source of image
The Afghan hostilities must be re-formulated. They have become known collectively as an interminable war that needs an “exit strategy”. The problem is that it has been mainly conceived in terms of armed conflict.
It must be accepted, however, that in addition to armed attacks, the coalition has been involved in much constructive activity: the building of schools and hospitals, health-related prevention programs, the inclusion of women in education and political participation, and the institution of a certain democratic, elective and governing political process.
But one crucial element is lacking: negotiation with the Taliban and the Al Qaeda. They exist as a loosely knit amalgamation of discontented men and women, and they won’t be bombed (or wished) out of existence. There are a number of associated groups, probably also weakly-linked clusters of individuals, that acknowledge and identify with the same angry sentiments. Often they have violent and intransigent strategies and beliefs, and they have an undeniable influence in the modern Muslim world. It is important to talk to their representatives.
When you don’t talk to the “enemy” you attribute more power to it than it really has.
There is even evidence that Al Qaeda was invented as a concrete organization; it was part of a U.S. strategy in 2001 to prosecute Bin Laden in his absence. However, what Al Qaeda lacks in any solid organizational reality, it retains as a highly-charged emotional and conceptual rationalization for angry and violent gestures against what must also be called a non-existent enemy: The West. This is all a terrible case of objectifying a number of fantasies. The dead on both sides, however, are very real.
In the dark Bush-years of U.S. politics, any conversation with an American leader was considered a “reward” to be administered like M&Ms in Skinner-type behavioral experiments. This lead to the isolation of the administration’s personnel and the aggrandizement of their own self images.
Negotiation is a tool. You don’t negotiate with people you already agree with; it is an activity you carry out with people who believe differently and who have dissimilar interests, even when you believe the “other side’s” way of thinking is dark and dangerous. In fact, the importance of finding the middle ground increases when divergences are the greatest.
Nik Gowing, a well known reporter, interviewer, and debate leader on the BBC, recently lead one of the “World Debate” sessions with a discussion of the Afghan conflict. He was accompanied by diverse representatives and stakeholders of this multi- faceted struggle.
He ended with a comment that I will paraphrase from memory:
We have to rename what is happening in Afghanistan; it should no longer be called a war. It needs another qualifier.
