Buckdog

So I guess we're going to have to call him "Taliban Gord" from now on.

That would be consistent. You also need to remember that 'Taliban Karzai' and many others .. have suggested the same thing. Jack was merely the first to recognize that we simply do not want a state of 'perpetual war' in 'Afghanistan, hence, dialogue may be a realistic way to try and end the killing and find a way for all sides in that nation to work together.

It is the Conservative Party of Canada and certain right wing Liberals who want to maintain an endless, bloody, futile ongoing war in Afghanistan.

Talking with the Taliban? More like whistling past the graveyard. Has anyone noticed just how interested the Taliban are in deals these days? They just opened a new branch plant across the border to take on the Pakistani army. They're after a lot more than talk. The sad thing is what we're doing such a bloody poor job of making them think otherwise. The Uzbeks, Tajiks, Turkmen and Hazara have no intention of supporting any meaningful power sharing deal with the Taliban. If anything I think they'd rather throw in with the Taliban, topple Karzai, and then resume their civil war from the good old days. I know that sounds insane - it is.

Whooee! Mound makes some good points. Why would the Taliban wanna talk when they're winnin'? It was a lot longer than a year ago when Jack suggested talkin'. In fact, he backed off from pushin' that idea after he was labeled Taliban Jack. When he suggested it, though, we were winning and thought we'd win. Again, why does a winner want to talk? Now, we want to talk (or at least Britain does) but it's from a much weaker position than if we'd done it when Jack suggested.

Not too many wars end in decisive victory and unconditional surrender. Negotiation is the thing that ends most wars. It's a logical move but not real promising at this point.

JB