The Taliban leader and the shopkeeper

After nine years of fighting in Afghanistan there is growing recognition that whatever semblance of victory is still possible will not be achieved militarily.  In recognition of this reality, NATO forces and the Karzai Government have for months been engaged in talks with a ‘senior Taliban leader’ in the hope of attaining a political resolution to the conflict.

A report published three days ago in The New York Times has dashed any hope of these talks bringing about a premature end to the war.  For months NATO and Afghan officials thought they were meeting with Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the Taliban’s second in command.  He was paid a six-figure sum to enter into negotiations and was flown to Kabul on British-owned aircraft several times, including at least once for a meeting with Harmid Karzai at the presidential palace.  It now turns out the man they were talking to was not Mansour at all.  Furthermore, the impostor is not believed to have any connection with the Taliban whatsoever.

According to the Washington Post the man has been tentatively identified as a shopkeeper from the Pakistani city of Quetta.  Exactly who the man is and what his motivations were remain a mystery.  He may indeed have been an agent of the Taliban, sent to stall and delay the peace process, or simply an enterprising fraudster who saw the opportunity to bilk wealthy Western elements out of a sizeable chunk of cash.

Ultimately, this episode speaks volumes to the gross ineptitude of the Western intelligence services operating in Afghanistan.  Even after nine years of conflict, we’re still so clueless that we can’t differentiate between a senior Taliban commander and a shopkeeper.  Indeed, this man’s duplicity was only uncovered because an acquaintance of Mansour’s from years ago, also present at the meeting, raised doubts about the impostor’s resemblance to the man he remembered.

If the best countless billions spent on NATO intelligence can get us is the inability to differentiate between the insurgents and the retail clerks, how are we supposed to believe NATO reports on the ‘improving security situation’?  Are we returning people to danger on the advice of intelligence services that can be so easily duped?  The whole fiasco would be funny, if only the stakes weren’t so high.