This would be a giant step forward toward an eventual agreement in Afghanistan. Good news:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Giving a first major public sign that they may be ready for formal talks with the American-led coalition in Afghanistan, the Taliban announced Tuesday that they had struck a deal to open a political office in Qatar that could allow for direct negotiations over the endgame in the Afghan war.

The step was a reversal of the Taliban’s longstanding public denials that they were involved in, or even willing to consider, talks related to their insurgency, and it had the potential to revive a reconciliation effort that stalled in September, with the assassination of the head of Afghanistan’s High Peace Council.

It was unclear, however, whether the Taliban were interested in working toward a comprehensive peace settlement or mainly in ensuring that NATO ends its operations in Afghanistan as scheduled in 2014, which would remove a major obstacle to the Taliban’s return to power in all or part of the country.

In a statement, Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said that along with a preliminary deal to set up the office in Qatar, the group was asking that Taliban detainees held at the American prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, be released. Mr. Mujahid did not say when the Qatar office would be opened, or give specifics about the prisoners the Taliban wanted freed.

“We are at the moment, besides our powerful presence inside the country, ready to establish a political office outside the country to come to an understanding with other nations,” the statement said.

This is just nuts. Can't we declare victory and leave?

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership.

NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from across the border in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge.

The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said.

The episode underscores the uncertain and even bizarre nature of the atmosphere in which Afghan and American leaders search for ways to bring the nine-year-old American-led war to an end. The leaders of the Taliban are believed to be hiding in Pakistan, possibly with the assistance of the Pakistani government, which receives billions of dollars in American aid.

Oh dear. If this is verified, how likely is it that we'll ever leave?

KABUL, Aug. 15, 2010 (Reuters) — Afghanistan said on Sunday it had discovered an oilfield with an estimated 1.8 billion barrels in the north of the war-ravaged country, where U.S. and other foreign forces are trying to tame a Taliban-led insurgency.

The discovery of the basin between northern Balkh and Shiberghan provinces was made after a survey conducted by Afghan and international geologists, said Jawad Omar, a spokesman for the ministry of mines.

"I do not know its price in the market. But the initial survey says there are 1.8 billion barrels of oil and I think there will be more than what it is estimated," he told Reuters.

Various estimates of Afghanistan's hidden wealth have been made in recent years, but the challenge of exploiting the resources in a country at war and with little mining infrastructure is daunting for most investors.

Omar gave no more details on how the estimates were made but said the country will offer the reserves for development along with other minerals in the coming months.

Afghanistan hopes that untapped mineral deposits valued at $3 trillion could help reduce the need to rely on Western cash for bankrolling its impoverished economy and for its soldiers to maintain security when foreign troops draw down numbers.

It's hard not to cringe at the face of 18 year old Bibi Aisha, whose nose and ears were sliced off under the orders of a Taliban commander for running away from her husband's home. It was a barbaric act, for which there is no defense or excuse.

And I'm sure that Aisha is not alone. The treatment of women in Afghanistan has been notoriously horrendous for centuries, even by Middle Eastern standards. Women have no rights to speak of: they cannot be educated, they must obey their father and then their husband, they have no rights to their children or self. They are secondary citizens.

There is no credible argument to be made that this is fair to Afghan women and that there shouldn't be some effort made to raise awareness of plight of women and work to overturn those attitudes.

But at the same time, it's also incredibly revisionist for Time Magazine to exploit Aisha's tragedy (although she is now living with a host family here in the US and about to undergo reconstructive surgery) and claim that the same fate awaits others if we leave Afghanistan.

Let's be absolutely clear: what happened to Aisha occurred while we were IN Afghanistan. Our presence did absolutely nothing to prevent it. So to claim that more women will meet Aisha's fate if we leave ignores the fact that we could do nothing to save Aisha and any other women who suffered similar abuses already. Rafia Zakaria writes in Ms. Magazine that we nevertheless have an obligation to these women:

The Left’s framing is clear: Rescuing Afghan women was a pretext crafted handily by the Bush Administration so it could barge its way into Afghanistan and stay there. And that’s certainly true. Also true, as Crowe points out, is that Afghan women have continued to suffer during the American occupation, enduring both traditional patriarchal practices and newly-minted discriminatory laws. Indeed, assessing the performance of the 10-year occupation in the mutilated-yet-expectant features of a young woman serves as an appropriately graphic visual depiction of our failures in Afghanistan.

The problem with these arguments, however, is that they translate our inability to improve things thus far into a prescription for sudden abandonment of the very projects that women just like Aisha made the mistake of believing in: literacy and entrepreneurship initiatives for women, civil society seminars designed to encourage women’s participation and midwifery training projects to reduce Afghanistan’s sky-rocketing rates of maternal mortality. War is horrific, its misery recorded in lurid detail in the tragedy of Aisha’s mutilation. But withdrawing without a plan for safeguarding the women who chose to believe the American promises of empowerment, however deceitfully those promises may have been made, is to live in denial of a tragedy in which we are roundly imputed.

It's also changing the goalposts. Our mission in Afghanistan was never been to help oppressed women there. That was one of the myriad of after-the-fact justifications the Bush administration came up with (remember the disastrous Karen Hughes tour of the Middle East to "support women"?). What Zakaria can't admit is that it's a convenient (and horrifyingly visual) campaign in the face of flagging support for a ten year occupation with no clear mission or end game in sight.

And as Siun suggests, part of Time Magazine's motivation might also be a little dig at upstart Wikileaks:

First, it’s worthwhile noting that contrary to what TIME’s editor claimed, the New York Times reports that the woman in the photo, Bibi Aisha, “had never heard of Time magazine until a visitor brought her a copy of this week’s issue, the one with the cover picture of her face, the face with no nose.”

Her response when told of the uproar her photo has generated:

“I don’t know if it will help other women or not,” she said, her hand going instinctively to cover the hole in the middle of her face, as it does whenever strangers look directly at her. “I just want to get my nose back.”

TIME’s editorial piece attempted to also undercut the value of the Wikileaks release, saying of their cover:

What you see in these pictures and our story is something that you cannot find in those 91,000 documents: a combination of emotional truth and insight into the way life is lived in that difficult land and the consequences of the important decisions that lie ahead.

An interesting argument given that France 24 reports that:

A less publicised leak by the same website in March 2010 exposed a confidential CIA document urging the use of abused Afghan women to shore up support for the war.

“Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanising the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears for a Taliban victory,” read the memo. . . .

The Wikileaks release of that CIA file is available here.

At best, it's cheap and cynical to exploit Aisha in this way. While I grieve for what pain she has had to go through (and is spending more than half your life in a war zone only a little traumatic?), I cannot imagine how you bring about a paradigm shift in a cultural attitude towards women at the end of a gun. Yes, we should all care about the plight of these women (and in other areas as well) who suffer as an oppressed group. We should seek to educate and raise the consciousnesses of the men who brutally oppress the women of their society. We should attempt to encourage lawmakers to change their laws to be more equitable towards women. And we should work with other nations to bring economic and educational opportunities for women.

But nowhere in that can you find a justification for a continued occupation of Afghanistan.

I haven't had time to review or reflect much on the WikiLeak's disclosure of 92,000 classified documents to the NY Times, the London Guardian newspaper, and the German magazine Der Spiegel. After taking a cursatory look at some of the news articles, I can't say that I'm surprised at all. At best, it only reflects the lack of good reporting that we've seen to date on the war in Afghanistan - adequate reporting perhaps on the surface of things, but no in-depth analyses resulting in a good understanding of the conflict. The NYT says:

The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.

As the new American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus,tries to reverse the lagging war effort, the documents sketch a war hamstrung by an Afghan government, police force and army of questionable loyalty and competence, and by a Pakistani military that appears at best uncooperative and at worst to work from the shadows as an unspoken ally of the very insurgent forces the American-led coalition is trying to defeat.

The material comes to light as Congress and the public grow increasingly skeptical of the deepening involvement in Afghanistan and its chances for success as next year’s deadline to begin withdrawing troops looms.

The dialogue runs directly counter to the military's positive spin on the conflict, as leaders such as Petraeus stubbornly insist that "victory" in Afghanistan is still possible. Just give it another four years or so. As I said, I don't think the reports will tell you anything particularly new. But what I find more interesting is trying to determine who might have sent these documents to WikiLeaks - 92,000 classified documents, mostly tactical level reports, over a six-year period. Is this person a military officer who has seen one too many operations go south? A low-level DOD civilian, secretly frustrated at the mismatch between reality and the manufactured news on the television? A poorly-screened defense contractor, taking advantage of stressed out defense personnel to slip messages out to other confederates?

Who is this modern-day Daniel Ellsberg?

So this is what had the Wikileaks founder so jumpy. No wonder the government wanted to keep this under wraps:

A huge cache of secret US military files today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Timesand the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and over 1,000 US troops.

Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US navy sailors captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.

From Steve Hynd over at Newshoggers:

The newspapers admit they kept some secrets too sensitive for publication buried and the details in the document dump seem to be of the kind well known already to wonks who have followed Afghanistan reporting over the years, but the manner and volume of the War Log's release will doubtless crystallize the opinions of many who were only casual readers of news from the West's occupation there. With public opinion against that occupation running at some 60% in the U.S. and over 70% in the UK and Germany, these leaks will put further pressure on Western governments to find an exit sooner rather than later.

Among the stories on which new light has been shed:

-- Pakistan and to a far lesser extent Iran have been offering funding and other direct aid to Taliban groups for years. Pakistan's ISI is reported to have been behind many Taliban targeting decisions, including on U.S. and coalition troops, despite it being an ostensible ally.

-- The U.S. has been using an undisclosed "black" unit of special forces, Task Force 373, to hunt down targets for death or detention without trial. This team has been responsible for the deaths of Afghan policemen and civilians, including children but authorities seem to have been more concerned with keeping its operations secret than curtailing its zeal.

-- There have been over 50 incidents of "Green on Green" fire - where Afghan police or soldiers opened fire on their fellow uniformed countrymen, many begun by drug use, corruption or indiscipline.

-- There are reports of hundreds of border clashes between Pakistani troops and their Afghan or American opposite numbers - far more than previously reported.

-- The 140 reports of incidents involving the shooting and blowing up of civilians by Coalition troops reveal a casual disregard for human life, including "nearly 100 occasions by jumpy troops at checkpoints, near bases or on convoys...'warning shots' often seem to cause death or injury, generally ascribed to ricochets."

The reason why governments don't want us to see war too closely is that they see how little point there is to the whole bloody mess. Why are we still there? Why are we destroying all these lives?

DOWNLOADS: (1403)

PLAYS: (574)

Embed

On This Week with Jake Tapper, John McCain explains how important it is not to have deadlines for leaving Afghanistan. I've often thought that his alleged "expertise" on war, which seems to be grounded only in his personal experience as a prisoner of war, is sort of akin to pronouncing someone who was hit by a car as an expert on automotive engineering. But maybe that's just me!

And by the way, I don't think I've ever heard McCain advocate for less war. So his shilling for open-ended commitment in Afghanistan is not exactly a shock:

TAPPER: Senator, I think a lot of Americans are wondering why, after nine years of war, the Taliban has the momentum in this fight.

MCCAIN: Well, I'm not sure that the Taliban have the momentum right now, Jake. The Taliban obviously are entrenched in places in parts of, actually, the outskirts of Kandahar. There's areas where they are still in control. There has been some progress. It's been hard-fought and with great sacrifice.

But there's no doubt that we spent a lot of time, effort, American blood and treasure on Iraq. And now is the time for us to continue this mission and complete it successfully in Afghanistan.

TAPPER: There are currently 93,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, plus 43,000 NATO troops. You've said we need more troops because it's unlikely that NATO will be able to fill its obligation, its pledge of 10,000 additional troops. Should President Obama tell the Pentagon to send even more U.S. troops than he has already ordered?

MCCAIN: There will be an evaluation, an assessment made in December. I think at that time, we will have a much better idea as to how the mission is -- is progressing and whether we need more troops and whether our NATO allies have fulfilled their commitment.

But what I worry about more than anything else is the -- the July of 2011 firm date, which the president has not -- certainly has not been positive as far as our commitment is concerned. In other words, we need a conditions-based situation, not a date for withdrawal.

A statement like, "We're not going to turn out the lights in the middle of 2011," is indecipherable and certainly sounds an uncertain trumpet. So I'm more concerned about the perception of our friends and our enemies, as well as the people in Afghanistan, as to the depth of our commitment. Our commitment must be: We will succeed, and then we will withdraw.

TAPPER: Let's talk about that uncertain trumpet that -- that you mentioned. What did the Bush trumpet sound like? There was an unlimited commitment of U.S. troops for an unlimited amount of time there, and that didn't seem to be effective, and yet you're criticizing this July 2011 deadline, which would be the beginning of a transition period. What did the previous strategy trumpet sound like?

MCCAIN: Well, the previous strategy was failing, and I said that it was failing, and disagreed with our then-Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, as well as the president. Then we initiated a surge with General Petraeus in charge, and we succeeded.

I just came from Baghdad. I went downtown with my two colleagues to a bakery and to a store. The success there is remarkable. There are still problems, but the success in remarkable.

But we didn't say that we were leaving until we had succeeded. I'm all for dates for withdrawal, but that's after the strategy succeeds, not before. That's a dramatic difference.

And I can tell you for sure, our people in the region are not sure about whether we are going to be here after the middle of 2011, whether we have succeeded or not. And it's clear that this strategy has not gone as well as we had hoped, so that right away brings into question the middle of 2011.

DOWNLOADS: (741)

PLAYS: (764)

Embed

[H/t Heather]

It's hard sometime to believe the blithering, fact-free idiocy that passes for Beltway wisdom these days. Take David Gregory interviewing everyone's favorite Sunday talk-show guest, John McCain:

MR. GREGORY: I have a question that keeps nagging me about the enemy, about the Taliban.

SEN. McCAIN: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: The United States is engaged in working with the Afghan central government to recruit Afghan soldiers. Why do we have to recruit Afghan soldiers? Who's training the Taliban? Nobody has to recruit them. They're out there fighting for, you know, what they see as a future. Which is, by the way, is a dark, terrorist, annihilist future. Nevertheless, they don't have to be recruited, and yet we're in this position where we're trying to recruit Afghan soldiers.

SEN. McCAIN: You know, that's a very good question. And it's clear that the Taliban is a very extremist and very fanatical element, and I think this is true with all insurgencies. But I think you also find that the majority of the people in Afghanistan do not want the return of the Taliban. They're afraid, though, that when the United States leaves that there will be assassination squads going around and taking care of those who cooperated with the government and the Americans. Look, Karzai is not doing the things we want him to do. I don't think there's any doubt about that in many respects. Maliki was not doing the things we wanted...

MR. GREGORY: In Iraq.

SEN. McCAIN: ...us to do. He was perceived as very weak. The level of sectarian violence in Iraq makes what's going on in Afghanistan pale in comparison, and I'm not saying it's not going to be long and hard and tough, and I'm not saying that it's going to be easy. And I--but I am convinced of one thing, you--fundamental of warfare, you tell the enemy when you're leaving, that--then they will wait. And Ho Chi Minh certainly is an authentication of that, of that course of action.

Can anyone tell me what the hell these two people are talking about? Or why they are considered wise and worthy voices to spend our time listening to on a Sunday morning?

Because Al Qaeda recruits all the time. It's a major part of their relative success. (Just Google "Al Qaeda recruitment" for a sample.)

Of course, it doesn't hurt that idiocy like this makes it possible for the United States to significantly improve the climate for recruitment of Al Qaeda terrorists, either.

DOWNLOADS: (816)

PLAYS: (544)

Embed

In an interview on “This Week,” with Jake Tapper, CIA Director Leon Panetta said that making progress in Afghanistan isn't easy:

“There are some serious problems” in Afghanistan, Panetta said. “We’re dealing with tribal societies. We’re dealing with a country that has problems with governance, problems with corruption, problems with narcotics trafficking, problems with a Taliban insurgency,” he said.

But, the CIA director said, the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan. “It’s harder, it’s slower than I think anyone anticipated. But at the same time, we are seeing increasing violence,” he told host Jake Tapper.

“Is the strategy the right strategy? We think so,” he said. “I think…the key to success or failure is whether the Afghans accept responsibility, are able to deploy an effective army and police force to maintain stability. If they can do that, then I think we’re going to be able achieve the kind of progress and the kind of stability that the President is after,” Panetta said.

“This is going to be tough. This is not going to be easy,” he said.

Gee, ya think? Look, I know Obama didn't get us into this mess, but he did decide to double down on the Afghanistan war - which makes it his problem now.

(h/t David at Video Cafe for the clip)

I have to think this isn't helping at all. Considering we've had an all-but-declared assault on the Pakistan border for years now, it might be time for Sec. of State Clinton to get over to Pakistan and have a very serious discussion. If the ultimate goal--the only way to "victory" in Afghanistan--is to neutralize the Taliban entirely, this is a good indication we're never going to see victory, since the Taliban is being supported by some high ranking official Pakistani organizations:

Pakistan's main spy agency continues to arm and train the Taliban and is even represented on the group's leadership council despite U.S. pressure to sever ties and billions in aid to combat the militants, said a research report released Sunday.

The findings could heighten tension between the two countries and raise further questions about U.S. success in Afghanistan since Pakistani cooperation is seen as key to defeating the Taliban, which seized power in Kabul in the 1990s with Islamabad's support.

U.S. officials have suggested in the past that current or former members of Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, have maintained links to the Taliban despite the government's decision to denounce the group in 2001 under U.S. pressure.

But the report issued Sunday by the London School of Economics offered one of the strongest cases that assistance to the group is official ISI policy, and even extends to the highest levels of the Pakistani government.

"Pakistan's apparent involvement in a double-game of this scale could have major geopolitical implications and could even provoke U.S. countermeasures," said the report, which was based on interviews with Taliban commanders, former Taliban officials, Western diplomats and many others.

"Without a change in Pakistani behavior it will be difficult, if not impossible, for international forces and the Afghan government to make progress against the insurgency," said the report.