Talking is an age-old practice. As the simplest of norms, it lends pavement to a variety of thoughts, interests and positions. As an option of final resort, it bides in dark corners, waiting to present itself like a bright idea. For demons that fill the space between two strangers, talking proves a handy solvent. A bridge of trust, a hand in friendship unravelling common ground spreading out to the horizon, or a thing of fancy found on a trail of shared bearings. It devours suspicion. It breeds goodwill. Yet the most remarkable of its traits is how it ferments into an option more expensive, more exuberant, as time goes by. Oft times, abstinence of it makes hearts grow fonder, dulling the pain of reasoning, clarity of vision, altogether. Such is the wonder of talking. So pliable are its contours that it must almost always be considered a weapon. ‘Talks’ with the Taliban is the centrepiece of our National Security Strategy (NSS). Sartaj Aziz sees it as a miracle balm that would cure the damage done through a decade of wrongdoing, rejuvenating the minds and landscapes of those who survived it, while shaking up a scenic start for all that are trapped in the War on Terror (WoT) syndrome. Also, talking is thought to transport us to a position of strength, to the year 2004 when Musharraf launched an offensive in FATA. When that happens, it is not clear as of now if we would geographically relocate or choose our options differently. For now, what is certain is that we need to talk ourselves out of this war because it is being fought with wrong methods and is against the wrong people. Talking of methods, Sartaj puts emphasis on drone strikes and how inappropriate it is to kill high value terrorists without affording them the chance of a fair trial. Terrorists of the Karachi blast must be “brought to book”, insists Imran Khan, just as Bilawal calls for setting up a commission to look into the assassination of Chaudhry Aslam. The lot of us that see this fascination with justice as a farcical exercise may fail to appreciate our unconditional, fraternal bond with the Taliban, despite the ever-long bloodbath. Perhaps heroes like Chaudhry Aslam — a multitude of policemen laying down their lives for the sake of this country — along with innocent civilian victims are exempt from this fraternity. Perhaps an inquiry commission investigating a stark cold murder carried out in broad daylight is just what we need to busy ourselves with. A resounding assault, responsibility of which a non-state actor was quick to claim in a celebratory manner, must indeed be brought to book. As vain as this ‘bringing to book’ appears to be, it does serve a fitting verbatim to wear for a grieving face while, at the same time, keeping the atmosphere viable for ‘talks’. Implicitly, this posture slaps the dead, departed assassins and murderers as ‘bad’ while carefully sieving out the survivors into a dollop of offended brethren. To fill the void that seemingly only talking can fill, the government has been breathing warm monologues for quite some time. Surprisingly, the lot of offended brethren has been failing to pick up those frequencies. Maybe the leadership and the TTP are on different bandwidths but, considering how we are hand-in-hand, lamenting the death of many of their top leaders in drone strikes, it seems that either we are (a) not in our right mind or (b) not saying the right things at the right time. This leads us to yet another string of speculations. Is it the right time to talk? More importantly, does Sartaj Aziz imply that the TTP is on the right side of the wrong war? Taking stock of the leadership’s evident confusion on the national security front, I would be happy to give that thought a generous benefit of the doubt. At the cost of sounding rather suggestive, it is highly likely that we could be right in the middle of the world’s most vicious insurgencies. Our adversary, despite internal fissures, is more organised, taking calculated steps, striding along with a good measure of confidence. They may be one of our own or foreigners residing in our land, yet, essentially, these non-state actors are part of a transnational Taliban movement. Unlike conventional insurgents, they are driven theologically and pay allegiance to a powerful global organisation that is currently holding sway, reaffirming its grasp in Iraq, standing tall in Syria and Yemen, and holding its ground in Lebanon. As the US prepares to leave the Afghan theatre by year end, the odds of them coming to power there cannot be ruled out. These are hard times for both the Taliban cynics and apologists. While the latter continue to hammer square pegs into the round hole of the WoT, their vulgar insistence on peace with the Taliban is being received with growing discomfiture. The notion that the TTP is but a band of offended brothers has long been killed by the flurry of terrorist attacks aiming straight through the peace overtures made by the government. It would therefore be profoundly wise to drop it before it gets too far out of grace. Apologists argue that this war has achieved far less than the damage it has caused and fighting would have us begirding the same cycle. Talking is thus our only option. If this is their best argument and that the NSS is, in fact, an outcome of lack of options, it singularly explains our queasiness. If a remainder of options is what our national security policy comprised of, we have good reason to feel, well, insecure. The NSS, then, is remarkably inadequate at holding the dynamism of the Taliban insurgency and thus ill-prepared to ensure national security. Someone with elementary knowledge of conflict resolution can see that peace overtures cannot be fruitful without the onset of a ripe moment. Third party involvement as a manipulator is what may help ripen the conflict before which it can, at best, be managed but not solved. With that in consideration, drones, far from being the objects of our resentment, should help us tighten the noose around the TTP. A time will come when talks will present themselves like a bright idea. Until then, it is best to quit looking for fireflies in broad daylight. The funny thing about talking is it requires one to sit down with a willing partner — someone who wants to listen to what you have to say, someone who demands something reasonable or, in this case, within constitutional paradigms. To sum, groping for an eject button while disclaiming all participation in the WoT will not help us talk our way out of this mess. The writer is an editor of a current affairs quarterly publication