Afghanistan solution

[Zeus]

Obama will probably do what is suggested in the second linked article below, which came out yesterday.

In October 2008 I mentioned that Arnaud de Borchgrave was reporting that the Saudis were brokering a deal which would allow the United States and its allies to get out of Afghanistan:

President Hamid Karzai, outward appearances notwithstanding, quietly greenlighted a Saudi initiative designed to explore a face-saving way out for the United States and its allies. So Sept. 24 through Sept. 27, the Saudis quietly hosted a three-way meeting in Mecca, including an Iftar dinner with King Abdullah.

Guests included Taliban's former Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil (who did a stint in the U.S. prison at Bagram Air Force basis near Kabul) and Mullah Mohammad Tayeb Agha, Mullah's Omar's former spokesman; one of Mr. Karzai's brothers; and unnamed ranking Saudis. They then all moved to an undisclosed location in Pakistan for three more days of talks.

A torrent of denials about these secret huddles notwithstanding, the Taliban reps said their break with al Qaeda was irreversible. The catalyst was none other than Nawaz Sharif, the former Pakistani president ousted by then Army chief Pervez Musharraf in 1999. Mr. Sharif then spent seven years in exile in the Saudi kingdom. He is also President Ali Zardari's principal opponent at the top of the Pakistani political establishment.

When President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, there were already 16,500 U.S. fighting boots on the ground in Vietnam. The number quickly escalated to 546,000. Peace talks following the 1968 Tet offensive took four years. And North Vietnam still won. In Afghanistan, the Saudis are looking for an honorable way out for NATO. So should the next administration. Before a Taliban Tet against Kabul.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...in-afghan-war/


Yesterday De Borchgrave reported:

Nation-state nonstarter

A deal with tribal chiefs is the key to peace
By Arnaud de Borchgrave

A wise veteran Arab intelligence hand said Afghanistan is now tailor-made for deals with the principal tribal chiefs designed to detach them from the Taliban they fear more than U.S. and NATO troops. Tribal maps are more important than provincial demarcations under a despised central government. The deals would cost several hundreds of millions of dollars, he said, not the tens of billions that are being wasted on an unwinnable war.

With much experience dealing with Afghanistan when the mujahedeen guerrillas were fighting Soviet occupation troops in the 1980s, and again with the Taliban regime when it seized power in 1996 and before it got kicked out by the U.S. invasion in 2001, the former Arab intelligence chief says it may still be possible to suborn lukewarm Taliban supporters into a compromise coalition.

[...]

This would be a propitious time, working with Pakistani intelligence, to contact major Afghan tribal chiefs and work out the kind of deals that the former Arab intelligence chief was discussing. They must be made to understand that NATO and U.S. forces are not there to occupy Afghanistan and want to leave as soon as we are reasonably certain that al Qaeda will not be allowed back. What kind of government the Afghans wish to give themselves should be no concern of Mr. Obama and the allies.

Tribal loyalties are much stronger than the shaky Afghan nation-state. The U.S. government urgently needs to upgrade its knowledge of the dominant Pashtun tribe. It was one of the keys to the Bush administration's success in 2001. It is still a key, this time for a successful exit for 42 nations that don't belong there. And to make sure al Qaeda does not return.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...te-nonstarter/

[Dreamliner]

But, but wouldn't this be 'cutting and running' ?

[endabcs]

Originally Posted by Zeus

Obama will probably do what is suggested in the second linked article below, which came out yesterday.

In October 2008 I mentioned that Arnaud de Borchgrave was reporting that the Saudis were brokering a deal which would allow the United States and its allies to get out of Afghanistan:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...in-afghan-war/


Yesterday De Borchgrave reported:



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...te-nonstarter/

I almost never watch Maher, but if this is the same guy that he had on his show once, it seemed pretty clear that legitimizing the Taliban was certainly an option. I know that many hard core military right wingers would have a problem with this, but it really is an option.

I think of how outraged my uncle and father in law are about the legitimizing of Vietnam by Bush, but it certainly has pushed the democratization in that country.

I once read an article on the legitimization of rouge states, and how it seems to work. It did get lambasted, but on a certain level it makes some sense, on another level it sounds like lunacy.

[Dreamliner]

Isn't that funny though ? After killing about two-million of them (and losing 58,000 of our own), we ended up siding with the Vietnamese anyway. And now we're their biggest trading partner!

[endabcs]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Isn't that funny though ? After killing about two-million of them (and losing 58,000 of our own), we ended up siding with the Vietnamese anyway. And now we're their biggest trading partner!

Is it proof that the free market system works?


A wise man told me once, if you give a homeless man the option to work for a house, a steak, and a bed; or give them a hut, a mat, and a bowl of rice now; most will take the bowl of rice now.

One thing is for sure, poverty sucks!



Not funny, sad.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

But, but wouldn't this be 'cutting and running' ?

Not at all...the way I see it is victory by your definition and by mine.

You want the US to stop meddling in other countries and imposing our will on them. I think you greatly exaggerate this point in other threads for your own purposes, but I will conceed that the US is heavy-handed (as are all nation-states with the size, wealth, and resources that we have--for better or worse) in matters of foreign policy. In previous posts, you basically want the US out--right now.

I've repeatedly said that leaving Afghanistan without accomplishing the goals we set out for ourselves in going in would be foolish--a gigantic error that would embolden the enemies we are fighting against and would make America and our NATO allies a lot less secure.

We went into Afghanistan to kick out Al Qaeda and deny them a base of operations. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda was able to operate in that country without interference to train thousands of followers into how to target and kill their enemies. They had a terrorist boot camp essentially and were a lot better than most people realize at perfecting strategies and putting operations into place.

A side-goal to all this was removing the Taliban from power since we demanded that they either go after Al Qaeda themselves or let us do it for them. They refused both demands and then became part of the problem. While its tempting to link the two...there are differences, as the article pointed out. The Taliban weren't interested in a pan-Muslim state that spanned thousands of miles across the Middle East and Central Asia, they were interested in consolidating their power within their own country--but they tolerated Al Qaeda because they didn't want to piss off the thousands of armed people in their country who are trained in destablizing countries and because they shared similar strict Islamic beliefs.

The invasion itself accomplished those goals: we kicked out both Al Qaeda and the Taliban and have been pretty successful at keeping Al Qaeda on the run and denying them a base of operations. The Taliban have been a trickier nut to fully defeat--mainly because post-invasion, America and our NATO allies wanted to go all PC and "build a nation-state" to reduce the incentive of Afghani citizens from wanting to join the insurgents or Al Qaeda. That, I've been against for a long time. From having been over there and interacting with the local population--democracy as we know it will never set foot there. The whole country is a patchwork of different tribes, languages, customs, and people. There is no unifying cultural bond aside from most people observing a very conservative brand of Islam.

Rather than propping up a corrupt and basically useless central government that no one takes seriously...let the Afghans decide who they want to govern themselves and how they want to live. Afghans are distrustful of outsiders by nature and they certainly don't have much love for Al Qaeda and the like because most of them are Arab foreigners in their minds. So long as Al Qaeda is out of commission and not free to do whatever they want in that country and continue to remain underground and on the run, I could care less what Afghans do with their country. If that means negotiating with the Taliban and allowing them to return to limited power...fine.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Not at all...the way I see it is victory by your definition and by mine.

You want the US to stop meddling in other countries and imposing our will on them. I think you greatly exaggerate this point in other threads for your own purposes, but I will conceed that the US is heavy-handed (as are all nation-states with the size, wealth, and resources that we have--for better or worse) in matters of foreign policy. In previous posts, you basically want the US out--right now.

I've repeatedly said that leaving Afghanistan without accomplishing the goals we set out for ourselves in going in would be foolish--a gigantic error that would embolden the enemies we are fighting against and would make America and our NATO allies a lot less secure.

We went into Afghanistan to kick out Al Qaeda and deny them a base of operations. Prior to 9-11, Al Qaeda was able to operate in that country without interference to train thousands of followers into how to target and kill their enemies. They had a terrorist boot camp essentially and were a lot better than most people realize at perfecting strategies and putting operations into place.

A side-goal to all this was removing the Taliban from power since we demanded that they either go after Al Qaeda themselves or let us do it for them. They refused both demands and then became part of the problem. While its tempting to link the two...there are differences, as the article pointed out. The Taliban weren't interested in a pan-Muslim state that spanned thousands of miles across the Middle East and Central Asia, they were interested in consolidating their power within their own country--but they tolerated Al Qaeda because they didn't want to piss off the thousands of armed people in their country who are trained in destablizing countries and because they shared similar strict Islamic beliefs.

The invasion itself accomplished those goals: we kicked out both Al Qaeda and the Taliban and have been pretty successful at keeping Al Qaeda on the run and denying them a base of operations. The Taliban have been a trickier nut to fully defeat--mainly because post-invasion, America and our NATO allies wanted to go all PC and "build a nation-state" to reduce the incentive of Afghani citizens from wanting to join the insurgents or Al Qaeda. That, I've been against for a long time. From having been over there and interacting with the local population--democracy as we know it will never set foot there. The whole country is a patchwork of different tribes, languages, customs, and people. There is no unifying cultural bond aside from most people observing a very conservative brand of Islam.

Rather than propping up a corrupt and basically useless central government that no one takes seriously...let the Afghans decide who they want to govern themselves and how they want to live. Afghans are distrustful of outsiders by nature and they certainly don't have much love for Al Qaeda and the like because most of them are Arab foreigners in their minds. So long as Al Qaeda is out of commission and not free to do whatever they want in that country and continue to remain underground and on the run, I could care less what Afghans do with their country. If that means negotiating with the Taliban and allowing them to return to limited power...fine.

Would that I were exaggerating. The US has quite unecessarily and often purposefully and maliciously murdered millions, most recently Afghans who posed no threat to Americans like yourself who live vicariously and are emboldened by the havoc we wreak.

The difference between the two of us is that I'll be elated when the war stops, whereas you'll fall into a funk and be pining for the next enlivening war.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Would that I were exaggerating. The US has quite unecessarily and often purposefully and maliciously murdered millions, most recently Afghans who posed no threat to Americans like yourself who live vicariously and are emboldened by the havoc we wreak.

The difference between the two of us is that I'll be elated when the war stops, whereas you'll fall into a funk and be pining for the next enlivening war.

And if thats truly your stance on our country, it beggers belief that you would continue to stay here, pay its taxes, and otherwise "support the system." Most people who truly despise our country leave and write op-end columns in foreign countries about how "evil" the US is. I'm astounded that you continue to live in a country that is so against every fiber of your being.

Afghanistan posed a pretty big threat when terrorists are allowed to plan and conduct terrorist operations on our shores with free and unlimited reign that purposefully and maliciously murder thousands of Americans. Do not misconstrue my words: the average Afghan citizen is not a threat to us. But when armed thugs take over parts of that country and are allowed to freely operate, that concerns me and you whether you want to admit it or not.

Actually, the difference between us is that I live and deal in reality and dare I say that you live in some idealistic neverland where everything's black and white and there's absolutely no room for gray areas or compromises.

And for the record, I've repeatedly said I'd be happy when this war ends as well--AND have also said that I wish there were better solutions than war for humanity. Again, reality and experience have taught me that no matter how hard you might wish something, there are things that are just out of your hands. War is one such thing--it'd be great if everyone could get along and could find peaceful solutions; but there will always be people who prey on others and seek power and control through any means necessary--including using violence and terror. I don't think America, or Britain, or France, or Spain, or Mexico, or Pakistan, or Iran, or China should have to let their citizens live in fear of the enemies who would wish us and all we stand for violent death.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

And if thats truly your stance on our country, it beggers belief that you would continue to stay here, pay its taxes, and otherwise "support the system." Most people who truly despise our country leave and write op-end columns in foreign countries about how "evil" the US is. I'm astounded that you continue to live in a country that is so against every fiber of your being.

Afghanistan posed a pretty big threat when terrorists are allowed to plan and conduct terrorist operations on our shores with free and unlimited reign that purposefully and maliciously murder thousands of Americans. Do not misconstrue my words: the average Afghan citizen is not a threat to us. But when armed thugs take over parts of that country and are allowed to freely operate, that concerns me and you whether you want to admit it or not.

Actually, the difference between us is that I live and deal in reality and dare I say that you live in some idealistic neverland where everything's black and white and there's absolutely no room for gray areas or compromises.

And for the record, I've repeatedly said I'd be happy when this war ends as well--AND have also said that I wish there were better solutions than war for humanity. Again, reality and experience have taught me that no matter how hard you might wish something, there are things that are just out of your hands. War is one such thing--it'd be great if everyone could get along and could find peaceful solutions; but there will always be people who prey on others and seek power and control through any means necessary--including using violence and terror. I don't think America, or Britain, or France, or Spain, or Mexico, or Pakistan, or Iran, or China should have to let their citizens live in fear of the enemies who would wish us and all we stand for violent death.

To the contrary, if that's really what you believe, then it staggers the imagination as to why you'd continue to defend policies which serve to place Americans at risk.

Regarding why I stay here, I am not to be blamed for your impoverished imagination. And in any case, would America really be a better place when we expunge her of all citizens who would hold her to a higher standard ?

[cjgator76]

Zeus - How does AdB propose that we separate the chiefs from the Taliban? Outright cash subsidies, or...?

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

To the contrary, if that's really what you believe, then it staggers the imagination as to why you'd continue to defend policies which serve to place Americans at risk.

Regarding why I stay here, I am not to be blamed for your impoverished imagination. And in any case, would America really be a better place when we expunge her of all citizens who would hold her to a higher standard ?

We left Afghanistan alone for 12 years after the Soviets withdrew. Didn't care about the country and didn't care who ran it. Basically the definition of your "not meddling." Guess what? Terrorists operating out of Afghanistan attacked the US not once, not twice, but four times (the 93 attack on the WTC, the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11 were all planned, financed, and directed by Al Qaeda--and large portions of all four operations had connections to Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan). If you bothered to ever look at any of the links or material I've posted on here, I've explained quite clearly what the goal of Al Qaeda and their affliated groups is: a pan-Islamic superstate that spans the Middle East and Central Asia, uniting most of the Islamic peoples of the world.

Hey, if thats what the citizens of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, etc want...go for it. But let them be the ones deciding it...not some small band of thugs, bent on seizing earthly power and using their religion as the pretense. No different from any other group in the history of the world who wants to seize power and use violent means to do so.

Its shocking how you would be so sympathetic to a group that bombs, tortures, murders, and kills innocent men, women, and even children without a care or thought if it helps them accomplish their goals.

The standard you're holding America to is an impossible one. No nation is perfect and you're expecting us to be. ALL nations act in their own self-interest and to better serve their own people. It isn't some novel concept...its the way things have worked for centuries. In the past, the US has made mistakes and certainly bullied its way around...and I have no doubt we continue to do so in some ways even to this day. And if all the people who complain incessantly about "AMERICA IS THE SOURCE OF EVERYTHING BAD IN THE WORLD" suddenly left tomorrow, I wouldn't shed too many tears. Indeed, I'd laugh at the irony when they went to whatever country they chose and are shocked to find that things are almost certainly no different when it comes to the international arena and in most instances, things would be a lot worse.

Though on a personal level, I would miss the humor and sarcasm you bring to these boards on other topics.

[Gatormb]

Though on a personal level, I would miss the humor and sarcasm you bring to these boards on other topics.

Naw, they got the internet everywhere. But then again you may have a point. Sure do miss Todesrolle. One sharp hombre' who we don't hear from much anymore. I hope the "natives" didn't get him in his mysterious paradise hideaway.

[rpmGator]

The peace loving Taliban are at war with Pakistan and are blowing up their cities right now. Sounds like some of you are full of wishful thinking that won't do a damn thing to stop a group known for using time and safe havens, just to heal and arm, to kill again.

Dream,

China is Vietnam's number one trading partner followed by the EU. We are not their number one like you said.

[endabcs]

Originally Posted by rpmGator

The peace loving Taliban are at war with Pakistan and are blowing up their cities right now. Sounds like some of you are full of wishful thinking that won't do a damn thing to stop a group known for using time and safe havens, just to heal and arm, to kill again.

Dream,

China is Vietnam's number one trading partner followed by the EU. We are not their number one like you said.

I have yet to read a thread claiming that the Taliban is peace loving.


I know this is a left wing radical web site, but according to it the U.S. is Vietnam's #1 exporter. (US 20.9%, Japan 13.7%, Australia 7.4%, China 6.9%, Germany 4.5% (2008))

and just like the U.S., China is their #1 importer. (China 21.3%, Singapore 11.7%, Japan 10.4%, South Korea 7.4%, Thailand 6.6% (2008))

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/vm.html

I know it's unreliable because those wacko left wing radicals at the CIA are known to just make stuff up.

/ sarcasm

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

We left Afghanistan alone for 12 years after the Soviets withdrew. Didn't care about the country and didn't care who ran it. Basically the definition of your "not meddling." Guess what? Terrorists operating out of Afghanistan attacked the US not once, not twice, but four times (the 93 attack on the WTC, the embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11 were all planned, financed, and directed by Al Qaeda--and large portions of all four operations had connections to Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan). If you bothered to ever look at any of the links or material I've posted on here, I've explained quite clearly what the goal of Al Qaeda and their affliated groups is: a pan-Islamic superstate that spans the Middle East and Central Asia, uniting most of the Islamic peoples of the world.

Hey, if thats what the citizens of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, etc want...go for it. But let them be the ones deciding it...not some small band of thugs, bent on seizing earthly power and using their religion as the pretense. No different from any other group in the history of the world who wants to seize power and use violent means to do so.

Its shocking how you would be so sympathetic to a group that bombs, tortures, murders, and kills innocent men, women, and even children without a care or thought if it helps them accomplish their goals.

The standard you're holding America to is an impossible one. No nation is perfect and you're expecting us to be. ALL nations act in their own self-interest and to better serve their own people. It isn't some novel concept...its the way things have worked for centuries. In the past, the US has made mistakes and certainly bullied its way around...and I have no doubt we continue to do so in some ways even to this day. And if all the people who complain incessantly about "AMERICA IS THE SOURCE OF EVERYTHING BAD IN THE WORLD" suddenly left tomorrow, I wouldn't shed too many tears. Indeed, I'd laugh at the irony when they went to whatever country they chose and are shocked to find that things are almost certainly no different when it comes to the international arena and in most instances, things would be a lot worse.

Though on a personal level, I would miss the humor and sarcasm you bring to these boards on other topics.

And why did terrorists who temporarily camped out in Afghanistan attack the US ? Correct, for the very reasons you are steadfastly unwilling to wean yourself from: belligerent foreign policy.

Oh, well, at least thepolicies you support have put a major damper on Afghan wedding parties. It's not right that they should be partying when we know full well that Afghans attacked the WTC.

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by cjgator76

Zeus - How does AdB propose that we separate the chiefs from the Taliban? Outright cash subsidies, or...?

I'm not sure what types of deals have been contemplated. Wouldn't be surprised to see a coalition government consisting of a national leader (Karzai-type), tribal leaders and perhaps some less extreme Taliban elements. Cash would be part of any deal. Ignoring the opium trade might be part of the equation, along with some sort of guarantee that drug money was not be transferred to al Qaeda. There is of course no perfect solution.

Somebody really clever might be able to turn Afghanistan into Iran's Vietnam.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

And why did terrorists who temporarily camped out in Afghanistan attack the US ? Correct, for the very reasons you are steadfastly unwilling to wean yourself from: belligerent foreign policy.

Oh, well, at least thepolicies you support have put a major damper on Afghan wedding parties. It's not right that they should be partying when we know full well that Afghans attacked the WTC.

Actually, what first turned Al Qaeda's eyes on us was the perceived "insult" to Islam when US and Western troops were invited in by the Saudis to protect them from the threat of the Iraqi invasion after they invaded Kuwait. Again, I had previously posted an article (which I'll do again if you want) that spelled that out in crystal clear terms.

Bin Laden approached the Saudi government himself and offered his services and that of the mujahedeen to defend the holy land and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The Saudis politely said "no"...and asked the Americans to help out instead. Bin Laden was outraged and from that point onward, dedicated Al Qaeda to destroying the West or at the very least, cowing it into submission so he can accomplish his main goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East and Central Asia.

I know you want to blame the US for everything, but this is one instance where the guy picked his bone with us on his own accord.

And its amazing to me how you'd continually harp on US mistakes and accidents in the war without ever mentioning a single time the atrocities and murder committed (intentionally) by the ones we fight against. The soldiers who mistakenly bombed the Afghan wedding party had to sit through disciplinary proceedings, have people second-guess their every move, and were suspended from their jobs while all this was going on. Do you see Al Qaeda so much as batting an eye when they send suicide bombers into a crowded marketplace to kill and maim as many women and children as they could find?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Actually, what first turned Al Qaeda's eyes on us was the perceived "insult" to Islam when US and Western troops were invited in by the Saudis to protect them from the threat of the Iraqi invasion after they invaded Kuwait. Again, I had previously posted an article (which I'll do again if you want) that spelled that out in crystal clear terms.

Bin Laden approached the Saudi government himself and offered his services and that of the mujahedeen to defend the holy land and drive Iraq out of Kuwait. The Saudis politely said "no"...and asked the Americans to help out instead. Bin Laden was outraged and from that point onward, dedicated Al Qaeda to destroying the West or at the very least, cowing it into submission so he can accomplish his main goal of establishing an Islamic caliphate across the Middle East and Central Asia.

I know you want to blame the US for everything, but this is one instance where the guy picked his bone with us on his own accord.

And its amazing to me how you'd continually harp on US mistakes and accidents in the war without ever mentioning a single time the atrocities and murder committed (intentionally) by the ones we fight against. The soldiers who mistakenly bombed the Afghan wedding party had to sit through disciplinary proceedings, have people second-guess their every move, and were suspended from their jobs while all this was going on. Do you see Al Qaeda so much as batting an eye when they send suicide bombers into a crowded marketplace to kill and maim as many women and children as they could find?

At every point you bolster my argument. We should not have had troops in the region. We should not have been violently meddling in the region for decades. We should not have preferrential ties with Israel, and so on and so on.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

At every point you bolster my argument. We should not have had troops in the region. We should not have been violently meddling in the region for decades. We should not have preferrential ties with Israel, and so on and so on.

Our allies ask us for help and we oblige.

Do you turn your back on your friends when they ask you for help in their time of need?

Diplomacy was tried first...it failed. We went into Saudi Arabia with troops from all over the world: Europe, the Middle East, South America, Australia, and even some Asian countries made contributions. The UN endorsed the actions and told Iraq to get out.

Israel had nothing to do with Iraq invading Kuwait and certainly didn't have anything to do with that war...try as Sadaam did to get them involved by lobbing missles into Israeli cities and killing as many as he could.

You're seriously reaching now.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

Our allies ask us for help and we oblige.

Do you turn your back on your friends when they ask you for help in their time of need?

Diplomacy was tried first...it failed. We went into Saudi Arabia with troops from all over the world: Europe, the Middle East, South America, Australia, and even some Asian countries made contributions. The UN endorsed the actions and told Iraq to get out.

Israel had nothing to do with Iraq invading Kuwait and certainly didn't have anything to do with that war...try as Sadaam did to get them involved by lobbing missles into Israeli cities and killing as many as he could.

You're seriously reaching now.

You're hopelessly afflicted with Crusader Nation Syndrome. No, you do not barrel into another nation's quarrels regardless, even when somebody in that nation asks you to, especially when your interventions always yield tragic results.

By your rationale, other countries have every right to invade the US and depose our government.