Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Ahead of his time

by Paul Wells on Thursday, January 28, 2010 10:47pm - 81 Comments

I’m going to encourage you to read Aaron’s post about the ridicule that was heaped on Jack Layton’s head when he suggested negotiating with the Taliban. That was, of course, the subject of today’s summit meeting in London. Also of course, a large number of Taliban will not be worth talking to because they will be incorrigible. Others who currently traffic under that loose title will be more amenable. But Layton was saying no different in 2006, and nobody should be surprised that Peter MacKay, among others, turned out to know a lot less than the guy he was mocking. This is a bit of a recurring theme in that minister’s career. Of course the people whose quotes Aaron compiles will either ignore this turn of events, or set about Jesuitically parsing their earlier statements to explain why they don’t look silly today. No matter. Kudos to the NDP leader.

Tags: Jack Layton, you better check those autopsies

More by Paul Wells

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Does intention count for anything? Like, say, if someone proposing negotiation with the Taliban wasn't actually making a clever geopolitical calculation, but was just defaulting to the assumption of "Well, Americans are always so distastefully stupid and violent, surely the brave freedom fighters on the other side must have perfectly reasonable demands we can talk about?"

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

Does intention count for anything? Like, say, if someone slagging somebody for proposing negotiation with the Taliban wasn't actually taking a principled moral stand, but was just defaulting to the assumption of "Well, leftists are always so pacifistically unrealistic and hypocritical, surely the brave jingoes on the other side must have a perfectly grown-up agenda we can support without really having to think?"
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

Careful, avr, you're going to pull a muscle dragging those goalposts around.

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Tell me again why the notion of "negotiating" with Ideologically rabid, terrorist monsters like the Taliban,

is somehow "settled" wisdom,

such that opposing it is worthy of mockery??

chatty

The British government negotiated with the IRA when everyone on the British side were calling the Irish rabid terrorist monsters. And those negotiations eventually resulted in a pretty solid peace. Now obviously the Taliban are some crazy-ass mo-fo's, but there ain't any harm in talking, especially if there's a chance it might lead towards a more stable, power-sharing arrangement where less people (our guys and Afghan civilians) die. Once some of them get to the table and start talking about power, there are more opportunities to push for a ceasefire and find alternative and less bloody solutions.

I mean, we've tried war and all, and in case you didn't notice, we're losing.

Out There

Agreed. There's never any harm in talking to anyone, even to enemies. Talk is not identical to appeasement.
D Mitchell

Yes because every day we are seeing our troops lose pitched battles in the streets of Khandahar. Dolt.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

Hey, Wells, just because the topic is being discussed by a bunch of (less-than-intelligent) world leaders, it doesn't mean that it actually has merit.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

And just because it's dissed by a bunch of (less-than-intelligant) forum posters, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have merit.
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

Nothing changes with Werner – he's always on the "insult". You know what it means when someone claims everyone else is crazy but them…..same goes for claiming intelligence.

Arrogance and ego is quite the combination.

A legend in his own mind.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

Accomplish what I have accomplished in my life, obtain the education and degrees I have, then you can talk about ego and arrogance. I'm entitled to my arrogance; I've earned that right. Most Canadians, especially lefties, still have a lot of work ahead of them before they can earn so much as the privilege of being on the same planet as me.

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

Elitist.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

And proud of it. Being elitist is not a bad thing or foul word. It's the reward for many years of hard work and (real) education (as opposed to left-wing brainwashing that goes on in most Canadian schools, colleges and unis).

All those not deserving of the title "elitist", eat my dust!
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

Serious question….can you expand on the degrees that you have obtained and the schools that they are from? Curious to know which schools and which degrees are OK and which schools/degrees are for the lefties.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Hey, is this a modernization of the "entitled to my entitlements" phrase?

Arrogance is not a right, BTW, and I wouldn't use that "same planet as me" line too often, or someone might come up with the great idea of shipping you to another one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

It would cost less to move him than it would to move everyone who doesn't quite measure up, eh?

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

Okay, I can accept that you're a great and educated and brilliant and accomplished and extraordinarily well-hung man–I mean, for people like me who are of above-average intelligence (although obviously still well below your level of intelligence) it's just an obvious fact–but may I humbly make a suggestion, sir? I suspect that part of the reason why the rest of the lowly plebes–little more than brain-damaged worms, really–around here aren't simply bowing down in respect for your inspiring, almost god-like presence is that you… well, you haven't actually said anything. At all.

Perhaps, since you've decided in your wisdom to lower yourself to dealing with the rabble around here (I can't imagine why you would, but Werner works in mysterious ways), you might consider tossing them a proverbial bone and give us all some indication (albeit necessarily dumbed-down) of why you hold the position you do on this matter? Or, if that's beneath you, at least of what, precisely, your position is.

I mean, obviously there are arguments to be made for (what I presume to be) your point of view here. Hell, I'm making two of them right now in my above-average-but-still-puny mind; surely you can do better.

Right?

http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

You are right: it's, indeed, beneath me. I don't explain myself to riff-raff or trailer trash.
http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

You just hang around and make a time-wasting nuisance of yourself, like any common idiot I could just as easily find loitering in a 7-11 parking lot. Good work, schoolboy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

You really need to grow up. Look at your comments. Much the same as the uneducated.

LOL, you fell for it again.

Sucker – it's so easy to bring you out showing who you are.

By the way, education is not a license to insult.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jack_Mitchell Jack Mitchell

I think the concept is that there are ideologically rabid, pro-terrorist leaders among the Taliban, including Mullah Omar, but that there are likely also leaders who are mainly conservative Pushtun nationalists who could be negotiated into a semi-civilised power-sharing agreement in the south; with the added bonus that even negotiating with such leaders would divide the hitherto united Taliban leadership and help us in the war.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

I had an interesting chat about all of this with Gen. Dan K. McNeill in Kabul a little over two years ago. I'm sure Werner would find him less than intelligent too, and biff would find him a bit of a leftie, but despite that, I'll just have to pick up the pieces of my shattered life and move on.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Thank goodness you made sure this was a central part of Canada's debate over Afghanistan, instead of it becoming some Liberal-Conservative discussion about what day to leave Kandahar.
Mike T.

OMG LEFT WING MEDIA BIAS!!!!!

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Then again, considering media's willingness to ressurect a years old issue (caused by the Liberals and rectified by the CPC no less) which ultimately concluded with casigating our brave soldiers as "war criminals" and the taliban monsters as poor victims,

all for another brief "gotcha" moment in thier undying effort to rid the country of the incorrect party,

the glee should surprise no one.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

If it was such a tired, old issue, why was it handled so poorly? Even you have to admit that SH worked overtime to hardnose this into the mess that spawned an even bigger fuggup: prorogation
Mr Harper is losing his touch – does he get any blame in all this or will it again be their fault (finger pointing in any direction
RayK

Why are you dragging the good names of our soldiers through the mud by suggesting they may be war criminals? That's unconscionable.

Critic's of the Harper government have repeatedly said that the issue at hand regarding detainees is solely at the policy level, that the conduct of ministers may have been illegal and that this has nothing to do with the actions of any of our forces on the ground. Conservatives are the only ones claiming otherwise.

Stop dragging the troops through the mud. Stop suggesting they committed war crimes. You are disgusting.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SirJohn_Eh SirJohn_Eh

Heer heer!

http://amfresh.ca AM Fresh

The bottom line is, where things start. Significant numerous complaints of torture were made under a Tory watch. Another case of we can do it too but only better. The issue lies with the team who is supposed to be leading the country now. The Conservatives have hurt the county more then they have helped it. Conservatives can't admit when they are wrong and deal with the consequences. At least Liberals can admit to mistakes involving Khadr. Conservatives are not leaders.

Cheers

kcm

Yes! You are! Who else has said anything about a fair shake for the taliban? Evidence please!
Dot

Coincidently, "Toronto's next mayor, or not" was NDP President when Layton made that pronouncement, his second term ending Sept 9, 2006.

A piece of trivia I didn't know before I googled his name (heck I didn't even know his name before seeing his YouTube clip)
Lord Kitchener's Own

Socialist claptrap.

Why would we want to divide the Taliban? They're all babbling about separating the less militant elements from the truly radical. Why would you want to do that? Do none of these leftists fops understand basic military strategy?

Unite and conquer, idiots.

If we work hard enough we can drive the entire population into reluctantly siding with the Taliban, and then we can just nuke the whole place and move on.

Jan

They need to restore the bombing of innocent civilians to speed this up. What idiot took that off the table?

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

no, that is still happening on a regular basis

Jan 25: "The Obama administration is ramping up its use of drone unmanned aircraft to execute targeted killings in Afghanistan and Pakistan …"
http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

How else do we expect to capture their hearts and minds?

Dot

The more I think of this, I question the parallels between the Afghanistan of Sept 2006 and Jan 2010 in many areas including what has since happened in Iraq.
orval

I happen to think that arranging the surrender and disarming of all or some of the Taliban is a good thing and would represent the best possible solution. As the Taliban leadership is rejecting this as a trick is an indication that this threatens the Taliban.

British war aims in Northern Ireland were never to kill all Catholics or even all IRA terrorists, but rather to convince them to lay down their arms and work within a political system that results in a peaceful, lawful and stable society that respects minorities.

Whether the Taliban will become like Sinn Fein remains to be seen.

My take on Jack Layton was that he did not think the freedom and security of the Afghan people were worth anything and that we (the West) should abandon Afghanistan and its suffering people to the tender mercies of the vengeful Taliban. In other words, Layton would have been happy for the Taliban to win.

kcm

"In other words, Layton would have been happy for the Taliban to win"

I'm no particular fan of Jacks, but that is flat out absurd. Pity, you were makng sense oherwise. The peace process in Ireland eventually saw murderer sitting down with murderer. One persumes that everything in between was necessary, in order to convince Sinn Feinn that it could not wn by force of arms, or through use of terror. I see no reason that the taliban [ in the main] shouldn't also reach a similar conclusion. As you say,it remains to be seen if the taliban are ready.

orval

Perhaps. I don't know if Layton would have been happy or sad, but the result of what he was proposing – full withdrawal of NATO forces and negotiating with the Taliban – would have resulted in Taliban victory.What incentive would the Taliban have to negotiate if NATO forces were abandoning the country, and what incentive would the population have to resist the Taliban takeover if NATO forces were leaving immediately?

Either way, Layton was wrong and I am glad we and our Allies did not do what he proposed. I am certain most Afghans feel the same way.

kcm

That's a little different then saying Jack would have been happy. But i agree there would have been no leverage.
Mulletaur

I think you're right about Layton's position on this, orval. I think the NDP is just against war full stop, no matter how just or justified. The Dippers simply don't believe that we should be fighting to uphold the universal human rights of the Afghan people. It also makes me wonder what the Dippers would do if Canada were attacked. I think back to the days of the Cold War when the NDP and its supporters wanted unilateral disarmament. No doubt they would not have resisted any attempt at Communist subversion in and/or military invasion of this country. 'Wolverines' they are not.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Bombing villages is not an effective way to protect human rights…As for resisting a Soviet invasion, I'm sure Ed Broadbent and Bob Rae would have been every bit as effective as Lester Pearson in a fight.
Mulletaur

"Bombing villages is not an effective way to protect human rights … "

Neither is staying home whining about globalization.

"As for resisting a Soviet invasion, I'm sure Ed Broadbent and Bob Rae would have been every bit as effective as Lester Pearson in a fight."

Except, following the logic of the NDP, it wouldn't matter if the Soviets were oppressing us here in Canada, war is always wrong, so the NDP and their supporters wouldn't fight.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

A little staying home whining never hurt anyone, but there are rumours that the New Democrats have various policies on increased development spending and social justice that might be more relevant to a discussion about human rights. As for the likelihood of the New Democrats and their supporters fighting off a Soviet invasion, you may very well be right. If the Soviets were oppressing us here, it wouldn't be war anymore, it'd be direct action and civil disobedience. Again, there are rumours that the left has some experience in those things…
Mulletaur

One thing is certainly true, the left certainly has a lot of experience in fighting itself.

Oh, and no development whatsoever would be taking place in Afghanistan without the use of military force. So stop roasting that old hoary chestnut, will you ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

Actually, a number of aid agencies disagree with you and think they're further ahead delivering projects independent of the military. But I know what you mean, the people our military is fighting would attack our development projects if our military didn't protect the projects, unless the people we're fighting are also interested in attacking our military. Hmm. Generally speaking, war zones are not the best places for development work…Why do you think he Afghan government would not accept development assistance if we left?
RayK

This is the problem with people's views of the NDP. Virtually everything you said in that comment is factually incorrect.

There has never been a leader of the NDP–going all the way back to Tommy Douglas–that was an absolute pacifist, the NDP was never for unilateral disarmament during the Cold War and we are not–and have never been in Afghanistan–to "uphold the universal human rights of the Afghan people".

(We there because of 9/11).

RayK

When did Layton ever propose the full withdrawl of all NATO forces from Afghanistan?

In 2006–after five years of a failed US-led strategy–I remember him saying that we should withdraw CANADIAN FORCES–because the US/NATO had still failed to change the nature of the mission and that instead of continuing a military role Canada should put its efforts into starting a peace process. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he said.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

The nuance is that we went into Afghanistan in pursuit of Al-Quaeda, and had to fight the Taliban because they were harbouring that group. We wouldn't fight a war to displace the Taliban. Jack was saying what many foreign policy experts suggested (it's a view that Biden has apparently picked up as well) – that displacing the Taliban is a long-term political and development problem, while denying Al-Quaeda a safe haven is a manageable military goal and the two shouldn't have become so entwined. This sort of policy discussion doesn't get across very easily, and gets shut out of most discussions by our emphasis on how the debate affects the Liberals or the Conservatives in the polls.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Also of course, a large number of Taliban will not be worth talking to because they will be incorrigible.

That probably includes the vast majority of the Taliban leadership.

Fearless prediction: Negotiations with some moderate and “reconcilable” factions will achieve "reintegration", so peace process negotiations will be moderately successful in neutralizing former Taliban fighters by placing them on the government payroll.

However , negotiations with senior figures from the Taliban's leadership council probably won't succeed, because most of those guys are fanatics.

http://intensedebate.com/people/VinceClortho VinceClortho

Which of course raises the issue of what do "successful negotiations" look like? Now if you take the position of Andrew Neve, there can be no going back on the current Afghani constitution which is the position of the Taliban leadership. Contradictions requiring pretzel like backflips abound on all sides.

I cannot seem to find Jacks full position. My memory may be faulty, but I believe his original position was more problematic, ie Taliban included the noxious elements. So while the slaps against him might have been unecessarily hard, I am not yet convinced that his position was a prescient as described….the second criticism was that it appeared to be one of the Western Powers talking to the Taliban and forcing the solution on the Afghani government….there is more to this on all sides, and neither side, including the Cons, are well served by sloganeering.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

The Taliban seem to have some popular support in Afghanistan, so the Karzai government isn't likely to welcome their inclusion in the political process. It will always be about NATO deciding who to engage with diplomatically in Afghanistan – Karzai seems to have abused his monopoly on that engagement to propagate his government despite its incompetence and corruption. Not that having the Taliban in the polls would eliminate either government incompetence or corruption, of course, but it would help the Afghan public hold their government accountable.
RayK

"I cannot seem to find Jacks full position. My memory may be faulty, but I believe his original position was more problematic, ie Taliban included the noxious elements… the second criticism was that it appeared to be one of the Western Powers talking to the Taliban and forcing the solution on the Afghani government."

Your memory fails on both counts.

The NDP's position has always acknowledged that there may be some elements of the Taliban who are unwilling to negotiate on reasonable terms.

While many Tory bloggers claimed that Layton's proposal would constitute Western countries imposing their will on the Afghan government, the truth is that the Karzai government has wanted negotiation for years but the U.S. (under Bush) opposed them. And without U.S. agreement such negotiations would have been meaningless.

RayK

But most of the "senior Tabliban leadership" is meaningless. They're hiding in caves and getting blown up every second day. The power of the Taliban is through tribal leaders and warlords. Those are the people who would be coming to the table.

kcm

'The Sunday Edition from CBC Radio (Highlights) – CastRoller
CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition is a lively three-hour program of conversation, … The Best of The Sunday Edition January 24,… Monday at 3:00 AM … interviews author Greg Mortenson about building schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan"

Any views on this guy PW. Sunday is my radio day, so i was fortunate to catch him…very interesting guy.

kcm

After reading his bio it's obvious that i'm probably the only person around here who hasn't heard of him. Impressive guy. There was a Canadian journalist/writer who also spent many years in that part of the world. Her name escapes me…Gagnon…something like that. Oh well. Back to match my wits with google.

http://theplaceofbiff.blogspot.com biff

Also,

am I the only one who finds the quasi-celebratory, verging on gleeful nature of the left leaning media's, reportage that these brutal monsters may recieve a "fair shake",

extremely unsettling.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Nich Nich

Perhaps some people like the idea of Canada not being at war.

kcm

'The London meeting was decidedly a political, rather than a military, conference, and it provided the foreign ministers some relief in being able to take home a political narrative that can be used to explain why numerous lives have been lost in a conflict without an apparent victory"

Now a cynical man might say this more about covering our asses than solving Afghanistans problems with the taliban. No one will think to apportion blame for unrealistic war aims right from the beginning. It may be some comfort to ourselves if his plan has the seal of approval of the Afghan govt.

"The ministers stressed repeatedly that the Afghan constitution, with its guarantees of human rights, would remain supreme. “Reintegration and reconciliation is not about selling out Afghanistan’s constitution,” Mr. Miliband told a women’s group. “It’s about defending Afghanistan’s constitution.”

Again the cynic in me says, translation:…you're on your own dear, good luck!
http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

I doubt it would work and I certainly wouldn't trust anything Karzai was involved in, but, to seek solutions you do have to talk and look into areas that may be a solution.

Nothing wrong with discussion.
Anon Liberal

Why would the Taliban want to negotiate when, from their point of view, they probably think they're winning. I mean the Western forces can't get at them in their Pakistani safe areas. And they're relying on a relatively low-risk strategy of laying down IEDs instead of getting in direct firefights. Why not just keep doing that until the Americans get fed up and leave?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I think the reality is that there's no singular, united Taliban at this point. A lot of the 'negotiations' proposed seem to be in the form of bringing segments of the Taliban on side – one by one if necessary.

And there was a report of a secret meeting between Taliban reps and Americans not too long ago, which suggests the Taliban do not think they're winning in any meaningful way.

Also, that new 'code' released by Taliban leadership (one or two weeks ago?) can be interpreted as something of an outstretched hand on their part (granted, it's words only, but it's a start).

I think we need to set aside visceral desires to 'win', and instead accept an imperfect solution to an imperfect situation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

"IntelligAnt"? Well, you lefties can't spell. I rest my case. Now we now again who the really smart people are who are actually in a position to use common sense in this matter.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

LOL. Oh good.. so does that mean all I have to do to make you shut up is make a typo once in a while? Well, I don't know if I can handle the damage to my internet-ego, but the results certainly make it worth it.

Oh.. sorry, I forgat about the typo. There you go.
http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

You wouldn't know, of course, because lefties don't have one, but it's a brain. But, as I said, you wouldn't know. Lefties are just like amoebas, same IQ, and just as slimy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

"AmoebaS"? Well, you righties can't pluralize. I rest my case, et cetera, et cetera.

http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

Heh heh.
http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

Get educated, moron http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amoeba?r=1

Amoebas is the correct plural. Lefties really are dumb.

http://intensedebate.com/people/NotStephen Not Stephen Colbert

"THE" correct plural? Even your link lists more than one, my good sir. Anyway, I didn't figure you for the type who would prefer anglicized pluralization of Latin terms, or be able to operate a search engine, but hey, I can admit when I'm wrong.

But please, don't start making assumptions about my political views just based on the fact that I think you're an obnoxious moron. That doesn't mean I'm a "leftie"; it just means I'm awake.

http://intensedebate.com/people/WernerPatels WernerPatels

It means that the plural form I used was a correct one. You, however, in a display of your lack of education and intelligence, implied that my spelling was incorrect. You only achieved to make yourself look like the fool you are.
http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

If you work a little harder, maybe get a little more education, you might be able to figure out the main point of NSC's comment. Hint: look in the second paragraph.

Mulletaur

There is no way to end an insurgency without negotiating with the insurgents. Although I am really not very inclined to do so, to be fair to McKay, it probably would do nothing to help political support for the war in Afghanistan if he were to have been too public in showing his hand on this. Also, it seems to me that there has been a policy shift in NATO since Obama's election. The Europeans are more willing to talk about talking with the Taliban and split off those who just want the foreigners out from les irréductibles. McKay may have been doing nothing more than staying in alignment with NATO's line on this.
Jim

Paul Wells: I know you have been to Afghanistan. I know that as of late 2006 Jack Layton had not. Now perhaps he has visited there since?

A reader

He's asked to go several times. The Department of National Defence has not accomodated his requests.

Jim

Can you provide any links for that?

RayK

Who cares? You don't have to have been to Afghanistan to understand the situation.

Jim

If it's an important issue to a national Leader he'd have been there.

If he's been prevented (by anyone) from going, that should be a story in itself.

But since I've not seen a single story that says he was prevented, or a single story of at least one visit, then I have to conclude Mr Layton may not think it important enough to go there.

The war has been going on since just after 911.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

How timely. For you K-Wers, CIGI is having a two-part lecture series on Afghanistan next week. Monday we will be looking at "From the Front Line: Canadian Forces in Afghanistan" with "Colonel J.C.R. Lacroix, CD, Deputy Commander of Joint Task Force-Afghanistan/ Task Force Kandahar (February-November 2009)"
On Wednesday, it is "Ending the Agony: Seven Moves to Stabilize Afghanistan" with "Chris Alexander, Former Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary General for Afghanistan (2006-2009) and Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan (2003-2005)"

If we're lucky, here's a link
http://www.cigionline.org/events/signature-lectur…
Kevin Lafayette

I am reminded of the lasting and prosperous peace that Pakistan and the Taliban negotiated for the Swat valley….

It was not wrong to ridicule Layton then, and it is not wrong now. The only reason to negotiate is when you have defeated the enemy, or to stave off your own defeat.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP PhilCP

The only reason to negotiate is when you have defeated the enemy, or to stave off your own defeat.

On the continuum of overwhelming and total victory to dismal defeat where would you put the NATO / ISAF effort as of today?

I'll say that at best 'our side' has managed a protracted stalemate. Clearly we aren't being driven out of the country, but I don't see much evidence that we have made progress over the past half a decade. If we want to win this thing militarily we need to get serious about it (more troops), and even then we should plan on spending at least another decade there. If we don't want to get serious we should get out, and negotiating might help us lock in whatever gains we have made.