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

Because he is long dead.

But turning Zawahiri over would be a nice gesture.

Of course anyone with half a brain knows that the Taliban is not interested in detente.

LegendHasIt on October 11, 2009 at 8:06 PM

Would they have to dig him up?

Dr Evil on October 11, 2009 at 8:06 PM

“What am I missing here?”

You’re missing that the boy king has no intention of winning a war, any war, or getting Bin Laden, or any other action that will hurt his chances to be boy king of the entire world.

notagool on October 11, 2009 at 8:06 PM

That’s actually a pretty interesting analysis. Even if the Obama Administration did the question asking quietly and through back door channels, it would give them all the answers they needed about whether or not we needed to stay in Afghanistan long term.

I suspect the answer is yes, we need to be there long term to eliminate the Taliban along with AQ, but it’d still be an entertaining experiment.

BadgerHawk on October 11, 2009 at 8:07 PM

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.”

That’s actually showing vulnerability, that isn’t a claim you make if you feel like you are in the driver seat.

Dr Evil on October 11, 2009 at 8:08 PM

So,Liberals are negotiating with Terrorists!

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 8:09 PM

What am I missing here?

Nothing. It’s a brilliant ploy. Hey Mullah, put up or shut up.

One (not too realistic) problem, of course, is what if they actually do give us Osama and Zawahiri?

Or negotiate smaller AQ operatives?

SteveMG on October 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM

AP, the answer is staring you in the face – Obama promised negotiations with terrorists without preconditions. So far, that’s the only one he’s kept.

cpr on October 11, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Hey Mr Taliban. Send me an Osama…

Drained Brain on October 11, 2009 at 8:12 PM

So after appeasement from the Taliban in Afghanistan,
how soon does Shari Law start moving across into Iraq,
and other countries!!

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 8:13 PM

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?

Well, let’s see…
a. the Taliban is scared sh**less of Osama and Co.
b. For the most part, the Taliban feels exactly the same way about the Evil U.S. as Osama does.
and
c. Teh One doesn’t care if they’re trustworthy or not; he neither understands nor cares much about what happens if/when we pull out of Afghanistan. Mustn’t piss off the rest of the world, after all…

uncivilized on October 11, 2009 at 8:13 PM

I like it and if Obama carries out his surrender plan they should have a GOP senator go right to the floor of Congress and make the same demand.

rob verdi on October 11, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Will the Taliban Victory Museum against the United States have a special tribute to Teh Gelding just like Vietnam has to John Kerry and Jane Fonda…?

Seven Percent Solution on October 11, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Sounds like another good opportunity for me to post my “TaliBomb” strategy – it would solve virtually every problem we have in the Islamic world.

The Iranian nuke program is a problem – but Iranian nukes aren’t the only problem – those Pakistani nukes are a huge problem too. And Iran is also supplying arms to insurgents in Iraq – and some say Afghanistan too.

And those pesky Taliban – we can’t seem to get rid of them.

But with my “TaliBomb” strategy – all problems can be solved.

This is how you do it – have CIA disguised as Taliban take over all Pakistani nuke sites.

Then NUKE Iran with the Paki missiles and blame it on the Tally’s.

No more Iranian nuke program. No more Paki Nukes. The Iranians are too busy rebuilding their scorched country to worry about insurgents in Iraq …

Plus they will then help US to hunt down and kill all the Tally’s.

Easy Peasey.

HondaV65 on October 11, 2009 at 8:15 PM

If twenty five million dollars isn’t enough to get Omar to give up Osama nothing will. After reading Roggio this morning I don’t see any difference between the Taliban and AQ.

fourdeucer on October 11, 2009 at 8:16 PM

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

Good questions…simple answer…they have nothing to do with it.

They haven’t promised to do anything because Obama hasn’t asked anything of them and he won’t. The reason he won’t is because this is just a transparent flim-flam job by Obama to pull out of Afghanistan, regardless of the consequences, because it’s a distraction from “Obama’s miraculous perfection of America”.

But we already knew the answer to that question, didn’t we?

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 8:18 PM

One (not too realistic) problem, of course, is what if they actually do give us Osama and Zawahiri?

Or negotiate smaller AQ operatives?

SteveMG on October 11, 2009 at 8:10 PM

Hmmmm. I hadn’t thought of that. If they actually turned the Dynamite Duo over to us – then what? Smack their hands? Put them in jail here, in the U.S., so they can paint a giant bullseye on some rural prison town? Turn ‘em loose?
It boggles the mind.

uncivilized on October 11, 2009 at 8:20 PM

…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?…

Can you say “no preconditions?”

ConScribe on October 11, 2009 at 8:20 PM

I don’t see any difference between the Taliban and AQ.

fourdeucer on October 11, 2009 at 8:16 PM

There isn’t any difference, never has been. AQ is better funded, maybe. But, as far as ideology is concerned, Osama is just the Taliban CEO.

uncivilized on October 11, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Wait a tic,the Taliban are not too friendly to the women
folk,as a matter of fact,unspeakable nasty things seem
to happen to women who don’t tote the Taliban line,

and,

Liberals claim to be the champions of womens causes,
and so-called protecters of womens rights,

so,Team Liberal,then wants to make a deal with the Devil,
and throw the women,daughters,mothers,and grandmothers,

under da bus!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Easy Peasey.

HondaV65 on October 11, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Okay, who gave you that idea, Vince Flynn, Ted Bell, David Baldacci, Daniel Silva, or Brad Thor.

fourdeucer on October 11, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Look up the term hudna.

OhioCoastie on October 11, 2009 at 8:29 PM

How do we even know Osama bin Laden is still alive?

Emily M. on October 11, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Errr..because they aren’t serious?

SouthernGent on October 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM

What am I missing here?

The true motivation that drives The Precedent’s actions and policies … yet, once again.

progressoverpeace on October 11, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Look up the term hudna.

OhioCoastie on October 11, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Who is offering hudna ?
Obama or Osama ?

macncheez on October 11, 2009 at 8:43 PM

What am I missing here?

Unilateral disengagement requires no concessions on the part of your (former) adversary.

We seem intent upon taking our ball and going home.

turfmann on October 11, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Will the Taliban Victory Museum against the United States have a special tribute to Teh Gelding just like Vietnam has to John Kerry and Jane Fonda…?

Seven Percent Solution on October 11, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Undoubtedly. The question is what the inscription at the base of the tribute will say.

steveegg on October 11, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Could prove difficult considering Osama Bin Laden is probably already dead.

The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Undoubtedly. The question is what the inscription at the base of the tribute will say.

steveegg on October 11, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Something like

THIS was the one WE had been waiting for

macncheez on October 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM

Hey, I like that kind of a challenge. I can’t remember any leader trying that approach.

amr on October 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Undoubtedly. The question is what the inscription at the base of the tribute will say.

steveegg on October 11, 2009 at 8:47 PM

steveegg:

“Ah..um..um..ah..I..gave peace to ah..um..the Taliban,and
let me be clear,ah..um..ah..I brought ah peace ah..um..
to ah..um..the world..ah..um.”———-:)

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM

What you are missing is the gullibility of 0.

Oleta on October 11, 2009 at 9:01 PM

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

And leave the Afghans to the vicious, 7th Century style rule of the Taliban? Executing women, chopping hands off of thieves? Killing homosexuals?

Not. In. My. Name!

rbj on October 11, 2009 at 9:04 PM

He is either dead or in Chicago.

lavell12 on October 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM

I expect Obama to pardon Bin Laden before he is captured .

borntoraisehogs on October 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Mullah Omar could no more disown Bin Laden than he could disown his own filthy, goat-smelling facial hair.

Infidoll on October 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Hmmmm. I hadn’t thought of that. If they actually turned the Dynamite Duo over to us – then what? Smack their hands? Put them in jail here, in the U.S., so they can paint a giant bullseye on some rural prison town? Turn ‘em loose?
It boggles the mind.

uncivilized on October 11, 2009 at 8:20 PM

Stake them on the ground at the World Trade Center site an notify the families of the dead?

katy the mean old lady on October 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Mullah Omar could no more disown Bin Laden than he could disown his own filthy, goat-smelling facial hair.

Infidoll on October 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM

ROFLMAO!

progressoverpeace on October 11, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Something like

THIS was the one WE had been waiting for

macncheez on October 11, 2009 at 8:53 PM

“Ah..um..um..ah..I..gave peace to ah..um..the Taliban,and
let me be clear,ah..um..ah..I brought ah peace ah..um..
to ah..um..the world..ah..um.”———-:)

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Double HEH!

steveegg on October 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM

OBL is pushing daisies, but we’ll take Mullah Omar instead.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Stake them on the ground at the World Trade Center site an notify the families of the dead?

katy the mean old lady on October 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM

Payback certainly can’t hurt…

ConScribe on October 11, 2009 at 9:11 PM

 ding  dong  Bin  Laden’s  dead
 Bin  Laden’s  dead
 Bin  Laden’s  dead

ericdijon on October 11, 2009 at 9:16 PM

ericdijon on October 11, 2009 at 9:16 PM

Then show us the grave. Until then, that bastard is alive.

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 9:18 PM

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 9:18 PM

That’s pretty disingenuous. There’s much more evidence suggesting Osama Bin Laden is dead than that he is alive. But he serves a purpose for both sides.

The Calibur on October 11, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Double HEH!

steveegg on October 11, 2009 at 9:09 PM

steveegg:)

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 9:21 PM

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 9:18 PM

Get a cup – go east of Afghanistan and scoop up some aeolian sediment – snag the DNA off of it.

ericdijon on October 11, 2009 at 9:24 PM

ericdijon on October 11, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Too much work…a head on a platter is better press anyway.

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Stake them on the ground at the World Trade Center site an notify the families of the dead?

katy the mean old lady on October 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM

katy the mean old lady:Keep’em staked to the ground,
and biuld over top of them!

No wait,Liberals will want a glass
structure built over the top of them,
then a building over top of that,in
that way,Liberals could charge a peep
charge,and then tax it!!:)

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Too Lord of the Flies – ish.

ericdijon on October 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM

The Taliban can’t turn over Bin Laden because Bin Laden is buried under tons of Tora Bora rock. He is gone. Most of the al qaeda “regulars” are gone from Pakistan and Af’stan, having moved back to Somalia and Yemen. The native Pakistan al Qaeda are busy blowing themselves up trying to inflict will-breaking damage on the government there, and the Af’stan al qaeda are being used as bombers and expendable martyrs.

AQ’s time in both countries is over, and we are fighting Taliban in Af’stan, not al qaeda. How does that mission creep fit our war on terror? You need lots of troops to kill lots of Taliban, and they won’t stop until they’re all dead, so what are our choices?

Get out now. The real war on terror has moved theaters again, and now it’s Obama’s turn to have taken his eye off the ball in exactly the same way Bush did, failing to follow the enemy and defeat them hammer and tong.

MarkT on October 11, 2009 at 9:36 PM

How about if we wait until Code Pink and Diane Feinstein turn in favor of staying in A’stan? Oh wait….

Seriously, 9/11 wasn’t enough to stiffen the resolve of most in government. Perhaps a 2010 Cuban missile crisis type event will do the trick. Otherwise, it seems Hoping is to be the main strategy for the next three years.

I like your idea AP but it is on the same level as “Iran, you have 48 hours to declare ALL nuclear sites and research or Tehran will have an unhealthy glow for the next 10,000 years.”

GnuBreed on October 11, 2009 at 9:44 PM

ericdijon on October 11, 2009 at 9:35 PM

Well that explains it then…I kinda liked ‘Lord of the Flies’.

AUINSC on October 11, 2009 at 9:45 PM

No wait,Liberals will want a glass
structure built over the top of them,
then a building over top of that,in
that way,Liberals could charge a peep
charge,and then tax it!!:)

canopfor on October 11, 2009 at 9:34 PM

Might be the way to actually get something built there. It’s a disgrace to see it empty.

katy the mean old lady on October 11, 2009 at 9:47 PM

if Obama’s serious about detente, why doesn’t he demand that they do so…

Because that would be a precondition.

Kafir on October 11, 2009 at 9:50 PM

Even if Bin laden is alive I doubt the Taliban have any control over him anymore.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 9:53 PM

What’s with all of this belief that Bin laden is dead. What makes you guys think that? Just wanting to believe it?

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 9:55 PM

Obviously, Mullah Omar should be next in line for the Nobel Peace Prize.

hillbillyjim on October 11, 2009 at 9:56 PM

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.”

I hope Mr. Barrett’s loved ones have covered the electrical outlets in his house and are careful to keep sharp objects and hazardous chemicals out of his hands.

The Taliban don’t have to “compromise” on providing al-Qaeda sanctuary or on anything else. They believe they are on the verge of total victory in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mike Honcho on October 11, 2009 at 9:57 PM

What am I missing here?

Common sense. You’re still playing this game like Obama just has policies you don’t agree with. This is an evil, evil man who has surrounded himself with communists, terrorists, and anti-Semites his entire life and promised to “fundamentally transform” this country. Why you even consider his statements or movements in the light you would any other person is beyond me. He’s not deserving of even the slightest benefit of the doubt on anything anymore.

RightWinged on October 11, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Obviously, Mullah Omar should be next in line for the Nobel Peace Prize.

hillbillyjim on October 11, 2009 at 9:56 PM

Osama bin Laden would be in line, but he’s dead.

steveegg on October 11, 2009 at 9:59 PM

…light-footprint counterterror strategy…

heh

Maquis on October 11, 2009 at 10:00 PM

He is either dead or in Chicago.

lavell12 on October 11, 2009 at 9:05 PM

Yeah, who would ever think to look twice in Al Capone’s empty vault.

ICBM on October 11, 2009 at 10:00 PM

All Ozzie would have to do to prove he is alive in a video is hold up the front page of a recent newspaper or magazine whose date could easily be proven.

I would have settled for him holding up the Boston Globe front page after the Red Sox won their first World Series in 86 years in 2004, but instead a day or so later a video claiming to be him endorsed Jean-Claude Kerri for President.

Del Dolemonte on October 11, 2009 at 10:11 PM

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 9:55 PM

I agree with President Bush on bringing bin Laden to justice—or taking her to him! So, I personally don’t mind having this kind of proof that justice finally caught up with the brute. However, a live capture would be awesome.

On whether bin Laden is dead, I’d prefer proof, not just bits of evidence.

ConScribe on October 11, 2009 at 10:16 PM

I don’t believe that Bin laden was killed at Tora bora, that’s one.

Two, I don’t think he’s dead now. I think he’s in Iran.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 10:21 PM

And leave the Afghans to the vicious, 7th Century style rule of the Taliban? Executing women, chopping hands off of thieves? Killing homosexuals?

Not. In. My. Name!

rbj on October 11, 2009 at 9:04 PM

No joke – if this Administration allows the Tailban to retake Afghanistan, the President should be required to apologize personally to the families of every soldier that has died there. And he should have to attend the first mass execution of women and witness the burning of the schools.

rockmom on October 11, 2009 at 10:23 PM

Seeing as how weak and vascillating Obama is, I don’t get why our troops would even want to stay in Afganistan.

If we had a strong no nonsense kick a@@ and take names CiC, then I’d be all for staying in that rat hole of a country, but we got Obama. What’s worse? Staying and having the body count soar, or leaving and having them take over?

It’s lose lose, but at least if we left the troops’ lives might be saved.
Overwhelming force?? With Obama as CiC? Please.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 10:30 PM

Why doesn’t the White House could just announce that they have killed Osama bin Laden.

Its not like the news media wouldn’t take there word for it.

agmartin on October 11, 2009 at 10:32 PM

Simply because the Taliban is NOT serious about detente. Why would the Taliban compromise to an appeaser?

BottomLine5 on October 11, 2009 at 10:53 PM

A) Taliban = fanatical Sunni Muslims.

B) Al Qaeda = fanatical Sunni Muslims.

C) Obama = gutless apostate ex-Muslim.

A and B do not want to harm fellow Islamic warriors, but would like to kill C an heretical ex-Muslim, so why would they help the infidel Obama harm either one or the other (both being certified, Koranically-pure Lions of Allah).

They will happily lie (in Islam: taqiyya) to sucker C in order to give them (A and B) breathing room to regroup, rearm and reconstitute power, but will not do anything that would require them to actually hurt one other.

Obama is too unimaginative and weak to make such a bold proposal, AP, because, if the Taliban failed to deliver, Barry would then be forced to respond.

Militarily.

And that would put a nasty tarnish on his upcoming Nobel doo-dad.

profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM

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.

That is very questionable. A CIA trainee could set security up better than that.

After all, if we’re capable of liquidating most of the AQ leadership before deploying those extra troops McChrystal wants, why send them?

Why send them now? McChrystal doesn’t want the extra troops to go after AlQ. He doesn’t even seem much interested in going after the Taliban.

We don’t win by destroying the Taliban. We don’t win by body count. We don’t win by the number of successful military raids or attacks, we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General McChrystal (in London recently)

Why is this so hard to understand?

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM

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

Let’s be culturally-sensitive here, OK? Just FedEx us his noggin in a box.

Bruno Strozek on October 11, 2009 at 11:02 PM

Rush committed the unforgivable sin of telling the truth about the MSM.

Oh wait, look how harshly the media have treated Ojesus. Rush obviously must be a racist. If Limbaugh had been telling the truth, the media would be treating Jug-ears with kid gloves–you know, fact-checking SNL parodies and the like.

hillbillyjim on October 11, 2009 at 11:05 PM

Wrong thread. I don’t know why Hot Air pages keep popping back to old tabs, but I wish it would stop,

hillbillyjim on October 11, 2009 at 11:07 PM

From the Sergeant Major:

There is this misconception of Afghanistan in particular (and Islam in general) that somehow we can bring Central Asia (and the rest of the Islamic world) kicking and screaming into the 21st Century through good will. This is simply not the case. There is no amount of money to spend, infrastructure to build, schools to provide, hospitals to heal, or good will that Americans can display toward the Afghan people that will produce a lasting effect. I was once told by an accomplished Afghan intelligence analyst that, “you can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him.”

This writer spent thirty years listening to and deciphering military acronyms and idiotic jargon. The catch phrase today is “COIN” – Counterinsurgency doctrine. Our political and military leadership act like this is some sort of secret knowledge – Gnostic esoteric knowledge – that is now coming to light. That is crap. There is nothing new here.

The current crop of Afghanistan’s “Warriors” is almost exclusive to the opposition. The true believers are fighters – cowards too, but fighters nonetheless. By contrast, the bulk of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and Afghan National Police (ANP) are not fighters, nor are they “true believers”. They are simply cowards – frauds – corrupt to the core by any standard and an apostate to their own faith. They are slovenly, drug-addicted, dimwitted, and totally unreliable at any level. Like the Taliban, they are brutal to their own countrymen. They thrive on their petty powers and refuse to shoulder any burden or responsibility. Does this sound too harsh? Not for the Marines and Soldiers who have been killed by the treachery of ANA and ANP who have purposely led them into ambush.

According to the great military minds of our time, these ANA/ANP forces can be trained and formed to fight their own war. At what cost? How many American lives? How many taxpayer dollars? It would take decades if it were simply a matter of sophistication and military training. However, the obstacle is the way and philosophy of life in the Islamic world.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:08 PM

The enemy is insidious and single-minded in his mission and we must be equally intent in our resolve to meet them on a battlefield of our choosing. Theirs is to kill all apostates and unbelievers and ours needs to be in kind. Short of that and we will find ourselves on the wrong side of this fight when history is written.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:11 PM

In short: The only safe jihadi is a posthumous jihadi.

profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM

George W. Bush was fine with the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan before 9/11. Even after 9/11 he was still fine with the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan. He gave them at least two chances to give up OBL. He made no demand that the Taliban give up power in Afghanistan. If they had turned over OBL, or if OBL had turned up in, say, Sudan and been shot dead by Army SF, we would not even have gone into Afghanistan, let alone be there 8 years later with no end in sight.

We went in because of AlQ and to punish the Taliban for not turning over OBL and now, since there doesn’t appear to be many AlQ at all in Afghanistan, it’s become Taliban, Taliban, Taliban!!, and McChrystal doesn’t even seem that interested in killing Taliban anyway.

It’s a Mad House!!!

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:25 PM

we win when the [Afghan] people decide we win.
- General McChrystal (in London recently)

I agree with that. not that it matters what I think, but that sounds absolutely right.
The question is: are the (Afgan) people going to decide in our favor?
What will make them decide to F the Taliban and totally support us?
Somehow 40k more troops doesn’t seem enough.
Some people say that the people of Afgan already totally support us. Dunno bout that.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Men, it has been well said think in herds, it can be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
- Charles McKay

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:31 PM

Some people say that the people of Afgan already totally support us. Dunno bout that.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 11:26 PM

If that were true McChyrstal would be saying that 40,000 troops could go home, not that he wants another 40,000 to leave home.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM

So MB4, you advocate total war on Afghanistan?

Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 11:38 PM

If that were true McChyrstal would be saying that 40,000 troops could go home, not that he wants another 40,000 to leave home.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:33 PM

Exactly. That’s our real problem. We’re screwed over there if the people don’t support us completely.
I don’t care how many troops we bring over.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Exactly. That’s our real problem. We’re screwed over there if the people don’t support us completely.
I don’t care how many troops we bring over.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 11:41 PM

I do not think we broke the Nazis with the support of the common people of Germany.

Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 11:47 PM

We’re screwed over there if the people don’t support us completely.
I don’t care how many troops we bring over.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 11:41 PM

Why would Muslim care anything about infidel dogs except to use them for cunning power gains (in Afghanistan, this would mean having the dumb foreign forces kill off their tribal competitors) until they were able to turn the tables on the unclean non-Muslims and subjugate or exterminate them, as the Koran dictates.

You cannot win the minds of the mesmerized or the hearts of the hypnotized.

profitsbeard on October 11, 2009 at 11:48 PM

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

Kabul has astounding traffic tie-ups. Road rage is limited because one never knows if the other guy may have a flamethrower in his vehicle, but the cursing and honking is legendary. In the spring of 2007, during a massive, two-hour traffic jam on Jalalabad Road, I watched as an Afghan driver and his assistant got out of their flat bed truck in an attempt to beat the heat by lying down in the shade under the tires. The truck was hauling two large containers of medical supplies marked with a Red Cross. The driver apparently forgot to put out the tire chalks, and the truck rolled over both men crushing their heads like peas. Nobody – nobody – lifted a finger to help them. Their bodies were simply pulled to the side and the honking and shouting went on as usual. Life means nothing.
- Jim Sauer (retired Marine Corps Sergeant Major and combat veteran with over thirty years of service. Since retiring he has worked in support of U.S. Government efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel)

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:54 PM

I do not think we broke the Nazis with the support of the common people of Germany.

Chris_Balsz on October 11, 2009 at 11:47 PM

If Obama and McChrystal had been in charge then we would have needed to, not that it would have worked.

MB4 on October 11, 2009 at 11:57 PM

As far as Germany goes, for one, we bombed their country to a pulp and all their leaders gave up or killed themselves.
If we could do THAT in Afganistan I’d be all for it.

I’m looking at Obama and how weak and half-measured he is. This ain’t no WWII sitation here. We aren’t bombing the crap out of any country today.

B Man on October 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM

two reasons why Mr B Hussein Obama won’ t insist that Obama Bin Laden be handed over, alive or dead….

Reason #1 – “…my Muslim faith.” – B Hussein Obama, in a 2008 interview with George Stephanopolos, who was tossing Hussein softball questions and Hussein effed up even then.
Little Georgie had to gently prompt & correct Hussein. “Your Christian faith, you Chicago political hack dumbass. Your Christian faith.”

Reason #2 – (paraphrasing) “if the Muslims are attacked, I will side with the Muslims.” – from one of his two ghost-written books. I don’t know which book the quote was from because I ran out of terlet paper and I’ve been wiping my ass with pages torn from his books. ;)

CatchAll on October 12, 2009 at 12:01 AM

I should say we bombed the crap out of Berlin. We sure didn’t bomb the train lines going into the camps.

B Man on October 12, 2009 at 12:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2