Jay Carney: Bergdahl wasn’t a hostage, he was a prisoner

posted at 2:41 pm on June 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

One of the revealing wrinkles of the Bergdahl deal is that it’s now put the White House in the position of obliquely defending the Taliban’s legitimacy. Terrorists take hostages, and the United States as a rule doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. Legitimate armies, however, take prisoners, and the United States has always negotiated for POWs. Obama’s political need to have his strategy perceived as appropriate requires that the Taliban’s methods be seen as sufficiently appropriate too. Although, in fairness to Carney, that’s been true since 9/11: Neither Bush’s nor Obama’s State Department has formally designated the Taliban a terrorist organization, precisely because the White House wants to preserve its ability to talk to the group as we head for the exits in Afghanistan. (Tehrik-e Taliban, a different group based in Pakistan, was designated a few years ago.) As a matter of political reality, the Taliban has never been a terrorist group.

As a matter of actual reality, the story is different.

Shock spread through Kabul’s close-knit expatriate community after the Taliban killed 21 people, including the International Monetary Fund’s mission chief and a senior United Nations official, in a dinnertime attack on a popular restaurant Friday…

The Lebanese restaurant targeted Friday was in Kabul’s Wazir Akbar Khan central district, home to many embassies, aid organizations and guesthouses. At about 7:30 p.m. Friday, a Taliban suicide bomber blew himself up at the compound’s gate, officials said. Then two other insurgents burst in and gunned down the diners at their tables.

Suicide-bombing your way into a restaurant and then machine-gunning the survivors is Terrorism 101, but since the responsible party will soon be back in charge in Kabul, they remain sufficiently respectable-ish that we can carry out a high-level prisoner swap with them. Coping with that cognitive dissonance, of holding peace talks with suicide bombers, is so hard that when State Department spokesman Jen Psaki was asked last year whether the Taliban is an officially recognized terrorist organization, she admitted she … wasn’t sure offhand. The best piece I’ve read on this subject is this one from 2009 by Tom Joscelyn and Bill Roggio exploring just how deep the ties between Al Qaeda “terrorists” and the Taliban “army” run. The hostage/prisoner distinction is a simple function of the political fiction we’ve created around the Taliban for 14 years. And since they’ve tended to react, shall we say, badly when some of their allies on the ground in Afghanistan have been designated terrorists, don’t expect State to reverse course on this anytime soon.

Pay attention at 1:15 here, by the way, as Chris Cuomo asks Carney whether it should matter if Bergdahl did indeed desert his post rather than being taken during combat by enemy action. That’s a perfect opportunity for Carney to challenge the theory that Bergdahl walked away. Instead, he dodges the question. Exit question: Should deserters be treated as standard POWs, knowing that trying to get them back could — and apparently did, in Bergdahl’s case — cost members of the search party their lives?


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

I guess that whole, “not negotiating with terrorists” thing is pretty much out the window now, huh?

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 3:45 PM

Except for negotiations with the GOP.

BobMbx on June 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

good grief

Murphy9 on June 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Athos on June 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Yes, as a matter of fact they did.

Agree with every other point you made. And don’t forget, Bergdahl deserting and possibly aiding the enemy is looked up on as a big PLUS by Talibama, his Regime and their followers.

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

Except for negotiations with the GOP.

BobMbx on June 2, 2014 at 4:13 PM

HAHA, indeed. To Talibama and the Dims the GOP are more dangerous “terrorists and hostage takers” than the Taliban or Al Qaeda ever will be.

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 4:15 PM

Is this that much different than President Reagan and Carter negotiating with Iran to get the 52 US Hostages released in 1981

Gebeaux on June 2, 2014 at 3:33 PM

Not even Jimmy Carter negotiated with terrorists…

‘The Iran hostage crisis, referred to in Persian as
تسخیر لانه جاسوسی امریک (literally “Conquest of the American Spy Den,”), was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students, belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who were supporting the Iranian Revolution took over the US Embassy in Tehran. President Jimmy Carter called the hostages “victims of terrorism and anarchy,” adding that “the United States will not yield to blackmail.”

What did the terrorists want?

The Shah.

That’s right. Jimmy Carter could have returned the Shah to Iran and the Iranian terrorists would have released our 52 Americans…

…But, unlike Barack Obama, Carter refused to negotiate with terrorists and yield to their blackmail because he knew that it would have only resulted in more hostage-taking.

And, when did President Reagan negotiate with Iran about releasing the terrorists?

He didn’t. They were released on 20 January 1981, which was the day that Reagan was inaugurated.

Resist We Much on June 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Resist We Much on June 2, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Ah, so America’s policy of not negotiating with terrorists dates even further back then?

So what Talibama has done is even MORE despicable than I previously fathomed.

Thanks for the knowledge.

Meople on June 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Jay Goes Down Lying Swinging!

Tard on June 2, 2014 at 4:22 PM

Kcewa- desertion is a formal charge max penalty for deserting in time of war death. They don’t have to have the deserter in custody to charge them just to try them. Will they shoot this guy who I firmly believe was a deserter and traitor who gave aid and comfort to enemy? Probably n

dgolfnut on June 2, 2014 at 4:28 PM

The US already had to release the Taliban prisoners this year, (as is required by international law), because their dentition was do to the war, against the Taliban government of Afghanistan, for which combat operations cease this year.

Bergdahl wasn’t a hostage, he was a prisoner of war. The Taliban government of Afghanistan has never been a labeled as a terrorist group by the US.

The Taliban was so upset with OBL that they had killed several of OBL bodyguards when they arrested OBL and kicked Al Qaeda out of Kandahar. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/04/world/terror-suspect-said-to-anger-afghan-hosts.html

The CIA station Chief Robert Grenier confirmed the Taliban offered to hand OBL over to the US several times after Bush became president including Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament, who helped Kabir Mohabbat, a consultant to the National Security Council, negotiate with the Taliban when the Taliban was trying to give OBL to the US government BEFORE 9/11.

David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens Washington Post Staff Writers
October 29, 2001; Page A1 https://www.google.com/search?q=+Diplomats+Met+With+Taliban+on+Bin+Laden+Some+Contend+U.S.+Missed+Its+Chance&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

About 20 more meetings on giving up Bin Laden took place up until 9/11, all fruitless. CIA station Chief Robert Grenier, said about the meetings; “They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’… I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck.” The Taliban also proposed to hold bin Laden, who was at this time a prisoner, in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him.

All three confirm that Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil told the US officials “You can have him (OBL) whenever the Americans are ready.” But according to the German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, and Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan and Kabir Mohabbat a consultant to the National Security Council, a “political decision” was made by the Bush administration NOT to except the handover of OBL.

Kabir Mohabbat, a consultant to the National Security Council, said that for the next several meetings he became embarrassed that he had to repeatedly turn down the Taliban and could only apologize because the Bush Administration was NOT yet willing to accept the handover. (But the plans to out the Taliban had been ordered, drawn up and finally vetted by the joint chefs of staff on May 2001 and approved by Bush on September 4th 2001)

According to Condoleezza Rice, testifying before the 9/11 commission, Bush AUTHORIZED ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2001 to begin the, (May 2001), plan for military operations “against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics.” www (dot) cnn (dot) com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice (dot) transcript/

The Taliban also proposed to hold bin Laden, who was at this time a prisoner, in one location long enough for the US to locate and kill him. According to Kabir Mohabbat and Elmar Brok, a German member of the European Parliament, the Taliban became so frustrated that they even offered to pay the US for the missile strike on Bin Laden. However, this offer was also refused by US officials.(Two weeks after the Taliban plead for the last time for the US to Take OBL off their hands Bush approved on SEPTEMBER 4 the plans he previously ordered to be drawn up to oust the Taliban)

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 4:30 PM

Kcewa- desertion is a formal charge max penalty for deserting in time of war death. They don’t have to have the deserter in custody to charge them just to try them. Based on what his battle-buddies have to say about him, he DID desert. Will they shoot this guy who I firmly believe was a deserter and traitor who gave aid and comfort to enemy? Probably not as they’d need to charge his majesty Obama as well.

dgolfnut on June 2, 2014 at 4:30 PM

This justthereprobate is going to gasp BOOOOOOSH on its dying day.

Murphy9 on June 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Can’t let go of O yet :).. All that love :) …

jimver on June 2, 2014 at 3:21 PM

Schadenfreude on June 2, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Yeah, that love :) …

jimver on June 2, 2014 at 4:45 PM

“You can have him (OBL) whenever the Americans are ready.” But according to the German member of the European Parliament, Elmar Brok, and Robert Grenier, the CIA station chief in Pakistan and Kabir Mohabbat a consultant to the National Security Council, a “political decision” was made by the Bush administration NOT to except the handover of OBL.

Forgetting that Bill Clinton refused to accept OBL before 9/11, eh?

Resist We Much on June 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Baghdad Bobby

Schadenfreude on June 2, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Forgetting that Bill Clinton refused to accept OBL before 9/11, eh?

Resist We Much on June 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I would not be surprised if that was the case but the reports that I cited and linked to, (as well as the quote in your comment) are when the over 20 meetings that took place during the Bush admin. Remember the Taliban gave Bush an Afghan rug after he became president?

The meetings took place in Tashkent, Kandahar, Islamabad, Bonn, New York and Washington. There were surprise satellite calls, one of which led to a 40-minute chat between a mid-level State Department bureaucrat and the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mohammad Omar. There was a surprise visit to Washington, made by a Taliban envoy bearing a gift carpet for Bush.

etc. etc. etc. etc….

Clinton was given OBL’s position by the CIA who got it from the Taliban. Clinton then ordered a missile strike on OBL’s position but Pakistans ISI warned OBL of the attack and he was able to convice his guards they would die in the attack if they did not move him moments before it hit. Damn ISI.

The above was also reported by the 9/11 commission.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 5:34 PM

When does Carney go away? I thought it was ASAP.

warmairfan on June 2, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Say, Jay, just which country is it that we negotiated with that held Bergdahl prisoner?

ajacksonian on June 2, 2014 at 6:03 PM

JUSTTHEFACTS who is President now? You’re another in a long line of water carriers. GO F yourself. Tiresome. Oh and the spam is just atrocious.

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:06 PM

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014

Say tell me: What happened to the closing of Gitmo? Lol.

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:12 PM

Forgetting that Bill Clinton refused to accept OBL before 9/11, eh?

Resist We Much on June 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I would not be surprised at all if Clinton also refused to except a hand over because it was December 4, 1997 when the Taliban came to Texas to meet with Unocal about the TAPI pipe line when they, (the Taliban), turned down the American proposal and instead excepted the contract from an international consortium to build the TAPI pipeline.

Immediately after that was when the following Unocal employees Khalilzad, Hamid Karzai, Mr. John J. Maresc, and Zalmay Khalilzad all implored Congress to oust the Taliban government from Afghanistan. Later each one of the above employes became members of the current Afghan government.

It was Khalilzad who coordinated the May 2001 US invasion plans to oust the Taliban, (by beginning military operations in OCTOBER 2001), and had previously pushed for the overthrow of the Taliban 2 years earlier with other members of Unocal after he conducted the risk analysis for Unocal (Union Oil Company of California) for the infamous proposed TAPI project a 1,680 km of pipeline with a total gas capacity of 90 million standard cubic meters per day (mscmd) from Turkmenistan’s Dauletabad gas field and travel 1650 km through Turkmenistan (145 km), Afghanistan (735 km), and Pakistan (800 km), before culminating at the Indian border town of Fazilka in Punjab carrying 33 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually to consumers with 38 mscmd of gas for India and Pakistan and 14 mscmd bought by Afghanistan.

Note: (China’s influence in Iran was a major reason for the growing importance of the TAPI pipeline, a main geopolitical ambition of the Afghanistan war which would block off Iran’s much cheaper rival IP pipeline and work towards isolating it.)

Khalilzad the former Unocal exec, was responsible for picking Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, as head of the interim government who subsequently was elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomed the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresc a, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress 2 years previously, (with other members of Unocal including Khalilzad), to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad had since become Ambassador to Iraq which was phase TWO of securing the US’s geopolitical goals in the region which included surrounding Iran, ending Russia’s pipeline monopoly, establishing bases, and etc.)

Because of the vital importance of the TAPI pipeline, one of the first things the new Afghan/Unocal government did was sign the TAPI pipeline deal with Turkmenistan and Pakistan. But the TAPI plans have stalled along with the Afghan war do to the Taliban continually increasing its rate of inflicting US casualties while maintaining a strong resistance/insurgence in the key areas the pipeline must travel through thus making it, (like Afghanistan), impossible for the US to secure.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 6:14 PM

We left out guy behind in Libia. Bergdahl was a deserter, a collaborator with the enemy. Send him back (with his dad).

StevC on June 2, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Carney . . . I thought they fired that idiot.

rplat on June 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM

Notice how the liberal water carriers try to change the subjects.

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:36 PM

JUSTTHEFACTS who is President now? You’re another in a long line of water carriers. GO F yourself. Tiresome. Oh and the spam is just atrocious.

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:06 PM

The WAR CRIMINAL OBAMA is president now, that’s who.

If the people don’t know why they sent their children to war, at the cost of so much blood and treasure, how will they be informed enough to know if they support a 13 year long war or not?

The Taliban had retaken control of nearly 35% of Afghanistan by 2006 and regained 54% of Afghanistan by 2007 and then regained control of over 72% of Afghanistan in 2008 and by 2009 the Taliban had retaken control of 80% of Afghanistan. http://www.icosgroup.net/2009/media/media-press-releases/eight_years_after_911/

Maybe if people were more informed they would have stopped the war sooner before more blood and treasure had been sacrificed. Maybe the people would have stopped Obama from sending more troops into the Afghan surge.

Because the US was clearly losing ground and the war in Afghanistan, since 2005, Obama decided to try and stop the strong, unrelenting, surge of the Taliban by doubling the size of the American forces in Afghanistan after he became president.

But it was to late because despite that Obama had doubled the size of the American forces in Afghanistan by early 2010 the Taliban had retaken enough control of Afghanistan to equal the 90% it had BEFORE the 2001 US invasion.

I am merely pointing out why the US has been desperately trying to negotiate with the Taliban. It’s for the Same reason that we went to war with the Taliban. Its all about securing the TAPI pipe line.

TAPI will wean India away from the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline from Iran’s South Pars gas complex in the Persian Gulf, one of the largest gas fields in the world. This would not only further isolate Iran, but also limit China’s growing influence in the region, (China was the top investor for the construction of Iran’s IPI gas line), but it will also end Russia’s pipeline monopoly in the region, Russia was the second largest investor in Iran’s IPI pipe line.

With the TAPI pipe line the US would significantly weaken the geopolitical position of Iran, Russia and China in one blow.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 6:42 PM

Spammer.

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:53 PM

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:36 PM

The subject is about the US lead war to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

Its still the same subject when you talk about why so many have died fighting the longest war in US history in order to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

Its still the same subject when you ask if so much blood and treasure, spilled in Afghanistan, was worth fighting the longest war in US history.

Its still the same subject when you ask what could possibly be gained by initiating a military campaign to oust the Taliban from power in Afghanistan.

Its still the same subject when you ask if it is better for the US to try and negotiate with the Taliban or instead continue fight the Taliban for another 13 years in Afghanistan.

Just because someone does not agree with your wanting to continue the war in Afghanistan for another 13 years does not mean that they are discussing a different war/subject when they mention the reason for negotiations.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 7:12 PM

We gave them 5 silver dollars and they gave us a nickel.

Way to negotiate, Bammy.

TimBuk3 on June 2, 2014 at 7:44 PM

Bergdahl wasn’t a hostage, he was a prisoner

A prisoner of love.

Xavier on June 2, 2014 at 7:46 PM

Spammer.

CW on June 2, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Your blind support for a continued war in Afghanistan, (when you don’t even know if its worth it or not), is what I call spam of the worst kind.

The Taliban currently controls the vast majority of Afghanistan and will certainly control the remaining 3% after the US withdrawal which leads to the question of how the US should try to stop China, Russia, and Iran from influencing the Taliban and taping into Afghanistan’s vast resources, thus securing control of the entire region and dangerously weakening the US global influence?

Since the war was a failure should the US try to negotiate with the Taliban in order to still have some kind of influence in the region and limit China’s, Russia’s, and Iran’s influence from completely tacking over in the region while they secure the vast resources in the area?

Or

Should the US just continue fighting another 13 years war with no gain while sacrificing so much blood and treasure?

Any individual with the ability to use logic and reason will see that it would be in the US best interest to try and negotiate with the Taliban in order to still have some influence in the area as well as a chance at utilizing the resources in the area while halting the influence of China, Iran and ending Russia’s pipeline monopoly.

But I can understand why you prefer to just flag wave your support for an endless war as it requires less thinking than it does to end and prevent war.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 7:55 PM

Any individual with the ability to use logic and reason will see that it would be in the US best interest to try and negotiate with the Taliban

That ain’t logic and reason bro that’s denial of reality.

Xavier on June 2, 2014 at 8:38 PM

blink on June 2, 2014 at 8:26 PM

HAhaha, Any one whom goes through my comments will see that I have NEVER said any such thing at all!

If they go through my comments they will see that you are clearly telling a LIE!

Because you have no argument against the facts presented by me on this thread you LIE in a desperate attempt to reject the facts presented by on the basis of your clearly FALSE ad hominem attack. Which is logical fallacy not only because your ad hominem attack is a lie but because your trying to argue against the facts presented by using an irrelevant and false claim about me rather than presenting any facts to argue against those presented.

argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Yup. Anyone that claims that the Taliban controls 97% of Afghanistan isn’t dealing with reality.

blink on June 2, 2014 at 9:03 PM

Let me guess you think the Taliban has been defeated?

The Taliban had retaken control of nearly 35% of Afghanistan by 2006 and regained 54% of Afghanistan by 2007 and then regained control of over 72% of Afghanistan in 2008 and by 2009 the Taliban had retaken control of 80% of Afghanistan.

But NOW its even worse as the heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees said in MAY 2012 that the Taliban was gaining ground and is stronger now than before Afghanistan surge.

The Taliban government is currently preferred by the Afghan people and Taliban now have control and influence in most of the districts in afghan administering taxes, settling disputes and distributing power through the appointment of local military commanders. http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/F…0Heartland.pdf

“In the last year there has been unprecedented interest, even from GIRoA [Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan] members, in joining the the insurgent cause. Afghan civilians frequently prefer Taliban governance over GIRoA, usually as a result of government corruption, ethnic bias and lack of connection with local religious and tribal leaders. The effectiveness of Taliban governance allows for increased recruitment rates which, subsequently, bolsters their ability to replace losses.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16829368

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 9:30 PM

No, I think Obama has allowed them to thrive. That doesn’t mean that they control 97% of the country.

by 2009 the Taliban had retaken control of 80% of Afghanistan.

Great. You’re still 17% short – even by this account. Let me know when you can account for the difference.

blink on June 2, 2014 at 9:54 PM

17% in 2009 when the Taliban gains had been increasing exponentially year after year before NOW which even worse as the heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees said in MAY 2012 that the Taliban was gaining ground and is stronger NOW than BEFORE Afghanistan surge when they already controlled 80% of Afghanistan.

We know that the Taliban have gained much ground since May 2010 since the withdrawal began so lets look at how the situation was just before the surge because according to republicans it is NOW worse than before the surge according to the heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees.

BEFORE the surge: several reports came out, (two were leaked out), that the US was not only loosing the war in Afghanistan but that the Taliban gains would be unrecoverable if something wasn’t done soon. But one of the reports that came out said the war is already lost and that any surge would be a wast of American lives, (that report was supported by many Republicans and it turned out to be correct) here is the report:

Read it if you haven’t already followed the link from Drudge. His complaint is that military leaders from Petraeus on down aren’t leveling with the public about how bad things are on the ground

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/06/lieutenant-colonel-breaks-ranks-afghanistan-is-a-disaster-claims-report/comment-page-4/#comment-5469139

The Taliban controlled virtually every piece of land beyond eyeshot of a U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base.

(Note: Later we will see that the report as well as the republicans that came out in support of the reports conclusions were right.)

This was back when the ISAF commander Gen. David H. Petraeus was claiming that the US still had a chance to break out of the “Kabul security bubble”.

Before the surge it was only safe within eye shot of any U.S. or International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base. But now since the withdrawal, according to republicans and the heads of the Senate and House intelligence committees, the Taliban is gaining ground and is stronger than they were before the surge.

The secured area near U.S. and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) base’s is only 3% of Afghanistan and its shrinking as the withdrawal continues.

JustTheFacts on June 2, 2014 at 11:03 PM

And Carney isn’t a liar, but a communicator of contrafactual statements.

virgo on June 3, 2014 at 4:19 AM

It’s okay,Jay.Maybe,one day you’ll be able to actually face yourself in the mirror and sleep nights.Maybe after publishing your tell all confessional memoirs.Of course, we know what happens to liberals who serve under Democrat administrations and know too much,don’t we.

redware on June 3, 2014 at 6:13 AM

Carney just doesn’t know when to shut the hell up.

SC.Charlie on June 3, 2014 at 1:25 PM

blink on June 3, 2014 at 3:41 AM

Every report shows that the Taliban have made continued gains since 2009 casualty rates inflicted by the Taliban have INCREASED as 2009 was a record high of attacks and casualties inflicted by the Taliban until 2010 broke that record and then 2011 was a record high of attacks and casualties inflicted by the Taliban and 2013 came in second as it broke the 2012 record for second highest number of attacks & casualties inflicted by the Taliban.

The Taliban gained the the largest % of Afghanistan territory in 2011 after the majority of US bases were abandoned in 2010, (not counting the current draw down), and the Taliban has regained even more control in Afghanistan since the withdrawal making the Taliban gains of 2013 the second largest gains of Afghan territory since the war began.

According to a respected independent group, the Afghanistan NGO Safety Office, the recent increase in violence has been dramatic, based on data for 2013.

“We assess that the current re-escalation trend will be preserved throughout the entire season and that 2013 is set to become the second most violent year after 2011,” said Tomas Muzik, the director of the NGO office. That year was the most violent of the war, with the most attacks and victims.

Since early 2014 the Taliban have increased their attacks more than ever BEFORE!

In the face of recent attacks, media outlets predict things are going to get worse before they get better.

The new map indicates that the Taliban insurgency has continued to expand its influence across Afghanistan. “The dramatic change in the last few months has been the deterioration of the situation in the north of Afghanistan, which was previously one of the most stable parts of Afghanistan. Provinces such as Kunduz and Balkh are now heavily affected by Taliban violence. Across the north of Afghanistan, there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of insurgent attacks against international, Afghan government, and civilian targets“, stated Mr. Alexander Jackson, Policy Analyst at ICOS.

Recent violence claimed by Taliban representatives include shoot-outs at checkpoints, rocket attacks in Kabul, and rocket attacks at the airport and at Bagram military base and an incursion at a justice ministry building in Jalalabad. Insurgents and police carried out a four-hour gun battle that left the building ruined.

If even the combined forces of Britain, the U.S. and Italy were unable to squash the Taliban attacks, it is illogical to believe the undermanned divisions of the Afghan National Security Forces will be able to do it independently before the close of 2014.

So what information do you have to offer, NOTHING, but a clearly FALSE ad hominem attack?

After I had proven that your ad hominem attack was based on a LIE, you then claim I have never proven a NEGATIVE despite that I proved that I never made the any of the comments that you FALSELY accused me of making.

You clearly are wanting to derail the subject with irrelevant and false accusations that have nothing to do with the current subject or the facts presented. How is that informative, educational, or beneficial to the subject at hand?

JustTheFacts on June 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2