Ed talked about the grim news out of Pakistan earlier this morning, and even with all the attackers dead it remains clear that there is no honest partner to deal with inside the Taliban. The attacks should prove a tragic and important lesson to world leaders who are still struggling with how to deal with what’s left of the governments in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the wake of the news, Jim Geraghty tosses a bone to Allahpundit this morning with a reminder of somebody who seemed to have realized this a few years ago, and someone else who didn’t.
Back in 2012, the entire foreign-policy establishment, inside and outside the Obama administration, thought Mitt Romney was a fool for opposing negotiations with the Taliban. Who’s the fool now?
Who wanted the United States to sit down across a table and make concessions to the kind of men who massacre children?
As Jim points out, back during the 2012 election, Time Magazine was quick to point out how radical Romney was.
Romney opposes talking to the Taliban. That’s a relatively extreme position. For some time now, it’s been widely accepted within the foreign policy establishment that any realistic endgame in Afghanistan will involve some kind of negotiated peace deal with our enemies in Afghanistan.
Part of the process of electing our leaders is looking not only at their record from the past (which is obviously important) but at their assessment of current conditions and how they plan to prepare for the future. The Taliban have never given any indication that they are anything but animals who can not be trusted in any capacity. Romney knew this and stated it without equivocation. Obama changed his tune considerably from his 2008 positions and saw the Taliban as an unpleasant but possibly necessary bargaining partner. One of these candidates was correct and the other one wasn’t.
A huge pile of dead children’s bodies in Pakistan should provide a graphic reminder of which was which.