Taliban on CNN

[feralkid]

nm

 

[Narmer]

When you post statements like "Over time, given what was available to them, I'm sure the Taliban government would've become more competent", some people are going to get that impression.

Does "more competent" mean they were just about to kick out Al Qaida and start playing nice with the people?


Is that your "world view"?

I don't know what would've happened between them and Al Qaeda but when I was living in Texas I know they came to Houston, Texas on several occasions to talk gas and oil.

 

[feralkid]

I don't know what would've happened between them and Al Qaeda but when I was living in Texas I know they came to Houston, Texas on several occasions to talk gas and oil.

So......... that means what?

 

[Narmer]

So......... that means what?

Considering geography and natural resources were their primary legal exports, I think something could've been done in the political realm. I know they came in 1997 but I'm also pretty sure they came in 2000 or 2001. If they kept coming that could've meant that their relationship with Al Qaeda was tenuous, although no one would admit that in public. Also, the Taliban were on excellent relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our two most important muslim allies. Al Qaeda could've been pushed aside, IMHO. But Al Qaeda's attack put a wrinkle in this budding relationship.

 

[Lemon law]

Anyone who thinks the Taliban exists so they can do dastardly deeds is only kidding themselves. Nor at this point in time can we really say what the Taliban is now, because it
changes while Nato has done little to adapt.

I certainly regard many of the posters on this thread as narrow minded simply because they look at Afghanistan with only US eyes, and then assume the Afghan people should ask what they can do for the USA because we rode to their rescue.

However, from Afghan and Pakistani eyes, the US and Nato occupation has proved to be an unmitigated disaster. Simply because what little law and order and stability there was in 2001, has been totally replaced by anarchy, uncertainty, thuggery, and basic civil war on a scale not known for many decades. Nor will either Pakistan or Afghanistan ever have a chance to ever find their own way to peaceful accommodation as long as Nato remains in Afghanistan.

Which is not to say that the people Afghan actually wanted Nato to win because they don't like the rules of the Taliban. But stiil on 1990 and beyond the Taliban was simply the only better alternative to the civil war that followed the withdrawal of the Russians. Nor, IMHO, is it a total failure of the Nato military leadership, but in any military occupation, one must go much bigger than Nato funding allowed, so as a result
Afghanistan is left with the anarchy of another civil war.

The only way for Nato to win would be in committing at least 600,000 troops and the kind of Afghan development bucks needed to show the Afghan people progress and modernity is the better way.

Nato simply has not committed the resources and now is regarded as the Afghan problem and not any part of the solution. We have simply spent nearly nine years making Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan far worse than before. And somewhat the root cause in my opinion is that we forgot to look at the problem through Afghan and Pakistani eyes. But it does not take much out the the US piggy bank to maintain an Nato occupation that achieves only perpetual anarchy, corruption, instability, and human misery.

As a US citizen, it painful to say that, but as a realist, its the truth. And as an optimist, I still say Nato can still turn things around if we finally lose our narrow vision, and more importantly commit the troops and resources needed.

But time is rapidly running out and its more likely Nato will soon withdraw, find some face saving phrase like peace with honor, and go sailing home totally defeated. And leaving entities like Al-Quida as the big winners on the war on terrorism.

 

[feralkid]

Considering geography and natural resources were their primary legal exports, I think something could've been done in the political realm. I know they came in 1997 but I'm also pretty sure they came in 2000 or 2001. If they kept coming that could've meant that their relationship with Al Qaeda was tenuous, although no one would admit that in public. Also, the Taliban were on excellent relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, our two most important muslim allies. Al Qaeda could've been pushed aside, IMHO. But Al Qaeda's attack put a wrinkle in this budding relationship.

But why were the Taliban in Houston talking oil?

 

[Narmer]

But why were the Taliban in Houston talking oil?

Since we have a serious problem with Iran, we do not trust Russia and Central Asia has a lot of gas, we were talking about building pipelines via Afghanistan to Pakistan and beyond.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Like I said, before they were called the taliban they were part of the mujahedeen. This isn't hard to understand. I didn't say they alone beat them. There were other afghan tribes that were part of the mujahedeen. However, the Pushtu's were vehementally against the Russians. Other Afghans were pro-Russian.

Yet the Mujahedeen was comprised of many groups as you admit. Some ended up not joining the Taliban but instead formed into the anti-Taliban group known as the Northern Alliance. Also the Afghans were pretty much getting their asses kicked until we gave them a few shoulder fired missile launchers.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, and it was the United States behind the scenes helping them kick the Russian's asses.

Don't buy into the hype about how they're kicking our asses. That's a media construct with a liberal slant to it. If you even watched that video you'd see that we absolutely own the battlefield in every way.

You'll be reluctant to count success in body count, but if we look solely at body count, these guys are utter failures.

Simply put, the only way to even begin to win this is to give these people productive things to do in their society. The Taliban "leader" depicted in this video could just as easily be employed building things for a community, instead, he is so ignorant and misguided that he fights for the Taliban through cowardly tactics like hiding in the mountains and shooting at military trucks driving by and calling that success.

Cowardly? I'd like to see you fight the United States military, with its advanced armor, tactics, technology, medical care, wearing a piece of cloth.

One minute you're pointing out the huge rate the Taliban are killed with this inequality in resources, the next you're calling the side attacking the stronger 'cowardly'.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Cowardly? I'd like to see you fight the United States military, with its advanced armor, tactics, technology, medical care, wearing a piece of cloth.

One minute you're pointing out the huge rate the Taliban are killed with this inequality in resources, the next you're calling the side attacking the stronger 'cowardly'.

I'm interested what you think should be US policy towards Taliban.

 

[Lemon law]

To some extent we can say the victors in any conquest get to write the history, and that history written by the victors will be final word on who wore the black hat and were villains and who wore the white hats and were the hero's.

From the perspectives of those in the present, its somewhat hard to see what that later final judgment of history will be.

 

[SamurAchzar]

To some extent we can say the victors in any conquest get to write the history, and that history written by the victors will be final word on who wore the black hat and were villains and who wore the white hats and were the hero's.

From the perspectives of those in the present, its somewhat hard to see what that later final judgment of history will be.

Hold on, the grown ups are trying to have a conversation here. You got your Israel thread, don't you? go there and let us discuss.

 

[Craig234]

I'm interested what you think should be US policy towards Taliban.

First, I think you are an advocate for murder, based on other posts.

But that doesn't mean I won't answer your question.

I think the Taliban are a radical, violent, tyrannical group of the sort that rises up in a very primitive environment (like the ones the far right would unwittingly create).

Such groups tend to do well. Reportedly the Taliban had never hit 10% public support, but their organization, weapons, and willingness to use them let them dominate.

Sadly, the people of Afghanistan seem almost as unable to overthrow the Taliban tyranny as Americans are to overthrow our corrupt corporate powers.

What can help sometimes is a benevolent foreign presence - something the US said it's for while it put in power the corrupt regime now in power.

Afghanistan used to have a more advanced, modern part to its culture - one destroyed when the US and the USSR targeted and destroyed the leftist government.

Afghanistan could be developed again, not just the military, but the economy. Now, it's pretty bad, including an extreme concentration of wealth.

But it's not easy getting a program like that going when the normal policy is 'better destroyed than not serving the rich'.

If we did, there would be more prosperity, and a stronger security force that could deal with the Taliban - and prevent its recruiting.

One basic issue to deal with is the drug issue, that helps the economy and the people so much from growing, but has such a high cost for the drug consumers elsewhere.

This is all very unlikely - the right's against it because it's too pro-people, and the left is against it because it's too much war to make it happen. And neither wants to spend.

Reports suggest any addressing of the Taliban will need to include the role of Pakistan's areas supporting them.

One option to consider as well is whether the Taliban can be 'improved' to work with, in light of how unlikely other options are. If they're offered carrots, can they be persuaded to be better? In 2001, the US was sending them aid; George Bush after 9/11 offered to leave them in power if they turned over bin Laden. They're bad, but we've supported worse with fewer constraints on bad behavior than we might be able to get from the Taliban.

Our goal should be an Afghanistan free from interference with their freedom or their economy, allowed to be an independent, more prosperous nation.

Since the undermining of their leftist government in the 70's, they've been a pawn, been occupied, been neglected to the Taliban.

But who makes money by doing the right thing? Not enough.

 

[SamurAchzar]

First, I think you are an advocate for murder, based on other posts.

As someone famous once said, We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. I don't think anyone is more deserving of the quote than yourself.

Otherwise, overlooking the snide political remarks, your solution makes perfect sense - for a failed Western country, that is. Sounds pretty much like the Marshall plan. It'll never work in a Muslim/Arab environment. All you can do is put some dictator on your payroll and overlook his brutality while he rapes his country into submission in accordance with US interests. Think of Al-Saud and Mubarak as two good examples of this approach.

The problem with the Taliban is that they don't accept US bribery and too organized to fend off easily, you need a serious local force. And here lies the issues: the kind of firepower you'll need to provide to the locals is far too great to do it covertly, you need to do it in the open but it won't go well on CNN when the new dictator slaughters Taliban villagers with American made equipment.

Easiest would be putting the Taliban on US payroll, eh.

 

[5150Joker]

After the war with the USSR and USA's subsequent disinterest in Afghanistan, the country was effectively left in ruins with a huge power vacuum. Thus the Pushtun tribes coalesced into the Taliban and with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI, they came to power.

The situation isn't as black and white as some would like to depict however. The Taliban weren't entirely bad for the country, they did bring law and order to many places that were run by drug warlords and they offered a degree of protection for Afghans.

Looking at the big picture, they were not a good solution for the Afghan people. Pakistan benefited the most by having a bunch of brainwashed people that had been busy defending their country from invasion the last 20 years serving their political interests against India. Saudi Arabia benefited by exporting Al Qaida and OBL to Afghanistan and ridding themselves of that headache.

The biggest losers in all this are all the innocent Afghans that historically were never tied to any of these extremist movements. If it were not for the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan today would be a much different country. The solution is a difficult one. On one hand, the Taliban as a military and Islamic entity needs to go, even if that means killing every single one of it's members. I don't say that lightly because I'm also of Afghan and Pashtun heritage.

But if Afghanistan is going to survive, the US has to finish the job even in the wake of increased collateral damage. Afghanistan has vast natural resources and if the US can tap into that to help build the infrastructure there and use it to pay the costs of US presence, then so be it. Afghanistan as a whole will be better off in the long term. Something the US needs to come to terms with is that none of that can ever be accomplished as long as the Pakistani government is placated. Their ISI has been a hindrance to US policy since 2001 and will continue to be so. If the US is serious about creating a sustainable democracy over there, Pakistan's ISI needs to be shuttered.

 

[Brigandier]

After the war with the USSR and USA's subsequent disinterest in Afghanistan, the country was effectively left in ruins with a huge power vacuum. Thus the Pushtun tribes coalesced into the Taliban and with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI, they came to power.

The situation isn't as black and white as some would like to depict however. The Taliban weren't entirely bad for the country, they did bring law and order to many places that were run by drug warlords and they offered a degree of protection for Afghans.

Looking at the big picture, they were not a good solution for the Afghan people. Pakistan benefited the most by having a bunch of brainwashed people that had been busy defending their country from invasion the last 20 years serving their political interests against India. Saudi Arabia benefited by exporting Al Qaida and OBL to Afghanistan and ridding themselves of that headache.

The biggest losers in all this are all the innocent Afghans that historically were never tied to any of these extremist movements. If it were not for the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan today would be a much different country. The solution is a difficult one. One on hand, the Taliban as a military and Islamic entity needs to go, even if that means killing every single one of it's members. I don't say that lightly because I'm also of Afghan and Pashtun heritage.

But if Afghanistan is going to survive, the US has to finish the job even in the wake of increased collateral damage. Afghanistan has vast natural resources and if the US can tap into that to help build the infrastructure there and use it to pay the costs of US presence, then so be it. Afghanistan as a whole will be better off in the long term. Something the US needs to come to terms with is that none of that can ever be accomplished as long as the Pakistani government is placated. Their ISI has been a hindrance to US policy since 2001 and will continue to be so. If the US is serious about creating a sustainable democracy over there, Pakistan's ISI needs to be shuttered.

Your opinion is too nuanced, how can it be right?

 

[db]

We are losing the war, but that's not the point. We are in the region to ensure a supply of hydrocarbon, establish pipe routes, military bases and a market to buy stuff from us and our allies. It's an economic investment bought with blood.

 

[Lemon law]

IMHO, 5150Joker simply ignores the inner related role of Pakistan and somewhat vainglorious tries to transfer the blame from Nato ineptness to Pakistani manipulation.
Without understanding anything of the Pakistani foreign policy goals and maybe more importantly, the Pakistani paranoia of India.

But after the Russians left in 1989, Pakistan was left with the instability of a Afghan civil war raging on its Western Border, and yes Pakistan and its ISI did play some role in funding the Taliban. And why should Pakistan care about the brutal tactics of the Taliban, when the Taliban stabilized the anarchy of the Afghan civil war and more importantly opened up stable trade routes into the Stans to the North for Pakistan.

Then 911 happened and GWB went on the warpath with landlocked Afghanistan. And military 101, Nato needed a land based supply route into Afghanistan. The list of options were short, Iran or Pakistan. And soon GWB was whispering sweet nothings into Musharrif's ear. Just lease us a land route into Afghanistan and the USA will give you
billions in military aid. All the military toys any military dictator could ever want. And Nato would not use military force in Pakistan in any way and even better yet, the USA would rebuild Afghanistan bigger and better inside of a year. What was there not to love from the Pakistani point of view as visions of sugar plums danced in their heads.

Sadly, all the US and Nato promises turned out to be inept lies because GWB&co was not competent enough to occupy a small Walmart parking lot, much less a Country the size of Afghanistan. And inside of the first year, the US allied itself with the most thuggish elements inside of Afghanistan but still were strong enough to chase much of the Taliban right straight into the former peaceful Pakistani tribal areas. And now nine year later Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas are a huge mess, and both the combined Nato and Pakistani army are able to contain the wider anarchy. To a certain extent, the Afghan people are used to war and anarchy, but the people in the tribal regions of Pakistan now hate the guts of both Nato and the Pakistani army. As for the more modern areas of Pakistan where Taliban ideas won't sell, the whole mess has really hurt the Pakistani economy.

 

[Lemon law]

Hold on, the grown ups are trying to have a conversation here. You got your Israel thread, don't you? go there and let us discuss.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me Sammy, I don't see much difference between the US stupidity in Vietnam, Israel, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Just because you think you are the grown up who can't see the train wreck that is coming, and all our failures coming in and unwillingness to reduce our mistakes later, does not mean you can have any censorship rights on who can post and on what topics.

I have two stated goals on this forum.

1. To hope to avoid a lose lose lose final train wreck when US policy is misguided by suggesting better alternatives.

2. Failing that, to be proved right in the end.

 

[manimal]

After the war with the USSR and USA's subsequent disinterest in Afghanistan, the country was effectively left in ruins with a huge power vacuum. Thus the Pushtun tribes coalesced into the Taliban and with the backing of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's ISI, they came to power.

The situation isn't as black and white as some would like to depict however. The Taliban weren't entirely bad for the country, they did bring law and order to many places that were run by drug warlords and they offered a degree of protection for Afghans.

Looking at the big picture, they were not a good solution for the Afghan people. Pakistan benefited the most by having a bunch of brainwashed people that had been busy defending their country from invasion the last 20 years serving their political interests against India. Saudi Arabia benefited by exporting Al Qaida and OBL to Afghanistan and ridding themselves of that headache.

The biggest losers in all this are all the innocent Afghans that historically were never tied to any of these extremist movements. If it were not for the Soviet invasion, Afghanistan today would be a much different country. The solution is a difficult one. On one hand, the Taliban as a military and Islamic entity needs to go, even if that means killing every single one of it's members. I don't say that lightly because I'm also of Afghan and Pashtun heritage.

But if Afghanistan is going to survive, the US has to finish the job even in the wake of increased collateral damage. Afghanistan has vast natural resources and if the US can tap into that to help build the infrastructure there and use it to pay the costs of US presence, then so be it. Afghanistan as a whole will be better off in the long term. Something the US needs to come to terms with is that none of that can ever be accomplished as long as the Pakistani government is placated. Their ISI has been a hindrance to US policy since 2001 and will continue to be so. If the US is serious about creating a sustainable democracy over there, Pakistan's ISI needs to be shuttered.

Good post!


Sadly reality is much more nuanced and difficult than some believe in this forum. Afghanistan is both simple and deeply complex with the tribalistic tendencies of its oft abused people.

The Afghans and the Iraqis at the end of the day want a peaceful place to raise their children with hope for the future. They would rejoice from things we take for granted in the western world..power...food...clean running water...

 

[bfdd]

wow... I can't believe I'm going to say this, but Craig is right. They aren't fighting like cowards. Cowards don't engage in war or use war tactics, especially on powers greater than themselves.

 

[Craig234]

As someone famous once said, We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. I don't think anyone is more deserving of the quote than yourself.

You are the person good people need protection from, not the one providing protection.

This quote is a cliche, used by people to romanticize choosing to commit violence, and to propagandize for accepting wrongful violence.

Its message is, 'don't listen to anyone who isn't one of those committing violence about right and wrong, they're just ignorant people who need your protection.'

It's a lie. This quote could be used by any murderous, wrongful force in history for the same purpose - for example, the 1930's militarist leaders of Japan would like it to silence the anti-militarist leaders, as they led their nation to its disastrous course of war.

Good propaganda takes a nugget of truth and builds it to a lie, and that's your quote. It exaggerates the idea that any idiot can be protected from a threat to create the lie that this covers any level of violence for any cause - just keep on dismissing any critics as 'people needing your protection'. If you are off killing Vietnamese, or Filipinos, or Nicaraguans, or Grenadans, or Panamanians, or any number of people, it's all you 'protecting'.

You invite the quote from our then highest-decorated Marine in US history, General Smedley Butler, about all the people he realized he'd 'protected' people from:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

In fact, here's a quote from Gen. Butler to respond to yours - similarly 'propaganda':

My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military.

No one is more deserving of his quote than you.

Otherwise, overlooking the snide political remarks, your solution makes perfect sense - for a failed Western country, that is. Sounds pretty much like the Marshall plan. It'll never work in a Muslim/Arab environment. All you can do is put some dictator on your payroll and overlook his brutality while he rapes his country into submission in accordance with US interests. Think of Al-Saud and Mubarak as two good examples of this approach.

You have a valid point that it's possible to wrongly try to impose a western 'Marshall Plan' on people in a society very different.

But you exaggerate the point too much, not understanding the options. I'll speculate that one reason is you having a wrongly negative view of the people of Afghanistan as 'inferior people' in some way much as US Southerners once believe that blacks could NEVER function as free people in society - because their only exposure to blacks had been as slaves, so they viewed them that way, uneducated etc. This is a natural bigotry that comes from inequity, common among a more powerful nation.

The people you are talking about are a lot more like you than you might realize.

Remember the recent Wikileak that far more influential than Bush's half-billion dollar US propaganda network in the Middle East, were US tv reruns there? Funny how that works. A bit ago, the most popular tv show in communist Vietnam was... Baywatch. When Fidel Castro was interviewed decades ago, he was watching 'Flipper' with great enjoyment during the interview. But it justifes your position better to assume 'these monkeys understand nothing but a strongarm leader to keep them in line'.

Who's the simple one again, them or you?

Yes, a 'strongarm leader' CAN work, possibly - on anyone, including you, or the US or any other country. Need I name for you advanced democracies where it has worked?

Doesn't make it the only option, or a good idea to do it. The US used to think, similarly to your error, the only good alliance in many nations was with right-wing thugs.

Turned out that was wrong and harmful.

The problem with the Taliban is that they don't accept US bribery and too organized to fend off easily, you need a serious local force. And here lies the issues: the kind of firepower you'll need to provide to the locals is far too great to do it covertly, you need to do it in the open but it won't go well on CNN when the new dictator slaughters Taliban villagers with American made equipment.

Easiest would be putting the Taliban on US payroll, eh.

They may be immune to US 'bribery', but I don't recall them refusing the checks before 9/11. It's not to say some compromise might not be possible. As usual this is shocking to people who are buying into the 'war' angle that the only option is to destroy whatever the monster du jour is, but there might be some option. Not necessarily, maybe they won't, and we should not condone them (while I said we've allied with worse, that wasn't saying it was a good idea).

Unfortunately, our options aren't always to do the right thing; sometimes there's no support for that, only supporting this bad policy or that one. Take Vietnam - a bad communist regime, or a corrupt US puppet regime putting the US ahead of the people. We could talk a lot about some western nice democracy there, but that wasn't really the plan.

But that's the goal we should have for Afghanistan, what I said, and recognizing how unlikely that is, the 'Taliban on the US payroll' is one bad option to explore.

As the last post said, there are other possible options involving outside force with Afghanistan and Pakistan - that last support.

Too bad the old leftist government is gone at the superpowers' hands (the leader literally executed by the USSR after he invited them in against the US).

But in terms of your option or 'arming the locals' that works done right, but you talk about them 'killing Taliban villagers' - that doesn't sound like the right approach.

Villagers are the the victims of the Taliban, not the Taliban, as I understand it. When the Taliban show up and exert threats of force, they're a 'Taliban village'.

While our being the largest arms merchant in the world can cause a lot of harm, it might have a place here to arm people to defend themselves from the Taliban.

Thing is, will it be effective - or will it cause slaughter, as 'good villagers' are no match for the Taliban, but there's a lot more killing because of the new weapons?

Or is it more effective to have a 'good' government force, one not under a corrupt former US asset? These are questions for experts to look at.

But it's not really their agenda to, unfortunately.

It's not always understood what the agenda is; even in cases where aid has seemed to build up a strong country, it's often with an agenda. The US propped up Japan a lot, to have an Asian competitor to China, it wasn't just some 'we're so nice that we help our old enemies'. FDR wanted to destroy Germany's infrastructure to the point it 'would be nothing but a farming society for centuries', but strategy led to another plan.

Sometimes, a good plan can happen just for PR, and that's possible with Afghanistan. Do we really have a lot else to get anymore, than the good PR of their doing ok?

 

[HAL9000]

thats what happens when uneducated people get brainwashed into a medieval religion

Islam is no more medieval than any other mainstream religion...

 

[Ackmed]

Feel sorry for them? They're kicking our ass.

No, they're not. We're pushing them out of Afghan. Sure its a slow process, but its happening. Who knows what will happen when they leave though.

 

[911paramedic]

There is a reason these groups fear/discourage education.