Afstan jaw-jaw?

I think the Senlis Council is being rather over-optimistic concerning prospects at this time (and concerning the attitude of our opposition parties), especially in terms of Canada's taking a lead role that could produce rapid results. But the heart is in the right place regarding troops.

Canada is throwing away an opportunity to help Afghan President Hamid Karzai fracture the Taliban by not actively supporting his repeated peace overtures to moderate insurgents, an international think-tank charged Monday.

The Senlis Council, a European-based agency that's conducted extensive research in war-torn southern Afghanistan, says the appeal to less-dogmatic Taliban has a good chance of succeeding if NATO countries throw their full support behind it.

Norine MacDonald, a Vancouver lawyer and council president, says separating hard-core Islamic fundamentalists and Al-Qaeda supporters from moderates would weaken the insurgency and reduce its offensive capacity.

It's time for Canada to take the diplomatic lead and step out from the shadow of U.S. foreign policy, she said...

This so called fast track for peace and stability should also include keeping Canadian troops in Afghanistan past the February 2009 deadline and opposition to a U.S. demand that opium poppies be eradicated with aerial spraying...

MacDonald said she believes the opposition has "shown some willingness to fall in line behind a proper, well thought out plan."..

Bloc Quebecois defence critic Claude Bachand, who attended the Senlis conference, says it's already too late to salvage the current Canadian mission politically...

Publicly taking the diplomatic lead is rather easier said than done; quiet backroom work with the Afghan government and NATO allies would be more to the point at this time, to explore what in reality might be achieved by "negotiations" and with whom. And any efforts to negotiate either around or behind the government would be deeply mistaken.

Update: This is the sort of realism about which the Canadian government should be speaking (and acting on in concert with allies rather than trying to take some sort of grandstanding "lead"; it's all in the air anyway):

The Taliban will need to be involved in the peace process in Afghanistan at some point and it may not be possible to establish a Western-style legal system there [imagine a Canadian politician being so frank], the [UK] defense secretary said Monday...

In Kabul, Karzai recently reiterated his long-held willingness to engage the Taliban diplomatically.

A Taliban spokesman originally signaled that the hardline militia might consider that. But the group's leadership has since said the U.S. military and NATO must first leave the country and that a harsh brand of Islamic law must prevail in Afghanistan--conditions the West will not accept.

Nor, it should be added, the majority of Afghans.

Upperdate: This is part of the Senlis Council news release that the CP story excerpted above did not mention. Hmm. No wonder Canadians are ill-informed about Afghanistan.

MacDonald also called on more NATO countries to take the burden off Canadian soldiers [emphasis added] currently fighting in Kandahar. “It is imperative that NATO has more troops on the ground in the south to secure a decisive military victory [emphasis added],” she said. “This would reduce the need for bombing campaigns, which are causing enormous suffering and turning the local population against us.

“The lack of a sufficient NATO deployment means that the military do not have the troops necessary to hold territory. Often, when they move on to another hot spot, the Taliban simply return to areas already cleared, meaning our troops are having to go back and fight over and over again for the same territory,” said MacDonald.