Jack and me

I don’t advise listening to every little thing that comes out of Jack Layton’s mouth. Most of the time I’d compare what I hear to the senseless mumbling of my 11 month old niece. Sometimes I think even she makes more sense. So, it will most likely come out of left field to most people on the one area of black and white agreeability between the two of us.

Sometime ago, Jack Layton mused that the Taliban had to be involved in negotiations to end the war. At the table he said! Almost laughed out of the Commons, he was!

But it’s not a half bad idea. When we look at the major conflicts in the world over the past one hundred or some years, those that were settled ultimately had the co-operation of all the warring parties sitting at one table discussing the various give and take that would form the basis of a lasting peace.

The Treaty of Versailles (WW1) and the Paris Peace Treaties (WW2) are definitely the two best known treaties signed in the past couple hundred years. Both had all parties involved sitting at the table setting out the terms of peace. Granted, both wars were essentially won for the Ally side, but the defeated parties were still present. Those two treaties delivered peace until this day, and in the terms of The Paris Peace Treaties, it delivered an ally to the West in Germany.

The difference between this conflict and the hundreds that preceded is there is going to be no clear winner or loser in Afghanistan. Unless you consider the pull out of occupying forces a “win” for the Taliban. If that happens, another group will be in Afghanistan in 20 years, trying to fight a war that couldn’t be won by our Allied Forces or the Russians before.

That absence of a clear winner in this conflict makes it so much more important for the governments of the occupying forces to welcome the Taliban to the table. And it is much easier in Afghanistan than in Iraq, because the Taliban have made it clear they are the force being fought, whereas in Iraq, the insurgency is moreover based on a civilian militance, and then backed up by Al Qeada. Iraq also has a large amount of sectarian violence, violence that the U.S. soldiers cannot stop, even if they wanted to.

Until the U.S. government is ready to end these conflicts there will be fighting. Ending them will mean more than crushing the insurgency. It will mean showing real progress on rebuilding efforts in the country and in particular, showing Afghans that progress without it being wiped out by militants.

The ability to re-construct schools, hospitals, and office buildings will not happen without their wanton destruction unless there is a genuine effort to settle the conflict. The reason for invading Afghanistan was to catch Osama Bin Laden and rid the country of the Taliban. Neither is close to happening, in fact, the Taliban are arguably stronger than they have ever been and Bin Laden is nowhere near capture. Therefore, instead of talking about scaling back a combat role for our soldiers, and training Afghan troops to take the fight to the Taliban, let’s engage a discussion that would see positive results that may be the beginning of another Paris or Versailles sort of treaty. One for a lasting peace.