PDA

View Full Version : U.S. offers olive branch to non-violent Taliban


SF_BHT
03-31-2009, 07:37
OK who is in charge of the Wiz Quiz program at State? They need to be fired and we need to test the whole lot. Non-violent Taliban hummmmmm is there any such animal?

One of the major problems is that they are Tribal not Nationalistic. They think about the village not the nation, they think about the family not the community, they think about the Tribe not the world community. Until our leaders learn the cultural aspects of the enemy they will never be able to counter them.....


U.S. offers olive branch to non-violent Taliban

THE HAGUE (Reuters) – The United States offered Taliban fighters who renounce violence in Afghanistan an "honorable form of reconciliation" on Tuesday as part of a revamped strategy to tackle a deepening insurgency.

Traditional U.S. foe Iran, attending an international conference on Afghanistan, pledged help in tackling the huge opium trade in its neighbor but stressed it remained opposed to U.S. and other foreign troops there.

The conference in the Netherlands is a chance for NATO and other U.S. allies to consult on the Afghan strategy unveiled by President Barack Obama last week stressing the need to cooperate with regional players such as Iran, Pakistan, Russia and India.

"We must ... support efforts by the government of Afghanistan to separate the extremists of al Qaeda and the Taliban from those who have joined their ranks not out of conviction, but out of desperation," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the conference in The Hague.

"They should be offered an honorable form of reconciliation and reintegration into a peaceful society, if they are willing to abandon violence, break with al Qaeda, and support the constitution," Clinton said.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai welcomed Obama's "fresh, strong and judicious leadership," but said his government should take the lead in approaches to the Taliban.

"The policy of reconciliation ... can succeed only if carried out under the aegis of the national institutions of Afghanistan," he warned.

Iran, which sent Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad Mehdi Akhoundzadeh to the talks, promised it would help fight drugs trafficking and in reconstruction projects.

"The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country and it seems that an increase in the number of foreign forces will prove ineffective too," Akhoundzadeh said.

But he added: "Iran is fully prepared to participate in the projects aimed at combating drug trafficking and the plans in line with developing and reconstructing Afghanistan."

RUSSIA READY

Clinton and Akhoundzadeh were not due to hold substantive talks in the Hague, but not expected to avoid contact either.

Their joint presence was an easing the policy of the former Bush administration which stuck to a years-long stand-off over Tehran's nuclear program. The West suspects Iran wants a cover for the atom bomb, an aspiration it denies.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov signaled a greater readiness by Moscow to help reconstruct Afghanistan.

"We need to combine the antiterrorist measures with the socio-economic measures to rebuild Afghanistan and in future Russia is quite ready to participate in that effort," he said.

Nearly eight years after the U.S.-led invasion to topple the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, more than 70,000 U.S. and NATO troops are still there battling a growing insurgency, which is also spreading its influence in Pakistan.

The Pakistani Taliban said on Tuesday they had carried out an attack which killed eight cadets in a police academy in the Pakistani city, Lahore.

It was the second attack in Lahore this month after gunmen targeted the Sri Lankan cricket team, underscoring how far the insurgency is spreading into the heartland of Pakistan.

Since taking office in January, Obama has ordered 17,000 extra troops to Afghanistan to tackle violence ahead of elections, and a further 4,000 to help train the army.

The new U.S. administration has said it will end the megaphone diplomacy used by Washington in the Bush years to cajole more troops out of often reluctant allies, but is urging them to commit more aid and civilian support.

"President Obama has introduced a new focus, one that we welcome very much," said German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country came under most pressure to step up its contribution to the counter-insurgency effort.

"We shall have to reinforce our civilian presence. The military presence will remain necessary and in an election year we can expect more tensions," he said of August elections.

Guy
03-31-2009, 08:23
One of the major problems is that they are Tribal not Nationalistic. They think about the village not the nation, they think about the family not the community, they think about the Tribe not the world community. Until our leaders learn the cultural aspects of the enemy they will never be able to counter them....Also, our desire too bring them into 21st century overnight will increase "tribal" fighting. As they get a taste of western civilization, greed will breed corruption as they scramble/compete for the $$$$...

Stay safe.

Team Sergeant
03-31-2009, 10:24
Also, our desire too bring them into 21st century overnight will increase "tribal" fighting. As they get a taste of western civilization, greed will breed corruption as they scramble/compete for the $$$$...

Stay safe.


Ever think this might be the plan...the tribes "in-fighting".... ;)

If our 21st century culture will cause internal hemorrhaging I think a "Dish Network" franchise, a few big screen tv's and the channel set to MTV should have the same effect as a WMD...

SF_BHT
03-31-2009, 11:30
Ever think this might be the plan...the tribes "in-fighting".... ;)

If our 21st century culture will cause internal hemorrhaging I think a "Dish Network" franchise, a few big screen tv's and the channel set to MTV should have the same effect as a WMD...

Set up Fast food restaurants and Buffets and they will get so fat they can not climb those mountains. Easier to spot as they stick out from behind the rocks. Reality TV 24/7 will make them completely mindless and it will be easier to take them out.

greenberetTFS
03-31-2009, 12:18
Set up Fast food restaurants and Buffets and they will get so fat they can not climb those mountains. Easier to spot as they stick out from behind the rocks. Reality TV 24/7 will make them completely mindless and it will be easier to take them out.

I don't think they are teaching this in the SFQC,however I think that it should be considered...........................:cool::p;)

GB TFS :munchin

SF_BHT
03-31-2009, 12:31
I don't think they are teaching this in the SFQC,however I think that it should be considered...........................:cool::p;)

GB TFS :munchin

Hell Levi Jeans and McDonalds was the downfall of the USSR so why not the Taliban.......
If not iw would be a good PSYOP Op......

BryanK
03-31-2009, 12:47
Set up Fast food restaurants and Buffets and they will get so fat they can not climb those mountains. Easier to spot as they stick out from behind the rocks. Reality TV 24/7 will make them completely mindless and it will be easier to take them out.

That statement could also be applied to the mindset of the enemy about U.S. citizens in general. The truth hurts. A good idea nonetheless.

SF_BHT
03-31-2009, 12:53
That statement could also be applied to the mindset of the enemy about U.S. citizens in general. The truth hurts. A good idea nonetheless.

You are so right and that is why I am embarrassed when it is brought up.
I wonder today how some of our kids make it with the constant lack of values that they are exposed to by the Boob Tube........

Magnolia
03-31-2009, 13:50
I think this strategy is answering the question that hasn't been answered in the last 7 years.

If the "small-t" taliban didn't attack us on 9/11, why are we fighting them?

....and the now past discussing corollary [If Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't .....]

If we could get them to just not support Al Qaeda, wouldn't that be preferable to fighting them with resources that could be devoted to fighting AQ or training the Afghan army?

The Reaper
03-31-2009, 14:23
I think this strategy is answering the question that hasn't been answered in the last 7 years.

If the "small-t" taliban didn't attack us on 9/11, why are we fighting them?

....and the now past discussing corollary [If Saddam Hussein's Iraq didn't .....]

If we could get them to just not support Al Qaeda, wouldn't that be preferable to fighting them with resources that could be devoted to fighting AQ or training the Afghan army?

I do not think you can trust them not to violate any agreement whenever and wherever it is in their interest unless you have a credible threat of force to guarantee the agreement, and maybe not even then.

TR

Go Devil
03-31-2009, 17:22
Set up Fast food restaurants and Buffets and they will get so fat they can not climb those mountains. Easier to spot as they stick out from behind the rocks. Reality TV 24/7 will make them completely mindless and it will be easier to take them out.

The process may be accelerated by mass dispersal of booze and porn.

The Reaper
03-31-2009, 18:49
The process may be accelerated by mass dispersal of booze and porn.


I think that the largest opium producer in the world is not going to need booze.

TR

Saoirse
03-31-2009, 20:40
Non-violent Taliban?
Is that like Jumbo Shrimp
Military Intelligence (I can quip on this, I spent my time there lol)
Amicable Divorce
Butt Head
Close Distance
Near Miss
Political Science
Rap Artist
Serious Clown
Urban Cowboy
??????????????????? :D

ZonieDiver
03-31-2009, 21:25
honest politician ?????

Penn
03-31-2009, 21:29
Link to the Article is here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6011879.ece

Richard
04-01-2009, 06:47
And here's what the Tali's think of this idea... :rolleyes:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Taliban say U.S. reconciliation offer "lunatic"
Sayed Salahuddin, Reuters, 1 Apr 2009

Taliban insurgents rejected on Wednesday a U.S. offer of "honorable reconciliation" as a "lunatic idea" and said the withdrawal of foreign troops was the only way to end the war in Afghanistan.

With the Afghan conflict now in its eighth year, NATO-led forces and the Taliban are locked in a bloody stalemate with violence set to rise further this year as more U.S. troops arrive and seek to contain the insurgency ahead of August elections.

President Barack Obama is redoubling U.S. efforts with more troops, more diplomatic effort and more economic assistance, but he has also already spoken of the need for an "exit strategy."

If the U.S. plan fails to show results, analysts say, time is on the Taliban side.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an international conference on Afghanistan on Tuesday that those members of the Taliban who abandoned extremism must be granted an "honorable form of reconciliation."

"This matter was also raised in the past," said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, referring to comments by Obama last month who spoke of reaching out to moderate Taliban.

"They have to go and find the moderate Taliban, their leader and speak to them. This is a lunatic idea," Mujahid said by telephone from an unknown location.

The 21,000 extra U.S. troops ordered by Obama to join the 70,000 foreign soldiers now fighting insurgents in Afghanistan showed the United States wanted the war to continue, Mujahid said, and the Taliban would keep fighting till they left.

"There is no other way. We want our freedom and respect for our independence," Mujahid said.

Swiftly ousted by U.S.-led forces in 2001 for harboring al Qaeda after the September 11 attacks, the Taliban regrouped and have steadily spread their attacks from their traditional support base in the south and east to areas closer to the capital.

STALEMATE

NATO commanders admit that mainly British, Canadian and Dutch troops are locked in a stalemate in the south, unable to stop insurgent roadside and suicide bomb attacks without the active support of the population, while Taliban militants are incapable of overcoming Western troops in head-on battle.

Most of the new U.S. troops will be deployed in the south in an effort to break that stalemate, but while U.S. commanders say their forces, mainly in the east, are making progress against the insurgency, violence has risen steadily there too.

As Obama unveiled his new strategy he focused on the fight against al Qaeda and not allowing Afghanistan to again become a base for Osama bin Laden's group to attack the United States.

By doing so, Obama effectively changed the measure of success in Afghanistan from the Bush administration's goal of also defeating the Taliban and installing Western-style democracy.

Despite the Taliban's harsh rhetoric against foreign troops, the Islamist movement says it does not need al Qaeda support and has also toned down its criticism of the Afghan government.

The shifting stances offer a glimpse of what a possible peace deal may entail: Taliban repudiation of al Qaeda in return for a pledge to withdraw foreign troops.

But while moderate former Taliban officials have been involved in Saudi-sponsored talks to explore ways of opening dialogue with the insurgents, the Taliban are unlikely to engage in negotiations as long as they feel they are winning the war.

Strong indigenous security forces are a key to success in counter-insurgency, U.S. military doctrine states, and Obama said his new strategy would increase efforts to train Afghan forces and bring the Afghan army and police up to strength by 2011.

That date also coincides with the time by which, diplomats say, the Obama administration is likely to want to see results in Afghanistan -- a year before the next U.S. presidential election.

The Taliban meanwhile, do not have to win the war, analysts say. All they have to do is survive and wait for their opponents to lose the will to keep fighting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090401/pl_nm/us_afghanistan_taliban_1

Team Sergeant
04-01-2009, 10:34
This is going to end just as it did for the Russians....we will eventually realize that the problem is not just with the taliban but with the culture of islam. While we can search out and destroy individuals we will not change the way most islamic tribes think ergo we will never defeat the culture of extreme violence islam predicates.

We will soon decide enough is enough and leave A-Stan. When we do A-Stan and it's "people" will return to what they do best, fight with each other until one dominates. That one will be the most ruthless tribe islam and the muslim world has ever produced, mass killings and beheadings will be the norm. Once they settle in and things are back to the old status quo they will look to causing trouble on a world wide scale, again.

And so it goes...

jw74
04-01-2009, 11:54
This is going to end just as it did for the Russians....we will eventually realize that the problem is not just with the taliban but with the culture of islam. While we can search out and destroy individuals we will not change the way most islamic tribes think ergo we will never defeat the culture of extreme violence islam predicates.

We will soon decide enough is enough and leave A-Stan. When we do A-Stan and it's "people" will return to what they do best, fight with each other until one dominates. That one will be the most ruthless tribe islam and the muslim world has ever produced, mass killings and beheadings will be the norm. Once they settle in and things are back to the old status quo they will look to causing trouble on a world wide scale, again.

And so it goes...

TS, I agree with your statement and I have an honest question for you: do you think that it is possible to wage war on terror or do you think that it is better left to federal law enforcement/intel/special operations, in unison, on a smaller search and destroy/arrest capacity?

Team Sergeant
04-01-2009, 12:39
I don’t care how may Homeland Security departments, threat level alerts, fusion centers, more federal agents, Watch lists, more police, taller fences, enlarging Special Operations etc; I firmly believe you cannot prevent terrorism in a "free" society.
That said I believe we should view any act of terrorism as an attack on Americans and the United States as a whole and deal with the act swiftly, harshly and definitively.


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Ben Franklin

Come on let's make Homeland "Security" , the Watch Lists, etc even larger.........:rolleyes:

afchic
04-01-2009, 12:44
I don’t care how may Homeland Security departments, threat level alerts, fusion centers, more federal agents, Watch lists, more police, taller fences, enlarging Special Operations etc; I firmly believe you cannot prevent terrorism in a "free" society.
That said I believe we should view any act of terrorism as an attack on Americans and the United States as a whole and deal with the act swiftly, harshly and definitively.


"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Ben Franklin

Come on let's make Homeland "Security" , the Watch Lists, etc even larger.........:rolleyes:

TS, I couldn't agree with you more. The things that make this nation great are the things that put us at risk. I would rather my children grow up with the risk of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, than to live in a country that has given up its freedoms in the name of security.

echoes
04-01-2009, 14:44
TS, I couldn't agree with you more. The things that make this nation great are the things that put us at risk. I would rather my children grow up with the risk of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, than to live in a country that has given up its freedoms in the name of security.

Very well said!!! This whole idea is a humiliation to America, and especially to Our Brave Armed Forces, who took up the fight against these Taliban IDIOTS, as we asked Them to.

What a shame.:mad:

Holly