DEBATEitOUT.comDebate online with people!

As much as we would not want him to, he is the one who has to lead his country and he is the one who has to bring his country together under one government. That may take some compromises on his part, however he must keep in mind that the Taliban have always been and always will be a total control Islamic based organization.

Islam, translated directly to English is "Surrender".

And…Afghanistan is an Islamic state.

The Taliban, which makes up at least a proportion of the population there in Afghanistan, has to be gotten rid of somehow. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em…sort of. There's no reason Karzai shouldn't at least attempt to reduce bloodshed by sitting down and listening to the Taliban.

Now if we could just find an actual Taliban leader…

Problems

1) Why is Karzai the only power broker presumed to need to/want to/be able to negotiate with anyone (much less the various Taliban forces)? What good would his negotiating do? I mean this not because it should somehow be impossible to bargain with the Taliban, but rather that the central government's authority in Afghanistan is minimally important, even with American military support. Regional negotiations may produce better outcomes, as local knowledge is even more important in a decentralised regime like Afghanistan which lacks a strong central government. Moreover, negotiations, even successful ones, are not likely to strengthen that government and give it the authority to enforce its treaties. Signing pieces of paper without the will and ability to carry them out probably weakens the government more than it resolves the problem.
2) Is the Taliban the only force there which is disposed to resist American/foreign-backed governments in Afghanistan? (No). So negotiating with them isn't likely to produce a peaceful outcome and a removal of counter-insurgent forces. Indeed, in many cases, the "insurgents" are the central government or other proximal allies fighting against Taliban or other local controls.
3) Pakistan, or at least powerful state factions within Pakistan, is still propping up the Afghani Taliban. What difference does negotiating make if other regional actors are playing the field and encouraging their action?

What is your question? First you say that Karzai is insignificant so negotiate regionally but the country needs a strong central government? Who should negotiate if not Karzai? The U.S. is only there because the Taliban harbored UBL and his mob – yes, and they are still doing so.

FYI – Karzai is the central government and it is his country and it is his responsibility to bring the country together.

Sorry there STS, but your post seems like it is a bit rambling and saying nothing.

Do you see any "questions" up there? I do not. Perhaps punctuation and sarcasm throws you off, in which case I could avoid using rhetorical questions in future….

Or did I advance any claims that Afghanistan needs a strong central government? None at all.

Instead… I am stating affirmatively that:
1) There is NO central government in Afghanistan. There's a guy we claim is in charge of the country. But he really only runs the city of Kabul and a few tribal areas where either internal tribal alliances or US military presence has established control. This is not a form of government that should be concerning itself with signing and enforcing broad treaty agreements.
2) As a result, Karzai is basically irrelevant to solving the problem, so whether he negotiates or not doesn't really accomplish anything of substance.

I would submit that other regional actors are far more important than him or his government for generating a stable peaceful environment within the country, or especially for settling the conditions that would prevent terrorist camps, like Al Qaeda, from having safe harbors.

I do not claim that we should strengthen his government. In fact, I would suggest the opposite, that we leave the running of the country to Afghans rather than puppet states propped up by corruption caused by a) the drug war and b) rivers of US aid money.