US Sees New Interest From Taliban In Peace Talks

The Obama administration is expressing new confidence that talks with the Taliban next week offer the best chance yet to end the 10-year-old war in Afghanistan.

But the intelligence community warns that the Taliban is more interested in continuing fighting than making peace.

To guard against the Taliban using the talks to boost its standing while delivering little in return, the U.S. this week will lay out confidence-building measures -- or specific steps that the U.S. and the insurgents agree to take ahead of formal talks.

A senior U.S. official said those talks, if they ever take place, would include the United States, the Taliban and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive diplomacy.


You must be logged in to post comments.

Username:
Password (case sensitive):
Remember Me:

Read Comments

Comments are posted from viewers like you and do not always reflect the views of this station.
  • by Formerly O.L.I. Location: ENC on Jan 21, 2012 at 07:28 AM
    Talk...to the Taliban? The horse-riding, sword-brandishing, head-chopping same Taliban? Can't believe what I'm reading.
  • by Anonymous on Jan 21, 2012 at 06:41 AM
    The Taliban are the most vile and the most dangerous human predators on the face of the earth. We should not recognize the Taliban as being a legitimate political entity any more than we would recognize Somalian pirates or Mexican drug cartels as being a legitimate political entity. We have given the Taliban a bloody nose. Lets get out of Afghanistan and cease this so called joke called nation building. Lets stop aide to present government in Afghanistan and while we are at it, cease aide to our enemy, Pakistan.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 21, 2012 at 08:03 AM in reply to
      Oops, Obamoe could have talks with the Somalia pirates someday? Surely not!! Give them aid not to bother our ships!!
  • by Wolfgang Location: Chocowinity,NC on Jan 20, 2012 at 10:05 AM
    Arthur Neville Chamberlain Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Get a peace treaty with Hitler with the Munich Agreement in 1938! A few months before Hitler started WW2. Obama should take a history lesson , and get out of his dream world. You can not talk peace with these Talban savages.
  • by Boats Location: Beaufort on Jan 20, 2012 at 06:44 AM
    And the "Great Appeaser" will not hesitate to give them whatever they want. The man's bordering on treason.
    • reply
      by Barlow on Jan 20, 2012 at 08:24 AM in reply to Boats
      I liked the way Bin Laden got appeased. Right through the eye socket. Maybe you prefered the way the last president handled that problem. He "really didn't think about it very much". Don't just repeat what you're told, pay attention. Oh, how about the way he appeased Gadaffi?
      • reply
        by LOL on Jan 20, 2012 at 10:21 AM in reply to Barlow
        With BUSH's policies that Obama wanted to do away with the Navy Seals got Bin Laden. Give credit where credit is due Bar-low, the Navy Seals got Bin Laden, with the help of the CIA and Bush's policies, all Obama did was give the ok and I have no doubt he lost sleep and would not have done that if he didn't have to in order to attempt to save his job. Won't work, too late, he is a miserable failure and will be gone in 11 short months, then the country will start on the road to recovery. As far as Gadaffi, the ends don't justify the means and going into Libya the way he did should have earned him immediate impeachment. Stamping all over our constitution is NOT the american way!!
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM in reply to LOL
          Why don't you give credit where credit is due? Obama choose to keep those policies in place, he choose to go into a soverign nation, without permission from their leaders and execute a military operation. That could have had sever conquences if it had been a nation with a less than peaceful accord with the United States. Why should Obama be impeached for the way he handled Libya? He sent in troops with full NATO support and got the job done with no loss to American life. It went about as perfectly as possible. Why shouldn't Bush have been impeached if you think Obama should have been impeached? We don't regulate the world, Iraq could have had nuclear weapons and that still wouldn't have given the U.S. the right to invade the country. So why is that acceptable and Libya isn't?
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 12:55 PM in reply to LOL
          @Anonymous Study the law. Bush had approval of Congress, which is required by our Constitution, Obama did not. Last time I checked NATO has no place in the legal system of the US. Their support is meaningless from a legal standpoint.
    • reply
      by Yachts on Jan 20, 2012 at 04:57 PM in reply to Boats
      I agree.Trading a stealth helicopter was not worth obama bin laden.Giving the Taliban a drone was not worth it either.Giving Iran a drone to try and say looky looky please dont build a nuclear weapon,saling irag some of our best fighter jets because we got rid of their hussien is really stupid.This guy is saling us out and nobody can see it.
  • by Citizen Location: Greenville on Jan 20, 2012 at 06:09 AM
    This guy is a traitor in my book for even speaking to these murderers. What a shameful and deplorable thing to do. Shame on Obama.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 12:01 PM in reply to Citizen
      So what's your solution? Fight a war for another 10 years? Spend another trillion dollars?
  • by Obama Snake Oil co Location: Washington on Jan 20, 2012 at 05:30 AM
    Why do you keep blaming Obama? I know Jeffrey Imelt gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Barrack for his election as head of GE in China, but, to say they are war profiteers? Oh, and the chinese thank Obama for the stiumlus money to build bridges in the US as well as making GE come to China to build its porducts. I would think you were behind the wealth redustribution like your president....hmmm...confusing post there.
    • reply
      by Internet Dr. on Jan 20, 2012 at 06:05 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil co
      See someone about your Obama Derangement Syndrome.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 07:24 AM in reply to Obama Snake Oil co
      Why do you hate capitalism and the free-market? If a Chinese company can offer a service at a lower price while still meeting the engineering standard why should they not be given the contract? You're really very anti-American and anti-capatalist.
      • reply
        by Obama Snake Oil co on Jan 20, 2012 at 08:22 AM in reply to
        So you are saying its OK to work with communist China that murdered millions of their own people to enslave them to work for low dollars? That is so un American of you.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 12:03 PM in reply to Obama Snake Oil co
          You're computer was probably made in China. The toys you buy for your children are probably made in China. The aluminum sidding on your trailer was probably made in China. So I guess you're just as un-American as I am, right? But you still can't explain why you hate capatilism when it entails doing business with a 'communist' country.
  • by Paul Location: Western Front on Jan 20, 2012 at 05:20 AM
    When the Pakistani Army pushed the Taliban out of the Swat Valley, the atrocities committed on the population would make the Nazis cringe. Now we want to talk peace with these animals? I don't think so. They are fanatics and will fight to the death, either thiers or ours.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 07:25 AM in reply to Paul
      What's your proposal then? Stay in Afghanistan for another 10, 20, 50, 100 years? Spend another trillion or so and still not accomplish the impossible?
  • by Barlow Location: Winteville on Jan 20, 2012 at 04:44 AM
    We need to get out of there. Whether we are there ten years or a hundred it will make no difference. There are pockets of terrorists all over the globe and invading and continual occupation of a country, or countries, is no solution to the problem. We have shown we can take out there leaders and that is what we need to concentrate our resources. Border security would be nice too, huh? Ron Paul said last night we should be using troops in Afghanistan to protect our own borders, and he is right. And we have to call out the chicken hawks that are continually calling for "war for profit" to benefit their military contractor friends for what they really are, war profiteers looking to make money from the blood of America's soldiers.
    • reply
      by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 06:44 AM in reply to Barlow
      The Mayans were right and the world will end this year because I almost completely agree with you. I disagree about the leaders though. I think we need to privatize this war. Pay a hefty bounty for specific individuals within those groups and let fair market solutions work.
      • reply
        by Barlow on Jan 20, 2012 at 08:19 AM in reply to
        They had a bounty in the millions for Bin Laden and US Seals still ended up doing the job. Lots of innocent people went to Gitmo because of bounties. Let US military intelligence do their job.
        • reply
          by Anonymous on Jan 20, 2012 at 12:59 PM in reply to Barlow
          And? We could put bounties in the billions (probably getting some darn good results) and it would still be cheaper. I promise you this: you put a billion dollar bounty on one of them and I bet his head would be in arm's reach within 48 hours. The problem with the previous bounties is that they were underbidding. What we need is "an offer that can't be refused."
WITN

275 E. Arlington Blvd. Greenville, NC 27858 252-439-7777
Copyright © 2002-2016 - Designed by Gray Digital Media - Powered by Clickability 137747318 - witn.com/a?a=137747318
Gray Television, Inc.