US Senate majority leader says Taliban cannot be defeated

gerryhatrick · October 3, 2006

Frist says Taliban can't be defeated
Senate leader urges role in government

By Jim Krane

Associated Press

Published October 3, 2006

QALAT, Afghanistan -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters are too numerous and have too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed

I'd be interested to hear from those who have expressed such strong opinion to the contrary, such as Armyguy.

In my opinion this is a perfect example of something that warrents discussion. It's a view contrary to many who count themselves as enlightened and able to face hard truths about terrorists that others can't face.

Perhaps Frist is presenting another hard truth that needs facing.

M.Dancer · October 3, 2006

Frist says Taliban can't be defeated
Senate leader urges role in government

By Jim Krane

Associated Press

Published October 3, 2006

QALAT, Afghanistan -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters are too numerous and have too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed

I'd be interested to hear from those who have expressed such strong opinion to the contrary, such as Armyguy.

In my opinion this is a perfect example of something that warrents discussion. It's a view contrary to many who count themselves as enlightened and able to face hard truths about terrorists that others can't face.

Perhaps Frist is presenting another hard truth that needs facing.

Maybe he means 'defeated by the US' ...given their batting average theese days

Wilber · October 3, 2006

Frist is certainly entitled to an opinion and he should say what he thinks but what makes him an expert on Afghanistan or the Taliban?

Figleaf · October 3, 2006

Who would ever have thought Bill Frist would follow Jack Layton's lead on anything!

:lol:

M.Dancer · October 3, 2006

Who would ever have thought Bill Frist would follow Jack Layton's lead on anything!

My guess is it has everything to do with November.........but that's just a guess

Chrissy1979 · October 3, 2006

Frist is certainly entitled to an opinion and he should say what he thinks but what makes him an expert on Afghanistan or the Taliban?

Uh, maybe because he's the Senate Majority Leader? You're supposed to do some book-learning before you take those jobs.

I don't think it has anything to do with November, because Afghanistan is still a relatively popular undertaking.

Now, if he said it was inevitable that Iraq would degenerate into civil war and that the U.S. occupation is doing more harm than good, then I would say he's trying to take a reasonable stance while November looms.

geoffrey · October 3, 2006

Why not give the Taliban a seat in our government too while we are bending over to terrorists?

I mean, they are just harmless women oppressing murders? Who cares?

BubberMiley · October 4, 2006

I think you have to realize the extent of their influence and face the reality that you can't send a few thousand guys over with bombs and guns and change the culture. If we really want to be successful in eliminating terror, we have to approach the situation rationally. Getting caught up in armchair us-vs.-them, we-don't-negotiate bravado just makes the likelihood of future terrorism worse.

gc1765 · October 4, 2006

This is from a republican? Sounds like the NDP. I wonder how long until posters on this board start ridiculing him and calling him Taliban Frist?

Leader Circle · October 4, 2006

Frist says Taliban can't be defeated
Senate leader urges role in government

By Jim Krane

Associated Press

Published October 3, 2006

QALAT, Afghanistan -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.

The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters are too numerous and have too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.

"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed

I'd be interested to hear from those who have expressed such strong opinion to the contrary, such as Armyguy.

In my opinion this is a perfect example of something that warrents discussion. It's a view contrary to many who count themselves as enlightened and able to face hard truths about terrorists that others can't face.

Perhaps Frist is presenting another hard truth that needs facing.

Wait, wait, hold the phone, this post has nothing nasty to say in reference to Stephen Harper...WTF?

Someone must have hijacked his login name..omg!

Wilber · October 4, 2006

Uh, maybe because he's the Senate Majority Leader? You're supposed to do some book-learning before you take those jobs.

Yikes, what an assumption. We're talking polititians here remember.

killjoy · October 4, 2006

K. Fine. Lets pull out. Lets go home. Right now. The sooner the better.

All will be perfect afterwards and we'll never hear from the Taliban or their poppies or al Qaeda again. The Afghans will be happy. The Pakistanis will be happy. Canadians will be happy. The all-time, all-purpose Canadian solution to every problem: quit and stick your head in the sand. Sounds good to me. "Let's roll".

gerry your propaganda machine has finally convinced me. While we're at it lets get those Liberal back in office so we can finally dismantle our pointless military once and for all.

I'll take a nice cushy civy government job somewhere - I could use the sleep and free office supplies.

.

gerryhatrick · October 4, 2006

Still no lucid response from the war cheerleaders here.

Just more emotional indignation.

Bill Frist = Jack Layton! :rolleyes:

Army Guy · October 4, 2006

BubberMiley:

I think you have to realize the extent of their influence and face the reality that you can't send a few thousand guys over with bombs and guns and change the culture. If we really want to be successful in eliminating terror, we have to approach the situation rationally. Getting caught up in armchair us-vs.-them, we-don't-negotiate bravado just makes the likelihood of future terrorism worse.

That way of thinking is a double edged sword, By dealing with these guys you are giving credence to solving problems thru violence. That if you want to be heard start blowing up stuff, or arm yourself and impose your will thru force.

We've already have seen examples of this in history, the PLO, Hamas, etc etc..all have gain polictical power thru violence..In fact nothing good has become of it, what have they solved in those regions...except more violence...

So by not negotiating with them we will not eliminated terrorism and on the same note by giving in to them and making them part of the solution we are saying violence is one tool they may use to be heard or make thier own changes..

It's a good thing Layton carries his families jewels in his purse, and not a hand gun.

At what piont do we stand up and say enough is enough, and stand up for what we believe..

geoffrey · October 4, 2006

Giving Hezbollah a seat in Lebanese government sure worked well in preventing violence didn't it???

Pfftt. Terrorists need to be destroyed, nothing else. There is no negotiating with people's who's objective is to kill every last infidel.

M.Dancer · October 4, 2006

Giving Hezbollah a seat in Lebanese government sure worked well in preventing violence didn't it???
Pfftt. Terrorists need to be destroyed, nothing else. There is no negotiating with people's who's objective is to kill every last infidel.

I'm no fan of any organization that considers dashing the brains out of babies to be a legitimate form of resistance...but they weren't given a seat.....they won it in an election. Which is to say, the getting the National Socialists involved in German democracy didn't prevent violence either.......

watching&waiting · October 4, 2006

The way to win over the the insurgents and Taliban in Afghanistan, is to have many more feet on the ground sealling the border with Pakistan and then doing a through house cleaning in the caves and crevices of the mountains. Take no prisoners and execute all collaborators with the terrorists. Either wipe out the poppies or have the crop bought for legal production. Make deals with the Chinees to have oil pipelines run through Aghanistan to China, in return for helping and making the borders safer for those in Afghistan. Maybe even some military training and other things supplied as payment for things. These are the ways to win the war. You do not need to try and negoiate with the terrorists, as that will only delay the inevitable. There is not much in Afghanistan by way of manufacturing, but they are stategically inline from the Middle east to China and that will be a good place to start building. There are many things that they will find as time goes on that will make for better relations with their neighbours. If and whn that happens then we will see the fruits of the labours now spent.

bradco · October 4, 2006

Giving Hezbollah a seat in Lebanese government sure worked well in preventing violence didn't it???
Pfftt. Terrorists need to be destroyed, nothing else. There is no negotiating with people's who's objective is to kill every last infidel.

I have problems with the argument of giving the Taliban a role in government. If they have popular support amongst a certain percentage then maybe they deserve a few seats to reresent that. The problem is I have doubts that this group would be content with a few seats. If we give them a chance to be a legitmate political party will we be back there in 5 years after they have taken over again and invited Al Qaida back? They have to be willing to put the guns down as well...it has to be a two way street. They have given no indication they would be willing to do so and enter into civilized negotiations. If we cave and sue them for peace they will probably see it as a victory and reason to continue their ways.

...Terrorist seems to be a pretty bastardized word. Who is a terrorist and who isn't? Are the Taliban considered terrorists. They were the governing party of a state (not democratic....is undemocratic = terrorism?) I would agree that Al Qaida was a terrorist group but we should distinguish between them and the Taliban and it seems they are thought as in this thread as the same entity. Is a suicide bomber a terrorist if he targets military personnel? Its a different weapon but is it any different then when one of our soldiers shoots a Taliban fighter? I would certainly say our fighters are not terrorists. Is targeting military personnel without enough consideration of civilians terrorism? Then Israel, United States, Germany, UK...pretty much every country on the planet has been involved in terrorism at one one point or another. For me terrorism is the direct targeting of civilians and therefore it isnt clear that the Taliban are terrorists.

geoffrey · October 4, 2006

For me terrorism is the direct targeting of civilians and therefore it isnt clear that the Taliban are terrorists.

Your kidding right?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/18/b...-canadians.html

The bombing injured 27 civilians, including children, according to a statement by NATO. The Taliban has claimed responsibility. The attack occurred at 9:30 a.m. local time, about 30 kilometres west of Kandahar City.
Fraser said the suicide bomber rode his bicycle into a group of soldiers and civilians and detonated the explosive device. The military believes the device was attached to the bicycle.

Attacking little children receiving toys and stuff from Canadian troops isn't terrorism?

M.Dancer · October 4, 2006

For me terrorism is the direct targeting of civilians and therefore it isnt clear that the Taliban are terrorists.

Surely with that definition, the title terrorist easily applies to the Taliban.

bradco · October 4, 2006

For me terrorism is the direct targeting of civilians and therefore it isnt clear that the Taliban are terrorists.

Your kidding right?

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/09/18/b...-canadians.html

The bombing injured 27 civilians, including children, according to a statement by NATO. The Taliban has claimed responsibility. The attack occurred at 9:30 a.m. local time, about 30 kilometres west of Kandahar City.
Fraser said the suicide bomber rode his bicycle into a group of soldiers and civilians and detonated the explosive device. The military believes the device was attached to the bicycle.

Attacking little children receiving toys and stuff from Canadian troops isn't terrorism?

Its immoral, evil, bastardly, a war crime etc but if you want to have a clear cut definition of terrorism you might have to argue that it isnt terrorism. If this is "terrorism" than Israel is just as guilty of terrorism in the recent conflict in Southern Lebanon, the US is just as guilty of terrorism in Iraq because I bet they killed a heck of lot more children than this one bomber did (theres just more disconnection with the killings when you use a missile from miles away....the civilian bloodbath is the same). We need a clear definiton or anything and anyone (Israel, US) can be defined as terrorists. Having a clear definiton of terrorism, direct attacks on civilians (for example 9/11), doesnt excuse any actions of the Taliban. They are still very guilty of war crimes etc. Just maybe war criminals, not terrorists.

bradco · October 4, 2006

For me terrorism is the direct targeting of civilians and therefore it isnt clear that the Taliban are terrorists.

Surely with that definition, the title terrorist easily applies to the Taliban.

If you provide an example where the civilians are the clear target than I will agree. Otherwise refer to my post regarding Geoffreys example.

Wilber · October 4, 2006

": the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

"• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

"1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."

"Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong."

Make up any definition of terrorist or terrorism you want but here are some I found.

They fit the Taliban to a T unless you consider them freedom fighters.

killjoy · October 4, 2006

Why bother? Bradco's clearly being dishonest here. That the Taliban are terrorists and deliberately attack civilians is not a debate but a clear understood fact by everyone on either side of the "should-we-be-there" debate. Claiming anything less is a silly semantic argument. He know's he's wrong and is simply arguing for augments sake now. I mean he's going to sit there and actively, conveniently forget all the threats of, and acts of deliberately attacking civilians that have been splashed all over the front page for the last 10 years. (yeah 10 years).

Someone like that is clearly not worth credence.

.

gerryhatrick · October 4, 2006

I would say most of the Taliban are not terrorists.

All cases of attacks that killed civilians that I remember reading also involved NATO soldiers. Does civilian collateral damage count as terrorism? That's a slippery slope for state warfare then.