nerdgirl 0 #1 November 12, 2008 What do you think? The Taliban sheltered and directly supported al Qa’eda in their planning of the attacks of September 11th; are currently engaged in armed insurgency against the Afghan government; and are killing US uniformed service member, allied uniformed service members, and other civilians (US and Afghan) ... nevermind militant advocacy of an oppressive, religious-based government. During an October talk at the Heritage Foundation GEN Petraeus, Commander CENTCOM, suggested that the US should consider engaging in discussions. [Full video available to listen/watch yourself; the discussion w/r/t negotiating with former Iraqi insurgents and current Taliban insurgents is toward the end, ~an hour into his talk] GEN Petraeus said, “I do think you have to talk to enemies” ***. He emphasize that it was necessary to have specific goals and strategies a priori for discussion and highlighted the importance of doing one’s homework and understanding the “the decisive element – human terrain” a priori [read: anthropological, social, cultural, historical] to understand the motivations and strategic culture. Throughout, GEN Petraeus emphasized that reaching out to insurgent groups, including some “with our blood on their hands,” as he did advocated for Iraq through application of counter-insurgency strategy and operations. More from UK’s International Herald Tribune: “Petraeus sees possible value in talking to Taliban, and from NPR: “Gen. Petraeus Supports Talks With Taliban.” (Line that made me chuckle: “only the military could have a 2-page SOP to determine what is or is not sectarian violence.”) I’m very skeptical for a number of reasons, largely driven by historical experience. Through June 2001 the US negotiated with Taliban representatives, including at very high levels on counter-drug inititiatives and gas pipeline proposal, e.g., Sec State Colin Powell and the US gave the Taliban $113M in 2000 and $43M in 2001 as part of counter-drug activities. Clearly those efforts did not do anything to limit the Taliban’s support of the al Qa’eda – both explicit and tacit (hiding) support. I haven’t seen anything substantive to suggest that the Taliban movement has significantly changed. What I wrote/cited here (especially the lower half on “What Petraeus Understands.” Afghanistan is an order of magnitude if not more complex than Iraq. I heartily agree the counterinsurgency (COIN) theory applies. Afghanistan has never had a strong central government; it’s a-historic to rely on/expect a strong central government model The argument for negotiating with the Taliban, in addition to that which GEN Petraeus eloquently describes regarding application of counter-insurgency theory, may represent a re-rise/re-assertion of classic realpolitik – deal with who’s in power, a la former SecState Kissinger -- as a master of realpolitik -- had little to no interest in regime change or pro-democratic movements. Realpolitik prioritizes working with regimes/governments that cooperate beneficially with the US in support of US foreign policy goals, e.g., Latin America policy of the 1970s supporting less than upstanding representatives of free democracies, such as General Pinochet’s regime in Chile, with the oppressive military junta in Argentina, Uruguay, etc. So what do you think … and why? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #2 November 12, 2008 I think that ideologically driven foreign policy (pretty much all of US foreign policy since the second world war) is (a) expensive, and (b) doomed to failure. I believe we need to take a serious step back to reality, and engage in some Realpolitik (for those who are unaware of the term, try googling Klemens von Metternich). We should identify our goals realistically (making the entire world one happy democratic family is not realistic) and take the most expedient steps to meet them.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #3 November 12, 2008 The war in Afghanistan is not about killing bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Afghanistan is a fertile ground for extremists of all stripes. In fact, if I had to pick anywhere in the world to start up a terrorist group, Afghanistan would be at the top of the list. You have the following main ingredients: an uneducated, illitertate population of mostly young and unemployed people, no functioning central or local government, extremely rugged terrain that is hard to patrol, a xenophobic, warrior culture, essentially unlimited funding from the poppy trade, and weapons of all kinds that are readily available. It is the perfect storm for extremism. Until we fix all these issues, Afghanistan will continue to be a global problem. We are already de facto working with the Taliban, although I don't know if you'd call it negotiations. When I was in Afghanistan there were a number of mid-to-high level authorities who were known to be actively working with the Taliban. We worked with them, too, when it benefitted the immediate situation. When they became less useful to us, they were arrested. In the real world the lines of goodie vs. baddie are not so clear. We should negotiate with the Taliban to end the current violence so that we can get started on the real problems listed above. The Taliban should have a seat at the table if they agree to put down their arms and recognize the central and provincial governments' authorities. Afghanistan has decades to go before it is a stable country. Even after the last shot is fired, we need to stay there and rebuild, teach, and strengthen the national and local institions. Unfortunately, I doubt we will, but I can always hope. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #4 November 12, 2008 QuoteI think that ideologically driven foreign policy (pretty much all of US foreign policy since the second world war) is (a) expensive, and (b) doomed to failure. I believe we need to take a serious step back to reality, and engage in some Realpolitik (for those who are unaware of the term, try googling Klemens von Metternich). We should identify our goals realistically (making the entire world one happy democratic family is not realistic) and take the most expedient steps to meet them. Historical nitpicking: The US foreign policy under Nixon/Ford was not ideological; rather, it was driven by Kissinger, a practitioner of his own brand of European-style realpolitik - essentially, maintaining balances of power and spheres of influence - who scorned ideology-based foreign policy. Kissinger's doctoral dissertation, incidentally, was on Metternich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #5 November 12, 2008 Hell NO. The U.S. should have stuck to its guns and wiped them out in Afghanistan and chased their sorry asses to Pakistan, and left Iraq alone. It's time to bulk up the forces there and finish the damn job."Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #6 November 12, 2008 QuoteThe U.S. should have stuck to its guns and wiped them out in Afghanistan and chased their sorry asses to Pakistan We did. They keep coming back. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #7 November 12, 2008 QuoteHell NO. The U.S. should have stuck to its guns and wiped them out in Afghanistan and chased their sorry asses to Pakistan, and left Iraq alone. It's time to bulk up the forces there and finish the damn job. Won't work. The same conditions that created the Taliban still exist at the core. After the USSR left Afghanistan, there was nothing left of a government structure. Eventually, the unpaid army became part of the lawlessness. One of the signature events was the killing of a merchant and rape of 2 girls. A mullah went to the army camp, killed the soldiers and hung the commander from a tank barrel. The Taliban provides a framework. A new framework of govt, education, employment, and safety needs to be provided. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #8 November 12, 2008 I think one should always attempt to negotiate with everyone. Even saying "we will not negotiate" is a negotiation tactic! "NUTS!" is a negotiation tactic. Little can be accomplished that is both worthwhile and longstanding that is not negotiated. With Afghanistan and the Taliban the same holds true. What is it that the Taliban is trying to protect from American influence? What does America want from the Taliban? Let me stress that "negotiation" is not necessarily "appeasement." Nor is "appeasement" necessarily bad or a sign of weakness. It can be useful in MOST situations and each of us does it all the time. Always try to negotiate. Always. What does one stand to lose? Nothing. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #9 November 12, 2008 QuoteHell NO. The U.S. should have stuck to its guns and wiped them out in Afghanistan and chased their sorry asses to Pakistan, and left Iraq alone. It's time to bulk up the forces there and finish the damn job. And we should have chased the IRAs sorry arse into Boston and kick the shite out of them. Too bad if there were a few collateral damage incidents - it's war. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #10 November 12, 2008 Looks like it helped in Northern Ireland, so why not give it a go. Think the POTUS at the time helped out there so you guys have some experience Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 November 12, 2008 Can we send Harry Callihan in as the negotiator? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 November 12, 2008 QuoteQuoteHell NO. The U.S. should have stuck to its guns and wiped them out in Afghanistan and chased their sorry asses to Pakistan, and left Iraq alone. It's time to bulk up the forces there and finish the damn job. And we should have chased the IRAs sorry arse into Boston and kick the shite out of them. Too bad if there were a few collateral damage incidents - it's war. You seem a bit fixated on this - maybe you should open a new thread and get it off your chest already. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #13 November 12, 2008 So, the only valid Terror war is the 'merican one? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #14 November 12, 2008 Quote So, the only valid Terror war is the 'merican one? Your have to remember that "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", just a shame that so many people forget that it works the other way round, "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist". Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #15 November 12, 2008 Quote So, the only valid Terror war is the 'merican one? Like I said, open another thread already, rather than pissing in every other one. People in Boston sending money really isn't the same as the Taliban, who ruled over the nation in question. I doubt that Washington was happily supporting the IRA against one of their closest allies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #16 November 12, 2008 Quote Can we send Harry Calliahan in as the negotiator? ... took me a minute ... So, how do you translate "punk" into Pashto? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #17 November 12, 2008 Quote Quote So, the only valid Terror war is the 'merican one? Your have to remember that "one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter", just a shame that so many people forget that it works the other way round, "one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist". Indeed (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #18 November 12, 2008 Quote Quote So, the only valid Terror war is the 'merican one? Like I said, open another thread already, rather than pissing in every other one. If I want to I will but I won't be fucking told to by you! (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #19 November 12, 2008 QuoteThe war in Afghanistan is not about killing bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Afghanistan is a fertile ground for extremists of all stripes. In fact, if I had to pick anywhere in the world to start up a terrorist group, Afghanistan would be at the top of the list. You have the following main ingredients: an uneducated, illitertate population of mostly young and unemployed people, no functioning central or local government, extremely rugged terrain that is hard to patrol, a xenophobic, warrior culture, essentially unlimited funding from the poppy trade, and weapons of all kinds that are readily available. It is the perfect storm for extremism. Until we fix all these issues, Afghanistan will continue to be a global problem. We are already de facto working with the Taliban, although I don't know if you'd call it negotiations. When I was in Afghanistan there were a number of mid-to-high level authorities who were known to be actively working with the Taliban. We worked with them, too, when it benefitted the immediate situation. When they became less useful to us, they were arrested. In the real world the lines of goodie vs. baddie are not so clear. Thanks Dan. Don't think there's anything with which I would disagree in those two statements ... other than maybe looking to Islamic Maghreb for radical Islamists these days. Would love to hear more of your stories and observations. Part of the issue for me is who or what really is the Taliban. As you and I know, "Taliban" means "student" in Pashto. As was done in Iraq, can the low-level and upwards to some point, folks who really just want stability be co-opted in something vaguely similar to the 'Sons of Iraq' groups? I think that kind of co-option is critical. Historically, terrorists groups rely on explicit and tacit support from the wider population. As the indigenous population moves against them, the terrorists group, generally, disintegrate/collapse (Tupac Amura, Red Cells), re-integrate in non-terrorist manner (IRA), or take over: How Terrorist Groups End (RAND, 2008). QuoteWe should negotiate with the Taliban to end the current violence so that we can get started on the real problems listed above. The Taliban should have a seat at the table if they agree to put down their arms and recognize the central and provincial governments' authorities. What if they don't agree to put down their arms or refuse to acknowledge the central or pronvincial authorities? I'm betting you've heard Pres Karzai referred to as "the Mayor of Kabul." Is there anything to suggest that scenario - historically or culturally? Or from a perspective of them being threatened? The Taliban is far from being faced a the Melian bargain of surrender or annhilation. QuoteAfghanistan has decades to go before it is a stable country. Even after the last shot is fired, we need to stay there and rebuild, teach, and strengthen the national and local institions. Unfortunately, I doubt we will, but I can always hope. Concur. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick 0 #20 November 12, 2008 Quote Quote So, the only valid Terror war is the 'merican one? Like I said, open another thread already, rather than pissing in every other one. People in Boston sending money really isn't the same as the Taliban, who ruled over the nation in question. I doubt that Washington was happily supporting the IRA against one of their closest allies. This thread is about negotiating with terrorists which the POTUS supported in Ireland which has helped stop the IRA terrorising the people of a nation, so it sounds pretty valid;-) Nick Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #21 November 12, 2008 QuoteSo, how do you translate "punk" into Pashto? 'Kala kadu' means melon head. That's the only jibe I remember since it was innocent enough to use with kids. It probably wouldn't work in the application at hand, although imagining Clint Eastwood saying, "Go ahead, melon head, make my day," gives me a smile. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #22 November 12, 2008 QuoteI think one should always attempt to negotiate with everyone. Even saying "we will not negotiate" is a negotiation tactic! "NUTS!" is a negotiation tactic. Little can be accomplished that is both worthwhile and longstanding that is not negotiated. With Afghanistan and the Taliban the same holds true. What is it that the Taliban is trying to protect from American influence? What does America want from the Taliban? Let me stress that "negotiation" is not necessarily "appeasement." Nor is "appeasement" necessarily bad or a sign of weakness. It can be useful in MOST situations and each of us does it all the time. Always try to negotiate. Always. What does one stand to lose? Nothing. So true. The only sure thing that comes from resolving a matter via brute force is that the problem will resurface again in short order. Guns are great for killing people; but they do not kill ideologies. Ideologies change in small increments as widely held beliefs change. You'd have to nuke everybody from the Bosphorus to the Indus to solve the problem by force." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PLFXpert 0 #23 November 12, 2008 Quote The war in Afghanistan is not about killing bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Afghanistan is a fertile ground for extremists of all stripes. In fact, if I had to pick anywhere in the world to start up a terrorist group, Afghanistan would be at the top of the list. You have the following main ingredients: an uneducated, illitertate population of mostly young and unemployed people, no functioning central or local government, extremely rugged terrain that is hard to patrol, a xenophobic, warrior culture, essentially unlimited funding from the poppy trade, and weapons of all kinds that are readily available. It is the perfect storm for extremism. Until we fix all these issues, Afghanistan will continue to be a global problem. We are already de facto working with the Taliban, although I don't know if you'd call it negotiations. When I was in Afghanistan there were a number of mid-to-high level authorities who were known to be actively working with the Taliban. We worked with them, too, when it benefitted the immediate situation. When they became less useful to us, they were arrested. In the real world the lines of goodie vs. baddie are not so clear. We should negotiate with the Taliban to end the current violence so that we can get started on the real problems listed above. The Taliban should have a seat at the table if they agree to put down their arms and recognize the central and provincial governments' authorities. Afghanistan has decades to go before it is a stable country. Even after the last shot is fired, we need to stay there and rebuild, teach, and strengthen the national and local institions. Unfortunately, I doubt we will, but I can always hope. Agree--particularly with the part I bolded. But, I'm biased. At first I never enjoy swallowing my pride--allowing some asshole I'm selling to to think I'm a silly girl he's gotten one over on--but in the end it always benefits me, my company & the asshole, too.Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #24 November 12, 2008 Quote What do you think? … and why? VR/Marg I've always believed that Bush was wrong, and we SHOULD negotiate with terrorists: "What's Osama offering you, 100 virgins?,,, We'll give you 50 sluts!... Or, two women from Atlanta.Just a thought, Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #25 November 12, 2008 Quote ... Or, two women from Atlanta. So who would you recommend I take with me? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
