US negotiating with Taliban

-- The U.S. is dealing. And now comes, perhaps, an answer to the question of why those detained for as long as a decade in Guantanamo were so important. They were hostages to be traded for the lives of coalition forces. Whether by intent or necessity, that's the way it's playing out. That is the way wars were fought long ago. There are some bad-ass negotiations going on. -- MCR

U.S. may accept less stringent controls for Taliban detainees

The Obama administration has signaled a willingness to accept less-stringent controls on former Taliban leaders who could be transferred to Qatar as part of a deal between the United States and the Afghan militants to kick-start Afghan peace talks, U.S. officials said.

Reuters,

29 March, 2012

The administration, in negotiations led by the Defense Department, has indicated to Qatar that it would be willing to transfer five Taliban detainees now at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison to the Gulf emirate on condition that Qatari authorities provide assurances the men would not be allowed to leave Qatar, the officials said.

In indicating that it would expect Qatar to restrict the travel of the Taliban leaders, the United States has also signaled that it is willing to forgo tighter restrictions which it had originally discussed with the Qataris, such as imprisonment, house arrest or continuous monitoring by security forces.

Administration officials insist, however, that they will only agree even to the less onerous restrictions on the transferred prisoners if they believe the arrangements will serve U.S. counterterrorism objectives adequately. "The goal is for detainees not to have the option to return to the fight," a U.S. official said.

While the restrictions the Obama administration is willing to accept are less than it first demanded, a U.S. official familiar with the issue said that Qatar is nonetheless balking at agreeing to restrict the Taliban detainees' travel. U.S. officials say the Taliban are also rejecting the notion that detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar should be subjected to any restrictive conditions.

These diplomatic complications, U.S. officials said, are causing temporary deadlock in negotiations between Washington and Qatar, as well as stalling broader peace discussions between U.S. and Taliban negotiators.

"The prospect of detainees returning to the fight is problematic - it's a very strong concern," the official said.

The hoped-for peace talks between the U.S.-backed government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Taliban have emerged as a key part of President Barack Obama's strategy for stabilizing the country. Most foreign troops are scheduled to leave by the end of 2014.

MINIMAL CONTROL

U.S. officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, said that despite the hiccups, negotiations with Qatar are continuing, as is the broader peace effort. George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, declined to comment.

However, Obama's political opponents, who have questioned his efforts to negotiate any kind of accommodation with Afghan Taliban, are expected to step up their criticism if Taliban detainees are moved to Qatar under conditions of minimal control.

Officials said U.S. intelligence agencies, in non-public reports, have already criticized Qatar for loosely and ineffectively keeping tabs on militant ex-detainees transferred to them by U.S. authorities.

U.S. officials said the conditions under which the Taliban detainees would be transferred to Qatar is the sole remaining stumbling block in a larger diplomatic package that the United States has been discussing with authorities in Doha regarding the possible Taliban transfer.

Some officials said that in initial discussions with Qatar, the U.S. government had discussed tighter restrictions which might be placed on Taliban detainees who could be transferred to the country. The officials said the U.S. position subsequently changed. A spokesman for the Qatari Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who must personally vouch for the transfer, is taking a personal interest in both the Taliban transfer plan and details of the negotiations with Qatar, officials said.

By law, the administration must provide formal notification to U.S. lawmakers 30 days in advance of any detainee transfers such as the proposed Taliban deal. So far no such notification has been given.

Under current law, lawmakers have no power to block any prisoner transfers. The only legal means Congress would have to halt proposed transfers would be to pass new legislation banning them, which would be subject to a possible presidential veto.

Nonetheless, in an election year, a detainee transfer deal in which former prisoners would not be under tight supervision could provide Obama's political rivals with fodder for criticizing his counterterrorism policies.

Some congressional critics have already raised questions about the publicly known details of the proposed transfer of Taliban detainees. Previously classified Pentagon dossiers on the detainees which were made public by WikiLeaks suggested that some of the five detainees have histories of particularly violent or anti-American activity.

Official sources indicate that one of the detainees, Mullah Mohammed Fazl, is alleged to have been responsible, as a top Taliban military commander, for killing thousands of Afghanistan's minority Shiites.

Rout in Afghanistan

-- The United States of America has flown the white flag and is asking for UN intervention; not to win the war, but to keep from having its forces annihilated. I suspect that it may be too late for British or other coalition forces. If any of them leave suddenly now it might trigger a Little Big Horn massacre and the war fighters understand that. -- MCR

U.S. negotiation efforts with Taliban have failed: group

U.S. negotiation efforts with the Taliban have failed and the United Nations should take the lead to optimize the chances of ending almost 11 years of war, a think tank said on Monday.

Reuters,

25 March, 2012

In a blow to hopes of a negotiated end to the war, the Taliban suspended talks with the United States two weeks ago after the alleged massacre of 17 Afghan civilians by a lone U.S. soldier and the burning of Korans at a NATO base last month.

"U.S. efforts to negotiate with the Taliban to date have failed and risk further destabilizing the country and the region, and as a result we call for the U.N. Secretary General to intervene and appoint a team of negotiators," said Candace Rondeaux, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group (ICG).

In a 51-page report, the think tank said the effect of international support for negotiations had been to increase "incentives for spoilers ... who now recognize that the international community's most urgent priority is to exit Afghanistan with or without a settlement."

Calls for a negotiated settlement have grown over the last few years as NATO-led troops battle a stubborn insurgency and Western forces begin drawing down troop levels ahead of a pullout of most soldiers by the end of 2014.

Western officials believe the Taliban's suspension of talks was tactical and reflected internal tension rather than a definitive halt to discussions.

The string of U.S. setbacks has damaged ties with Kabul at a time when Washington is negotiating a pact to outline its future presence in the Asian country.

"The events of the last couple of months ... all point to a major shift in Afghan perceptions of the U.S. role here. It's going to be very difficult for the United States to both facilitate a solution and also be a party to the solution," Rondeaux, the lead author of the report, said.

"MARKET BAZAAR APPROACH TO NEGOTIATIONS"

U.S. objectives in Afghanistan are far more modest than they were in the months following the September 11 attacks, when the West hoped to replace the Taliban with a stable democracy.

Nearly 11 years after the Taliban government was toppled, the United States and its allies continue to face major problems, including insurgent attacks, a weak government and an uncertain future for Western support.

Doubts are also growing about whether the Taliban leadership is willing to defy possible opposition from junior and more hard-core members who appear to oppose negotiations.

"The Afghan government and its international backers have adopted a market bazaar approach to negotiations. Bargains are being cut with any and all comers, regardless of their political relevance or ability to influence outcomes," the ICG said.

The outgoing UK envoy to Afghanistan, William Patey, said on Sunday, however, that in every peace process there were stops and starts, although he did not believe there had been a "strategic" decision yet by the Taliban to make peace.

The Brussels-based group warned that failure to hash out a better approach to a settlement could mean more conflict, especially in the context of national elections set for 2014 in which President Hamid Karzai is barred from standing again.

"If anything, it will be the election that is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back in Afghanistan because this is the last term for Karzai constitutionally," Rondeaux said.

"There is a sense of political vacuum, it's not clear at all who will replace him and that means the competition becomes much more intense. Unfortunately political competition in Afghanistan is never peaceful, it is almost always violent."

Afghan soldier shoots dead two British troops at gates of UK base in Helmand

Gunman killed by return fire during attack in provincial capital Lashkar Gah, in latest sign of growing tensions in Afghanistan

the Guardian,

26 March, 2012

Two British soldiers were killed on Monday when an Afghan soldier turned his gun on them at the gates of a UK military base.

The attacker was also killed during an exchange of fire which may have started after security guards stopped a truck as it tried to enter the heavily fortified compound in Helmand's capital Lashkar Gah.

The incident comes amid heightened tension in Afghanistan following incidents involving US troops such as the killing of 17 Afghan civilians by an American soldier.

In the past seven weeks 10 British soldiers have died on duty in Helmand, though David Cameron and the defence secretary, Philip Hammond, have made clear they intend to resist mounting calls for western forces to come home early.

The latest incident is a "green on blue" attack – when a member of the Afghan security forces has killed an ally from Nato's International Security and Assistance Force (Isaf).

The Ministry of Defence said the victims were a Royal Marine and a member of the Adjutant General's Corps. Their close relatives have been informed.

An Afghan police official said the shootings took place when an Afghan army truck approached the base and was reportedly refused entry by the guards. The official said one of the Afghan soldiers then rushed through the gates and opened fire on those inside, killing the two Britons.

"Details of the incident are still emerging but it appears that a member of the Afghan National Army opened fire at the entrance gate to the British headquarters," Hammond told the House of Commons. "The assailant was killed by return fire."

Brigadier General Sherin Shah, of the Afghan National Army said: "Today's incident which involved armed conflict by one of the ANA members of the Fourth Kandak of 3-215 Brigade was a tragic event.

"The incident is still under investigation and it is unclear if the action was planned or influenced by the enemy or if he acted alone, either way it is with the deepest regret that two Isaf soldiers who came to our country to provide security are now dead.

"I would like to convey my deepest condolences to the soldiers' families and the British Army and Royal Marines, especially Task Force Helmand, for their loss."

Tensions have been running high in Afghanistan because of the burning of Qur'ans by US forces inside an international base, and then the shooting dead of 17 Afghan civilians in Kandahar province by Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.

Isaf commanders have been anticipating a backlash from the Taliban, though it is unclear whether this latest shooting involved an infiltrator or someone who acted on the spur of the moment.

Massoud Khan Nourzai, an MP from Helmand, said:"These kinds of attacks have increased lately and maybe they will continue to increase in the future.

"They have increased because of the incidents like the one in Kandahar. If an incident like Kandahar happens, people are not sitting quietly. In every Afghan family they are talking about it and saying they committed a cruel action."

Nourzai added that in the past two years many of his relatives have stopped working with the government and joined forces with the Taliban primarily because of their frustration with the continuing presence of foreign forces.

Sardar Mohammad Khan, a teacher in Lashkar Gah, said the attack was "a result of the foreigners' behaviour and activities", adding: "Everyone is frustrated – the army, the police, normal Afghans. On one side we are frustrated with our own government, the corruption, the insurgency, and the return of the Taliban.

"On the other side, when the foreigners are doing such things it makes you even more frustrated."

The issue of attacks by Afghan soldiers poses a sizeable threat to Isaf. One military report found Afghan security forces were responsible for 6% of coalition casualties between May 2007 and May 2011.

In January, France temporarily suspended its combat operations and threatened a premature withdrawal after someone in an Afghan military uniform killed four French soldiers.

Maintaining foreign support remains vital for the Afghan military, which will require an estimated $6bn (£3.7bn) to continue operating after foreign troops leave in 2014.

Following the shooting in Kandahar, American officials have sought to appease Afghans by providing assistance to the families of the victims. Families reportedly received $50,000 (£31,400) for each person killed and $11,000 (£6,900) for those who were wounded.

Xenia Dormandy, a senior fellow at Chatham House, said the UK soldiers may have been caught in the backlash against US forces.

She said: "It is not clear that they make a distinction between US forces and Isaf soldiers, so at some level this is really not that surprising that this would occur. It is just extraordinarily sad that it does.

"As for the question: 'Does this mean that the UK should pull out its forces?' Absolutely not. I think Cameron has made it absolutely clear that he does not intend to before the organised roll-out in 2014."

UPDATE:

A third member of NATO has been killed

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A man alleged to be a local Afghan policeman killed a NATO service member in eastern Afghanistan on Monday, the second fatal shooting of NATO service members in a day, both apparently at the hands of their Afghan comrades

Afghanistan Shooting Victims' Families Received Money From U.S.

Huffington Post,

25 March, 2012

The U.S. paid $50,000 in compensation for each villager killed and $11,000 for each person wounded in a shooting rampage allegedly carried out by a rogue American soldier in southern Afghanistan, Afghan officials said Sunday.

The families were told that the money came from President Barack Obama. The unusually large payouts were the latest move by the White House to mend relations with the Afghan people after the killings threatened to shatter already tense relations.

Army Staff Sgt. Robert Bales is accused of sneaking off his base on March 11, then creeping into houses in two nearby villages and opening fire on families as they slept.

The killings came as tensions between the U.S. and Afghanistan were strained following the burning of Qurans at a U.S. base in February. That act – which U.S. officials have acknowledged was a mistake – sparked riots and attacks that killed more than 30 people, including six American soldiers.

There have been no violent protests following the March 11 shootings in Kandahar province's Panjwai district, but demands for justice on Afghan terms have been getting louder since Bales was flown out of the country to a U.S. military prison. Many Afghans in Kandahar have continued to argue that there must have been multiple gunmen and accused the U.S. government of using Bales as a scapegoat.

U.S. investigators believe the gunman returned to his base after the first attack and later slipped away to kill again.

That would seem to support the U.S. government's assertion that the shooter acted alone, since the killings would have been perpetrated over a longer period of time than assumed when Bales was detained outside his base in Kandahar province's Panjwai district.

But it also raises new questions about how the suspect could have carried out the pre-dawn attacks without drawing attention from any Americans on the base.

Bales has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder and other crimes and could face the death penalty if convicted.

The families of the dead received the money Saturday at the governor's office, said Kandahar provincial council member Agha Lalai. He and community elder Jan Agha confirmed the payout amounts.

Survivors previously had received smaller compensation payments from Afghan officials – $2,000 for each death and $1,000 for each person wounded.

Two U.S. officials confirmed that compensation had been paid but declined to discuss exact amounts, saying only that the payments reflected the devastating nature of the incident. The officials spoke anonymously because of the sensitivity of the subject.

A spokesman for NATO and U.S. forces, Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, said only that coalition members often make compensation payments, but they are usually kept private.

"As the settlement of claims is in most cases a sensitive topic for those who have suffered loss, it is usually a matter of agreement that the terms of the settlement remain confidential," Cummings said.

However, civilian death compensations are occasionally made public. In 2010, U.S. troops in Helmand province said they paid $1,500 to $2,000 if a civilian was killed in a military operation and $600 to $1,500 for a serious injury. The Panjwai shootings are different because they were not part of a sanctioned operation, but it is a distinction lost on many Afghans who see any civilian deaths as criminal.

The provided compensation figures would mean that at least $866,000 was paid out in all. Afghan officials and villagers have counted 16 dead – 12 in the village of Balandi and four in neighboring Alkozai – and six wounded. The U.S. military has charged Bales with 17 murders without explaining the discrepancy.

The 38-year-old soldier, who is from Lake Tapps, Wash., is accused of using his 9mm pistol and M-4 rifle to kill four men, four women, two boys and seven girls, then burning some of the bodies. The ages of the children were not disclosed in the charge sheet.

Bales is being held in a military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan. The mandatory minimum sentence if he is convicted is life imprisonment with the chance of parole. He could also receive the death penalty.

Families of the dead declined to comment on any payments by U.S. officials on Sunday, but some said previously that they were more concerned about seeing the perpetrator punished than money.

Kandahar is the birthplace of the Taliban and remains a dangerous area despite several offensives.

In the latest violence, a bomb struck a joint NATO-Afghan foot patrol in Kandahar's Arghandab district late Saturday, killing nine Afghans and one international service member, according to Shah Mohammad, the district administrator.

Arghandab is a farming region just outside Kandahar city that has long provided refuge for Taliban insurgents. It was one of a number of communities around Kandahar city that were targeted in a 2010 sweep to oust the insurgency from the area.

The Afghan dead included one soldier, three police officers, four members of the Afghan "local police" – a government-sponsored militia force – and one translator, Mohammad said.

NATO reported earlier Sunday that one of its service members was killed Saturday in a bomb attack in southern Afghanistan but did not provide additional details. It was not clear if this referred to the same incident, as NATO usually waits for individual coalition nations to confirm the details of deaths of their troops.

Western Afghan policy in tatters

Double blow to Nato as Karzai and Taliban derail Afghanistan strategy

Announcements by main partner and main opponents of coalition forces leave political and military blueprints in tatters

the Guardian,

15 March, 2012

The west's strategy in Afghanistan has been thrown into disarray after the Taliban said they had suspended preliminary peace talks with the US, and the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, called for coalition troops to retreat to their bases and end patrols through Afghan villages.

In statements released within minutes of each other on Thursday, the main opponent and main partner of Nato-led forces in Afghanistan trampled on military and political blueprints that the coalition had hoped might allow them to exit the country without leaving it in chaos.

"I'm really shocked, these are two pieces of very bad news," said one senior western diplomat in Kabul. "It's probably the bleakest day of my time here in Afghanistan."

The mission has suffered a series of setbacks as a result of demonstrations against the burning of the Qur'an by American soldiers and the massacre of 16 civilians by a US gunman.

Hopes of a decisive military victory over the insurgency had long been abandoned, and the Taliban announcement last year that they would open a political office in Qatar had appeared to offer a real prospect of serious negotiations after years of false starts and dead ends.

But the Taliban suspended talks on Thursday, because the group faced "unacceptable demands". The news came in a statement that did not detail the problems but described Washington as "shaky, erratic and vague" and rejected any discussion with Karzai's government as pointless.

The sticking point in talks between the Taliban, Karzai's government and the US is the terms of a prisoner exchange involving five Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo and a westerner held by the Taliban.

Karzai's office said that his statement summarised comments made in a meeting with the visiting US defence secretary, Leon Panetta.

Karzai said he wanted a nationwide handover of security from western to Afghan forces completed by the end of 2013, a year ahead of the current schedule. He also wants foreign soldiers to return to their bases immediately, leaving Afghan villages and ending patrols that have been a key component of the war.

"Afghan security forces have the ability to keep the security in rural areas and in villages on their own," the statement said.

If this demand is met, it would spell the end for the current coalition military approach, which aims to push out insurgents and win over the civilian population village by village.

Karzai's call to put Afghan troops in charge by the end of 2013 matches recent plans agreed by Barack Obama and David Cameron for a quicker shift for their troops from a lead fighting role to a support role.

The Obama administration rebuffed Karzai's call for an immediate withdrawal of US and other international forces from villages. It also played down the Taliban walkout from the reconciliation talks, portraying it as part of the normal "ups and downs" of any such peace negotiations.

The White House spokesman Jay Carney said there were no plans to change the current strategy and insisted the US was still working to a 2014 deadline.

The Pentagon spokesman, George Little, said the US and Afghan governments shared the same goals, and Karzai's statement reflected "President Karzai's strong interest in moving as quickly as possible to a fully independent and sovereign Afghanistan". He added: "We believe that we need to continue to work together because that's an American goal as well."

Some diplomats dismissed Karzai's demand that soldiers return to their bases as political posturing, pointing out that he had made the same request before, though in less high-profile settings.

"He wants it but he will not get it. It's impossible because their forces are not ready," said another senior western diplomat. "They may, however, be ready next year and that demand is nothing new, it is what Cameron and Obama were talking about."

The embassy in Kabul said the US aimed to have Afghans in charge of security by the end of 2013, but did not directly comment on the demand that troops return to bases. "At the upcoming Nato summit we'll determine the next phase of transition, which includes coalition forces shifting to a support role in 2013," said spokesman Gavin Sundwall.

The Taliban statement left open the possibility that dialogue could resume in future if "the Americans clarify their stance on the issues concerned", and the faction that originally pursued negotiations is unlikely to have lost interest in a political solution.

"If the Taliban fight on they are simply involved in a violent power struggle over who gets to take over after the US departure," said Michael Semple, a Taliban expert and fellow at Harvard University.

"Pragmatists in the Taliban movement want to settle this at the negotiation table rather than on the battlefield, which is why they have left the door ajar for resumption of talks. But they are still not convinced that the Americans are serious about these  talks, which is why they have decisively bounced the ball back into the American court."

The US embassy in Kabul said Washington remains committed to supporting an Afghan peace process, and its position has been consistent.

"For a Taliban political office to open the Afghan Taliban must make clear statements distancing itself from international terrorism and in support of a political process among all Afghans to end the conflict in Afghanistan," said Sundwall.

The US soldier blamed for the shooting was flown to Kuwait on Wednesday. This may have been an attempt to defuse tension but the Obama adminstration said it was normal practice in such cases.

Victoria Nuland, a state department spokeswoman speaking at the daily briefing in Washington, said US policy was to facilitate talks between the Taliban and Karzai. If the Taliban want an office opened in Qatar and a release of prisoners, they would not achieve that through walking away from the negotiating table, she said, adding: "It takes two to tango."

She insisted the Taliban would have to accept the Afghan constitution, renounce violence and cut ties to terrorists.

Dangling the carrot of prisoner releases, she said a decision had not been made one way or another yet.

Asked if the Taliban statement reflected a feeling that after the Qur'an burnings and the massacre, the Taliban might feel emboldened to wait out the US and international forces, she insisted US involvement would continue beyond 2014.

On Karzai's call, she said that the US and the Afghan government both wanted the same goal, the transfer of security to Afghan forces, and the only differences were in timelines. These would be addressed at the Nato summit in the spring.

US 'did not cooperate' with probe into Kandahar shooting

Afghan president Hamid Karzai, in meeting with families of 16 victims, says his investigators were denied access to the rogue US soldier who killed civilians during a shooting spree.

Al Jazeera's Bernard Smith reports from Kabul.

Failure of western policy in Afghanistan

From Mike Ruppert: 

Translation: As a result of an aggressive multi-national, asymmetrical campaign involving Iran, Pakistan, China, Russia, Syria and a few others the United States has been defeated in Afghanistan. ISAF forces are cutoff and resupply has been throttled to a trickle. think Dienbienphu. The U.S. has thrown in the towel and said, " Hooray... We won!". On the heels of the stunning failure to launch a full military strike on Iran -- even after engaging in many blatant preliminary hostilities -- the United States of America is being driven back on all fronts. It's oil embargo is a farce. We have many supporting stories on this on the World News Desk.

The United States of America is a dysfunctional family. The alcoholic, criminal, degenerate parents have just had their asses, deservedly, kicked out on the streets. So they're going to come home and beat the children to feel better about themselves. -- MCR

Taliban 'poised to retake Afghanistan' after NATO pullout, leaked U.S. report claims

the Globe and Mail,

1 February, 2012

The U.S. military said in a secret report that the Taliban, backed by Pakistan, are set to retake control of Afghanistan after NATO-led forces withdraw, raising the prospect of a major failure of Western policy after a costly war.

Lieutenant Colonel Jimmie Cummings, a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force, confirmed the existence of the document, reported on Wednesday by Britian’s Times newspaper and the BBC.

But he said it was not a strategic study.

“The classified document in question is a compilation of Taliban detainee opinions,” he said. “It’s not an analysis, nor is it meant to be considered an analysis.”

Nevertheless, it could be interpreted as a damning assessment of the war, dragging into its 11th year and aimed at blocking a Taliban return to power.

It could also be seen as an admission of defeat and could reinforce the view of Taliban hardliners that they should not negotiate with the United States and President Hamid Karzai’s unpopular government while in a position of strength.

The U.S. military report could boost the Taliban’s confidence and make its leaders less willing to make concessions on demands for a ceasefire, and for the insurgency to renounce violence and break ties to al Qaeda.

But Britain’s Kabul Ambassador William Patey wrote on his official Twitter feed that “if elements of the Taliban think that in 2015 they can take control of Afghanistan they will be in for a shock”. He did not say whether he was referring directly to the leaked document.

Hours after The Times report, the Afghan Taliban said that no peace negotiation process had been agreed with the international community, “particularly the Americans”.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a statement that prior to any negotiations, confidence building measures must be completed, putting pressure on Washington to meet demands for the release of five Taliban in U.S. custody.

The hardline Islamist movement also said it had no plans to hold preliminary peace talks with Afghanistan’s government in Saudi Arabia, dismissing media reports of talks in the kingdom.

The U.S. military said in the document that Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) security agency was assisting the Taliban in directing attacks against foreign forces.

Reasserting control over the country would be more difficult a second time for the Taliban, however, with Afghan police and soldiers expected to number around 350,000 beyond 2014 and some foreign troops likely to remain, including elite forces.

Close U.S. ally Australia said on Wednesday that its special forces could be in the country for years beyond the handover, with other western nations likely to take a similar stance.

The report overshadowed a visit to Kabul by Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar designed to repair ties and consult with Karzai on possible peace talks with the Taliban.

“I can disregard this as a potentially strategic leak... This is old wine in an even older bottle,” she told reporters, reiterating Pakistan’s frequent denials it backs militant groups seeking to topple the U.S.-backed Kabul government.

Ms. Khar, whose visit was the first high-level meeting in months between officials from both countries, added that the neighbours should stop blaming each other for strained cross-border ties.

The Times said the “highly classified” report was put together by the U.S. military at Bagram air base, north of Kabul, for top NATO officers last month.

Large swathes of Afghanistan have been handed back to Afghan security forces, with the last foreign combat troops due to leave by the end of 2014. But many Afghans doubt their security forces will take firm control once the foreign troops leave.

The document may leave some U.S. policymakers wondering whether the war was worth the cost in human lives and funding.

As of late January, 1,889 U.S. soldiers had been killed in a conflict that was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and has drained almost half a trillion dollars from U.S. coffers.

“The unfortunate reality is that this is a failure of the allied strategy in Afghanistan. They have not been able to achieve the goals they set out to achieve,” said Mahmud Durrani, a former Pakistan army general and ambassador to Washington.

New accusations of Pakistani collusion with the Taliban will likely further strain ties between Western powers and Islamabad.

Critics say Pakistan uses militants as proxies to counter the growing influence of India in Afghanistan. The belief that Pakistan supports the insurgents is widely held in Afghanistan.

“It would be a mistake now for the international community to leave Afghanistan, and drop us in a dark ocean,” said Afghan telecommunications worker Farid Ahmad Totakhil.

Pakistan is reviewing ties with the United States which have suffered a series of setbacks since a U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden on Pakistani soil in May last year humiliated Pakistan’s powerful generals.

A Nov. 26 cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers deepened the crisis, prompting Pakistan to close supply routes to NATO forces in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is seen as critical to U.S. efforts to stabilise Afghanistan, a feat one foreign power after another has failed to accomplish over the country’s turbulent history.

Islamabad has resisted U.S. pressure to go after insurgent groups like the Taliban, and argues Washington’s approach overlooks complex realities on the ground.

Pakistan says the United States should attempt to bring all militant groups into a peace process and fears a 2014 combat troop exit could be hasty, plunging the region into the kind of chaos seen after the Soviet exit in 1989.

“They don’t need any backing,” Tariq Azim, a member of the Pakistani Senate’s Defence Committee, told Reuters, referring to the Taliban.

“Everybody knows that after 10 years, they (NATO) have not been able to control a single province in Afghanistan because of the wrong policies they have been following.

The document’s findings were based on interrogations of more than 4,000 Taliban and al-Qaeda detainees, the Times said, adding that it identified only few individual insurgents.

Despite the presence of 130,000 foreign troops, violence is at its worst since the Taliban were ousted by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001, according to the United Nations.

The Taliban announced this month they would open a political office in the Qatari capital, Doha, to support possible peace talks with the United States.

But there has also been talk of efforts to hold separate negotiations in Saudi Arabia because Karzai fears his government could be sidelined by U.S. talks with the Taliban.

Guantanamo and Taleban peace talks

Unexpected Road Block to Afghanistan Peace: Gitmo

Wired,

13 January, 2012

Negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban after 10 years of war in Afghanistan is hard enough. But the stalemated politics of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility risk effectively killing the negotiations before they even have the chance to end the war.

The Taliban leadership has evidently decided it wants to talk peace terms. Among the things it wants as a gesture of good faith from its U.S. adversaries: the release of five detainees from Guantanamo.

Provisions in the defense bill recently signed into law by President Obama make it difficult to transfer detainees out of Guantanamo Bay, the terrorism detention complex that turns 10 years old this week. But they’re a symptom of a greater obstacle to a peace deal: Congress’ broad, bipartisan allergy to releasing any detainees from Gitmo at all.

The calendar actually makes it worse than that. 2012 is an election year. Opening Guantanamo Bay’s doors as a gesture to the Taliban is a narrative practically begging for a political attack ad.

An administration official, who requested anonymity to discuss the super-sensitive proposition, tells Danger Room that Obama hasn’t actually made a decision — except to rule out a straight detainee release. “We would never consider an outright release,” the official says. “The only thing we’d consider is a transfer into third-party custody.” And that might actually provide the administration with a way to get the talks going, get the detainees out of Gitmo without freeing them, and keep Congress on board.

Outside analysts, however, aren’t convinced. “Politically,” says Karen Greenberg, who directs Fordham Law School’s Center for National Security, “it’s a nonstarter.”

The White House is furious at a story last week in the Guardian that incorrectly reported that the Obama team already reached a deal with the Taliban. “The United States has not decided to release any Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay in return for the Taliban’s agreement to open a political office for peace negotiations,” read a White House statement.

Too late. The story already bounced around the conservative blogosphere. “That move shows [Obama's] (short-sighted) willingness to deal with an enemy in order to pursue withdrawal from Afghanistan,” judged Blackfive. “While You Were Watching Iowa, Obama Was Springing Taliban Terrorists from Gitmo,” was National Review‘s headline.

That’s a warmup for what the Obama team can expect if it actually goes through with the gesture. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently received a briefing on the nascent peace talks, and Reuters reports that its major effect was to inspire opposition to the move in Congress even before Obama makes a decision. “It’s hard to envision that if they transfer really dangerous guys to a really dangerous place, there won’t be a fight,” a staffer told Reuters.

They’ll have plenty of opportunities to pick one. For two years, Congress has placed restrictions on transferring detainees out of Guantanamo, the legislative result of furious congressional opposition to Obama’s ill-fated desire to close Gitmo. Any detainee transfers or releases not mandated by courts must be accompanied by written assurances from the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that the detainee in question won’t commit any future acts of terrorism. It gets even harder if the administration might turn a detainee over to a country where a previous detainee has committed an act of terrorism after release. And Congress ensured it would have plenty of time to organize its opposition: The law requires the administration to notify Congress 30 days prior to an intended release.

The upshot is that no one has been released from Guantanamo since Jan. 6, 2011. Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo is stillborn. Rep. James Moran, a Virginia Democrat, argues that Obama never really pushed Congress to close the detention facility.

Add to that reluctance the additional complication that there probably won’t be any assurance that released Taliban detainees won’t return to terrorism. The Taliban is looking for a gesture to kickstart the talks, not forsaking violence from the start. And there are tons of ways negotiations between the two foes could derail: The Afghan or Pakistani governments could dissent, or the terms could merely be unbridgeable. U.S. spy agencies reportedly compiled an official analysis assessing the Taliban’s primary objective is to fight until the U.S. leaves. If they’re not serious about peace talks, then the Obama administration could find itself in a situation where it would have released detainees and gotten nothing in return.

But the scenario described to Danger Room by the anonymous U.S. official suggests a way the Obama team might — might — escape the dilemma.

One option, reported by the New York Times, is for Obama to turn the Taliban detainees over to the custody of Qatar, a U.S. ally that has allowed the Taliban to open a local office for the pursuit of a peace deal. No ex-detainee appears to have committed any act of terrorism after being transferred to Qatar; the only such detainee Qatar has taken is Jaralla Saleh Kahla al-Marri, whom the U.S. freed in 2008 after keeping him at Guantanamo for seven years.

It’s unclear if the Taliban would accept that half-measure. But the Taliban appear to be placing a premium on the peace talks. They decided not to make an issue out of a video of U.S. Marines evidently urinating on Afghan corpses, apparently out of concern that the negotiations would derail.

But it’s also unclear if Congress would accept that plan. Sen. Lindsey Graham, whom the White House considers its chief interlocutor amongst Republicans about terrorism detainees, would not comment to Danger Room. Neither would Rep. Buck McKeon, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Congress is already ambivalent on the idea of peace talks with the Taliban; letting detainees out of Guantanamo in the pursuit of peace will just make a peace deal a harder sell on the Hill.

That’s another tragedy of a decade-long war. A step that might be necessary to end the war could run aground based on politicians’ commitment to detaining militants — in part, so they won’t fight in that very conflict.

The Pentagon won’t comment on the peace talks. But Navy Capt. John Kirby, one of the department’s chief spokesman, reminded reporters on Thursday that “We’ve always said that a political process is the way to ultimate success in Afghanistan.” Congress may soon have to decide if it cares more about keeping Guantanamo stocked than about that process. And Obama may soon have to decide if that process is worth taking criticism as he runs for reelection.

This is the Guardian article referred to -

Taliban leaders held at Guantánamo Bay to be released in peace talks deal

US agrees in principle to releasing top officials from Afghanistan insurgent group in exchange for starting process of negotiations

the Guardian, 

3 January, 2012

The US has agreed in principle to release high-ranking Taliban officials from Guantánamo Bay in return for the Afghan insurgents' agreement to open a political office for peace negotiations in Qatar, the Guardian has learned.

According to sources familiar with the talks in the US and in Afghanistan, the handful of Taliban figures will include Mullah Khair Khowa, a former interior minister, and Noorullah Noori, a former governor in northern Afghanistan.

More controversially, the Taliban are demanding the release of the former army commander Mullah Fazl Akhund. Washington is reported to be considering formally handing him over to the custody of another country, possibly Qatar.

The releases would be to reciprocate for Tuesday's announcement from the Taliban that they are prepared to open a political office in Qatar to conduct peace negotiations "with the international community" – the most significant political breakthrough in ten years of the Afghan conflict.

For article GO HERE

Taleban embassy in Qatar - with US blessing

This report goes back to September.  Interestingly, I could not find any reference to the Times article on Google.

Report: US supports Taliban plan to open office in Qatar by year-end

Doha News,

undated (September, 2011)

The United States has given the Taliban its approval to open a political headquarters in Qatar by the end of the year, so that peace talks between the two groups can begin, UK-based The Times newspaper reports.

If the base is built, it will be the first time the group, officially called the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, will receive international recognition as a political party since losing power after the US-led invasion in 2001. 

The Times cites Western diplomatic sources to corroborate its report, but the Taliban, Qatar and the United States have thus far refused to comment.

Still, some analysts say Doha makes perfect sense, especially given Qatar’s mediation roles in Lebanon and Sudan.

“This position is the result of Qatar’s ability to negotiate the complex politics of the region in a a way that so far demonstrated its evenhandedness in dealing with various regional and international actors,” Dr. Mehran Kamrava, director of the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) at Georgetown University in Qatar, told the Peninsula newspaper.

He added that the reported move “also reflects a realization on the part of the US that Taliban has become a highly influential force in Afghanistan that cannot be simply be defeated militarily.”

According to The Times, Washington insisted that the Taliban’s office be located “outside Pakistan’s ‘sphere of influence.’ “

Additionally, the Taliban would not be allowed to use the office in Qatar to raise funds.

and from 27 December from Canada's Globe and Mail...

With Taliban ‘embassy,’ Qatar again punches above its weight

the Globe and Mail,

27 December, 2011

From hosting the al-Jazeera news network to sending warplanes to bomb Libya and calling for the ouster of Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad, Qatar is staking a claim as a key player in a region in turmoil, willing to rile its bigger neighbours in pursuit of its own interests.

In its latest diplomatic coup, Qatar will host a Taliban “embassy” – apparently at Washington’s request. Accepted by Kabul on Tuesday, the liaison office is designed to be a forum for peace talks that could end the decade-long war in Afghanistan.

For article GO HERE