What happened
The U.S. might try to negotiate with some members of the Taliban—but not top leaders—to reduce violence in Afghanistan. (The Wall Street Journal)
What the commentators said
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The idea of talking to the Taliban once seemed "preposterous," said USA Today in an editorial. But the fundamentalist Islamist extremists who once ran Afghanistan and sheltered 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden are now "splintered," and some elements might be willing to work with us, and against bin Laden. "Time to hold our noses and at least be open to the idea."
Holding meaningful talks won't be easy, said Laura King in the Los Angeles Times. "Each camp has staked out negotiating positions that are anathema to the other. Neither side professes the slightest trust in the other's word." But everybody would gain from giving a little instead of "pushing ahead with a grinding war of attrition."
Western policymakers aren't pondering "whether to negotiate with the Taliban but when," said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. U.S. military and civilian leaders agree that "it's too soon for serious talks" because the Taliban's recent resurgence would put us in a "position of weakness." But we reached an accord with former insurgents in Iraq, so Afghanistan might be next.
Big mistake, said William Martel in USA Today. Pushing for talks might just convince the Taliban that the U.S. and Afghanistan "have doubts about victory and want a way out of the war." That will only make matters worse and "strengthen the Taliban."
