Log in

View Full Version : Barack Obama: Taleban can be involved in Afghanistan future


LongWire
10-18-2009, 16:19
A few days old, anyone else see any reporting of this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6866894.ece

October 9 2009
Tim Reid in Washington
President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night.

Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

Mr Obama’s developing strategy on the Taleban will “not tolerate their return to power”, the senior official said. However, the US would only fight to keep the Taleban from retaking control of the central government — something the official said it is now far from capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

Bowing to the reality that the fundamentalist movement is too ingrained in national culture, the Administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taleban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said.

RELATED LINKS
Bomb attack kills 17 outside embassy in Kabul
Britain to train Pakistan Frontier Corps
US troops pay price of extended tours of duty
That could mean paving the way for insurgents willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government, and even ceding some regions of the country to the Taleban.

Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call.

Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander.

General McChrystal, along with the US military’s other top officials, insist that only a classic, well-resourced counter-insurgency strategy has a chance of staving off defeat in Afghanistan. Losing the war, they further argue, would provide al-Qaeda with new safe havens from which to mount attacks on the US and elsewhere.

After two days of meetings in the White House Situation Room with his war Cabinet, Mr Obama, according to the official, kept returning to one central question: who is our adversary?

The answer was, repeatedly, al-Qaeda, with advisers arguing that the terror network was distinct from the Taleban and that the US military was fighting the Taleban even though it posed no direct threat to America.

In a sign of how politically astute the insurgents have become in deciphering the debate raging inside the White House, the Taleban issued a statement on their website yesterday declaring that they had “no agenda to harm other countries”.

Mr Obama appears to be thinking that the primary aim of US forces in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda any ability to regroup there — as it did before the 9/11 attacks. Such a mission would require only a small increase in the forces deployed in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on killing al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. Such an approach will be resisted fiercely by General McChrystal and most Republicans.

Two other factors have played a significant role in the debate. Mr Obama is concerned that the discredited Government of President Karzai could doom a counter-insurgency strategy to failure. The second is how encouraged the Administration has become over the Pakistani Government’s willingness to take the battle to extremists inside its own borders.

Bill Harsey
10-18-2009, 17:15
Can you say "community organizing"?

all sarcasm aside this is profoundly naive unless one would like the Taliban to succeed. Am I off base here? Please advise if so.

Dozer523
10-18-2009, 17:17
Karsi's been saying it for years.

Bill Harsey
10-18-2009, 17:21
Here is my analogy, this is like building being at the beach and building a little sand dam thinking it will stop the water and hoping the tide will quit.

Dozer523
10-18-2009, 17:39
The Taliban was essential to the defeat of the Soviets. After the Soviets pulled out the Warlords started fighting over the country. The Afghans did more damage to Kabul then the Soviets did. The Warlords were destroying Afghanistan and our response was -- we left. The Taliban offered some hope of peace, at least an absense of tanks in the streets pumping main gun rounds into apartment buildings. Peace is a relative thing, I guess.
Yeah, the Taliban was pretty excessive with the public executions. But we should remember we didn't attack Afghanistan because we didn't like the Taliban. We attacked because the Taliban would not hand over AQ.

Bill Harsey
10-18-2009, 18:05
The Taliban was essential to the defeat of the Soviets. After the Soviets pulled out the Warlords started fighting over the country. The Afghans did more damage to Kabul then the Soviets did. The Warlords were destroying Afghanistan and our response was -- we left. The Taliban offered some hope of peace, at least an absense of tanks in the streets pumping main gun rounds into apartment buildings. Peace is a relative thing, I guess.
Yeah, the Taliban was pretty excessive with the public executions. But we should remember we didn't attack Afghanistan because we didn't like the Taliban. We attacked because the Taliban would not hand over AQ.

Dozer523,
Good points.
Lots of moving parts in this situation...

Maybe someday we will again be helping the Taliban to defeat the Soviets.

Razor
10-19-2009, 12:54
We're talking about the same Taliban that destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, enforce Sharia to the extreme (ignoring basic human rights and hence comdemning women to what amounts to servitude), employ "religious police" that are little more than sadistic thugs, casually kill those offering opposing opinions, and routinely killed thousands of civilians and NGO workers? I think we've played "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game with these bozos before and got burned. Fool me once, shame on you...

Dad
10-19-2009, 13:03
I have read that an Afghan's position can be very fluid, depending on who seems to be winning at the time and who is paying the most. Is this true? Second, if it is true, is it possible there are Taliban "of convenience" who are simply Talib now because they feel the Taliban are paying more or appear to be winning? Can these people be convinced to switch allegiance if they feel the momentum has changed? Thank you

Dozer523
10-19-2009, 19:50
We're talking about the same Taliban that destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, enforce Sharia to the extreme (ignoring basic human rights and hence comdemning women to what amounts to servitude), employ "religious police" that are little more than sadistic thugs, casually kill those offering opposing opinions, and routinely killed thousands of civilians and NGO workers? I think we've played "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game with these bozos before and got burned. Fool me once, shame on you... YUP those are the guys, mascara and beards and very, very, very, little education. AND about twelve years ago when the people of Afghanistan looked at the War lords (after the Soviet) and probably really doubted it could get worse with Allah driving the train. (But as most of us know, anyone who thinks it can't get worse suffers from a limited imagination; it can always get worse).

BUT one variable that also helped bring the Taliban to power was the world no longer gave a rat's ass about the Afghans because they didin't care about the Afghans in the first place -- they cared about Ivan.

So why not include the talliban and co-op them? It could happen, because now everyone remembers what assholes they were and are, lots more Afghans are educated and dedicated to educating their children (Yes, this is as good of a time to point to Greg Mortenson). Oh and the rest of the world cares (again) at least for now.
Don't forget how quick those thugs found Jesus (so to speak) when the world came after them and the regular Afghans stood up. They were shaving with broken bottles.

At the risk of taking an example to far . . . after the Civil War we didn't just line the slave holders up and shoot them. The KKK was mostly driven out of bussiness through moral supremacy. Why not let the government of Afghanistan give their ideas a try?
If we don't like the result we can bring in 60-80,000 trigger pullers . . .

Richard
10-19-2009, 20:03
The Taliban will undoubtedly be involved in some way in the future - meanwhile - the debate goes on...but memory is a strange animal to wrestle around in the mud with and who knows how it will be used by any side in this issue.

Richard

The Reaper
10-19-2009, 20:16
The Taliban will undoubtedly be involved in some way in the future - meanwhile - the debate goes on...but memory is a strange animal to wrestle around in the mud with and who knows how it will be used by any side in this issue.

Richard

You know, if you change the date on the left panel of the cartoon to 2007, it seems a lot funnier, and more apropos to me.

Despite the media's obsession, all wars are not Vietnam, shocking though that may seem to them.

TR

akv
10-19-2009, 20:36
Sure the Taliban can be involved, this role makes sense?

armymom1228
10-19-2009, 21:04
We're talking about the same Taliban that destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, enforce Sharia to the extreme (ignoring basic human rights and hence comdemning women to what amounts to servitude), employ "religious police" that are little more than sadistic thugs, casually kill those offering opposing opinions, and routinely killed thousands of civilians and NGO workers? I think we've played "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game with these bozos before and got burned. Fool me once, shame on you...

Sage words, I agree completely. Who is advising our President on his foriegn pollicy, Miss Piggy and Kermit?

Razor, maybe, as bad as this sounds, this community organizer needs to be burned to understand exactly what he is dealing with. OTOH,maybe he does and well... :rolleyes::eek:
I just hope that this burning is not at the expense of American lives, quite possibly on American soil.