Talks with the Taliban - Is the classic colonialist policy of divide and conquer a good idea?

Helene Cooper discusses the potential US strategy in Afghanistan of divide and conquer in her article, "Dreaming of Splitting the Taliban," in the Week in Review section of today's NYTimes.

Historically, divide and conquer (D&C) has caused years of conflict. Used by European colonialists in Africa to suppress local opposition movements, local tribes and groups were turned against one another and are still fighting today. One of the most famous examples of this policy is the Rwanda, where the minority Tutsi group was favored and put in power while the majority Hutus were oppressed and barred from governance.

There are definitely differences between the D&C of colonialists and D&C today - back then entire populations were turned against one another while today the US considers turning two groups against one another. The local population doesn't even like the Taliban, especially the extremists, so they wouldn't be any hard feelings.

But that is if and only if they are eradicated. The colonialists fomented hated and then left the groups to duke it out - if the US eradicates extremist Taliban and AQ elements, maybe things could turn out better. Not sure.

I don't know, generally, these manipulations of local forces, picking a group and arming them, most recently done in Iraq in Anbar, while it works in the short term, always ends up HORRIBLY in the long run.

Another important point raised in the article is legitimacy (see below post on Olivier Roy and the importance of legitimacy). Clare Lockhart, former adviser to the Afghan govt and author of How to Fixed Failed States says "The key to winning back the population is to establish legitimate government...If you give people a government with sufficient credibility - and basic jobs - you can win back their trust."

I wonder how this would play out in Afghanistan where a strong legit centralized state really isn't possible - I guess you would have to have legitimate local/ provincial administrations tied to the central state but one that has some sort of legitimacy.