Further to this post, Ahmed Rashid examines the issues behind A Deal with the Taliban.
Other interesting weekend reading, courtesy of Global Europe, includes: An Israeli attack on Iran? Don’t hold your breath by Michael Young, The National; Israeli-Palestinian talks may resume, but what for? by Yossi Alpher, Daily Star; An Asian Century? Not So Fast by Guy Sorman, City Journal; China’s peaceful rise turns prickly by Charles Grant, CER blog; and Europe should dust off its founding fathers’ ideals. Q&A Stanley Crossick from Euractiv.
A Deal with Taliban?
Why not? But which Taliban are we talking about?
Maybe someone could say the «good» Taliban, not the «bad» ones.
How can we differenciate the «two»? What are the clear criterias we could use to make the difference between them? If there is really one.
Some could say the «bad» Taliban are the guys dedicated to worldwide jihadist agenda, like Al-Qaeda. Others could find other criterias to distinct the two. For these people, the «good» Taliban could be the guys fighting for nationalist reasons, or only to be well paid by the «Quetta Republic».
To be effective, each deal with Taliban should first show them that U.S. troups are not staying in their country for ever. It’s very important to gain their good will.