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.

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..

The moderate Taliban only cut your head half off.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Rush = enemy
Taliban = friend

Where is Pashtunistan ?

Taliban is a movement.

“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.

In 1975, President Thieu of then South Vietnam stated:
“The US did not keep its word.  Is an American’s word reliable these days?  The US did not keep its promise to help us fight for freedom.”
President Obama should bear this in m…

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.

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!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.