Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Reconsidering 'Taliban Jack'

Adam Radwanski, September 12, 2007 at 4:30 PM EDT

A year ago Jack Layton suggested it might be an idea to negotiate with the Taliban. For his trouble, he was branded "Taliban Jack," accused of betraying his party's supposed commitment to human rights and mocked for his naive worldview. It was widely assessed he had made it a lot more difficult to take his party seriously.

Based on stories like the one appearing on this newspaper's front page today, you have to wonder if all of us - myself included - weren't a little harsh. And at the very least, you have to admit Layton wasn't quite as isolated on the issue as we made him out to be.

The Dutch military, one of the only other ones doing the heavy lifting in Kandahar, is reported to "openly describe talks with insurgents as part of their strategy." The Brits do the same thing. Under durress, South Korea certainly wasn't averse to negotiating. And Hamid Karzai, our close buddy in Kabul who Stephen Harper palled around with not four months ago, is busily declaring himself "ready for any type of discussion and negotiations."

None of this is to say that the idea of sitting down with the Taliban isn't distasteful. Nor that it should be done now, since their demands remain completely unreasonable. Nor that Layton's approach was especially thoughtful, since the negotiations he was proposing were basically motivated by a desire to get our troops out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. But seeing as how we're not going to kill every single Taliban and they're probably not going to surrender unconditionally, raising the spectre of negotiations isn't necessarily the hallmark of a wingnut.

  1. robert quinn from Japan writes: I disagree (again) with Monsieur Radwanski. Yeah, "negotiations" with the Taliban is the hallmark of wingnut thought, not because it shouldn't happen (or hasn't already been happening in myriad, secret ways), but because in the wingnut cosmology, everything is possible when reasonable people sit down and calmly discuss their differences. That done, why, it's rainbows for everyone. The motley tribal groups, especially the Pustuns, now ranged against us under the Taliban banner are masters of dissembling, subterfuge and betrayal, not to mention clandestine warfare. Allies are bought and sold like houses. And treachery is just another card in your hand. These people have been playing a deep game for centuries. The idea that facile debating club rhetoric is going to impress some local clan leader accustomed to making life and death decisions before breakfast is ludicrous. They're the professionals. We're the amateurs. So negotiate if it'll advance your position or secure some necessary objective or as a battlefield tactic to gain time; but as a means of finding compromise? Good luck with that, Jack. Keep us posted (and pray they don't hand you your head in the meantime).
  2. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Asking to negotiate from a position of weakness, as a prelude to us withdrawing, is just like negotiating the terms of surrender. Think about it, Prime Minister Taliban Jack (heaven forbid) announces we are withdrawing in one month. Then, he announces right before leaving, peace negotiations with Taliban. How much of their position are they going to cede? Nope, it'll be back to public beheading, genocide of minorities, and oppression of women in no time. I maintain Taliban Jack's position is still a wingnut position. Tell the Taliban we plan on fighting them until the year 2200, launch a big attack on them, then negotiate.
  3. robert quinn from Japan writes: Sorry, that should be "Pushtuns." The editor has been sacked.
  4. Chester Drawers from Peoples Republic of Sask., Canada writes: Jack can go and negotiate with them. Make sure that he explains his position on same sex marriage. He can also explain Canada's belief in women being equals, education for young girls, separation of church and state. These have become part of our society, a society that the Taliban will never accept.

    Have at er Jack.
  5. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Well, isn't that interesting. One poster concludes that the other "side" is not a valid/authentic negotiating partner, and therefore negotiations should not be undertaken. If everyone were on the same page as far as valid/authentic were concerned, there would be no need for negotiation. Domestic negotiations must be interesting in his household (yes dear, anything you say dear). Another poster indicates that negotiations should only be considered if both sides are equal in power. If this were the case, there might not be any need for negotiations - indeed, they wouldn't be called negotiations, but would involve the presentation of terms of surrender - if there's anybody left to present those terms to. Both posters label Mr. Layton as a "wingnut" - the hallmark of respectful, logical debate, not about ideas (of course). And, finally, the third poster seems confused as to which society is superior and therefore which can rightly impose its values.
  6. robert quinn from Japan writes: To Diane Marie. Howdy. I'm guessing I'm one of the posters referred to in your comment, and you take issue with a stand I didn't really make, but no worries. I'm not averse to negotiations per se provided the people conducting them on our side aren't well-meaning but starry-eyed fantasists. Just as a plains Sioux warrior might have danced a boast regarding the number of horses he'd stolen in his illustrious career, comes the time to negotiate and your average Afghan prizes cunning, subtlety, and a layered mendacity that would put even Liberal Senators to shame. (A gentle dig, nothing more.) Needless to say, everything is relative when it comes to other cultures. In advanced states such as our own, conscientious people treasure niceness when resolving conflicts. Unfortunately, were Mr. Layton to be leading a delegation (and if there is a God...), he'd quickly discover he was dealing with...men. (The kind you'd really hate, I suspect.) You want a binding agreement with these guys, you'd better be prepared to marry somebody's third cousin, sight unseen. Otherwise, once the baksheesh stops flowing, any "understanding" you thought you had is as worthless as the roast goat bones in the bbq pit. Eyes open, that's all. Let's not be too all-world-peacemaking-Canadian walking into this.
  7. Simon Kiss from Kingston, Ontario, Canada writes: Heaven forbid you talk to the people you have a problem with.
  8. Sean Cummings from Canada writes: Given that Afghanistan is controlled by a number of warlords, some who are playing both sides of the fence, I suspect that negotiations have been and are still underway with elements who are aligned in some way with the Taliban. That being said, given the Taliban's outrageous list of demands, endorsing the prospect of direct negotiations with them at this stage would be folly. Moreover, given that we are in something resembling a war, I suspect that elements of the Taliban and those sympathetic for a return to fundamental islamic governance quite like it when those in the west publicly muse about negotiating our way out of that god forsaken country.
    There is no happy medium here because Canadians don't know enough about the mission and I suspect the missions objectives (if any) were framed within the context of a conventional western view of what it would take to secure the country. Deposing the Taliban was the easy part, securing some measure of peace where the western view of separation of church and state, not to mention democracy is as foreign to Afghani's as the Koran is foreign to a devout catholic who lives in Churchill Manitoba. The west went into this thing with some terribly naive assumptions. Now we're scrambling to find a way out.
  9. Wall Flower from Canada writes: Oh for crying out loud, NATO sat down and negotiated with the Nazis but we can't do the same with the Taliban?
  10. garlick toast from mill village, Canada writes: layton was only stating the obvious a year ago.there are only three scenarios in afganistan.win,lose or negotiate.since winning,by most definitions,is impossible and losing is unaceptable,what's left?
  11. dallas mcquarrie from Regina, Canada writes: Wow! A flip flop within six paragraphs, Adam. That's pretty incoherent writing.
  12. Sean Cummings from Canada writes: >> Oh for crying out loud, NATO sat down and negotiated with the Nazis but we can't do the same with the Taliban?<<

    ????

    NATO didn't come into existence until after the end of the second world war and the Allies policy during the war was for unconditional surrender.
  13. Rick Czarnota from Calgary, writes: "None of this is to say that the idea of sitting down with the Taliban isn't distasteful. Nor that it should be done now, since their demands remain completely unreasonable."

    Unfortunately Radwanski shoots himself in the foot with this statement.

    The Taliban's demands when Jack suggested we 'negotiate' were even more unreasonable than they are today...which is still unreasonable.

    That means Jack's suggestion of 'negotiating' was as unreasonable then as it is today.

    Perhaps when the Taliban's demands don't include an Islamic State so they can chop off hands, heads and other body parts as they see fit and reduce women/girls back to being a piece of property to be bartered with like cattle 'negotiating' would be reasonable.

    That isn't the case though is it? So we're stuck at the same point we were back 6 months ago...the Taliban's demands are unreasonable and so is 'negotiating' with them.

    Unless of course you support little girls being treated like cattle.
  14. Just Visiting from Ottawa, Canada writes: Questions, questions...

    1. So how many insurgencies have been defeated in modern times by military forces external to the country in conflict?

    A: I believe the answer is somewhat adjacent to zero.

    2. How long have the Taliban, or their extreme ideo-religious forbearers, been a social and political force in the tribal area now called Afghanistan?

    A: I believe the answer is something around the 200 year mark.

    3. How many troops did the Soviets deploy in Afghanistan to defeat the Muslim radicals?

    A: According to US estimates, about 118,000 Soviet troops were deployed at the peak.

    4. How many NATO troops are currently deployed?

    A: Something in the range of 40,000, only some of which are commited to combat.

    Pondering these answers:

    1. What makes anyone think the Taliban can be defeated by NATO?

    2. Given their unlikely defeat, why would the Taliban be all that anxious to negotiate with NATO on anything other than the timing and manner of NATO's exit?

    3. Why would whatever Canadians think about negotiations with the Taliban matter a whole lot in the big scheme of things?

    -JV
  15. Stan from Canada from from all over Canada, Canada writes: The problem with "Taliban Jack" negociating with the Taliban is, he wanted to start a Canadian Negociated Settlement. Had he thought to ask Karzi if that is what he wanted? What about the other members of the Coalition? Did he really think that he could go around Helter Skelter negociating "deals" here and there on his own. Unlike the Dutch and English "negociations" which are plainly tactical types of negociations regarding, we must presume, movement of injured, rules of engagement, types of issues, Layton was, or seemed to, be advocating unilateral negociations. His method of negociating while running to the exits is also flawed.
  16. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: Just Visiting, I think that you have a very good point. The position of weakness is ours and will always be ours. There are not enough troops and, even if there were, they can't stay indefinitely unless the plan is to settle there. The people who live in these regions are going nowhere. It's also true that since WWII, no insurgency has been defeated militarily. More often than not, the occupying forces have left humiliated. That appears to be America's desitiny in Iraq.
  17. Jim Smith from Canada writes: What are you talking about Wall Flower? you wrote "Oh for crying out loud, NATO sat down and negotiated with the Nazis but we can't do the same with the Taliban?"

    Short history lesson --
    Hitler shot himself in April 1945 -- you know that nazi guy
    Final cessation of German military activity in May 1945 -- means germans aka nazis stop fighting

    Potsdam Conference July 17 to August 2 1945 --
    August 6 and 9 USA drops 2 atomic bombs on Japan --
    Japanese surrendered on August 15, 1945
    WWII ended in 1945

    then NATO was formed in 1949 to combat the growing threat of USSR -- you know communism Lenin Stalin really bad guys killed millions
  18. D K from Canada writes: Taliban Jack would have more credibility if he negotiated personally.
  19. wilson ruiz from Germany writes: For once I totally agree with Mr. Layton. The Taliban are not a finished force in Afghanistan they control almost half the country and they get stronger evryday. To ignore them only hightens the precarious position of foreign troops in that country.
  20. D K from Calgary, Canada writes: There's nothing wrong with negotiating with tribal leaders and communities on the ground. There's nothing wrong with the Afghan government negotiating with the broader religious/military leadership of the Taliban which propels foreign fighters and discontented locals into attacks on "occupiers" in the aim of building a country. There's a lot wrong with Canada giving legitimacy to the Taliban as a political movement by seeking to negotiate with them directly to enable our quick retreat because we can't bear 70 deaths. We are there to protect Afghanistan from the remnants of a twisted and sadistic regime, in so doing enabling Afghanistan to rebuild a civil society from dust. We are also training police and building things and otherwise directly contributing to the construction of this civil society. Mr. Layton's suggestion undermined this broadly - it's lack of nuance makes it nutty. South Korea is an excellent example of why we shouldn't think of it - the Taliban murdered two innocents in the process.
  21. Captain Canada from Canada writes: A year or so from now, Dion will be suggesting talks and Adam will laud him for his brilliance, seriousness and courage. I predict the word "wingnut" will not appear in that column.
  22. Meat Loaf from Haligonia, Canada writes: Layton and the NDP are politically insignificant which is exactly why everyone chuckles at the stuff he comes up with. Negotiating with terrorists? Bank fees? C'mon Jack lets see some real work coming out of your camp and you might crack the 12% mark in the next election. Oh, and shave that 80's moustache.
  23. Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: What a silly debate. The Taliban doesn't need to negotiate, it's simply another tactic to gain a foothold.

    No geurilla war has EVER been one. Not one. They just go on and on and on and on taking up generations of lives in a wave of endless death.

    Look at the middle east for pete's sake. If you read history books there are some emnities there older than Christianity.

    And incidentally, it's the PASHTUN tribes, and there are over 30 million tribal members throughout the southern mountain ranges. They're xenophobic and perfectly willing to die. Good luck fighting that.

    General Douglas McArthur's famous line "never fight a land war in Asia" shouldn't have been ignored.

    We should've bombed their infrastructure and kept doing it until they stopped acting like idiots. Landing troops gave them a target and gave us a liability.

    Stupidity is the only prevalent characteristic of this war.
  24. robert quinn from Japan writes: Pashtun/Pushtun. Both are acceptable.
  25. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: One thing is sure. Karzai didn't consult with Jack Layton regarding his (Karzai's) openness to negotiating with the Taliban.
  26. Toby Maloney from Winnipeg, Canada writes: Radwanski now agrees with Layton, but still has to complain that Layton's plan was ill considered. Because he was right more than year ago? Not right for the correct reason?

    It reminds me of all the greenie come latelys who have to go out of their way to disparage "hippie tree huggers" when the so-called tree huggers had it covered in 1970.
  27. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Moshe Dyan, that well-known terrorist sympathizer and leftist extremeist (extremely heavy sarcasm), is known to have said that it is necessary to negotiate with your ENEMIES if you want to achieve peace. And I suppose the British government were also weak-kneed, terrorist sympathizers when they negotiated with the IRA - even at the height of the IRA terror campaign. And then there were the UDA and other Protestant thugs. Also included in negotiations to settle things down in Northern Ireland. Short of committing geonocide, and exterminating the Pashtun people - in both Afghanistan and Pakistan - there is no al;ternative to negotiating with the Taliban. They aren't going away, and the Northern Alliance is also not going away. It would be nice if the fools and bozos condemning Layton and calling him names would deal with reality. As opposed to being run by really stupid ideology and historicqal ignorance.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Adam Radwanski

Back to top