If the Taliban’s serious about detente, why don’t they give us Bin Laden?

posted at 7:58 pm on October 11, 2009 by Allahpundit

Or rather, if Obama’s serious about detente, why doesn’t he demand that they do so as one of those “constructive beginnings” with Islamist fascists that he’s been pursuing? I’ve been thinking about that since reading the Times’s profile of Mullah Omar this morning and haven’t come up with a good answer yet. Quote:

Richard Barrett, a former British intelligence officer now monitoring Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the United Nations, argues that Mullah Omar has learned the lesson of 2001. If the Taliban regain power, he said, “they don’t want Al Qaeda hanging around.”

He added, “They want to be able to say, ‘We are a responsible government.’ ”

Indeed, in his Sept. 19 statement, Mullah Omar made such an assertion: “We assure all countries that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as a responsible force, will not extend its hand to cause jeopardy to others.”

Mr. Riedel, who helped devise the Afghanistan strategy now being rethought, scoffs at such pronouncements as “clever propaganda.”

The thrust of the recent Taliban nonsense about being good boys in Afghanistan if we leave is that they won’t tolerate Al Qaeda in their midst anymore. That’s pure nonsense to a 99.99 percent certainty — read (or re-read) Roggio to see why — but if Obama’s tempted by that last one one-hundredth of a percent, here’s the way he can make them prove it. Ask them to tell us where Osama, Zawahiri, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and the rest of the gang are hiding; if Omar and the Quetta Shura don’t have that information instantly available, they should be able to get it pretty quickly. Then they pass it to the Pakistanis and the Pakistanis pass it to us and the rest is left to the generals and drone operators. Not only would The One get a tremendous political boost, he could sell the success as proof that Biden’s light-footprint counterterror strategy is the way to go. After all, if we’re capable of liquidating most of the AQ leadership before deploying those extra troops McChrystal wants, why send them? And if the Taliban refuses his demand, whether for reasons of jihadist loyalty or Pashtun hospitality, then there’s your proof that they can never, ever be trusted not to host AQ if we leave them alone in Afghanistan. What am I missing here?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

So MB4, you advocate total war on Afghanistan?

Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 11:38 PM
No. I advocated mostly leaving Afghanistan and not making it the Center of the Universe.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM

That’s a defeatist attitude that sets up the US civilian population for further attacks.

Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Chris, there are already people in this country today who are part of or inspired by al qaeda.
As much as I respect Bush’s war attitude regarding Iraq, his “we fight them there so we don’t have to fight them here” isn’t really the case.

They’re here now. Nothing we do in Afganistan will change that.
This country uncovered how many domestic terror plots in the past month or so? 3?

B Man on October 12, 2009 at 12:29 AM

Allowing them to have their own country will not improve that one bit, and may exacerbate it to the point we don’t stop those attacks.

Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 12:37 AM

So what do you want to do? Send in 40k troops and have a CiC not have their back? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

B Man on October 12, 2009 at 12:48 AM

What am I missing here?

.
The One’s suicidal utopian fantasy worldview.

dont taze me bro on October 12, 2009 at 12:54 AM

No. I advocated mostly leaving Afghanistan and not making it the Center of the Universe.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM

That’s a defeatist attitude that sets up the US civilian population for further attacks.

Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Baloney.

MB4 on October 12, 2009 at 1:36 AM

Obama and McChrystal’s Afghanistan policy is beginning to resemble The Bridge on the River Kwai even more than it does Vietnam.

MB4 on October 12, 2009 at 1:40 AM

You say Obama, I say Osama. What’s the dif?? Let’s call the whole thing off.

betsyz on October 12, 2009 at 4:14 AM

Time for another beer summit.

yoda on October 12, 2009 at 6:04 AM

Why would the TallEBan turn over their commanding general? See Times of India story.

Friendly21 on October 12, 2009 at 6:14 AM

The Taliban and Al Qaeda have different goals:

The Taliban want to rule one country, Afghanistan, in the 12th-century Sharia manner.

Al Qaeda wants to rule the world in a similar manner. The Taliban is more fundamentalist, Al Qaeda is more dangerous to the USA, because THOSE are the fanatics that were behind/involved in the 9-11 attacks on New York City and elsewhere.

If the Taliban could actually locate and catch Bin Laden, they might turn him over to the USA. For money and power. There is no love lost between the groups, and there is constant infighting, which has been going on since the Russians were in Afghanistan. Or longer.

Neither group would I invite to Christmas dinner.

bradley11 on October 12, 2009 at 6:51 AM

So what do you want to do? Send in 40k troops and have a CiC not have their back? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
B Man on October 12, 2009 at 12:48 AM

We can send more troops and then boot the command easier than we can evacuate, have our allies bail, then realize our mistake and try to go back in when the number of separate plots on the US skyrockets.

That’s a defeatist attitude that sets up the US civilian population for further attacks.
Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Baloney.
MB4 on October 12, 2009 at 1:36 AM

No. You no longer want to win. You’re fine with the enemy winning, which is defeatist. And they already proved they’ll kill Americans in America, before we dropped a single bomb on them.

Chris_Balsz on October 12, 2009 at 7:35 AM

No. I advocated mostly leaving Afghanistan and not making it the Center of the Universe.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:50 PM

Obama was lying when he said we should make Afghanistan our focus?

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:01 AM

bradley11 on October 12, 2009 at 6:51 AM

We also must bear in mind the overarching goal of Islam is to take over the world. There’s no choice here. We kill both. It’s wack-a-mole with fundamentalist Muslims from now until we die.

Think Pinky and the Brain. Hey Brain Islam, what are we doing today? The same thing we do every day, try and take over the world.

Mojave Mark on October 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM

The Talaban could give us Obama if he was alive, but he is frolicking with his 72 virgins and has been since December, 2001.

molonlabe28 on October 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM

This plan assumes that liberals have a brain. Therefore it is doomed to fail. Good idea, though.

fleiter on October 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM

I bet you never saw this in any newspaper in the USA? Another very Quiet appointment? Happened a while back but never heard of it until now:

Obama Appoints 2 Devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts

Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.

Kareem Shora, who was born in Damascus, Syria was appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano
on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? That should make our homeland much safer, huh!! Was it not men of the “Devout Muslim Faith” that flew planes into U.S. buildings not too long ago. What the heck is this president thinking?

Christian Conservative on October 12, 2009 at 10:32 AM

For some interesting reading on the nature of the battlefield in Afghanistan and how we may be able to leverage a win, take a look at Steven Pressfield’s blog:

An Open Letter to Gen. James Jones, National Security Advisor

If anyone is still wondering why we need to be in Afghanistan, then look no further than the recent arrest of Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan:

I purposefully picked an MSNBC link to show that the link to Afghanistan isn’t just a conservative notion.

There is a lot of trouble in that region and pulling out is a mistake that will serve only to make our enemies think we don’t have the stomach to make good on our promises not only to the people of Afghanistan but to the people of America and other freedom loving countries around the world.

Here are just a few reasons not to let terrorists have a safe haven in Afghanistan:

(1) Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism in the region, affecting Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Israel just to name a few – staying in Afghanistan puts pressure on them and helps the morale of millions inside Iran who shout “Death to the dictator” from their rooftops at night. See Michael Ledeen’s blog for more: The Death Spiral of the Islamic Republic III

(2) We can win if we let our military fight the war the way it needs to be fought. Anything less just invites more attacks on America because we appear weak to our enemies.

(3) The Taliban is currently a big threat to an ally, Pakistan, and their nuclear arsenal.

(4) Americans don’t run from a fight, especially when it’s regarding something as important as eliminating the threat of global terrorism.

(5) Brave Americans have already given their lives to free Afghanistan and stamp out global terrorism. We owe it to them to finish the job.

The Taliban are still a threat and they must be destroyed. Anything less is a huge mistake we can’t afford to make. Let our troops take the gloves off and give them the resources they need to finish this.

Shockwave on October 12, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Ooops! Here’s the MSNBC link I left out of the previous post:

Did Zazi heed call to terrorize Americans?

Shockwave on October 12, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Bin Laden’s busy doing his next video calling for jihad on us for bombing the moon.

Cybergeezer on October 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Ask them to tell us where Osama, Zawahiri, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and the rest of the gang are hiding; if Omar and the Quetta Shura don’t have that information instantly available, they should be able to get it pretty quickly.

On what do you base this assumption?

orange on October 12, 2009 at 12:28 PM

***
Remember the old adage–THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND.
***
Osama Bin Ladin will probably be the new AYOTALLAH when the Taliban and Al Queda take over the failed “state” of Pakistan in the next few years. Coming soon to an American city near you–terrorist nukes. Possibly President Obama (PBUH) can have some meaningful appeasement talks with him then and convince him of the error of his jihadi ways.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on October 12, 2009 at 1:53 PM

Obama was lying when he said we should make Afghanistan our focus?

MarkTheGreat on October 12, 2009 at 9:01 AM

Of course you know he was, you just didn’t put the sarc tag on.

Chris, MB4 is correct, and for the right reasons. Obama has made it clear he has no intention of fighting the Afghan war to victory. Every single move he has made has been done with an eye toward losing it in such a way that he can eventually blame the loss on republicans generally and Bush specifically.

I personally hate the idea of cutting and running in Afghanistan, and the reasons it is a bad idea have already been posted here, more than once. Those reasons are correct and I agree with all of them. That is no longer the point though.

The point is that Obama will lose this war, and he cares not how many more American troops he has to throw in the meat grinder before that goal is met. It’s time to get our people out.

runawayyyy on October 12, 2009 at 3:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2