Don't Bargain with Taliban....

[M.Dancer]

Don't share a table with the Taliban

Women's rights would be negotiated out of existence by misogynists, says LAURYN OATES

LAURYN OATES

Globe and Mail Update

Afghanistan is spiralling into further chaos as donor governments, which have poured millions into the country, are scratching their heads in bewilderment. Some critics have called for alternative responses to the conflict that has taken the lives of more than 40 Canadian soldiers. One of the propositions gaining traction is the idea of negotiating with the Taliban, bringing them to the table for peace talks and giving them a place in the country's fledgling government.

Unfortunately, in negotiations dominated by men, women's rights are often the first thing to become a bargaining chip -- usually meaning they are negotiated right out of any discussions. This is particularly true with groups having a proven track record for human-rights abuses against women and girls, such as the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.

Misogyny is not peripheral to the Taliban's agenda. Rather, it is a central tenet of their platform. We have already had the chance to see the Taliban in power, and know that their policy of subjugating women is not mere rhetoric but bona fide practice. Their warped interpretation of Islam swiftly became the law of the land, and was brutally enforced during their horrifying rule in the late 1990s.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

[Figleaf]

Don't share a table with the Taliban...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home

FYI, the forum moderator discourages extensive quotes of copyright material. A highlight or two with the link is prefered.

[Canuck E Stan]

Delete

[bradco]

I wonder if Taliban Jack reads the globe? Maybe he would be willing to change his stance on Afghanistan.

[gerryhatrick]

Who cares what she says.

[myata]

Propping a government that barely has any authority outside the capital may not be a solution no matter how much we wanted it. I'm no expert on Afganistan and its complex tribal system but my general take from the recent history is that foreign interference only strengthens most radical factions. Yes there's little point in talking to Taliban because our reference systems are absolutely different, on the other hand I'm not sure staying there would lead to a permanent solution. We'll have to pull out one day, and look what happened when Soviets did.

[normanchateau]

There are 640,000 Afghan War Vets in the former Soviet Union. Here's what the Russia-based Afghan War Veterans Association thinks of Canada's chances of succeeding in Afghanistan:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1727636/posts

But then again, the Afghan rout of the Russians and killing of more than 15,000 Russians is consistent with the bloody slaughter of thousands of British soldiers by the Afghans in the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) and Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880).

Stephen Harper and Ignatieff are both completely out to lunch if they think Canada can win the hearts and minds of Afghans by occupying their country and supporting the Karzai regime which is widely viewed as corrupt and controlled by warlords, mullahs, drug dealers and mujahadeen.

[Argus]

Who cares what she says.

Do you consider that to be contributing to the thread in some way?

[Argus]

There are 640,000 Afghan War Vets in the former Soviet Union. Here's what the Russia-based Afghan War Veterans Association thinks of Canada's chances of succeeding in Afghanistan:

Why would we care what those clowns had to say about anything?

How are our situations in any way comparable? The Russians set out to attack all Afghanistanis. They dropped explosives shaped like toys, for God's sakes, to kill and maim children. Do you think they made much effort towards "hearts and minds"? Did they hold an election to approve their choice for government?

They were set on conquest and all Afghanistan knew it. And because they were Godless Communists, it became a great religious duty to throw them out. Afghanis know we're not here to stay, and only a small sub-section of them are taking part, with much if not most of the fighting being conducted by foreigners.

But then again, the Afghan rout of the Russians and killing of more than 15,000 Russians is consistent

Rout? Slaughter? Afghani casualties were far, far higher, something on the order of a million. Even considering most of those casualties were civilians it looks suspiciously like there was at the very least a 10/20-1 kill ratio for the Russians.

with the bloody slaughter of thousands of British soldiers by the Afghans in the First Anglo-Afghan War (1839-1842) and Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-1880).

Most of the casualties in the first war came about because of a dumb decision by the British commander. He had negotiated a peace and then, without waiting for an Afghan escort, or even word to make its way out, he ordered the withrdawal of all British (mainly Indian) troops along with a huge number of camp followers through narrow passes in the midst of winter. The winter got most of them, while the tribes there who knew nothing of a peace treaty and hadn't been in on the signing anyway, attacked thinking they were being invaded.

This is the story which is most often used to attempt to show how foolish it is to try to fight the Afghanis, but it's not terribly useful as a comparison. There was just one (1) British batallion involved, and three quarters of those involved in the famous retreat were non-combatants. Again, in the second war, the British won virtually every battle, and succeded in installing an Amir which they felt would look after their interests. Their casualties were minimal.

[cybercoma]

Not to mention comparing those wars to the steroid like technology of today's war is stupid.

[normanchateau]

And because they were Godless Communists, it became a great religious duty to throw them out. Afghanis know we're not here to stay, and only a small sub-section of them are taking part, with much if not most of the fighting being conducted by foreigners.

Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing.

Are you saying it's a religious duty to rout Godless Communists but not Christians? Christianity is not exactly well-respected in Afghanistan. Have you forgotten that it was the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that initially sentenced a man to be exceuted for converting to Christianity? And this is the supposed anti-Taliban government that Canadians are dying for. You might want your children dying to protect an Islamic theocracy. I don't.

[White Doors]

And because they were Godless Communists, it became a great religious duty to throw them out. Afghanis know we're not here to stay, and only a small sub-section of them are taking part, with much if not most of the fighting being conducted by foreigners.

Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing.

Are you saying it's a religious duty to rout Godless Communists but not Christians? Christianity is not exactly well-respected in Afghanistan. Have you forgotten that it was the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that initially sentenced a man to be exceuted for converting to Christianity? And this is the supposed anti-Taliban government that Canadians are dying for. You might want your children dying to protect an Islamic theocracy. I don't.

But you are forgetting (conveniently) that polls have shown that the Afghan's want the Soldiers there. The same polls also show that they would vote Karzai in again with a majority. Are you uneducated about the situation or are you hoping that Canada loses? These are questions that you might want to ask yourself.

[normanchateau]

And because they were Godless Communists, it became a great religious duty to throw them out. Afghanis know we're not here to stay, and only a small sub-section of them are taking part, with much if not most of the fighting being conducted by foreigners.

Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing.

Are you saying it's a religious duty to rout Godless Communists but not Christians? Christianity is not exactly well-respected in Afghanistan. Have you forgotten that it was the current government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan that initially sentenced a man to be exceuted for converting to Christianity? And this is the supposed anti-Taliban government that Canadians are dying for. You might want your children dying to protect an Islamic theocracy. I don't.

But you are forgetting (conveniently) that polls have shown that the Afghan's want the Soldiers there. The same polls also show that they would vote Karzai in again with a majority. Are you uneducated about the situation or are you hoping that Canada loses? These are questions that you might want to ask yourself.

I don't hope Canada loses. I hope Canada withdraws.

[gerryhatrick]

Who cares what she says.

Do you consider that to be contributing to the thread in some way?

Yes I do. I really don't think her voice is relavent to the issue of whether negotiations with the Taliban are performed or not.

And for her to come out and lobby for isolation demonstrates that she is not a thoughtful participant in the narrative anyway. Insisting that you won't talk to a group is an idiotic approach.

[Wilber]

Who cares what she says.

15+ million Afghani women perhaps.

[gerryhatrick]

Who cares what she says.

15+ million Afghani women perhaps.

Well, why don't we turn over the reigns of our foreign policy to them then!

[Who's Doing What?]

Smart woman.

[bradco]

"Insisting that you won't talk to a group is an idiotic approach."

Its not that we wont talk but that there is nothing to talk about at this moment. Until the Taliban make an effort to show that their is some point in talking then why bother. Could we actually trust this group to honour any commitments we make with them? I would say no so the risk of coming across as weak and looking for a way out right now is not a good idea. The Taliban would undoubtadly use any move by us to iniate negotiations as a victory and it would only add momentum to their cause.

"Much of the fighting was also done by foreigners in the Afghan war with the Soviets. It contributed to the Soviets withdrawing as it will contribute ultimately to Canada withdrawing."

The fighters against the Soviets in the Afghan war were dependant on American military support in arms, training and organization. Without it they would have been hopeless. Thats a big difference between the conflicts. The big thing we need to do is close the Pakistani border so they cant rest up to attack again. That was also a problem for the Soviets.

"We'll have to pull out one day, and look what happened when Soviets did"

The Soviets withdrew in part because public opinion against the war was ridiculously high. When they finally withdrew they made no effort to offer assistance to the government they had installed and protected. The many groups the Americans had been supporting were also not a cohesive group and all had their own plans. The Americans made no effort at sorting out the problem of Aghanistan because all that mattered for them was getting the Soviets out. This time instead of everyone cutting and running a pull-out needs to make sure to leave the country in an organized and acceptable state. This doesnt have to mean propping up the current government. But if we just pull-out now I see no indication that we will not be back there in a decade or less.

[myata]

Thats right. A quagmire. Permanent life support to the government that can't govern outside of Kabul or withdraw and watch the country fall back to Taleban. Any better options?

[bradco]

Thats right. A quagmire. Permanent life support to the government that can't govern outside of Kabul or withdraw and watch the country fall back to Taleban. Any better options?

Help them govern outside Kabul. Fight back the Taliban and hope they come to their senses and willingly decide to participate in society and respect others. If not, weaken them to the point they cant and the Afghan army could deal with this threat on their own. As I said this will require shutting the Pakistani border and bringing the Pakistan regime into the fight on our side. Second, we need to destroy the ability of local warlords to maintain power. Seriously, lets burn down all the heroine crops and destroy the source of their wealth. Move to a positive rebuilding strategy in areas where fighting has subsided and start such a strategy as we move back the Taliban. Doing so will legitmize our cause to the people of Aghanistan and help to win the "hearts and minds" campaign. Not enough effort is put into this kind of strategy which is a shame becauseit is the most important part for long term stability. We have to show why democracy is superior. An extensive "propaganda" campaign needs to be waged to educate the public outside of Kabul on what rights and democracy means and how it will better their lifes.

Cutting and running would be the worst option. Propping up the existing government beats letting the country fall into the hands of the Taliban. Long-term we need to look at strategies of how we can pullout while leaving behind a peaceful area. We need to get past the current debate of whether to stay or not.

[myata]

You mean, brain transplant (i.e, total and complete "reengineering" of entire country)? Sounds even less likely than option #1 (i.e., stay forever and hope for a miracle).

BTW, I heard it on CBC this morning that there will be a public discussion of Afgan mission, in Ottawa this week. If I got it right (it was playing background), it's this Thursday, 7pm somewhere near Heron Rd. I'll try to find a link or if someone else sees it please post here in this thread.

[normanchateau]

The Americans made no effort at sorting out the problem of Aghanistan because all that mattered for them was getting the Soviets out. This time instead of everyone cutting and running a pull-out needs to make sure to leave the country in an organized and acceptable state. This doesnt have to mean propping up the current government. But if we just pull-out now I see no indication that we will not be back there in a decade or less.

In the paragraph above, change the word Afghanistan to Iraq, and change the word Soviets to Saddam, and you have the current quagmire in Iraq. Even many Republicans who were gung-ho Iraq invasion supporters such as Richard Perle now acknowledge this.

Given the mistakes the Americans made by invading Vietnam and Iraq, does Canada really need to repeat them in Afghanistan?

[Wilber]

Who cares what she says.

15+ million Afghani women perhaps.

Well, why don't we turn over the reigns of our foreign policy to them then!

Why bother to have a foreign policy at all if we don't consider those we are supposedly trying to help, or are we there only because of what we think is in it for Canada?

[myata]

CBC public forum on Afganistan is 7pm Thursday Nov. 9 at 1495 Heron Rd. There must be a link of the CBC website as well.

Also, an interesting report on poppy eradication in Kandahar this morning. According to the report, massive poppy eradication campaign which leaves farmers with no life support and in highly frustrated mood (a question raised if / how it adds fuel to the insurgency), was sponsored by US administration via a private mercenary company as conduit. For some reason, US and UK don't seem to be as intensive on poppy eradication in their own areas of control in Afganistan. One could only wonder, is it an innocent failure of communications between the allies, or could it perhaps, have some intent behind it, e.g. to add fuel to the fledgling "war on terror"?