In November 2010 the finger pointing began. Had this been adisinformation ploy by the Taliban, who throughout the news reportsspeculating/hinting at high-level negotiations had denounced the ideathat the Taliban negotiator was genuine? (Dastardly clever.) Was thehoax pulled off by Pakistan’s ISI, who wanted to humiliate their rivals,the US CIA? Informed opinion reached a consensus that it had probablybeen the British forces that had first been taken in and had thenpersuaded others that this was the Negotiator was real thing. Althoughmany high-ranking military and political people (including GeneralPetraeus) had said earlier in the fall that it looked like sensitivebut promising negotiations were under way, now many victims of the Hoaxdeclared that they had been suspicious all along (including GeneralPetraeus).

That’s the Official Story, and it seems weird enough. But then we wonderwhy the Afghan or NATO intelligence, or the western mass media, did notinvestigate the Hoax energetically after it was revealed. Is this aRolling Stone blockbuster or not? But that’s what happened, as far as Ican see from a scan of News Google or Lexis. There was simply no followup, and the case disappeared.

The fact that this colossal hoax vanished into the memory hole justraises more questions, and prompts the following thoughts and speculations.

First of all, intentionally or not, the Negotiations Hoax had importantconsequences. They centered around the NATO conference held in Lisbon,Portugal on the weekend of November 6-7, 2010. This conference wasitself a follow-up to a NATO conference in Kabul in early June, wherethe military and financial investors in the Afghanistan war assembled toreview the state of things. It was not a pretty picture, as PresidentKarzai had been recently re-elected in a poll everyone agreed was aboutthe most corrupt election on record. At the June conference NATOessentially put Karzai and his regime on probation. The Afghans had toclean up their act before NATO’s next scheduled meeting, in November.Among NATO’s demands were: increased legitimacy and transparency ingovernment, an end to official and unofficial corruption, and somemeasurable progress in training Afghan police and military forces,considered a necessary condition for NATO’s exit from the war, which isvery unpopular throughout Europe and an election liability for theincumbent governments.

Let’s start with “who benefited?” from this hoax (not including theshopkeeper from Quetta.) What the Negotiations Hoax did was to crowd outthe projected Lisbon conference agenda with breathless reports that theTaliban appeared to be ready to come to terms. According to GeneralPetraeus’s grand plan, this was just the result he predicted from the USmilitary “surge.” Moreover, the Taliban appeared to be willing to giveaway the store, having dropped their demand that foreign forces leavebefore any negotiated settlement was possible. Needless to say, the GoodNews dominated the Lisbon conference, and I can find no record of apublic scolding of Karzai, or of further non-negotiable conditions fromEuropean governments upon which their continued support of the wardepended. While we outsiders don’t know much about the discussions atthe Lisbon conference, the Obama/Petraeus plan to commit NATO forces tothe war until the end of 2014 seems to have been carried by acclamation.All this on the weekend of November 6-7, 2010.

There are two other “who benefits?” that may be relevant. The first isthat the sudden optimism that the end was near may have worked to reduceantiwar/anti-Obama attitudes just in time for the US congressionalelections, which took place on November 2nd. Secondly, the apparentsuccess of General Petraeus’ fight/negotiate strategy may have lightenedcongressional and White House skepticism about his handling of the warjust weeks before the General’s end-of-the-year report was due. I don’tgive great weight to these circumstances, especially as the war was anon-issue in the election, but still, it didn’t hurt to have a fewmoments of apparent success re: the war.

Keeping the Lisbon conference in mind, the way the hoax worked,intentionally or not, was to sway European opinion about the war, and tooffset whatever skepticism the NATO governments might bring to theconference. For this to work, the signs of progress could not be passedin secret from military leaders in Afghanistan to their respective homegovernments. Rather, the negotiations ploy would work only if theworld’s media carried the ball. This seems to have been the case. WhileI haven’t done a systematic media study, the articles and essays aboutnegotiations for the appropriate period (late September through thefirst week in November) that are linked in the Afghanistan War Weeklyshow an increased certainty and a building excitement that peace mayhave been at hand. Though there were skeptics, such as Richard Holbrookand the Taliban (“no negotiations are underway”), the dominant voicefrom “sources” was that the story was credible. At one point it was evenreported that the White House had asked reporters to keep this story,and the identity of the Taliban negotiator, under their hat, lest theNegotiator’s life be endangered.

Within days of the conclusion of the Lisbon conference, the story aboutthe Hoax became the Official Story. Everyone’s face was red. But thispart of the tale also has a “who benefits?” NATO was now locked into the2014 Obama/Petraeus plan. Moreover, “negotiations” were dead; beenthere, done that. To my knowledge, there are no media reports of formalor informal talks between NATO or Karzai people and the real Talibanfrom mid-November until just recently. The Hoax had closed down all thepaths in Afghanistan except On to Victory.

All of this may have been coincidence, good or bad luck, and theOfficial Story might be the real one. But we are dealing here withGeneral Petraeus, and so it’s worth some deeper thought. The General iscertainly the most political general we’ve had since General MacArthurin the late 1940s. He has been considered a candidate for the Republicpresidential nomination ever since Obama took office. As such, he eitherhas to win in Afghanistan or get out of the way before the war was lost.As he is retiring in December, this is in fact what is happening.Moreover, General Petraeus displayed MacArthur-like insubordinationwhile President Obama was considering his Afghanistan options late in2009, culminating in his “surge” speech at West Point in December.Through the world’s media General Petraeus made it clear that only afool without military experience would fail to support his request formore troops, proven to work in Iraq and now needed in Afghanistan.

General Petraeus is not the only person/agency with the means and themotive to pull off the Negotiations Hoax. Just recently, in thereporting about the Raymond Davis case in Pakistan, we learned that theUnited States has several hundred non-diplomats with diplomatic cover inPakistan, either US CIA, other official action/intelligence agents, orcontractors from outfits such as Blackwater. Also, the recent storyabout US General Caldwell’s use of a psy/ops team to brief visitingcongressmen gives us food for thought regarding possible operationalpersonnel behind the Hoax. I don’t think it would take many people tomake the Hoax work.

Is all this just speculation? Perhaps. But the Official Story sounds sostupid, the Who Benefits? seems so suggestive, and the failure to followup on the story or chase the money seems so baffling that I hope thisstory will be pursued by people who have more investigation resourcesthan I do.