Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Obama seeks accommodation with the Taliban?

posted at 11:15 am on March 9, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

This New York Times article on Sunday generated a lot of e-mail traffic, some of it misguided.  Barack Obama told the NYT that he would seek accommodation with the Taliban as part of his approach to Afghanistan, and immediately people took that as surrender.  Afghanistan is a different war than Iraq, much more of a civil war, and even the Karzai government recognizes the need for reconciliation at some point:

Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”

Mr. Obama said on the campaign trail last year that the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban “should be explored,” an idea also considered by some military leaders. But now he has started a review of policy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan intended to find a new strategy, and he signaled that reconciliation could emerge as an important initiative, mirroring the strategy used by Gen. David H. Petraeus in Iraq.

“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,” Mr. Obama said.

At the same time, he acknowledged that outreach may not yield the same success. “The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex,” he said. “You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.”

The Karzai government has done this on occasion, peeling off an important former Talibani and giving him a job in the administration as a show of openness to national reconciliation.  Many of the Taliban come from Pakistan, but a large number are Afghanis who will eventually have to live there when the fighting ends.  Karzai has repeatedly called for negotiations with the Afghani Taliban as a means to bring fighting to an end, but the Taliban as a whole are not accommodationist.  They want to live in a shari’a world that they run without interference from pesky, elected officials and others who don’t appreciate the oppressive system they want to impose.

The question is how many of these dead-enders still exist, and what percentage they comprise of the overall effort against Karzai and NATO.  Obama notes correctly that the Sunnis in Iraq were dead-set against elections and democracy in 2004-5, thinking they could ride several insurgencies and al-Qaeda back into domineering power in Baghdad.  By 2007, the Sunnis discovered that they’d formed an alliance with the Devil himself, and most of them switched sides after a change in US tactics and strategy made it clear that we intended to win.  Even most of the insurgents got disgusted by their putative allies in AQI and allied, somewhat uncomfortably, with the Americans and the Baghdad government.

Can that be done in Afghanistan?  Again as Obama notes, the issue is a lot more complicated there, where tribal politics play an even greater role than they did in Iraq.  It’s worth exploring, however, and if we can peel off significant numbers from the Taliban and reconcile them to the Karzai government (and whatever follows in the upcoming elections), it will go a long way towards isolating the dead-enders, making it easier to defeat them.  In the end, as in Iraq, this is a political problem, and eventually will require a political solution.

The question is whether one can take root in the long-standing tribal conflicts of Afghanistan.  Joe Biden’s partition suggestion for Iraq might make a little more sense in Afghanistan, but none of the other powers surrounding the nation would ever accept it, as it would require them to surrender territory themselves.  I’d say the prospects are bleak on all fronts for a while, but we should be trying everything short of actual partition, including an effort to find political solutions.


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:

I wonder where the cries from the ACLU and NOW will be if we decide to negotiate with one of the worst offenders in regards to oppression of basic civil rights, especially to women? There is no such thing as “moderate” members of the Taliban.

cadams on March 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I don’t have any big problem with this strategy, but when the Bush Administration worked with similar groups in Iraq, the big Democrat talking point was that we were establishing a theocracy in Iraq, that Iran was really running things and that the people working with us were only doing it for the money.

We’ll see what they say about this.

NoDonkey on March 9, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Obama and Hillary Clinton are making the USA a laughingstock in foreign countries. Russia, England, Germany, Venezuela..the list goes on.

I want to know why they dont burn the poppy fields…isnt that where the Tal-EEE-Bahn get there money?

becki51758 on March 9, 2009 at 11:22 AM

cadams on March 9, 2009 at 11:08 AM

I suspect the response will be the same it always has been: crickets chirping.

DrMagnolias on March 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM

We’ll see what they say about this.

Nothing. Democrats have always known that the little brown peoples love living under the oppressive boot. It’s their culture, don’t you know? Who are we to keep them from stoning girls as they try to go to school and execute apostates in soccer stadiums?

(/sarc if it’s needed)

Techie on March 9, 2009 at 11:23 AM

As a counter insurgency strategy to do what we did in Anbar with Sunni tribesmen, great. A better way to phrase it is peel off Pashtun tribes from supporting the Taliban and al Qaeda.

But the way it was described it sounded like appeasement.

Mr. Joe on March 9, 2009 at 11:24 AM

This is exactly why OSAMA did what he did.
The weak horse rides again.

katy on March 9, 2009 at 11:25 AM

We would not have to negotiage with terrorists if we’d just turn our military loose… Let them actualt KILL people and BLOW things up and DESTROY the enemy…

Carpet bombings with B52, Bunker / Mountain busters, total destruction to anyone and everything that apposes our victory and the end of the Taliban, AQ and any other radical groups…

Worked against japan, worked against Germany… I say scorched earth policy, bomb them to hell, go all out…

Victory would be ours in under six months…

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM

If it’s the Iraq plan adapted for Afghanistan then more power to it; anything to put the place back in order.

I’ll be contacting MorOn.org and CodePinko to see if they plan on releasing any ads in the NYT which denounce our generals or the President.

Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 11:28 AM

A “moderate” taliban means they only kill their women for misspeaking, rather than raping them, beating them, and then killing them.

jeffn21 on March 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM

There’s a significant difference between the Taliban and the Iraqi Sunnis. The Iraqi Sunnis were generally Sadam loyalists who were getting special perks under Sadam’s regime. They knew that the gravy train was up under a democratic gov’t, so hitched themselves to the insurgency. However, they decided in 2006/2007 that they didn’t like the alternative, especially after Al Qaeda took over the insurgency. Many of the complaints from Al Anbar provinence involved the extreme nature of Al Qaeda, their extreme version of Sharia, and their brutal rule. Iraq is an educated society with a significant middle class and a long history at the center of the Middle East (and civilization). That environment made it pretty ripe for a compromise and bodes well for the country’s future.

In contrast, the Taliban are religious fanatics. They embraced the extreme version of Sharia pedalled by Al Qaeda, which included the oppression of women and public executions in the soccer stadium. They and most Afghans, except the very elite, are illiterate (90% of population), and many live in isolated villages and lack even basic health care, education, roads, etc. Therefore, I’m not as optimistic about Afghanistan’s future as Iraq’s and feel that compromise with even certain elements of the Taliban is probably impossible. It is frankly going to take centuries to get Afghanistan to the same level of development as Iraq.

Illinidiva on March 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Driving wedges between people and dividing countries
is what our President does best. This should be a cinch!

elderberry on March 9, 2009 at 11:30 AM

Now Now….there’s rules about beating women. Well, more like guidelines. I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. Why doesn’t he just declare victory while surrendering. All the MSM would faint at how brilliant he is and how much safer the world is now.

lm10001 on March 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM

What’s truly astonishing about Obama’s 50 first days office is his incredible ineptitude in dealing with both economic and foreign policy.

I mean, you would expect someone to at least get something right, but Obama is the epithome of failure.

Norwegian on March 9, 2009 at 11:31 AM

Give the Tallies a Michael Moore DVD gift set, Barry.

swede7 on March 9, 2009 at 11:32 AM

It is kinda funny, how Iraq was a “Quagmire” and now they want to adapt some of the same starategies. Are they finally begrudgingly admitting that we won in Iraq?

Was it Reid that said we had already Lost in Iraq? Obama said that we should basically pull out and cut our losses, but now that he won, Iraq isn’t so bad.

Pathetic.

jeffn21 on March 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

When it comes to winning, leave partisan bickering aside. Who gives a sh*t what dems and the ACLU and code pink and all the other wacko’s say or don’t say, as long as we win. A powerless Taliban and a democratic Iraq are more important goals than any short-term political points.

Mord on March 9, 2009 at 11:34 AM

This “style” of prosecuting a war could be dangerously close to the way Lyndon Johnson refused to go downtown Saigon while our enemies re-inforced. The Tet offensive was a disaster for the North, and they were on the brink of surrendering to U.S. terms while our media, (Cronkite specifically), made the claim that all was lost. 17k soldiers was a token choice Obama made because one of his campaign promises was to re-inforce our presence there.

There’s a frightening parallel how “modern” liberal Presidents prosecute wars. They ask our military to sacrifice their lives while appeasing our enemies with carrots.

Rovin on March 9, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Go after Afghani Taliban connections with the Haqqani and Mehsud networks. Peel off who you can, but don’t expect much success from this approach.

Christien on March 9, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Wow! The Dow’s up $1.67 —– Obama’s Wednesday night party is on….

Rovin on March 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM

There is no such thing as “moderate” members of the Taliban.

Sure there are. Those are the ones who think that it is enough to beat your woman only once a day.

sonofdy on March 9, 2009 at 11:41 AM

Illinidiva on March 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM

The term, quagmire, comes to mind. We do need a policing action to prevent rebuilding or terrorist training camps, but trying to change their society fails to meet any rational cost/benefit outlook for us, short term.

a capella on March 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM

If that is how we define victory, then why even be in Afghanistan? We cannot bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age, they are already in the stone age. If our goal is to have a stable country that does not allow the harboring of terrorists, then we have to do it differently.

Illinidiva on March 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM

I am going to have to disagree with you partially on this one. The idiosyncratic interpretation of the Koran and of Sharia law of the Taliban is not the same as AQ. As a matter of fact, the Taliban were never particularly infatuated with AQ before 9-11, but welcomed them as guests (partially because of what OBL had done in Afghanistan during the Soviet War and partially due to the code of Pashtunwali that requires Pashtuns [and the Taliban was largely a Pashtun movement] to give hospitality to anyone who asks for it).

I do agree that Afghanistan is different, and I would argue, a bit more complex than the situation we had in Iraq. The insurgency in Afghanistan is being waged by a Neo-Taliban which it is estimated only 20% of its ranks are made up of the old-school Taliban. The Neo-Taliban also consists of Drug runners and cultivaters, out of power/disgruntled warlords, Pashtuns who are pissed that the current government is made up of disproportionately large numbers of Tajiks/Uzbeks (Pashtuns are 54% of the population and have traditionally ruled Afghanistan), simple civilians who are so wretchedly poor that a $100 from the Neo-Taliban is a motivator, and those who have been, in their eyes, offended by the coalition (ANA or US/NATO) intursions into their homes or colateral damage caused by air strikes. Add to this the terrible corruption within the remote provincial/district governments and the historical dislike of any foreign intrusion (British, Soviet) and you have created a very complex environment in which to wage a COIN. Also add to this a country that is wretchedly poor and at constant conflict for about 30 years and you have a destroyed state that lacks services and security.

King of the Britons on March 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM

An “accommodation”? Yeah, that’s really worked out for the Pakistani’s hasn’t it?

GarandFan on March 9, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Terrible misunderstanding of the adage “If ya can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.” /s

I’d have a lot more confidence in this move if there were some sort of track record…on both sides. On the Taliban side, a record of willingness to moderate or modify their overall position of “Afghanistan for the Taliban,” (others need not apply) and of the Obama Administration (failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”) having a record of at least doing something, just one thing, right thus far.

As for Afghanistan…I’ll leave that to King of the Britons. He has his head screwed on right. I might disagree with a few minor things around the edges, maybe, but overall, from what I’ve seen of his posts here…he knoweth what he speaketh.

coldwarrior on March 9, 2009 at 11:56 AM

King of the Britons on March 9, 2009 at 11:47 AM

I was going to try and type all of that out, but you already said it. Thanks for saving me a lot of time.

Illinidiva on March 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Another poster who took most of my thunder. I think this is the most important part of the dilemma in Afghanistan. Without a middle-class the concepts of democracy are worthless ideals. If you are a poor farmer the only thing you care about is feeding your family and not getting hassled by the government. You could care less what the power structure is or what ideology is employed.

txaggie on March 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM

After reading many of the comments:

http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg

I suspect Obama will let General Petraeus do what he wants. Until I see different, I’ll be optimistic.

Let’s put aside the partisan BS.

toliver on March 9, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Petraeus ought to move out of the way and let Clinton and Obama handle this. One would have to “willingly suspend disbelief” to think that Obama can help the US in succeeding in the goals set by Bush for Afghanistan.

Obama is leading us into a quagmire in Afghanistan.

JiangxiDad on March 9, 2009 at 12:04 PM

Thanks for a fair minded post for once Ed.

DeathToMediaHacks on March 9, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Well, well . . . I thought he would give up in his first month but he waited until the second month. You cannot seek accommodation with a ruthless enemy. Obama is going to soon know how it feels to be totally humiliated and beaten.

rplat on March 9, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Wow! The Dow’s up $1.67 —– Obama’s Wednesday night party is on….
Rovin on March 9, 2009 at 11:39 AM

The economy is back on track! Let’s hear it for President Chimperama!

Bishop on March 9, 2009 at 12:13 PM

He should go and speak with them without preconditions. Take Hillary with.

MarkT on March 9, 2009 at 12:15 PM

I don’t think the comparison between the Taliban and the Iraqi Sunni’s is apt. Yes, there are similarities on a country basis — both being tribal and religious oriented not to mention mixed ethnic. It’s the differences that void the idea that what worked in Iraq with the Sunnis would be successful in Afghanistan with the Taliban.

The competition in Iraq is religious whereas it is not in Afghanistan. That competition in Iraq was, for the most part, the reason for the fighting, egged on by the myopic view (rightfully so considering the circumstances) that winning the “King of the Hill” fight for central power was the key to survival. Compromise can work here, by weakening central control and agreeing to a more secular approach wrt religion (IOW respecting differences). Further, the Sunnis in Iraq switched allegiances, if you will, because Al Qaeda didn’t respect the religious, the tribal, or the ethnic structures, creating another hill (religious) the Sunnis would have to constantly fight to the top of and adding fights about the core (tribal) of their lives and just making more enemies (ethnic) for the Sunni. It was an easy decision to switch if the Sunnis could solve the King of the Hill fighting for central power. In effect, our guaranteeing to see it out was one part of convincing them (more for protection than for last man standing reasons), but the the undermentioned part I think was our switch in emphasis from central to local governance which diffuses the concern for King of the Hill fighting for Baghdad (central power).

Afghanistan is a fight between either secular-religious or sunni-sunnilite and with either there is no and will be no accommodation on the part of the Taliban. The success we have had so far in “talking with Taliban” is really finding and encouraging those who are Taliban out of the convenience of not getting their heads chopped off for not being Taliban to come out of the closet, so to speak. Doing that, though requires special care becuase it could easily lead letting the barbarians in through the back gate.

Dusty on March 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Note that the marines in the background are standing at attention, and only doing things as ordered.

I wonder when they are going to start flashing the “hawaiian good luck” gesture when used by BHO as props?

Kristopher on March 9, 2009 at 1:12 PM

In the end, as in Iraq, this is a political problem, and eventually will require a political solution. The question is whether one can take root in the long-standing tribal conflicts of Afghanistan.

You didn’t specify: By “political solution,” you mean a DEMOCRATIC political solution, or a FIREPOWER political solution?

On second thought, never mind. ‘Cause in either case the answer is the same: NO; unless we treat the Afghanis pretty much like we treated the American Indians.

Iran and Iraq have at least the the remnants of centralized government, along with huge natural resources and incalcuable strategic significance. Afghanistan has none of those things. It is not possible to “rebuild” a nation that has never in the course of human history ever been BUILT in the first place.

Obama is taking our troops off the front lines and sending them into a meatgrinder.

logis on March 9, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Why would anybody give Obama the benefit of the doubt regarding Afghanistan?

It would be like assuming on Nov 3 that he was an economic centrist and a solid free-market proponent, wouldn’t it?

notagool on March 9, 2009 at 1:19 PM

The Taliban are religious fanatics, not Afghan nationalists. They cannot be reconciled to democratic rule.

edshepp on March 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM

The term, quagmire, comes to mind. We do need a policing action to prevent rebuilding or terrorist training camps, but trying to change their society fails to meet any rational cost/benefit outlook for us, short term.

a capella on March 9, 2009 at 11:45 AM

It pains me to say this (my introduction to political activism in HS was setting up awareness of women’s opression in Afghanistan in the late 90s), but Afghanistan really might be a quagmire. It’s kinda funny that Iraq is actually going to turn out to be a big “win” for the U.S., but Afghanistan isn’t.

Illinidiva on March 9, 2009 at 1:34 PM

The Taliban are religious fanatics, not Afghan nationalists. They cannot be reconciled to democratic rule.

edshepp on March 9, 2009 at 1:20 PM

I think this statement is indicative of the common misperception of the insurgency in Afghanistan. The term “Taliban” is being used to describe any and all who fight against the coalition and the Afghan government. The Taliban who ruled Afghanistant from 1994-ish until their ouster in 2001 was indeed inflexible and not open to dialogue regarding their unique interpretation of the Koran.

Today however, the hard-core Taliban (the Taliban of the same cloth of those who actually ruled Afghanistan) make up an estimated 20% of those who are actually fighting. There are many who have been wrapped in the cloak of the insurgency to include some of the old Taliban and foreign jihadists (AQ-types). See my earlier posts to see who else is included in this group, but to call all insurgents in Afghanistan “Taliban” is grossly over-simplifying the situation on the ground. Sadly, this has been a mistake made by those making and executing the policy and strategy on the ground in Afghanistan.

King of the Britons on March 9, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Asked if the United States was winning in Afghanistan, a war he effectively adopted as his own last month by ordering an additional 17,000 troops sent there, Mr. Obama replied flatly, “No.”

If Obama admitted we won the war in Afghanistan, he would have to give credit to George W. Bush. So, of course he says No.

Obama should probably let Petraeus do the research and the talking, rather than putting words in his mouth. Afghanistan is clearly a different situation than Iraq. Saddam’s Iraq was dominated by minority Sunnis, on whom Saddam showered many perks, while oppressing, torturing, and killing majority Shiites and minority Kurds. So when Saddam was booted from power, Sunnis (losing their privileges) joined the insurgencies, while some Shiites were tempted to ally themselves with Iran.

When the US invaded Afghanistan, there was a ready-made opposition force (the Northern Alliance of minority Uzbeks) too weak to take over the country alone, but the Taliban walked out of Kabul when the US came in. The problem in Afghanistan is that the Northern Alliance could never run things in a democracy–there are too many Pashtuns.

There are other major differences. Iraq is mostly flat, with the population concentrated around the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, and the capital Baghdad is centrally located. Afghanistan’s center is dominated by mountains, most of the population is in the southern plains around Kandahar, the capital (Kabul) is rather isolated, as are the two other major cities of the north, Mazar-e-Sharif (north central) and Herat (northwest, near Iran). It’s harder to unite a country whose cities are geographically isolated, and it’s easier for tribalism to take over in such circumstances.

General Petraeus’ “surge” strategy, which (in Iraq) consisted of fraternizing with the locals, finding out who was who, and forming an alliance against the enemy (al Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan) could work in Afghanistan, if Obama gives Petraeus free reign to pursue the strategy as Petraeus sees fit. If Obama tries to micro-manage Afgnanistan from Washington without knowing the facts, he will fail, much as Bush failed to calm Iraq in 2006, before the “surge” strategy started.

But somebody needs to address the elephant in the room: POPPIES!!! Most of northern Afghanistan is lousy farmland, and most of the good farmland in the south is devoted to opium poppies, which enrich the farmers but don’t feed the Afghan people, and the Taliban use the opium growers as their cash supply.

It probably won’t be easy to convince rich opium growers to convert their farms to food crops that can feed the Afghan people, but it needs to be done. Whether Obama and his acolytes will have the smarts and the diplomacy to do so is an open question.

Steve Z on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Well H#ll’s Bell’s,Hopey/Changey should
consider approaching the Iranian’Moderate’,
Revolutionary Guards after he negotiates
with the terrorists,

the Taliban!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NUTS,I say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 9, 2009 at 1:55 PM

“the possibility of breaking away some elements of the Taliban “should be explored….what a crock of turdity. That’s tantamount to working with the Nazi SS because they are preferable to the Gestapo..and don’t give me that alleged similarity in Iraq’s factions….apples and oranges. I say fire away with extreme prejudice and screw the guerilla niceties….quit worrying about what the spineless pussy world thinks.

A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

paulsmos on March 9, 2009 at 2:00 PM

The Taliban,want a strict Islamic Rule!

Obama needs to be firm in dealing with this plague,
the Taliban,by utelizing,

B-1’s,B-2’s,C-130 Spectres,Loitering drones,with optional
HellFires,J-Dam 2000 lb’s,any,and all other assests,
that insures the Taliban’s demise!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM

But somebody needs to address the elephant in the room: POPPIES!!!
Steve Z on March 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Getting rid of the poppie crop would have the same affect on the Afghanistan economy as getting rid of oil drilling would have on Iraq’s economy.

logis on March 9, 2009 at 2:02 PM

Are there moderates in the taliban like the Sunnis?

getalife on March 9, 2009 at 2:03 PM

“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq…”

Whoops, Obama declares Iraq to be a success? Sounds like the real headline, to me.

littleguy on March 9, 2009 at 2:35 PM

First start using the tribal word “Pashtun” Pashtunistan is the real geographic area that needs to be addressed. Repatriate as many Pashtuns they can back into The Afghan Tent.

Where is Pashtunistan ?

Taliban
is a movement.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Dr Evil on March 9, 2009 at 3:01 PM

“Guys, the ‘Afghanistanannis’”– Jim, The Office

Rush = enemy
Taliban = friend

Glenn Jericho on March 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM

So, he when asked if we were winning the war in Afganistan…he said “no.”

Do you really need to read/know any more than that? Seriously, the way socialists define “winning” is beyond me.

Frankly, I’m past caring if we are winning anyone’s hearts and/or minds and just want to see a positive K/D ratio. And on that note, we are KICKING THEIR FREAKING A&$#$, Mr. Obama.

OwlorNothing on March 9, 2009 at 4:08 PM

Glenn Jericho on March 9, 2009 at 4:02 PM

It’s called divide and conquer, it isn’t a new concept, and our Government has employed it before with good results SEE Indian Wars oh that’s right they were living in tribal states too/sarc. I don’t care if it is Obama that takes down the terrorist-get’s all the credit, I HATE the terrorist more then I do an American Idol President…in fact I don’t hate Obama what for? He wants to sow the wind, he will reap the whirlwind.

Dr Evil on March 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM

One is born into either the Sunni or the Shia faiths.

One joins the Taliban willingly and often comes from thousands of miles away to do so.

I think there’s a big difference between working with local Sunnis in Iraq given that their families are right there and in constant danger, and interlopers who happen to be fighting in Afghanistan and could easily be fighting anywhere.

Dr. ZhivBlago on March 9, 2009 at 5:11 PM

TALIBAN MODERATES: Only want to chop off arms and legs.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on March 9, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Dr. Charles G. Waugh at 9:14 PM-

The moderate Taliban only cut your head half off.

profitsbeard on March 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM

this is non news..
why
peolize slept with the dictator of syria
Democraps sold out to the iranina dictator
kerry is funneling letters to hamass his old buddies
so why are you suriprised when obama a muslim
suddely wants to surrender to the taliban.

All liberals do this they dont care how many people die in these countries
as long as they get camera face time.. to look good

I am sorry but to ALL you liberals your time is comming
where you will be held account for all of your CRIMES against the USA and we will execute justice..

jcila on March 9, 2009 at 10:40 PM

We would not have to negotiage with terrorists if we’d just turn our military loose… Let them actualt KILL people and BLOW things up and DESTROY the enemy…

Carpet bombings with B52, Bunker / Mountain busters, total destruction to anyone and everything that apposes our victory and the end of the Taliban, AQ and any other radical groups…

Worked against japan, worked against Germany… I say scorched earth policy, bomb them to hell, go all out…

Victory would be ours in under six months…

Mark Garnett on March 9, 2009 at 11:26 AM

Read up on the soviet occupation

The Taliban,want a strict Islamic Rule!

Obama needs to be firm in dealing with this plague,
the Taliban,by utelizing,

B-1’s,B-2’s,C-130 Spectres,Loitering drones,with optional
HellFires,J-Dam 2000 lb’s,any,and all other assests,
that insures the Taliban’s demise!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on March 9, 2009 at 2:01 PM

Don’t forget the mighty “buffs” (B-52) with a big belly load of 750 pound bombs.
.
But find the enemy and aim before shooting.

darktood on March 10, 2009 at 6:07 AM

Comment pages:


You must be logged in to post a comment.