Talking peace with the Taliban

[Topaz]

The new US General hopes peace could come to Afghanistan if peace talks with the Taliban could happen. I've read before, that the Taliban has said they would if NATO and the US withdrew from AFG. So do you think peace could come from talking and who makes the decision NATO of the President of AFG.? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8478076.stm

[eyeball]

Will the Taliban talk?

I don't see why not. Up till now it's been more a question of when will the west finally talk. It was always a foregone conclusion wasn't it?

For many I'm sure this feels vaguely like an 'I told you so' moment. Unlike the dots that connect current events to the past these one's connect to the future.

[bjre]

I guess they want to talk because they have already run out of the budget. When next year, the weapon industry need update their revenue, they need either send some army there again or to some other place, or by selling more weapons.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess they want to talk because they have already run out of the budget. When next year, the weapon industry need update their revenue, they need either send some army there again or to some other place, or by selling more weapons.

Weapons will be sold anyway....irrelevant idea.

[DogOnPorch]

Negotiate peace with the Taliban? Yup, that worked out well in the Swat Valley.

Also, a good chunk of yea olde Taliban aren't even from Afghanistan; so how are they supposed to be joining hands w/ Mr Karzai in fraternal Afghani peace n' luv??

We'll see what the real deal is after the next campaign season. If the Taliban are as strong as they like to portray, they'll have no trouble stopping those 30,000+ troops in their tracks. But, like Viet-Nam, there's going to be the same situation where the enemy uses another 'neutralish' country as a safe haven /recruiting ground. So can they go into Pakistan after 'em will be the big question.

[August1991]

The new US General hopes peace could come to Afghanistan if peace talks with the Taliban could happen.

We have to do this.

We are not in Afghanistan to protect women's right, to promote democracy, to dig wells, build schools or to make Afghanistan a civilized country.

We are in Afghanistan simply to ensure that it does not provide a place for Islamic terrorists to organize and attack tall buildings in the West and kill Westerners.

That's it.

[maple_leafs182]

well the USA said they were leaving in 2017, but every time they said they would leave the just add more troops. I cant see this war ending soon. Vietnam 2.0

Peace would solve problems.

Weapons will be sold anyway....irrelevant idea.

The demand isn't always constant, it goes up and down.

[bush_cheney2004]

well the USA said they were leaving in 2017, but every time they said they would leave the just add more troops. I cant see this war ending soon. Vietnam 2.0

Well Canada said it was leaving in 2011....don't bet on it!

Peace would solve problems.

You want peace? Prepare for war.

The demand isn't always constant, it goes up and down.

The demand is constant from condoms to cluster bombs. Peace is even more expensive.

[Topaz]

Well Canada said it was leaving in 2011....don't bet on it!

You want peace? Prepare for war.

The demand is constant from condoms to cluster bombs. Peace is even more expensive.

Actual Harper pulled a Clinton, he didn't say Canada was leaving he said they would be doing something else instead. I really think he's waiting for the next election to see if he can get a majority then he can do what he wants.

[eyeball]

We have to do this.

We are not in Afghanistan to protect women's right, to promote democracy, to dig wells, build schools or to make Afghanistan a civilized country.

There must be hundreds of archived posts from this forum alone in which these were surrogate reasons for our being in Afghanistan, especially after the hunt for you know who was shrugged off. These were likewise supported by numerous pronouncements from government and editorials from media.

We are in Afghanistan simply to ensure that it does not provide a place for Islamic terrorists to organize and attack tall buildings in the West and kill Westerners.

That's it.

Baloney. We were there to hunt for bin Laden and the attack was organized in the U.S. not Afghanistan - speaking of which there wasn't a single Afghan involved with the attack.

[Sir Bandelot]

LONDON - World leaders meeting in London on Thursday agreed on a timetable for the handover of security duties in Afghan provinces starting in late 2010.

The meeting backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's decision to try to reintegrate Taliban willing to "cut ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups and pursue their political goals peacefully" after more than eight years of combat.

The conference was called to help world powers chart a roadmap out of Afghanistan amid rising U.S. and NATO casualties and falling public support.

Karzai's plan is to lure Taliban soldiers into mainstream society with offers of housing and jobs in the police, army, or in agriculture. "We must reach out to all our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers, who are not part of al-Qaida or other terrorist networks," he told the conference.

---

Taliban fighters have been taking over wider swathes of the country and successfully attacked the center of Kabul, power base of the feeble central government led by Karzai. Al-Qaida leaders have regrouped near the Pakistan-Afghan border.

The Taliban have dismissed his reconciliation plan, saying in a statement posted to their Web site Wednesday that their fighters wouldn't be swayed by financial incentives.

The U.N. on Tuesday removed the names of five former Taliban officials — including a former confidant of Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — from a U.N. sanctions list in support of the reconciliation efforts.

Karzai said he wanted more names removed.

"Some pretty unsavory characters are going to have to be brought within the system," Mark Sedwill, NATO's newly appointed civilian chief — and the ex-British ambassador in Kabul — told a meeting Wednesday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35118854/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

---

Nice job. Oh well, wars over, time to clean up and move on the the next, great frontier.

May I emphasize that the article clearly shows that the Taliban will be allowed to peacefully pursue their political agenda. To me it says, their agenda which is anti-democracy, anti womens equal rights and anti free education for all. The Taliban probably have a lot of political supporters of their ideas living in those regions.

Other articles show how Karzais commitment to Obama to make meaningful political reforms in his cabinet, is bullshit. To that end they are "annoyed" with Karzai, but that is all.

Allied soldiers, how you like me now

Edited January 29, 2010 by Charles Anthony
merged thread

[Army Guy]

The meeting backed Afghan President Hamid Karzai's decision to try to reintegrate Taliban willing to "cut ties with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups and pursue their political goals peacefully" after more than eight years of combat.

The conference was called to help world powers chart a roadmap out of Afghanistan amid rising U.S. and NATO casualties and falling public support.

Karzai's plan is to lure Taliban soldiers into mainstream society with offers of housing and jobs in the police, army, or in agriculture. "We must reach out to all our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers, who are not part of al-Qaida or other terrorist networks," he told the conference.

We don't have to like the solution, but lets not forget we are thier because his government invited us there, this may be edvidence that NATO is not pulling the strings but the Afghan government is. We also agree to assist them in rebuilding thier country, not to our standards but to Afghan standards...and once again we don't have to like it, but rather support them in thier slow process of regaining thier country back to a form acceptable to most afghanis.

One also has to remember that alot of those Taliban fighters are fighting for money to feed thier families, and may not be tied to the taliban because of thier beliefs but rather they pay better than the Afghanis government...in this country money talks alot, and so does feeding your family....

"Some pretty unsavory characters are going to have to be brought within the system," Mark Sedwill, NATO's newly appointed civilian chief — and the ex-British ambassador in Kabul — told a meeting Wednesday.

Can't please 100 % of the people all of the time....there are alot of unsavory characters already in the Afghanis government shit their is alot of unsavory characters in our government. in the end it is the Afghanis people who will have to decide who goes and who stays through elections...

May I emphasize that the article clearly shows that the Taliban will be allowed to peacefully pursue their political agenda. To me it says, their agenda which is anti-democracy, anti womens equal rights and anti free education for all. The Taliban probably have a lot of political supporters of their ideas living in those regions.

Shit we have terrorist in this country that peacefully pursue thier agenda's, and we turn a blind eye....if you understood the afghan people then you would know they are not willing to live under taliban rule again...and if taliban want to remain in power then perhaps it is them that will have to change thier ways or not get re elected...

Allied soldiers, how you like me now

I like you, fine...sir Bandelot in fact i like you more than some of the other posters here atleast you can string thoughts together and express an idea....with some facts...

[wyly]

add to that General McChrystal calls for a negoiated peace sums up what many have said from day one, this war is unwinnable...

Taliban Jack is smiling now

[myata]

Well, you see, it was so terribly wrong back when Jack suggested it. Now, with Steven, Peter and Lawrence, it's entirely different story. Don't ask why. They won't appreciate yours (or anybody, like e.g. the Parliament) asking.

[Bugs]

Sounds like a surrender to me ...

Not Canada's surrender, but NATO's.

Keeping it well hid, of course. Let's see if the Americans really make the effort.

[wyly]

Sounds like a surrender to me ...

Not Canada's surrender, but NATO's.

Keeping it well hid, of course. Let's see if the Americans really make the effort.

no it's not surrender it's acknowledging historical precedent, it's a no win situation and it was from day one....this what happens when governments go in guns blazing, anything to satisfy the bloodthirsty home audience...war isn't Hollywood, real people die...

[noahbody]

The only solution is to divide Afghanistan and create Talibania. Build a wall and when they come over it to try to get women, shoot them.

[August1991]

There must be hundreds of archived posts from this forum alone in which these were surrogate reasons for our being in Afghanistan, especially after the hunt for you know who was shrugged off. These were likewise supported by numerous pronouncements from government and editorials from media.

I don't dispute that many people have given all kinds of reasons for our presence in Afghanistan. Anybody who knows anything about the place will tell you that Afghans have their own way of doing things. Canadian soldiers are not going to bring Afghans into the 21st century.

Baloney. We were there to hunt for bin Laden and the attack was organized in the U.S. not Afghanistan - speaking of which there wasn't a single Afghan involved with the attack.

The Taliban allowed bin Laden and al-Qaeda to operate and organize in Afghanistan. Without this explicit support, al-Qaeda could never have organized the attacks in September 2001 or its other attacks elsewhere in the world.

NATO forces must ensure that any regime in Afghanistan (or in any other country) does not provide a safe haven for terrorists to organize attacks against the West.

When push comes to shove, this is NATO's goal in Afghanistan.

well the USA said they were leaving in 2017, but every time they said they would leave the just add more troops. I cant see this war ending soon. Vietnam 2.0

The US won the Cold War of which the Vietnam War was only one part. Is that what you meant?

Actual Harper pulled a Clinton, he didn't say Canada was leaving he said they would be doing something else instead. I really think he's waiting for the next election to see if he can get a majority then he can do what he wants.

Harper (and the Liberals) have consistently said that Canadian troops will leave Afghanistan in 2011. This in effect is an ultimatum to our NATO partners. If you look at a map of Afghanistan, Canada has taken on the toughest part of the fight for the past 8 or so years. Our troops have done their share, and more. Edited January 29, 2010 by August1991

[wyly]

The only solution is to divide Afghanistan and create Talibania. Build a wall and when they come over it to try to get women, shoot them.

well cutting the southern Pashtun area loose might work....

[wyly]

If you look at a map of Afghanistan, Canada has taken on the toughest part of the fight for the past 8 or so years. Our troops have done their share, and more.

the americans have had it equally hard and have carried most of the burden...give credit where it's deserved...

[Jade Dragon]

Another part of the strategy for dealing with the Taliban that might have more success is the proposal that NATO use cash to buy off insurgents. This was a strategy that turned out to be surprisingly successful in Iraq. Coupled with negotiations and continued military pressure it just might work.

[Army Guy]

no it's not surrender it's acknowledging historical precedent, it's a no win situation and it was from day one....this what happens when governments go in guns blazing, anything to satisfy the bloodthirsty home audience...war isn't Hollywood, real people die...

It's not historical precedent that wins wars, it's countries with the will to win, thats what wins wars...had we followed historical precedent Vimy would still be in german hands...

I hope your counting the majority of Canadians in that blood thristy crowd you talk about...and war isn't Hollywood....if there been more coverage on the Afghan people and the day to day fight they contend with , i think most Canadians would still be in favor of destroying the Taliban and thier cronies....

[Army Guy]

Harper (and the Liberals) have consistently said that Canadian troops will leave Afghanistan in 2011. This in effect is an ultimatum to our NATO partners. If you look at a map of Afghanistan, Canada has taken on the toughest part of the fight for the past 8 or so years. Our troops have done their share, and more

Canada is not alone in the south, there are dozens of countries that are also involved in the fight, and our district while very hostile is not the most dangerous , try the Hemlend district which the british operate in....

That being said our military has been operating above it's wieght for some time now, and has been accomplishing the jobs and tasks assigned to them but thats thanks to our soldiers that do more with less....The same soldiers that want to stay and finish the job....But it has not been carrying all the weight, not even close...considering the British in the hemland with twice the amount of troops and equipment....

[GostHacked]

We have to do this.

We are not in Afghanistan to protect women's right, to promote democracy, to dig wells, build schools or to make Afghanistan a civilized country.

We are in Afghanistan simply to ensure that it does not provide a place for Islamic terrorists to organize and attack tall buildings in the West and kill Westerners.

That's it.

Then in our best interest we should provide a means for democracy, womens rights ect . Turn it into a civilized society so you won't have to deal with terrorism. If you are just trying to prevent terrorism you are band-aiding the situation and not getting to the root cause.

As long as you have people in poverty, the hungry and the disparate have/can/will turn to terrorism if they promise to fix all that.

[Sir Bandelot]

We are in Afghanistan simply to ensure that it does not provide a place for Islamic terrorists to organize and attack tall buildings in the West and kill Westerners.

I agree that it should be the main objective, but the root causes for why they want to do that have yet to be explored.

And even if it is the objective, how is it accomplished yet? Seems to me the Taliban will still be around, even in POWER as part of the government, if we go with this plan. If this is what they truly want to do, I do not understand how it achieves that objective at all. Thus one can only conclude, it is NOT the objective. At least, not any more so it seems.

I agree with GhostHacked, but we have learned that we cannot FORCE freedom on a people, whose cultural values deliberately reject the idea of such freedoms, at their very core.

But destabilization is being accomplished, that may be the only thing that matters.

Edited January 29, 2010 by Sir Bandelot