Negotiating peace with terrorists...

[Fitz]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/01/envoy-reportedly-eyes-introduction-taliban-leader/

We tried this bullcrap once before. We had several meetings with this guy after the soviet occupation was over, and while the factions were fighting for control.

he smiled at us, fed us a line of bullshit about how Bin Laden was bad and he would help us get him. All the while he was allowing Bin Laden to recruit, train, and operate in Afghanistan.

*expletive deleted*ck this guy.

I say show up at the meeting with a gun and end him.

[makattak]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/01/envoy-reportedly-eyes-introduction-taliban-leader/

We tried this bullcrap once before. We had several meetings with this guy after the soviet occupation was over, and while the factions were fighting for control.

he smiled at us, fed us a line of bull*expletive deleted* about how Bin Laden was bad and he would help us get him. All the while he was allowing Bin Laden to recruit, train, and operate in Afghanistan.

*expletive deleted* this guy.

I say show up at the meeting with a gun and end him.

That's completely wrong as it would discourage future meetings with enemies.





We need to surreptitiously place a tracking device on him (maybe while "checking him for weapons") and complete the negotiations. Let him return to his HQ and drop a hellfire or a Mark 84 on him.

[RoadKingLarry]

Peace through superior fire power. Nuke 'em back to the stone age... oh wait, that would be redundant wouldn't it.

[RevDisk]

I wonder how folks think the British-IRA thing ended.   The British were not exactly gentle in dealing with them either.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

good comparison  400 years of occupation ended

[RevDisk]

good comparison  400 years of occupation ended

I'm waiting for the folks to tell me how it's not the same, because we Americans like the Irish and Afghanis are bad people.  Mind, I'm fairly sure that no Afghani attacked an American until we occupied their country.  They did shelter al Queda folks, whom we (completely legitimately) killed in large numbers, but I don't recall the Taliban actually conducting any significant actions against the US prior to our invasion.

So...  Why should we not be negotiating with them, again?   Only legitimate reason is because they're bad people.  Well, that's pretty much everyone on the planet.  Including ourselves.  So what?  My personal thoughts on success in Afghanistan is not having our military broken on the rocks.  Anything above that is a significant win.  Cut a deal with the major groups, let them get back to growing heroin, tell them not to publicly embrace terrorism, ask them to keep the private funding of terrorism to a minimum, declare victory, go home.

[AZRedhawk44]

I'm waiting for the folks to tell me how it's not the same, because we Americans like the Irish and Afghanis are bad people.  Mind, I'm fairly sure that no Afghani attacked an American until we occupied their country.  They did shelter al Queda folks, whom we (completely legitimately) killed in large numbers, but I don't recall the Taliban actually conducting any significant actions against the US prior to our invasion.

So...  Why should we not be negotiating with them, again?   Only legitimate reason is because they're bad people.  Well, that's pretty much everyone on the planet.  Including ourselves.  So what?  My personal thoughts on success in Afghanistan is not having our military broken on the rocks.  Anything above that is a significant win.  Cut a deal with the major groups, let them get back to growing heroin, tell them not to publicly embrace terrorism, ask them to keep the private funding of terrorism to a minimum,throw down your enemy and smite his ruin upon the mountainside, declare victory, go home.

FTFY.

Funding terrorism that is aimed at the US is grounds for major kickassery, IMO.

Allowing the USGov to be complicit in terrorist attacks that are aimed at the US?  Nope.

[RevDisk]

FTFY.

Funding terrorism that is aimed at the US is grounds for major kickassery, IMO.

Allowing the USGov to be complicit in terrorist attacks that are aimed at the US?  Nope.

Uh huh.  Unless say, the money is from Saudi Arabia?   Not saying we should invade or bomb either, but Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two major respective contributors for their brands of terrorism.  In neither case is it a wise idea to start a military action. 

[De Selby]

Uh huh.  Unless say, the money is from Saudi Arabia?   Not saying we should invade or bomb either, but Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two major respective contributors for their brands of terrorism.  In neither case is it a wise idea to start a military action. 

See, you can't engage in symbolic chest beating if you use your head and do the smart thing to end this disaster. 

It's like the Saturday night live skit where chris Farley starts calling his friend "mr dictionary" for suggesting that they shouldn't all go swimming with the wild bears at the zoo. The "smart guy" thing just isn't cool enough to justify saving lives and money.

I laugh every time I head someone say that the solution is to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age.  News flash folks - they ARE the stone age.  There isn't anything to destroy; all that happens there is that Americans hang around a Martian landscape waiting to be shot. There is no upside to pursuing the war.

[TommyGunn]

I'm waiting for the folks to tell me how it's not the same, because we Americans like the Irish and Afghanis are bad people.  Mind, I'm fairly sure that no Afghani attacked an American until we occupied their country.  They did shelter al Queda folks, whom we (completely legitimately) killed in large numbers, but I don't recall the Taliban actually conducting any significant actions against the US prior to our invasion.

So...  Why should we not be negotiating with them, again?   Only legitimate reason is because they're bad people.  Well, that's pretty much everyone on the planet.  Including ourselves.  So what?  My personal thoughts on success in Afghanistan is not having our military broken on the rocks.  Anything above that is a significant win.  Cut a deal with the major groups, let them get back to growing heroin, tell them not to publicly embrace terrorism, ask them to keep the private funding of terrorism to a minimum, declare victory, go home.

Isn't harboring Al Qaeda sufficient?  Bush actually gave the Taliban the opportunity to divest itself of AQ before the invasion and they refused.  Saying we're "bad people" in the same light as the taliban is insulting and absurd.  While America is not perfect I think our record is a little better than a group that has blown up Buddhist shrines, decapitated people and keeps women in servitude to a ridiculous degree.  
If we are required to be perfect or to be "saints" before we endeaver to defend ourselves then we might as well pack it in and give up, because that's just impossible.  
Let's not pettifog or conflate things by saying "we're all bad people."    

[TommyGunn]

See, you can't engage in symbolic chest beating if you use your head and do the smart thing to end this disaster. 

It's like the Saturday night live skit where chris Farley starts calling his friend "mr dictionary" for suggesting that they shouldn't all go swimming with the wild bears at the zoo. The "smart guy" thing just isn't cool enough to justify saving lives and money.

I laugh every time I head someone say that the solution is to bomb Afghanistan into the stone age.  News flash folks - they ARE the stone age.  There isn't anything to destroy; all that happens there is that Americans hang around a Martian landscape waiting to be shot. There is no upside to pursuing the war.

I guess killing the enemy doesn't count. 

[De Selby]

Killing the enemy isn't happening - we'd have to open gas chambers and run the whole country into them to accomplish that.  Ten years of overwhelming military superiority has utterly failed.

[TommyGunn]

Bull.  We are killing the enemy.  Do you really think they're impervious to American firepower? 
Perhaps we need to drop kryptonite on them. 
Good grief.
"Utterly failed" is grotesque hyperbole.   We ought to have been whacking them a lot more heavily and doing far less wrist-wringing when we do make a mistake, but the Taliban aren't ten foot tall supersoldiers.
Enough hyperbole, De Selby. 

[De Selby]

Well, let's see how this stacks up - 10 years of war, and the Taliban is now larger, carrying more and more spectacular attacks, than during the initial invasion.

What the heck do you call a military campaign that actually results in a more powerful enemy if not utter failure?  Apart from the taliban rowing canoes to Washington and capturing it, this war cannot be going worse.

[MicroBalrog]

Killing the enemy isn't happening - we'd have to open gas chambers and run the whole country into them to accomplish that.  Ten years of overwhelming military superiority has utterly failed.

So, the Afghani soldiers fighting and dying on our side are 'the enemy'?

Are the relatives of the Afghanist fighting and dying on our side also 'the enemy'? (Two-thirds of all civilian casualties in Afghanistan are victims of Taliban violence).

The fact remains that terrorism on the scale that Al-Quaeda and its allies wished to pursue requires infrastructure: training camps, bases, production of heroin and azurite, etc. These can be targeted militarily, and these can be destroyed. America isn't defeated quite yet.

But I disagree with the previous posters who said we (the West) should never negotiate with terrorists. We should, and do, negotiate with terrorrist groups if we can get them to lay down their arms and incorporate themselves into a non-terrorist future.

This has been done dozens of times before, and every successful anti-guerilla policy in history has always been a combination of 'bribe some of the factions, kill the ones you can't bribe.'

This is how America defeated the Iraqi insurgency, this is how England ruled the colonies, this is how the West can win in Afghanistan.

[RevDisk]

Isn't harboring Al Qaeda sufficient?  Bush actually gave the Taliban the opportunity to divest itself of AQ before the invasion and they refused.  Saying we're "bad people" in the same light as the taliban is insulting and absurd.  While America is not perfect I think our record is a little better than a group that has blown up Buddhist shrines, decapitated people and keeps women in servitude to a ridiculous degree.  
If we are required to be perfect or to be "saints" before we endeaver to defend ourselves then we might as well pack it in and give up, because that's just impossible.  
Let's not pettifog or conflate things by saying "we're all bad people."    

Re first question, no.  See Pakistan. 

Rest, hold up.  I'm NOT saying the US is equal to every bad country on the planet.  Very bloody far from it.  I'm saying we need to be realistic in our international activities.  Preferably by staying out of messes that are not our problem, and being as efficient as possible in killing the folks we should and can kill. 

And yes, I will pettifog the situation by pointing out there is no black and white, only shades of grey.  Not all shades of grey is equal.  Because you need to accept that before you can actually get anything done in unpleasant third world countries.  Why do I say this?  Because I went to unpleasant third world countries and dealt with plenty of locals.  All of whom both sucked and had many redeeming qualities. 

[TommyGunn]

Well, let's see how this stacks up - 10 years of war, and the Taliban is now larger, carrying more and more spectacular attacks, than during the initial invasion.

What the heck do you call a military campaign that actually results in a more powerful enemy if not utter failure?  Apart from the taliban rowing canoes to Washington and capturing it, this war cannot be going worse.

What the ***** are you talking about?  The Taliban is no longer in charge of A'stan.  They're not going away without a fight but they're going away.

Re first question, no.  See Pakistan. 

Rest, hold up.  I'm NOT saying the US is equal to every bad country on the planet.  Very bloody far from it.  I'm saying we need to be realistic in our international activities.  Preferably by staying out of messes that are not our problem, and being as efficient as possible in killing the folks we should and can kill. 

And yes, I will pettifog the situation by pointing out there is no black and white, only shades of grey.  Not all shades of grey is equal.  Because you need to accept that before you can actually get anything done in unpleasant third world countries.  Why do I say this?  Because I went to unpleasant third world countries and dealt with plenty of locals.  All of whom both sucked and had many redeeming qualities. 

Should of quit with your first sentence.  You absolutly are pettifogging the issue.  I dang well know that there is no B&W per se,  as I said "While America is not perfect ...."  Nor are individuals. 

As far as Pakistan is concerned I am also very well aware that many of the enemy have holed up there; what I fail to see is anyone willing to actually do much about it. 
If we cannot or will not, then maybe de Selby is right after all and we should pack it in.

There are  ways of fighting the enemy;

We should, and do, negotiate with terrorrist groups if we can get them to lay down their arms and incorporate themselves into a non-terrorist future.

This has been done dozens of times before, and every successful anti-guerilla policy in history has always been a combination of 'bribe some of the factions, kill the ones you can't bribe.'

This is how America defeated the Iraqi insurgency, this is how England ruled the colonies, this is how the West can win in Afghanistan.

[De Selby]

Micro, very few afghanis are fighting for us - and their loyalty and organization is so poor that I doubt they will be doing anything other than joining the Taliban on our departure.

There may be many historical examples of a successful colony or occupation.  This isn't one, and ten years of trying have proved that when it comes to Afghanistan, the Taliban are significantly more capable and effective than the united states. 

They have better intelligence about the local politics, are more effective at decapitating the leadership of the afghan government than we are at killing their leadership, and they have demonstrated significant growth in size and combat effectiveness in the face of escalation by vastly superior armies.

The war is a loser.  Rev's idea is the best possible outcome - negotiate a deal that saves some face and exit, leaving them to continue their national pastime of guerrilla warfare.  We probably ought to have considered that they do this for fun before we decided on an occupation in the first place.

I'm willing to bet that washington knows this, and the only reason it won't leave is that the Taliban enjoy so much of an advantage at the moment that no face saving is possible.  The Taliban will commence with eliminating karzai (that will take about a week) and burning flags in Kabul if the US leaves any time soon.

[De Selby]

What the ***** are you talking about?  The Taliban is no longer in charge of A'stan.  They're not going away without a fight but they're going away.

This my friend is a fantasy.  The Taliban control marginally less territory today, but what they do control they hold with much more security than they had before September 11th. 

Before the US invasion, the Taliban's hold was so weak that it collapsed under the weight of airstrikes and a tiny US advisory force.

Today, the Taliban manages to control large swaths of the place right next door to 100,000 US troops.  Constant assaults have shown no success in breaking that hold. 

[RevDisk]

Today, the Taliban manages to control large swaths of the place right next door to 100,000 US troops.  Constant assaults have shown no success in breaking that hold. 

I'd say that is a bit of an overstatement.  By quite a bit.  I've gotten drunk with folks returning.  It's not great, especially by the Pakistan border.  But yes, there has been substantial gains.

My largest concern re Afghanistan is not "gains" against the Taliban.  It's the fact that the country is literally in the 1300's, to be generous.  Do we really want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in improving their country when we'd be better off spending that money domestically?

[MicroBalrog]

Micro, very few afghanis are fighting for us - and their loyalty and organization is so poor that I doubt they will be doing anything other than joining the Taliban on our departure.

As compared to the organization of the people who have lost troops during their boot camp graduation ritual?

The Afghan National Army has 4 men to every Talib.

They have better intelligence about the local politics, are more effective at decapitating the leadership of the afghan government than we are at killing their leadership, and they have demonstrated significant growth in size and combat effectiveness in the face of escalation by vastly superior armies.

How do you measure combat effectiveness?

Is it in enemy casualties? Is it in territory controlled?

Today, the Taliban manages to control large swaths of the place right next door to 100,000 US troops.  Constant assaults have shown no success in breaking that hold. 

Can you provide maps of what territory the Taliban control, so we can compare this over time as events unfold?

[De Selby]

The Afghan National Army has 4 men to every Talib

No, it doesn't - 4 people are on paper signed up for the Afghan National Arm for every Talib.  A significant percentage of those people are likely either Taliban sympathisers, or Taliban themselves.  No Afghan National Army unit is capable of holding off the Taliban absent US support.  The idea that they're out there proudly working for Afghanistan is pure fantasy.  The only native forces in Afghanistan that demonstrate any competence and command any local sympathy are anti-US militias like the Taliban.

Combat effectiveness is both - ability to inflict enemy casualties, and ability to control territory.  The Taliban is far ahead of the Afghan National army in both.  In terms of being able to strike high level personnel, it is ahead of the coalition forces.  The Taliban managed to assassinate some of the most senior CIA officers in the world, recently wounded a German general, and we're lucky to get pictures of their senior leaders.

As for Taliban influence, it's hard to measure, but I can only presume the Pentagon didn't stop reporting it on the basis that it's good news:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2011/0429/Pentagon-s-rosy-report-of-Afghanistan-war-raises-questions

In a notable omission, the latest report does not contain maps that highlight the number of Afghan districts under Taliban control, as it had previously – resulting in much critical press coverage. In the same report issued one year ago, for example, the Pentagon report found that there was significant Taliban presence in 58 of Afghanistan’s 121 districts, of which seven had the majority of residents “supporting” the Taliban, and 25 had populations “sympathetic to the Taliban."

The WSJ reported this graphic:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704300604575554144010132862.html#project%3DAFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-HOTSPOTS09%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

Which shows increases in attacks by area.

The idea of victory over the Taliban is at this point a fantasy.  Unlike with the Russians, there is no local client that has any hope of maintaining the place after a US pull-out.

[MicroBalrog]

No, it doesn't - 4 people are on paper signed up for the Afghan National Arm for every Talib

Whereas Talib will never underestimate their numbers.

Combat effectiveness is both - ability to inflict enemy casualties, and ability to control territory.

We have, on the other hand, casualty numbers.

In January through May 2011, 157 coalition soldiers have been killed (excepting ANA). How many coalition soldiers have been killed in a corresponding time period in 2010?

In the same report issued one year ago, for example, the Pentagon report found that there was significant Taliban presence in 58 of Afghanistan’s 121 districts, of which seven had the majority of residents “supporting” the Taliban, and 25 had populations “sympathetic to the Taliban."

So on your information, one year ago, there was 'significant' Taliban presence in slightly under half of Afghanistan, and only in 32 of these districts (assuming no repeats) did the population support the Taliban? In other words, in 89 out of 121 districts this is not the case? Given that in 2007 [ulr=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/more-than-half-of-afghanistan-under-taliban-759003.html]Over half of Afghanistan was under Taliban control[/url], this seems like an improvement.

But more to the point, I am not sure what 'supporting' or 'sympathetic' means in the text of the original document referred to.

[TommyGunn]

This my friend is a fantasy.  The Taliban control marginally less territory today, but what they do control they hold with much more security than they had before September 11th. 

Before the US invasion, the Taliban's hold was so weak that it collapsed under the weight of airstrikes and a tiny US advisory force.

Today, the Taliban manages to control large swaths of the place right next door to 100,000 US troops.  Constant assaults have shown no success in breaking that hold. 

Not fantasy, fact. 
They are still a major problem but they are in no way in charge to the extent they were prior to our involvement.  If we keep sitting on our hands, your twisted idea of what passes for reality there may very well come to pass.
As far as what happened when we arrived, let's not also forget the Northern Alliance took a heavy toll on the Taliban as well.  We opened up with specops moving in and bombing raids by B-52s.  Yeah, that "collapsed" their hold.  Try holding up under carpet bombing by a flight of B-52s. 
Sorry de Selby.  You've come up with a lot of fantasy posts in the past but this takes the cake.

[Fitz]

Mullah Omar is a bad dude, going back to the original topic.

To think this will work any better than it did the LAST time we sat at the table with him in the 80s is pure *expletive deleted*ing ridiculousness