Negotiating peace with Taliban

Talking to journalists in Islamabad on Sunday the ANP chief Asfandyar Wali said his party supported the US-backed plan to negotiate peace with the Taliban, adding that talks were the only way to end terrorism and resolve the militancy-related issues besetting Pakistan. Also, he strongly criticised the drone attacks that continue to kill innocent tribesmen, arguing that it is not enough to say that such attacks are counterproductive; they are illegal since the UN mandate - used by the US to wage war in Afghanistan - is limited to the Afghan territory.
Notably, the US is getting ready to wind up the war in Afghanistan, and start troop withdrawal come July as per President Obama's announced plan. Vice president Joe Biden made it clear a few months ago that the beginning of the troop draw-down in July is a drop-dead date. There is a real sense of urgency now to the negotiations process, in which Pakistan gets to play a key role.
One indication that the US is willing to show ample flexibility to reach some kind of a settlement with the Taliban is that during his recent visit to Ankara, President Zardari discussed an Afghan peace proposal with his Turkish counterpart, and Turkey, a close Nato ally of the US, publicly offered the Taliban to open a political office in that country.
More importantly, last Wednesday Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani visited Kabul accompanied by COAS General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the ISI chief General Ahmad Shuja Pasha to hold talks with the Karzai government to promote peace and the reconciliation process.
It was obvious enough at the post-talks press conference that Gilani and his host Karzai addressed that the two sides had already covered a lot of ground, and were now on the same page vis-à-vis terms of engagement with the Taliban leadership. Mutual cordiality had replaced the bitter blame-game of the past, prompting Gilani to declare his visit as "one of the most historical and unprecedented meetings because all the stakeholders were with us."
So far as Pakistan is concerned what remains a source of bitterness with the third stakeholder, namely the US, is its refusal to stop drone strikes inside Pakistan, which have claimed hundreds of innocent lives. A particularly deadly strike on March 17 left 39 people dead, mostly tribal elders and policemen, who had gathered for a jirga to sort out a local dispute over mining rights.
The carnage sent a shockwave throughout the country, eliciting strong condemnatory statements from both the Prime Minister and the COAS. The issue has since been a major bone of contention between the two countries, and was included in General Pasha's recent discussions with CIA Director, Leon Panetta. The CIA chief is reported to have said that his primary duty was to protect the American people and hence he would not halt drone operations that, he claimed, helped achieve that objective.
This line of argument makes little sense. First of all, if it is his duty to protect the American people; it must be the duty of Pakistani leaders to protect their own. Pakistan is a democracy too, which is responsible for providing security to its people, and answerable to them for its failure to do so. Secondly, there are a number of instances that show such violence generates rage and an urge for revenge. That certainly does not help ensure the safety of the American people.
The more likely reason for the US' refusal to stop drone attacks, especially as the end game is being played out, is to try and create the impression that the US is still fighting to finish the war as a victor rather than the vanquished party - something like what it did in Iraq, resorting to a troop surge, increasing death and destruction and then declaring victory to end combat operations. As opposed to his predecessor, 'war president' George W Bush's 'war of choice' against Iraq, this war is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama's so-called 'war of necessity'. He ought to show some respect for Pakistani lives as well.