As I speculated nearly four months ago, the day following CIA Director Leon Panetta's portentous June 27th appearance on "This Week," President Obama's long-range sights have always been set (or so I desperately hoped) on Afghan reconciliation, since as a keen student of history he has no intention of being "LBJ-ed." Hence the current U.S.-encouraged talks between Taliban leaders and the Afghan government should have come as no surprise.
From June 28:
I disagree with the press assessments, following Mr. Panetta's appearance on "This Week," that have thundered unanimously that a political solution, in the form of a power-sharing deal with the Taliban, runs from the highly unlikely to the absolutely impossible.
On the face of it, those assessments are hard to argue with. "We have seen no evidence that they [the Taliban & Friends] are truly interested in reconciliation where they would surrender their arms, where they would denounce al-Qaeda, where they would really try to become part of that society," said Panetta. "I think it is very difficult to proceed with a reconciliation that is going to be meaningful," he added.
I detected, however, an unreported touch of squirming and a trifle hesitation in Panetta's delivery [a mere 50 to 100 Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan, maybe less, he offered] which suggested ... that he was only delivering the hardball "official" line as cover to back-channeling overtures.
That was the explosive kicker: Panetta's emphatic and unsolicited "maybe less."
There sat the CIA director nakedly telling the nation that our official reason for fighting in Afghanistan had been essentially voided. That, combined with Panetta's vivid -- and rather beseeching -- outline of pointed demands for "meaningful" talks, seemed to give it away.
And it did.
Comments