Obama to Reach Out to the Moderate Taliban

Oh, crap…  Obama thinks there are “moderates” amongst the Taliban.

Folks, we are in for a world of hurt.

us-to-deply-17000-additional-troops

Obama considers reaching out to Taliban

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US President Barack Obama said the United States is not winning the war in Afghanistan and hinted at possible talks with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Highlighting the success of the US strategy of bringing some Sunni Iraqi insurgents to the negotiating table and away from Al-Qaeda, Obama told The New York Times that “there may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region.”

The strategy in Iraq had been developed by General David Petraeus, then commander of US forces in the country.

“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of Al-Qaeda in Iraq,” Obama said in the interview published in the online edition of the Times.

[Yes, but, unlike the Iraqis, the Taliban are NOT alienated by the tactics of al-Qaeda - they are one and the same.  BIG effin' difference there, buddy! ]

But Obama warned that Afghanistan was not Iraq, and that reconciliation efforts could face difficulties.

“The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex. You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, so figuring all that out is going to be a much more of a challenge,” he said.

[Oh, so now the great Dark Overlord is a military genius, eh?  Since when did he go to West Point?  Here's the sitch, Oh great Oppressor of the Masses:   The military kills, politicians talk.  If you want to talk to the Taliban, then I suggest you go there yourself and handle negotiations.  If you want to win militarily, then step out of the way and let the military unleash its fury;  quit trying to make the U.S. Military into a bunch of appeasers and negotiators.  Historically, that is not what they do best...]

But Afghan President Hamid Karzai said his government had long supported dialogue with those members of the Taliban, who are not connected with the “terrorists” waging an increasingly bloody insurgency in Afghanistan.

“It is very good news that the American president, his excellency Obama, has backed talks with those Taliban that he termed as moderate,” Karzai said in Kabul.

During his presidential campaign last year, Obama told Time magazine that opportunities to negotiate with some Taliban elements “should be explored.”

Asked by the Times if the United States was winning the war in Afghanistan, which he has called the “central front in the war on terror,” Obama simply replied: “No.”

“You’ve seen conditions deteriorate over the last couple of years. The Taliban is bolder than it was. I think in the southern regions of the country, you’re seeing them attack in ways that we have not seen previously,” he said.

“The national government still has not gained the confidence of the Afghan people.”

US-led forces ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, but Islamist militants regrouped in recent years and are waging an intensifying and spreading Taliban-led insurgency.

Shortly after taking office in January, Obama launched a review of US policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan that is set to be delivered before he heads to Europe on March 31 for a round of international meetings.

In his first major decision as commander-in-chief, he ordered the deployment of 17,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, saying they were needed to stabilize a deteriorating security situation.

Part of the troops’ role will be to help boost security during Afghan presidential elections now set to take place in August.

“We’ve got to recast our policy so that our military, diplomatic and development goals are all aligned to ensure that Al-Qaeda and extremists that would do us harm don’t have the kinds of safe havens that allow them to operate,” Obama said.

Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is widely believed to be hiding in the mountainous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, a known haven for Taliban extremists.

“At the heart of a new Afghanistan policy is going to be a smarter Pakistan policy. As long as you’ve got safe havens in these border regions that the Pakistani government can’t control or reach, in effective ways, we’re going to continue to see vulnerability on the Afghan side of the border,” Obama said.

More than two dozen suspected US drone attacks have been carried out in Pakistan since August 2008, killing more than 200 people, most of them militants.

Pakistan is a key ally in the US-led “war against terror” but the missile strikes have fueled anti-American sentiment in the country, particularly in the tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

US Vice President Joe Biden, who visited Southwest Asia recently, heads to Brussels on Monday for consultations with top NATO allies on a new US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Explore posts in the same categories: Abuse of Power, Stupidity

10 Comments on “Obama to Reach Out to the Moderate Taliban”

  1. Akira Says:

    What do you think of Stephen Harper’s thinking about the Afghan mission.

    See: “Canada: Ten Years in Afghanistan is Enough”:

    http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/canada-ten-years-in-afghanistan-is-enough/

    Besides the fact that the Canadian government must end its mission there since the vast majority of the people have had enough, Harper goes further, suggesting that to continue the mission would be counter-productive. He basically says that all that could be done there has already been done. All that mattered was to set up the government, police, and military there so they could be strong enough to stand up to the Taliban, then after that any further occupation would just be a crutch for the government and a justification for the Taliban to kill “treasonous” “infidel” government forces.

    I think he’s right. Bush and crew are responsible for not just going and bombing the $%#@ out of the Taliban, but then trying to “nation-build”. Now Obama is just going to increase the pain with a futile increase in military action. I do wish the troops there all success, but objectively I think Harper is correct.

    [Note that Canada's Liberal government sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan, but as soon as they were out of power they did nothing but condemn the Conservative government for every Canadian death there and every hint of "scandal" regarding torture or corruption.]

    Obama is really stupid. If he had said he’d also wind down the Afghan mission, leaving the Afghan’s to fight their own battles, he’d probably have won by an even higher margin, and even people who strongly backed Bush would be secretly relieved. But, no, Obama was intent on proving he’s a military supporter and a patriot in spite of all the evidence, and he’s also all for nation-building, so he tried to balance his calls for a withdrawal from Iraq by promising to boost the Afghan mission. In other words, he didn’t really believe it was necessary, and he doesn’t care about soldiers getting killed — he just made a political decision and sacrificed the “cannon fodder” so he wouldn’t look unpatriotic.

    Now he’s desperately flailing around, trying to look tough and conciliatory at the same time, and trying to figure out how to deal with Russian power in Central Asia.

  2. Akira Says:

    To clarify, in case my comments above seem unsympathetic to the soldiers (Americans, Canadians, Dutch etc.) already in Afghanistan (fighting for what?):

    For years now the left has been calling Afghanistan a “quagmire” trying to draw parallels with Vietnam. I’ve always thought any comparison of Afghanistan with Vietnam was specious and nonsensical. Even though I always disagreed with the Bushite obsession with re-creating a land of savages, I was sure that he wanted the Talibam dead. Now, with Obama in power, talk of a “quagmire” might be appropriate.

    That’s not a partisan view. There are still some Democrats who could be trusted to approach the Afghan problem rationally and objectively. But Obama is vowing to increase military action without showing any real will to win. He doesn’t want to crush the Taliban. He wants to “reach out” to them and let them know they’re loved. He’s also gambled his reputation on his ability to bring peace to Afghanistan and improve life there materially (while the US border is bound to become less defended and the economy will not likely improve significantly, if at all).

    That is a recipe for a “quagmire”, meaning the troops there will have a political mission ahead of any immediate military objective to defeat the enemy. Can Obama even say the word “enemy”?

    [Notice how the Q-word is not used anymore by the MSM.]

  3. Against the RIF Says:

    Bulldog – disagree with you on this one. The Talibs do come in several shades. The Taliban is a Pashto based, and the sub tribes support or resist the coalition to varying degrees. I’d say it’s almost like “Nazis” in Germany during WWII – you had the general pop, you had the party members, you had the brown shirts, and then you had the death squads. Same kind of set up – you’ve got the general pop, past supporters who are now passive, current supporters that are both active and passive, and active fighters. Wander around the south for a bit and you can’t even get folks to call the active hostiles Talibs – Persians, Paks, other tribes, but rarely, very rarely, Taliban. If we can subvert some of the tribes and get them to help us based our willingness to provide the almighty dollar, infrastructure, and security, then that is a smart road for us to take. Take a look at the Pashto code and see what a bind that puts us in as a counterinsurgent force with regard to the hospitality and asylum. Kill the bad guy the wrong way and it takes the “undecided,” or even an “active supporter,” and moves them to the “bad guy” camp.

    Also, AQ and the Taliban are not the same. AQ fled there was allowed to stay – again, asylum – because of the support OBL provided the muj during the war. See Kaplan and Soldiers of God. There is also some debate if AQ was about to be asked to leave before 9/11. They were, at the very least, told to quiet down and quit attacking the Saudi leadership over the US presence in the country. Coll does a good job of laying it out in Ghost Wars. The Taliban was a Pashto response to Massoud’s Tajik led alliance. Too bad the Pashtos didn’t put a better leader forward than their initial Pak puppet when it might have mattered. Or that we listened and/or didn’t leave Massoud hanging, or Gul, or… you know the rest of the story.


  4. Against the RIF,

    Hmmm… Three famous quotes from Patton come immediately to mind:

    A) “If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn’t thinking.”

    B) “War is an art and as such is not susceptible of explanation by fixed formula”

    C) “Make your plans to fit the circumstances.”

    Okay, with that in mind:

    1) Show me a “moderate” Taliban. I’ll wait…

    2) I never said that AQ and the Taliban were the same, I said that the tactics were one and the same – intimidation, beheadings, subjugation of women, strict adherence to Sharia Law, etc.; you know, all those wonderful tactics that al-Qaeda used in Iraq which eventually worked against them when the local communities had had enough and they (the locals) were confident that the U.S. military would be there in sufficient quantities to back them up.

    Negotiating with al-Qaeda doesn’t work, nor does negotiating with the Taliban. You’ve got to kill them all. End of story.

    It has been my observation that negotiation with the Tribal areas only works if there is a strong NATO military presence in the area and only if that military presence remains – else the tribal leaders who cooperate with the NATO forces get slaughtered by the Taliban when the troops pull out of the area and the area goes back to Taliban control.

    Another Patton quote just came to mind:

    “Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”

    Hanging around in Afghanistan defending the desert is a losing proposition. Either we go back to kicking their butts with overwhelming force, or we pack up and go home.

    3) The only Taliban that one would legitimately negotiate with are the actual leaders of the Taliban. And, the leaders are not even close to being “moderate.”

    4) The only way to get them to legitimately honor any sort of an agreement is to completely wipe them out militarily and logistically – and then have the few remnants unconditionally surrender.

    I think the father of the Strategic Air Command, General Curtis Lemay, said it best:

    “If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.”

    Anyway, those are my views on the subject. I’m an ex-military puke, so I don’t believe in negotiations until after you have sufficiently kicked your enemies butt. Right now, the enemy has regrouped and is gaining confidence and boldness with every success – no matter how small.

    They simply are not ready to negotiate.

    One last quote from George Schultz, the Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, and then I’ve got to get to bed:

    “Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.”

    Cheers

  5. Akira Says:

    Re: ““Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table.”

    Obama is is working out a capitulation.

    He never seriously believed that “We ran away from the battlefield in Afghanistan”. That was just some of John Kerry’s tough-guy “I-won-3-Purple-Hearts-Bush-is-wimp” rhetoric that Obama borrowed. I’m surprised that he followed through on his campaign promise to boost the military there.

    Perhaps he’s just doing it as a big show of bravado, hoping to scare the Taliban (ignoring the fact that they’re a death cult), and put on a big display of machismo (via his military serfs) before working out the surrender/withdrawal.

    Perhaps the “moderate” Taliban will agree to scale back on their attacks long enough for the US to be able to justify a withdrawal. Maybe these “moderates” will agree not to take over and have Karzai impaled until NATO is out of the country?

  6. Lyn Says:

    Obama is too full of himself. He remembers the success he had swaying voters in the campaign. And he’s fresh off the success of getting his “stimulus” passed. But he can not charm the Taliban.

    This kind of Obama ignorance is going to hurt us. There is no moderate Taliban that we can negotiate with. Why would Obama suggest that? Because he wants to keep reminding people President Bush did not solve the problem in Afghanistan. But Obama can’t solve it either. Especially not by negotiating with Taliban because that would legitimize the Taliban and they are scum.

  7. CavMom Says:

    The Taliban will only see this as a sign of weakness on the part of America. Go ahead obummer… continue to make us look soft. I will prepare my cookies and hugs for the day they come knocking at my door.

  8. teach5 Says:

    How very “September tenth” of him. He reminds me of John Lovitz in his old “Liar” skits. “Negotiate…yeah, that’s the ticket!”His reference to the situation in Trashcanistan as ‘complex’ sounds like he’s reviewing a wine, not a critical threat to his country.

  9. ciccio Says:

    To talk about moderate or extreme Taliban is like talking about good and bad rapists. The good one use a condom before they commit rape. On the subject of Afghanistan, it has been ungovernable for centuries, it was a killing field for every invader in the last two centuries. What America should have done is to bomb the crap out of them and keep doing so every time they raise their ugly little turbans. The ground has always been a quagmire, stay off it.

  10. Akira Says:

    America couldn’t exactly just bomb the crap out of the Sunni homeland of the American ambassador to the United Nations.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 123 other followers