Taliban suing for peace, divorcing al-Qaeda?
posted at 7:41 am on October 6, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
According to CNN, the Taliban wants to reach a peace agreement with the Afghan government and end the war that has raged since the 9/11 attacks. Taliban leaders say they have split from al-Qaeda, attempting to divorce their political aims from AQ’s war against all non-Muslims. Saudi Arabia hosts the conference, hoping to marginalize Osama bin Laden and his network even further:
Taliban leaders are holding Saudi-brokered talks with the Afghan government to end the country’s bloody conflict — and are severing their ties with al Qaeda, sources close to the historic discussions have told CNN.
The militia, which has been intensifying its attacks on the U.S.-led coalition that toppled it from power in 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network, has been involved four days of talks hosted by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, says the source.
The talks — the first of their kind aimed at resolving the lengthy conflict in Afghanistan — mark a significant move by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan, hosting delegates who have until recently been their enemies. …
According to the source, fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar — high on the U.S. military’s most-wanted list — was not present, but his representatives were keen to stress the reclusive cleric is no longer allied to al Qaeda.
Saudi Arabia has several points of interest in this conflict. They want the Taliban to break away from AQ, of course, but the Saudis also see the Afghan conflict as another opportunity for Iranian expansionism. The Iranians have armed the Taliban and want to fuel the conflict in order to pin down Western military forces that could otherwise focus on Iran. The Saudis also want to help stabilize Pakistan as a counterweight to the Iranians in the region.
After seven years, the Taliban and the Afghan government have come to consider the conflict futile. Even with considerable assistance from AQ, the Taliban simply can’t beat NATO. On the other hand, NATO can’t annihilate the Taliban either, nor can they effectively defeat them as long as the Taliban can run back across the Pakistani border — although we have become more successful at hitting them with missile attacks:
The Taliban are furious about the latest apparent U.S. missile strike in Pakistan, indicating a senior militant may be among two dozen people killed, officials and residents said Sunday. …
Two residents in the area targeted Friday said Taliban fighters warned people not to discuss the missile strike or inspect the rubble at the site. The residents requested anonymity for fear of Taliban retribution.
It may also indicate that the Taliban assumed that they could be safe from attack while negotiating with the Afghans and the Saudis. Until they agree to end their hostilities, though, NATO can continue to attack them whenever they present themselves as a target.
The futility of the fight means that the two sides have to reach some sort of political accommodation. Is that possible? Hamid Karzai has long said that the Taliban could return to Afghan political life once they renounced violence and agreed to participate in Afghan’s democratic processes. They have insisted on an end to terrorism, which means that the divorce from AQ is a necessary prerequisite to the talks. Without that, neither the Afghans nor the Saudis would even take an interest in talks.
What does that mean for the war? We could focus strictly on AQ instead of a broader war against the Taliban, which enjoys much broader popularity in Pakistan. If the Taliban really wants to separate itself from bin Laden and Zawahiri, they should demonstrate that by informing the Saudis of their location. That would be the quickest method of divorce. As for Mullah Omar, the US wants him in relation to the 9/11 attacks, and it would be difficult to see how we would let that claim go — or how Omar could credibly break with bin Laden personally without turning the two top AQ leaders over to NATO.
Update: Unfortunately, Bill Roggio says that those two crazy kids aren’t getting a divorce after all. Who’d get custody of Fat Bastard in a split-up?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Does anyone else get the feeling they want to buy time while they regroup?
4shoes on October 6, 2008 at 7:53 AM
An instance of Hudnah perhaps?
Blarg the Destroyer on October 6, 2008 at 7:54 AM
They just can’t divorce their war against infidels. They have to divorce themselves from the radical religious dogma they’ve subjected their own people to.
BTW Senator Obama, what were saying about a resurgence in Al-Qaeda?
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 7:56 AM
I don’t necessarily buy this, keeping in mind Sun-Tzu’s advice,
In fact, if you couple this with The One’s determination to pull out of Iraq altogether, to “surge” them into Afghanistan and maybe attack Pakistan (or maybe not, depending on his audience), it’s entirely possible that we may be looking at an enemy who simply seeks a respite to rearm and replenish. While Iran, their backers, seek to extend their influence in the Persian Gulf area.
Iran doesn’t really care about Afghanistan, except as a buffer vs. India. Their main focus is twofold; tactically, control of the oil-rich MidEast, and strategically (and philosophically) the destruction of the “two Satans”- Israel and the West. In this context, Afghanistan is little more than a diversion, from their POV.
The best guess is that what the Taliban really seek is nothing but a chance to replace their losses. After which, they’ll launch yet another effort to take over Afghanistan, and probably Pakistan, as well. They probably think it will work on us due to the number of times it was done to us, with great success, by Ho Chi Minh & Co. four decades ago. (With, I might add, the full consent and cooperation of the very same elements here who are in the Islamists’ corner- for “philosophical” reasons- today.)
Keep in mind that lying is a perfectly legitimate strategy in war- especially if you’re losing.
cheers
eon
eon on October 6, 2008 at 7:58 AM
Speaking of Afghanistan, new McCain ad, using the Hannity meme.
CanadianGuy on October 6, 2008 at 7:58 AM
This is what victory looks like in Afghanistan.
We should take half a loaf here. As long as the eventual result is that we grind Al Qaeda into a sticky paste, we should be willing to accept the result. The Talibunnies are, and always must be, second on the list.
gridlock2 on October 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM
They can’t just divorce AQ without divorcing within their own families. One of AQ’s tactics is to marry into the tribes. So it’s likely to get bloodier before it gets better.
Still, there are similarities to the origins of the Anbar Awakening.
NeighborhoodCatLady on October 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM
If they’re genuine, I would take the deal.
lodge on October 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM
A convenient and opportunist “break-up” that could as easily re-unite in the future. So the Taliban maneuver good graces into political power in Afghanistan by saying that they “renounce” al-Qaeda.
The only “renounce” worth anything BEGINS by turning in Osama bin Laden dead or alive to NATO if not the USA.
maverick muse on October 6, 2008 at 7:59 AM
Divide and conquer.
Spirit of 1776 on October 6, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Boy, it’d be nice if the Taliban switched sides and let Afghanistan have peace. That would free up some of our military/intelligence capacity to pressure Iran/Venezuela into behaving.
/removes rose colored glasses.
Browncoatone on October 6, 2008 at 8:06 AM
They can prove their seriousness by bringing Bin Laden’s head to the next meeting.
michaelo on October 6, 2008 at 8:09 AM
eon on October 6, 2008 at 7:58 AM
You beat me to the Sun Tzu quote.
pugwriter on October 6, 2008 at 8:10 AM
Be very generous from our side… we only want AQ leaders and Omar. Then let them negotiate Omar out of the deal.
CC
CapedConservative on October 6, 2008 at 8:12 AM
My guess is the Taliban have probably observed, (from their mountain caves) the deployment of battle tested United States Marines ready to grant them their 72 virgins.
Rovin on October 6, 2008 at 8:16 AM
Right. The Taliban is telling us that we’re doing better than we’re being told.
But let them back into the government? These are the guys who used to publicly shoot women for adultery, banned all non-religious music, and let women die of treatable medical illness because male physicians were not allowed to examine women, and the Taliban refused to train women as physicians. These are the people who destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan, for crying out loud.
They are mad, bad, and evil.
If the Taliban represents a substantial segment of the population, and they’re willing to lay down their arms, yeah, you have to let them in. But for heaven’s sake, Karzai, be careful, okay?
Bartrams_Garden on October 6, 2008 at 8:36 AM
“Furious”?
Whut
Can’t they take a joke?
franksalterego on October 6, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Divorce? That’ll be ugly. Bet they’re kicking themselves for not getting the pre-nup agreement like their Hollywood friends.
civilengineer on October 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM
CapedConservative on October 6, 2008 at 8:12 AM
Wrong. Omar predates the Taleban.
Moreover, since the Taleban a creature of the Pakistan ISI, this may be a much bigger deal than it appears on the surface. The AQ leaders may be removed from the region … they’ll end up in Sudan or Yemen if they happen to miss out on the 72 virgins.
Since Barry has proposed attacking Pakistan, the US election may be seen as a no-win situation for Pakistan.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Reconciliation is much more a part of conflict in that part of the world. Kill a neighbor and you have a blood feud forever. Kill someone in a war…meh, that is just business. Sometimes what act falls in which category can be difficult to determine (the Talib should probably avoid NE Afghanistan, oh, forever) but 90% + of the Taliban could probably be reintegrated into Afghan society.
The leaders, not so much. AQ, they are foreigners, and if the Talib really did want to make their peace with the Afghans (probably to concentrate on taking down the Pak government in “their” areas) – it would be very dangerous to be an AQ foreigner. Probably a life span numbered in hours.
major john on October 6, 2008 at 8:42 AM
They are just buying time hoping for Obama to be elected.
Once things are decided in November, the Taliban will decide which way to go.
albill on October 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM
Regroup? Regroup what?
They’re a ragtag force. They can’t mass. If they do, they get blown to smithereens. It’s happened time and time again.
All they can accomplish are hit and run ambushes. They can’t hold ground and they can’t ever win that way. And they know it.
This shows we’re winning.
NoDonkey on October 6, 2008 at 8:51 AM
According to Sharia Law they should only have to say “I divorce you” three times and the union is null and void.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Say it isn’t so? The Taliban can’t win? Have you been talking to Mullah Harry al-Reid again?
I guess those who consider the terrorists invincible just don’t understand how war really works. Like any contest, the war isn’t always won by the faster, stronger, better fed, better trained, better led, better supplied, more powerful organization……….
But that’s the way to bet, ain’t it, Mullah Harry/Mullah Omar?
I have one bone to pick with anyone who says the US military CAN’T win, anywhere, anytime. When claiming that we can’t pacify Saddam’s Iraq, I respond…”Saddam did. Anything he can do, we can do better”. When claiming that our actions have only made more terrorists and more radicals join the fray against us, I say “More, compared to what? More radical when compared to horribly killing 3,000 of our friends and neighbors who worked peacefully in their offices on 9-11? More numerous than the 200 million Muslims who think killing Americans anytime, anywhere is justified in the name of Mohammed, their Prophet? Frankly, if more idiots choose to join that war against us, then it just means there are more targets for our fire, and the ammunition we use (whether it be bullets, words of wisdom and reason, or acts of kindness, and the sterling example of American soldiers protecting and making Life easier for people who have never had a government make their lives easier) works just as irresistably as the divine word of Allah on them.”
Finally, those who claim we can’t win, or can’t eliminate our enemies, do NOT understand how we fought the Cold War, when the possibility of annihilation of billions of people in a nuclear exchange was, in fact, the absolute effect of any nuclear exchange between the Soviet Union and the US. The next time someone tells you the US can’t win, remind them that 1 billion Muslims are alive today because we choose NOT to kill them for their co-religionists’ terrorist acts against the innocent in our country, and theirs. If you believe it can’t happen, then explain WHY for over 40 years that was EXACTLY the way we practiced war against the greatest threat to Freedom in the latter half of the 20th Century.
Can’t pacify a threat? You don’t know how badly and completely we actually can. So stop saying stupid things and get back to reality. Get to the bargaining table and quit shooting yourself in the foot. America offers money, peace, and prosperity to any country that treats us as a friend. Join that coalition, or die fighting us.
Subsunk
Subsunk on October 6, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Perhaps it is our willingness and ability to strike into Pakistan that has them suing for peace. I’m with Reagan: Trust, but verify. Mullah Omar needs to personally surrender to the Americans.
Kafir on October 6, 2008 at 9:01 AM
In opposing the war in Iraq, the Left has ignored the fact that this quote works the other way. Rephrased:
“The US wants to pin down AQ forces that could otherwise focus on our homeland.”
jgapinoy on October 6, 2008 at 9:07 AM
I can tell you there are two things that is helping the Taliban see the light of day.
1. Technology and Intelligence for one. The key leaders are being taken out a lot more than the MSM would let you believe. Mostly through people who are tired of being innocent bystanders in the Taliban violence and smart munitions.
2. They have seen the resolve of the coalition forces in both RC East and RC South. The Taliban moved into Musa Qalat almost as quickly as the British moved out and immediately started a media campaign trying to demonstrate how they held an entire city under the coalitions nose. That was the last big operation the 82nd was involved with in 07 and all it took was seeing the aircraft inbound and they were pretty much outbound. We took Musa Qalat almost effortlessly.
There “is” an increase in the combat activity. I believe it’s mainly due to the Iranian operations shifting from a front they know they’ve lost influence over to one they think they’ll fair better in. It demands a shift in forces from OIF to OEF as Senator McCain and Governor Palin said. Troops to task. But the Taliban are not as determined as they were. Too many middle Taliban leaders are on record fearing their move up in the ranks replacing a boss who’s had a JDAM dropped in their lap.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Of course. That’s what their prophet advocates.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 9:18 AM
So I take it that little Muslim girls daring to go to school and the instructors who dare to teach them are still fair game.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I’d send someone to the table with them to at least see. Hmm Barrack said he’d meet without any preconditions anytime, anywhere. Do those preconditions include not actually being president yet?
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 9:21 AM
I am not sure I agree with much of what has been said here for several reasons.
By almost ALL accounts, the size and sophistication of the Neo-Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is growing, not weakening. The combination of the weakness/corruption of the Karzai central government, the historical resistance to foreign occupation, religious fundamentalism, hatred of the coalition/govt. forces for actions taken (air strike collateral damage, offenses committed by raiding soldiers however incidental or perceived, mistaken detainments, etc), and a wretched economy are growing this insurgency. The Pastun majority in the south / southeast of the country has historically never been one to be ruled by a central government and shows no willingness to start now. The tribal rivalries that have existed and continue to exist, even during the Taliban consolidation of power pre-2001 invasion, contribute to a warlord militia power structure and struggle that, IMO, will not concede to a central power without a share of that power. Any understanding of the history, culture, and demographics of Afghanistan cannot fail to see that we are much worse off today than we were in 2003 or 2004. I am not saying that it is unwinnable or a lost cause, but I do believe that those who believe that the Taliban/AQ strength in Afghanistan is some sort of Leftist Mantra to win an election are wrong. We face some serious challenges in Afghanistan.
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 9:25 AM
Bartrams_Garden on October 6, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Omar is a pashtun as are most of the rank-and-file.
It seems unlikely that Omar was directly responsible for most of the atrocities and destruction. Keeping Omar as a player in Kandahar is a small price to pay for getting rid of Zwahiri, Bin Laden and pals.
Omar gets his status with Al Qaeda because:
As for the taleban
and:
Omar’s position was essential for communication with the Al Qaeda leadership and the excesses can be attributed to this foreign ideology.
Omar is part of the normal Pashtun tribal structure so it’s probably much simpler to keep him happy in Kandahar if that allows us to get Bin Laden’s group out of the region.
Pakistan wants to keep the influence of India in Afghanistan to a minimum. In Adam Ghadan’s latest production (available at jawa report), he promotes jihad both in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Giving Pak a stable relationship with Afghanistan, may let them save enough face, that they can be persuaded to reason on Kashmir. Getting rid of Zwahiri, Gadhan and friends is essential to stability. Omar is probably happy as a mid-level player.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Anyone negotiating with the Taliban (or any radical Muslim) should keep in mind that their definition of peace is not the same as ours.
They will tell you Islam means peace, but it also means submission. For there is no peace without submission to Allah.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Taliban and Al Qaeda are not the same. Read the wikipedia links I posted above and see the last paragraph I wrote.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 9:35 AM
I agree we probably still face a long road. I just say there is a reduction in AQ influence and strength and I wouldn’t consider it such an up-hill battle against the Taliban without Iranian influence. The scary thing with the Iranians is the SA16 and Stinger-like SAMs and their shaped IED munitions.
As far as how the people are swayed because of the violence, there is much more collateral damage from TB and AQ in OEF than from coalition forces. Afghanis know that and their papers report it. There is also a lot of good will achieved through the medical care given to the Afghani People from the Coalition Forces to include movement of patients with CF helicopters.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 9:44 AM
The conflict in Afghanistan be resolved in a way that represents a clear victory for the US and NATO, in order to sustain our strategic achievement in Iraq. Afghanistan will probably never be a prosperous democracy. Iraq (and Iran) could eventually become so. It is worth the long haul it will take, and yes the lose of American lives, to let our children have some hope of avoiding something that takes many more lives than 9-11.
drunyan8315 on October 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM
FDR’s demand for an unconditional surrender reaped some pretty final fruits against fascism sixty years ago. It would still seem to be the most successful strategy, especially with terrorists.
The Bush administration will likely continue to hit hard as long as possible inside of Pakistan, as well they should. If O-face is elected, all will be forgiven and we’ll be fighting these same people in our own streets.
Hening on October 6, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Is the good Mullah Omar still ambulatory? The welfare of several other reclusive enemies of the US has been extensively questioned in the past usually with the wrong answer prevailing.
burt on October 6, 2008 at 9:57 AM
My exact fears.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Bravo! Well said, Subsunk!
techno_barbarian on October 6, 2008 at 9:59 AM
This is interesting news but I would ask them to prove their intent. They can do that by immediately handing over bin Laden and the top Al Qaeda leaders to Afghan officials. This is an action that will leave the Taliban no alternative but to become part of the process in Afghanistan because it will marginalize them with the other radicals.
We have to understand that, as much as we disagree with them, the Taliban represents a fundamentalist Muslim view that is shared by a significant portion of the Afghan and Pakistani populations. If the Democracy does not seek to marginalize their influence by giving them a place in the process they have no alternative but to fight.
In some ways this is like making a deal with the devil, but we have had radical influences on American politics for our entire history too. Giving them a voice does not mean you give them power unless you are foolish enough to allow them to resonate as the best answer.
Hawthorne on October 6, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Hening on October 6, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Pakistan has nukes dude.
The main problem in Pak is Saudi influence … getting rid of AQ and geting them to settle with India on Kashmir/Afghanistan would be a huge win. It’s a loss for China, Saudi and Iran.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 10:00 AM
They would never hand him over even if they made peace with us.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Oh and BTW and OT, you can just stay home now on Nov 4th, Howard Wolfson says the elections over. Yup, Obama won. Hear that AQ and Taliban Leaders, your move.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Which is exactly what we’ve been doing with our radical leftist insurgency for decades. And the fruits of their creeping infiltration are now ripe and ready for harvest.
techno_barbarian on October 6, 2008 at 10:11 AM
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Who are “they”.
Waziristan and southern Afghanistan are one big Pashtun tribal region. AQ are guests of someone but no-one is sure who. The taleban are young hot-heads from all the tribes but follow Omar and are funded by the ISI. The ISI itself is split internally along tribal lines and so is the Pak military (to a lesser extent). The Pak politicians are all big land-owners.
The deal that must be struck is between the politicians and the tribal leaders. Splitting the Taleban from AQ is a huge win and gives some hope to settle long-standing problems (India/Pak has been going since 1948) in the region.
If the AQ leadership flees to Yemen or Sudan, who cares? Both of those places need some kind of clean-up so they just gain new high value targets.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 10:14 AM
There are so many points, I will bore you with only one. We ought to hear now from Obama and McCain what they think of the prospect of an armed Taliban inside Afghanistan, running the trade of 85% of the world’s herion, while our troops attempt to track down and kill the occasional al Qaeda popping over from Pakistan. Here’s a news flash for them all: Pakistan, Saudi, the Taliban, and al Qaeda are all predominantlt Sunni; the ‘odd-man’ out in any such deal would be the United States.
Sergeant Tim on October 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM
the hunt for
obamabin laden could heat up.jimmer on October 6, 2008 at 10:24 AM
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 10:02 AM
They would never hand him over even if they made peace with us.
Who are “they”.
Good question. The general answer is, whoever in the Muslim world who found themselves in a position to do so wouldn’t. The backlash from people who truly revere Bin Laden, would negate anything they got as compensation. But you’re right, trying to throw in UBL is like saying throw in the wind as part a peace agreement. You can’t deliver what you don’t have.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 10:25 AM
A walk down Memory Lane with the Taliban.
http://www.rawa.org/schoolburnt.htm
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Sergeant Tim on October 6, 2008 at 10:18 AM
The deal would be some kind of autonomy for Waziristan and the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. The Taliban are armed because they are Pashtun. They get guns at about age 7. Your second amendment would go over very well in Afghanistan.
The opium trade is a problem for the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Pashtun regions are confined, mostly to the Pak/Afghan border. So the export of opium won’t be a Taleban problem.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Ed, this is a horrible post. Everything in it is completely WRONG!
The Taliban hosted Al Qaeda when they attacked the World Trade Center. It was attacked by 19 SAUDIS. So now you are all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect that Saudi Arabia is brokering a ‘deal’ with our enemy?
How many troops does Saudi Arabia have in the region?
The problem here is who we consider our ‘friend’. Now we are supposed to believe that, hey, the Taliban is our ‘friend’ (or could become our friend). . . that sounds like Obama saying ‘we have to talk to our enemies’.
It’s not good that Saudi Arabia is brokering this agreement (makes them look more powerful than America). It’s not good that the agreement is with the Taliban (who nobody recognized legitimately except Pakistan). It’s not good that the agreement is in Afghanistan.
This is not different than the agreements that Pakistan has in place in the FATA areas. This is not good, and it is a result of our inability to fight a war in an appropriate manner. We don’t care about winning a war, we only care about winning ‘hearts and minds’.
ThackerAgency on October 6, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Your first amendment? Not so much.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM
We definitely need to keep an eye out for Mullah Omar.
dhawbake on October 6, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Timothy McVeigh was an AMERICAN.
‘Nuf said.
unclesmrgol on October 6, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:26 AM
The Pashtun are not much sympathetic to western values. Get rid of Al Qaeda first. Let the economy develop for a few years.
Cultural change takes a generation (at least) and a productive economy is required to push it in the right direction. Not sufficient, unfortunately.
See Yuri Bezmenov … you have a problem in the US, which is going to take some work (we have similar but different problems in Canada). Not only the KGB but your University Professors have been pushing the culture hard since the 1960s. Lots of them emigrate here, unfortunately. (Second link includes lots of background on Obama).
gh on October 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM
The Taliban gave aid and comfort to AQ.
The American government did not assist McVeigh in his terrorist acts.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Lol … we (in Canada) have no first amendment rights. Read Mark Steyn. Still, we’re surviving. They haven’t managed to take the guns yet but they wasted billions registering them. Our murder rate is very low here … and our problems with the religion of peace are much less (no Dearbornistan) but I think we’ve just been lucky so far. Must be too cold for the camels (Australia is smaller than us and they have had problems so it’s not that we’re too small — population-wise — to notice). We have lots of immigration but fewer illegals (more “refugees”).
gh on October 6, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Let’s see…if the Taliban turns over bin Laden and Zawahiri, would we let Mullah Omar alone?
You bet! Let’s do a deal…
pseudonominus on October 6, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Yeah, I was going to point that out, but I had to make a phone call.
If Obama wins we will probably be in the same boat.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:59 AM
I am just curious – what are your sources that indicate that Iran is in any way significantly involved in the Neo-Taliban insurgency? I have been doing extensive research into the Neo-Taliban insurgency and have not come across anything that would suggest that at all.
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 11:03 AM
But … but … how can that be? How can something positive be happening in Afghanistan when everyone knows we took our eye off the ball to invade the happy-go-lucky, kite-flying desert amusement park of Iraq?
Blacksheep on October 6, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 10:42 AM
It’s more accurate to think of the Taleban and AQ as allies than sponsor/client.
Al Qaeda was formally created about 1992 and were already in Afghanistan before the Taliban took power in 1996 since Bin Laden was there fighting the soviets who left Feb 15, 1989.
Wikipedia suggests that 1989 is when Omar started his school (Taleban are his students). Before 1989 there were only mujahedeen.
The US supported the mujahedeen (including Bin Laden) through the ISI for the preceding 10 years.
History is messy.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Especially when the Religion of Peace is in the mix. Something we should have known before getting involved with the mujahadeen in the first place.
Disturb the Universe on October 6, 2008 at 11:13 AM
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 11:03 AM
The Iran and Afghanistan border is mostly (if not all) outside the Pashtun (Taleban) region. The Iranians are supposed to have agents in Kabul and elsewhere and are supposed to be heavily involved in the opium trade.
The Iranians may not be involved with the Taleban per-se but only for lack of opportunity. They reputedly “host” one of Bin Laden’s sons and possibly some other AQ members. Never seen any documentation on those rumours though.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 11:15 AM
T
I’m left to presume you are either you are not from here or you are against the 2nd Amendment. But I digress.
You seem to know little about Afghanistan for, while poppy are grown pretty much wherever water is readily available, Helmud in SW Afghanistan is where most of it is grown, far from Waziristan and Pakistan’s tribal area. The Brits and US are heavily engaged against the Taliban there (see Michael Yon’s site and others). The Taliban are far from being “confined” to the Pak/Afghan border area.
Sergeant Tim on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Can you provide references or sources on that? Like I mentioned, I have been doing extensive research on the Neo-Taliban insurgency and have not come across anything to suggest what you say. I would actually have to say on the contrary, there is much evidence that would suggest that Iran is NOT involved in supporting the Taliban and especially not the opium trade. You could argue that by forcing the return of the Shia refugees in Iran back to Afghanistan that this does not help the Karzai government, as it adds to a the already numerous problems that they have, but that is about it.
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM
If they give up Usama bin Ladin and Mullah Omar, we should consider it.
/keep the powder dry
john1schn on October 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM
First hand.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Sergeant Tim on October 6, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Canada. Not anti-gun but don’t own any.
I’ve read “A short walk in the Hindu Kush”. Also “The Kite Runner” and the same author’s other book. Most of Totten’s stuff and some of Yon’s. A few other sites.
What I said was that the Taleban are Pashtun. The Pashtun regions straddle the border but comprise a large chunk of Afghanistan. Most of SW and S central, iirc. The Pashtun also live in Pakistan, including all of Waziristan and, iirc, all of Pakistan to the west of Waziristan.
I remember that the Brits were in Kandahar and Helmud but I’m fuzzy on whether Helmud is specifically Pashtun, I think so but I’m assuming that this is a closed book test so I won’t look it up.
As far as I know everyone in Afghanistan grows poppies if they have water and unless they can grow something else. The Taleban are not especially welcome in Northern Afghanistan …
Did I pass ?
gh on October 6, 2008 at 11:37 AM
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 11:21 AM
Sorry. Only what I remember reading on the net …
There are some NGOs in Afghanistan trying to help promote farming and I’ve looked at some of their sites … but most NGOs suffer extreme BDS and reading through that crap gives me headaches [ I am neither pro nor anti bush so don't start ].
I gotta get some work done today so this better be my last one for now … bye all.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Is this something that you cannot talk about? Iranian weapons in Afghanistan are nothing new, nor are American or Soviet weapons. The EFPs are in Afghanistan, but it is believed that they migrated from the AQ in Iraq and their tactics to Afghanistan as opposed to coming directly from Iran to Afghanistan. Are you saying that you have first hand knowledge of a more extensive Iranian involvement in the Neo-Taliban insurgency? I am not trying to be antagonistic in this, but I am trying to possibly learn something that I have not seen in my research yet. Any sources besides first hand?
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 11:44 AM
it’s a sign that they truly want christianity. let’s go invade and force some jesus upon them.
you know, just what jesus would have wanted.
Xolom on October 6, 2008 at 11:46 AM
gh on October 6, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Sorry … I said I was going but I forgot a reference. My kids gave me Christie Blachford’s (a Toronto columnist – radio and newspapers) book on Canadian Military deaths in Afghanistan in August for my birthday, so I’ve read that too. She’s pro-military and the deaths were just used to weave the story around. It’s a good book … she was in Kandahar and went out on missions with the troops. Forgot the title.
gh on October 6, 2008 at 11:49 AM
I will just say that it is widely believed in military circles that Iranian cadre are teaching technical and tactical use of SAM systems in RC South.
hawkdriver on October 6, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Has there been any confirmed use of any MANPAD or SHORAD vs. coalition A/C? I have not heard of any.
King of the Britons on October 6, 2008 at 11:56 AM
The Taliban has negotiated numerous “peace agreements” with the Pakistani Government in the past couple of years; but has kept none of them. They get their buddies who have been captured released, get a respite from an offensive that is threatening and even got promises of compensation for war losses. What has come of any of it? More terrorist attacks, more girls schools burned down, more assasinations of people who cooperated with the Government and more attacks against the Democratically elected government of the Northwest Territories.
The Taliban entities are too disparate to even bring a unified group to any peace agreement. So, I would talk but keep killing them while talking. Release no prisoners, pay no compensation. Pay no Danegeld as Kipling would have said. The Pakistanis are getting fed up with the violence and the Afghan army is growing. We will soon be able to bring more forces to bear as Iraq winds down. Time is on our side if we are patient.
KW64 on October 6, 2008 at 11:58 AM
As has been said before, we should only consider them seriously if they bring Bin Laden’s severed head to the table. The only reason we’re over there right now is to take the fight to Al Qaeda…..the Taliban are merely in standing in the crossfire (and shooting back at us). If they point their guns the other direction towards Al Qaeda and we get results, then there may be some room to negotiate with them. Until that day happens, then we need to keep killing them by the dozens.
Chuckie on October 6, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I think their serious, our numerous covert cross-border raids into Al Qaeda and Taliban hideouts in Pakistan’s tribal regions have taken a huge toll on their group, it’s what kept them in check for the past four years.
Cr4sh Dummy on October 6, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Agreed. They are yelling truce now because our efforts to turn the local tribes in Pakistan against them are starting to work.
If they don’t negotiate now, Wazirstan Pathans, sick to death of the Taliban, and bolstered with covert US funds and technical support, will drive them back into Afghanistan.
Kristopher on October 6, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Comment pages: