogue with who will remain is essential. If that includes the Taliban, then so be it.

WE have talked to the Taliban before. The CIA were instrumental in creating it.

[4GS]

The taliban agreed to leave Musa Qala and let the town elders run the place after a ceasefire was agreed earlier this year. As soon as the British Army left the town the taliban returned.
Reason with them? You can't reason with them, or trust them.

[paulos66]

Better late than never

[paulos66]

4GS is that because the CIA set them up in their own image

[Gromit]

UPDATE: What Brown has just said

"He said Britain and its coalition partners were "isolating and eliminating the leadership of the Taleban, not negotiating with them".

But he supported Afghan leaders' moves towards "political reconciliation" - including with former insurgents now prepared to denounce the insurgency."

Newspaper reports had suggested that Mr Brown would say it was "time to talk" to the Taleban.

[jno]

so now he's saying someone else should talk to them... Sounds like he leaked his speech in advance to see how it would be received, then panicked and backtracked on it.

[Lonnie]

We have to talk to them, in order to negotiate a withdrawal without too much loss of face.

Without the support of the surrounding countries, there was never any chance we could achieve the stated aims, including defeating the Taliban.

[Lonnie]

We have to talk, if only to negotiate a withdrawal without too much loss of face.

There was never any chance we could defeat the Taliban without the support military and otherwise of the other regional countries.

[dancunian]

There was an interesting passage in the Alistair Campbell diaries, pre 9-11, where they asked Musharraf about the Taleban leaders in next door Afghanistan.

"Can we talk to them?" He asked.

"There is no point," he said. "He talks completely in the context of the afterlife."

I think traditional diplomacy has long since failed.

In fairness, the easiest political thing for Brown to do is play the strong-leader 'i'll never talk to them' card.

But one thing that the aftermath of Iraq has shown is that excluding those who used to be in power completely is simply not sensible, no matter how unpalatable that option appears to be.

"the Taleban" is a disparate group and there will of course be sections more inclined actually to pursue peace rather than power.

[kwicky]

Has anyone asked the question 'why can't the Taliban be defeated. Talking to them is too divergent as their views will not be accepted and women will be treated like slaves.

Russia could not defeat them!

the USA with their 500lb bombs could not.

We are said to be there for the next 10 years.

Where do they escape to? Pakistan of course where they also receive training and backup.

The answer, tackle Pakistan, where Al Qaeda is also trained and stop pussyfooting around!