Violence escalates but both sides need to talk

With no party winning, both sides appear to have an incentive to talk. On the Afghan side of the border, this year's ''mini surge'' by US and British soldiers in Helmand has made sludgy progress. A drive into neighbouring Kandahar has also become bogged down.US helicopters shoot Pakistani soldiers, NATO trucks are blocked along the Khyber pass or blown up in Islamabad, an unprecedented surge in drone strikes and a flurry of diplomatic tensions: the stakes are rising as the Afghan war shifts into uncharted waters.Whatever is going on behind closed doors, the bloody preliminaries of an Afghan peace settlement are being played out at gunpoint along Afghanistan's lawless border with Pakistan.Advertisement: Story continues belowThis year coalition forces have lost 562 soldiers, according to the website icasualties.org, more than in all of last year. This is modest compared with the deaths of thousands of Afghan civilians and soldiers.The Taliban are also hurting. Its sanctuary inside Pakistan's tribal belt is not as warm and welcoming as it once was. The principal factor is a surge in CIA-directed drone attacks: 21 last month alone, the most intense barrage since the covert campaign started six years ago.The drones are concentrated in North Waziristan, a hub of the Taliban insurgencies in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and a global operations centre for al-Qaeda.Residents say militants are running scared of the drones. ''Before, we could see them moving around freely,'' one Mehsud tribesman said. ''Now they have disappeared.''The drones' accuracy is aided by a legion of Afghan spies - up to 3000, according to a book by the US journalist Bob Woodward,Obama's Wars. But those who are caught pay a high price: decapitated bodies with the words ''American spy'' are regularly found on roadsides.There is little doubt that deep, discreet Pakistani co-operation is also boosting the drone strike-rate. ''The quality of intelligence needed to achieve this kind of success is very impressive. It has to be real-time, with several sources. Nobody but the Pakistanis could provide that,'' said one European diplomat in Islamabad.The Pakistani military may feel it has little choice but to co-operate. For more than a year Washington has been pressing the army to launch an operation in North Waziristan, after its successful drive into South Waziristan last year.Pakistan's generals say their forces are overstretched. ''We'll do it, but in our own time,'' said an official with Pakistan's spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence.Helping with drone strikes helps to assuage American pressure. It preserves Pakistan's trump card in Afghan peace negotiations: its relationship with the Haqqanis, the warlord clan considered to be the driving force behind the Afghan insurgency.Although Sirajuddin Haqqani is from the Afghan province of Khost, he relies heavily on his rear base in North Waziristan, where he enjoys a close alliance with the local Taliban commander, Qari Gul Bahadur.Can the spy agency deliver Haqqani in any peace talks? The spy agency said its influence over the ruthless Islamist network has waned, but ''we know how to get in touch with him''.The US-Pakistan relationship is labouring under new pressures caused by two ''hot pursuit'' incidents involving American helicopters that have triggered a crisis that threatens the main supply pipeline for 150,000 foreign troops.American frustration with Pakistan remains high. The Wall Street Journal published details of an aggressive White House assessment that suggested its ally is playing a double game.''The Pakistan military continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or al-Qaeda forces in North Waziristan,'' the paper quoted the unclassified report as saying.''This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritising its targets.''This chessboard of violence and intrigue is likely to set the frame for any possible peace talks with the Taliban. At this stage the question is not whether talks will take place, but when the fighting will stop.