Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
I would have thought this item in the Washington Post would be attracting more attention, seeing as, if true, it represents the most catastrophic humiliation the United States has suffered since Vietnam.
Taliban representatives and the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai have begun secret, high-level talks over a negotiated end to the war, according to Afghan and Arab sources.
The talks follow inconclusive meetings, hosted by Saudi Arabia, that ended more than a year ago. While emphasizing the preliminary nature of the current discussions, the sources said that for the first time they believe that Taliban representatives are fully authorized to speak for the Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban organization based in Pakistan, and its leader, Mohammad Omar. ...
Reports of the talks come amid what Afghan, Arab and European sources said they see as a distinct change of heart by the Obama administration toward full backing of negotiations. Although President Obama and his national security team have long said the war would not be won by military means alone, sources said the administration only recently appeared open to talks rather than resisting them.
So you think the building of the Ground Zero Mosque will be a cause for Islamist triumphalism? Well, wake up. That will be nothing compared to this. For the love of God, has everyone forgotten who Mohammed Omar is? He's the reason we went into Afghanistan in the first place!
The leadership [of the Quetta Shura] knows "that they are going to be sidelined," the source said. "They know that more radical elements are being promoted within their rank and file outside their control. . . . All these things are making them absolutely sure that, regardless of [their success in] the war, they are not in a winning position."
Not in a winning position? Are you out of your minds? They're alive! They got away with it! And they'll be returned to power! They're the ones who nurtured Al Qaeda. Remember them? They destroyed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. For them, just being alive right now is called a winning position. In fact, it's called winning. And the word for what is happening to the US, if this is true, is called losing.
"More radical elements?" How the hell do you get more radical than Mullah Omar?
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Well, there is another option for the US should the Taliban return to power. The Taliban are mainly Pushtuns, one faction amongst many. We could arm the opposition and allow the "nation" to return to a state of civil war. It might keep the Taliban busy. I know my comment is ugly and distasteful, but sometimes so is statecraft, especially during time of war.
Aug '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Quite right. We've badly bungled Afghanistan, again, and got sucked into a no-win situation. Without Pakistan's committed assistance, there's no way we can succeed. Here's another bitter lesson for us to learn from.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Claire Berlinski, Ed.:
"More radical elements?" How the hell do you get more radical than Mullah Omar? ·
That's exactly what I thought, Claire. I guess they're not negotiating with Bin Laden. One of the more disgusting parts of the story noted:
"Whatever domestic political difficulties the administration may fear would result from a negotiated deal with the Taliban, this official said, would be resolved by ending the war earlier rather than later. "A successful policy solves the political problem," he said."*
Aside from the doublespeak inherent in successfully losing a war, how sick is it that a drop in the polls is viewed as the primary concern?
* The quote is from some Euro-official and not the Obama administration.
Edited on Oct 6, 2010 at 6:49amMay '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
This is the thorough and frankly shocking culmination of a left-wing agenda. At the risk of overstating this, it feels like the ultimate politicization of our foreign policy and defense posture. Having crossed this line, our enemies now know that all they have to do is to wait for the next election. That said, I am hopeful that the American people will be definitive in condemning this strategy the next time they have an opportunity to elect a commander in chief.
Edited on Oct 6, 2010 at 6:26amMay '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
So, a big distinction between Bush's foreign policy and Obama's is that Obama negotiates with terrorists.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Whatever happened to the concept of a "punitive expedition"?
That's what I thought Afghanistan was going to be in the first place - march in, blast the heck out of the malefactors and then march back out, leaving them to their own miserable devices.
Instead, we've spent 9 years' worth of blood and treasure trying to bring stability to a benighted 7th-Century cesspit.
The whole idea of denying Al Qaeda a sanctuary in the Hindu Kush is ridiculous to begin with. There are plenty of other breeding grounds available in the Islamic world.
Jun '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
This really, really hurts. Our military has been growing more estranged from civilian leadership since around the time of Somalia, but this is a hard shove in the back. We deserve better leadership.
Sep '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
A one-sided transcript from a fake, but most likely real conversation:
[phone rings]
"Hello. Hamid speaking."
"Mr. President. Thanks for returning my call."
"No...No...Don't worry about it. I read in the New York Times that you were taking a break last week. Completely understandable."
"Uh-huh...Exactly. It certainly helps keep the mind right. Anyway, my assistant read on the web that your troops will be pulling out..."
"So that is the case? Next July? It's not just some blogger rumor?
"Uh-huh. Right...Sure...Well I was wondering if you had a few minutes to talk about that."
"Oh sure. I understand. I can appreciate that your schedule is tight. Just remember to keep your shoulder in and your head level. [laughs]
"Okay...Talk to you next month."
[sigh...touch tone dialing sound...phone ringing]
"Hello. This is President Karzai. Is Mr. Omar available? Yes. I'll hold."
[sigh]
[Islamic-style Musak playing]
"Hello? Mullah Omar? Yes...It's Hamid. Look...Do you have some time on Thursday for a chat?"
"Yes...Of course. Your place is fine. And I'll get my parking validated? Great...See you then."
[end]
Jun '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Kenneth, I agree with you wholeheartedly. However, once we start the nation-building process we have to stay until it's done. Which brings us back to why we shouldn't be engaged in it to begin with, but it's been a long time since we elected leadership which can apply historical lessons to current problems.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Well, I admire your commitment to mission. And I hate to dishonor those who have served and sacrificed.
But when we're fighting harder for an ingrateful, deceitful Afghan populace than they're willing to fight for themselves, I think it's time to come home.
May '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Kenneth's and Casey's interchange is a perfect illustration of how the West perishes with a whimper.
Making life better for the innocents in Afghanistan (particularly women), despite the reality of problematic governments and some who certainly may well be "ingrateful, deceitful Afghan populace", is a side effect of fighting a necessary long war for our own good.
I'm wondering if Claire will involve Kim Kagan in the discussion.
Sep '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
For the left, it's about not fighting. Jimmy Carter just classified his presidency as successful because they weren't at war with anyone.
It's about ending the Afghan war and not fighting, by any means possible.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Duane Oyen: Kenneth's and Casey's interchange is a perfect illustration of how the West perishes with a whimper.
Making life better for the innocents in Afghanistan (particularly women), despite the reality of problematic governments and some who certainly may well be "ingrateful, deceitful Afghan populace", is a side effect of fighting a necessary long war for our own good.
I'm wondering if Claire will involve Kim Kagan in the discussion. · Oct 6 at 9:07am
You know, Duane, you're generally pretty temperate, but I must say the beginning of that comment is a gratuitous insult..
I'm all for a strong defense and for defeating Islamic terrorism. I just don't happen to agree that Afghanistan is worth the cost.
Edited on Oct 6, 2010 at 10:04amMay '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
As Steyn or someone pointed out, Bush's "evil-doers" derision of our enemies prevented the Powells in his administration from advocating sit-downs with the "more moderate evil-doers." But here we are.
Does this not mark the official end of counter-insurgency strategy? Seems unreasonable now to expect any Afghan to risk his head by standing against the Taliban, whose return we may soon tacitly endorse, and it's therefore hard to envision any scenario where Petraeus's war plan, such as it is, survives this presidency.
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Kenneth
Duane Oyen: Kenneth's and Casey's interchange is a perfect illustration of how the West perishes with a whimper.
You know, Duane, you're generally pretty temperate, but I must say the beginning of that comment is a gratuitous insult..
I don't think it was meant as one. This is a highly emotional subject, for good reason. That's a good reason both to be careful to discuss it respectfully and to be slow to take offense if someone else's passion leads to an intemperate turn of phrase.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Kenneth
You know, Duane, you're generally pretty temperate, but I must say the beginning of that comment is a gratuitous insult..
I don't think it was meant as one. This is a highly emotional subject, for good reason. That's a good reason both to be careful to discuss it respectfully and to be slow to take offense if someone else's passion leads to an intemperate turn of phrase. · Oct 6 at 11:19am
I appreciate your impulse towards conciliation, Claire, but the first sentence of Duane's comment clearly implies that I lack the spine to defend "the West".
Do I think Duane intended that as a direct insult? I don't know. I'd have assumed, knowing Duane, that he would have clarified that by now.
But just because I do not believe that Afghanistan is worth the sacrifice is no justification for implying that I am somehow complicit in the "whimpering" decline of the West.
May '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Kenneth, I do not for a moment believe that you are in favor of surrender, and I apologize for not making myself clear in this case.
Our past discussions on this front have been interesting, and have clearly delineated the difference in view- you are in favor of the all-out war, "more rubble, less trouble" approach that I believe is actually counterproductive in this kind of campaign. I believe that there is no cheap, easy way to win against the jihadist minority who currently have primacy in their community, primarily via gangster terror.
I look at the French-Algerian war that lasted for over a decade- and that was only one front- which they promptly surrendered politically. My view is that this is a multi-front war, and must be fought in many ways, including, but not exclusively, military.
But the most important aspect of all is perseverance- never withdraw from any battlefield, no matter how wearying the fight becomes- because the relentless Strong Horse syndrome is more important than any other factor. Pick targets wisely- but once you have, stay with it and outlast the bad guys.
The issue of perseverance is the weakest point for modern democracies.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Duane Oyen: Kenneth, I do not for a moment believe that you are in favor of surrender, and I apologize for not making myself clear in this case.
The issue of perseverance is the weakest point for modern democracies. · Oct 6 at 12:14pm
Duane, thanks for the clarification.
I agree with you about perserverance, but I simply do not believe the United
States can successfully engage in nation building. Even if we could succeed, the theater just keeps shifting to another place in the Islamic world.
I would predict that even if we stayed another 20 years in Afghanistan, that miserable place would fall into chaos within a year or two of our withdrawal.
May '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Kenneth, I submit our dispute to Prof. Hanson to adjudicate.
I do not believe we have a choice but to "nation-build" if we are to survive. Had we niot done so in Germany and Japan after 1945, and the ROK after 1953, we would be in a far different situation than we are today.
I was just as skeptical of nation-building in 2000 as you are, Kenneth. In fact, as a 20 year aerospace (munitions) guy working for both the US and private industry, I was also into "more rubble, less trouble." Norman Podhoretz, Fouad Ajami (RE Iraq, not Afghanistan), Bernard Lewis, and Prof. Hanson were instrumental in changing my views.
I just don't think that this battle for civilization fits libertarian wishes and principles, nor can it be won fast or on the cheap. It is at least as consuming as was WWIII, which took 50 years.
Jul '10
Re: Buried News Item of the Day: Taliban Wins
Duane Oyen: Kenneth, I submit our dispute to Prof. Hanson to adjudicate.
I do not believe we have a choice but to "nation-build" if we are to survive. Had we niot done so in Germany and Japan after 1945, and the ROK after 1953, we would be in a far different situation than we are today.
There is no comparison between Germany and Japan and our current situation. Those were two modern nation-states, which had been utterly defeated in total war.
We no longer wage total war and our foe now is an amorphous entity which breeds and hides throughout the Islamic world.
And the nations we seek to "build" not only lack the history of civilized modernity of a Japan or a Germany, they base their entire social order on a belief system that mitigates against modernity. Moreover, their populations' implacable hostility towards "infidels" means that our troops may never be seen as a benign force, as they came to be seen in Europe.
In Germany or Japan, the locals didn't take our aid by day and plant bombs by night. In Afghanistan, they do - and will for as long as their Imams tell them so.