The NY Times reported today (Feb 10) that Pakistan is heavily involved in trying to arrange peace negotiations between the US and the Taliban leaders in Pakistan. It has brought no excitement peace groups and blogs longing for peace. I just noticed it was mentioned here as just another news story not a cause for excitement. Earlier some peace sites got interested in some surrounding stories, but interest seemed to have died down. We know one possibility for the future is another Richard Nixon type with a so-called "secret plan" to end the war, that will end up at first extending it, perhaps to Iran and beyond, like Nixon did in Laos and Cambodia. However there is also a real possibility of the war ending before then, especially if some peace groups start praising what Pakistan and others are trying to do. Somehow it left out of the NY Times article is that Mullah Omar, a top Taliban leader, has persistently urged the rest of the Taliban and al Qaeda to stop attacking Pakistan, and only attack what he sees as the Western invaders. Therefore Pakistan has been dragging its feet when it comes to going after him like the US wants, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/world/asia/10pstan.html

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/02/10/a-grand-bargain-in-the-afghan-war-mediated-by-pakistan/

There has been a lot of negotiation efforts around the world to end the war in Afghanistan. Somehow the peace movement hasn’t paid much attention. Gareth Porter in Common Dreams enthusiastically reported Afghan President Karzai defying the US by seeking unconditional talks with the Taliban, neglecting to mention that Karzai had done so several times before. Nevertheless any information on negotiation attempts is so scattered that googling Gareth Porter is the best way to know what is going on.

Four retired Taliban officials were taken off the terrorist list after a UN peace conference in Prague urged all of the Taliban to be taken off the list. These four, of late, are tying to mediate a step down approach such as no destroying of roads or killing of doctors, in return for no night raids,
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/02/05/4443
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/finally-peace-may-be-hand
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/cyber-repression-cyber-prison-can-threaten-ordinary-folk#comment-34604

Since the US peace movement didn’t cheer the Feb 2009 cease-fire in the Swat Valley and instead most joined hawks in condemning that modified Shria Law was established there as part of the, it turned out, temporary cease-fire there, it makes it difficult for the Obama administration to go along with any cease-fire that has harsh conditions involved. However if the US just left in a hurry the conditions for any Afghan having been too close to the Americans would be even harsher. The Taliban and other normal Muslims who end up in a fight with Americans see hiring al Qeada suicide-bombers as a disgusting necessity, since normal people don’t commit suicide on command and will want al Qaeda to keep their distance as soon as they no longer need them. However, they may or may not be able to stop al Qaeda from conducting Internet broadcasted trials and punishments, of anyone who got close to the Americans.

Al Qaeda is confident that the US is heading straight toward bankruptcy and a US currencyless world, with Americans too interested in getting goods though barter or by then precious yens then to worry about far off places. Maybe the reason they have delayed a huge attack on the US is that it might result in the US fighting cheaply, instead of spending ever increasing sums to keep each soldier as safe as possible.

During Vietnam there were teach-ins so people could understand what was going on. Let’s spread the word around the Internet of a need for new teach-ins. I am troubled that sometimes people who want to end the war end up making it harder not easier for the President to do what is right, Teach-ins will make it more likely that those wanting people wanting peace will succeed in making it more likely to happen.

http://RICHARDKANEpa.blogspot.com