Originally posted by Sleepyguy Well, I'm not sure we should be there anymore either, but at least the Taliban is spending their energy busting their buddies out of jail instead of bringing down skyscrapers in US cities.
That's true but it's offset by the tremendous morale booster and excellent targets made by foreigners on their soil. We can come back if we want. They know this.
But it's so easy for them to cry "imperialism!" and rally troops to their cause. AND, we're wasting blood and treasure that could go elsewhere or not be spent at all militarily.
EDIT
"Revenge" is a common theme in Pashtun culture. Permanent occupation is something else.
Originally posted by Sleepyguy Well, I'm not sure we should be there anymore either, but at least the Taliban is spending their energy busting their buddies out of jail instead of bringing down skyscrapers in US cities.
Thing is, though, they never invested any energy in doing that, what with being the Taliban and not Al Qaeda. - The Afghan mujahideen were betrayed by the USA, no two ways about it - with the Taliban emerging from the post-Soviet chaos in reaction. Afghanistan was far from being a Taliban state in the 70s, extremism is not a local trait.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage Thing is, though, they never invested any energy in doing that, what with being the Taliban and not Al Qaeda. - The Afghan mujahideen were betrayed by the USA, no two ways about it - with the Taliban emerging from the post-Soviet chaos in reaction. Afghanistan was far from being a Taliban state in the 70s, extremism is not a local trait.
It is fairly common for supporters of the war to use the terms Taliban and Al-Qaeda interchangeably and say that a "war on terror" most necessarily include war on both. Mostly this is done in ignorance though both GWB and now Obama persist in doing the same thing.
In fact, there's no evidence that the Taliban ever engaged in "terrorism" directed at the US.
More "good news" from the front: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42777244/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
These type of incidents are becoming more frequent as the article points out. Whether they are due to deliberate Taliban infiltration or some other reason seems hardly to matter.
Interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal that is summarized here:
Pakistan Pushes Karzai to Drop U.S. as Ally, Turn to China
Share
retweet
EmailPrint..Uri Friedman Uri Friedman – Wed Apr 27, 8:37 am ET
The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning that Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had a message for Afghan President Hamid Karzai when he met with him in Kabul earlier this month: Want to make peace with the Taliban and revive your economy? Partner with us and our ally, China, not the U.S.
The Journal has learned that Gilani (pictured with Karzai above, during their April 16 meeting) informed Karzai that the Americans had failed both countries and that Afghanistan shouldn't allow the U.S., with its "imperial designs," to maintain a military presence in the country for an extended period.
The meeting took place only days after The New York Times ran a story about how Pakistan's military chief wanted CIA agents to leave his country and U.S. drone strikes along the border with Afghanistan to cease. The Journal notes that Pakistan's lobbying efforts represent "the clearest sign to date" that, with U.S.-led coalition troops expected to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2014, "tensions between Washington and Islamabad threaten to scuttle America's prospects of ending the conflict on its own terms." The paper adds that Pakistan may be in a better position to influence a post-American Afghanistan than other neighbors because of its support for the Afghan Taliban. Karzai, who doesn't enjoy a particularly warm relationship with either the U.S. or Pakistan, is "wavering on Pakistan's overtures," according to the Journal.
How did the Journal find out about Galani's comments in the first place? The paper explains that Karzai advisors who favor a long-term strategic partnership with the U.S. shared details in order to urge the U.S. to hammer out a post-2014 deal with Afghanistan more quickly.
It seems that one of the costs to futilely trying to "win" in Afghanistan is the increased possibility that we'll "lose" Pakistan. This plays out in an interesting manner if you consider the "New Great Game" scenario to be plausible; EastAsia appears to be in the game in the region big time.
Originally posted by no1marauder It is fairly common for supporters of the war to use the terms Taliban and Al-Qaeda interchangeably and say that a "war on terror" most necessarily include war on both. Mostly this is done in ignorance though both GWB and now Obama persist in doing the same thing.
In fact, there's no evidence that the Taliban ever engaged in "terrorism" directed at the US.
Harboring and giving safe haven to an avowed anti-US terrorist is tantamount to engaging in terrorism against the US.
I agree with leaving that mess now, though. I think we should have done exactly what we did at first... bloody the Taliban enough to allow the Northern Alliance to topple them. Then we should have left. That the Taliban would have eventually regained power is not our concern. The point is deterrence. Toppling them once and then leaving would have served as a deterrent against future harboring of OBL and AQ. As it is, establishing a stable democracy in Afghanistan is probably nearly impossible... substantially harder even than in Iraq.
Originally posted by sh76 Harboring and giving safe haven to an avowed anti-US terrorist is tantamount to engaging in terrorism against the US.
I agree with leaving that mess now, though. I think we should have done exactly what we did at first... bloody the Taliban enough to allow the Northern Alliance to topple them. Then we should have left. That the Taliban would have eventually ...[text shortened]... emocracy in Afghanistan is probably nearly impossible... substantially harder even than in Iraq.
No, it isn't. Engaging in terrorism is ........................... engaging in terrorism.
A reprisal action directed at AQ in Afghanistan would have been certainly justified. It is even possible that if the US could have received covert Taliban assistance in capturing OBL (it seems he had promised Omar and Taliban leadership that he would not engage in attacks on the US while receiving sanctuary in the country). But Bush wanted a war for political and strategic reasons knowing that it would be overwhelmingly supported at the time by a people wanting revenge. Now we're using the same playbook that the British, Russians and Soviets used in their futile efforts to control this seemingly uncontrollable country.
EDIT: This is an interesting article giving details of a June 14, 2001 interview with Mullah Omar where he clearly indicated a willingness to negotiate with the US regardng OBL and that was, of course, before 9/11: http://www.newsmax.com/deBorchgrave/Taliban-OsamabinLaden-Afghan-Obama/2010/10/25/id/374798
Taliban Prison Break
25 Apr '11 19:403 edits
YouTube
Back to Top