4 Record: U.S. considers talks w/Taliban
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
From: North of Dallas, South of Frisco
4 Record: U.S. considers talks w/Taliban
OK, today in October 28, 2008, seven days prior to the election, and more than two months prior to the new President (Who I predict to be Obama) takes office.
In what would be a huge doctrine (we don't negotiate with terrorists) shift, it is being reported that the US may seek discussion with Taliban. Now, I know the Taliban and Al Queda (sp) aren't exactly the same, but they are apparently in bed together.
So, if this happens, whether the new President is McCain or Obama, I wanted it to be noted here, for the record, that utterances of this possibility began on Bush's watch- not the new President's.
The new President will just get the chance to bask in the glow of, or take the wrath for its success or failure, if it happens- and I think it will.
Read on...
I guess a leopard can change it's spots...
I'm not saying the plan is wrong- I just wanted to note that if it does backfire, or make us look like terrorist appeasers, this effort wasn't initiated by Obama, or McCain.
In what would be a huge doctrine (we don't negotiate with terrorists) shift, it is being reported that the US may seek discussion with Taliban. Now, I know the Taliban and Al Queda (sp) aren't exactly the same, but they are apparently in bed together.
So, if this happens, whether the new President is McCain or Obama, I wanted it to be noted here, for the record, that utterances of this possibility began on Bush's watch- not the new President's.
The new President will just get the chance to bask in the glow of, or take the wrath for its success or failure, if it happens- and I think it will.
Read on...
Originally Posted by YahooNews
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States is considering taking part in talks with elements of the Taliban in a sharp change in tactics in Afghanistan, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday citing unnamed officials.
"Senior White House and military officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban -- while excluding top leaders -- could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan," the paper said on its website.
The report said the new approach was contained in a draft recommendation in a classified White House assessment of US strategy in Afghanistan. Talks would be led by the Afghan government, "but with the active participation of the US," it said. [
]
The final White House recommendation is expected next month after the US presidential elections, the report said. [
]
Earlier this month, Afghan officials met with former members of the Taliban government in talks in Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan has grown steadily despite the presence of tens of thousands of international troops helping the Afghan security forces. There is consensus that the violence will not be ended solely through military means.
The Taliban ruled from 1996-2001 using a restrictive and extremist interpretation of Islam before being overthrown by US-led forces.
On October 8, General David Petraeus, incoming head of the US Central Command, said that attempts were being made to open talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Petraeus used a similar approach in Iraq, where a US drive to enlist Sunni tribes in the fight against Al-Qaeda in Iraq helped sharply reduce the country's violence.
"Senior White House and military officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban -- while excluding top leaders -- could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan," the paper said on its website.
The report said the new approach was contained in a draft recommendation in a classified White House assessment of US strategy in Afghanistan. Talks would be led by the Afghan government, "but with the active participation of the US," it said. [
]The final White House recommendation is expected next month after the US presidential elections, the report said. [
]Earlier this month, Afghan officials met with former members of the Taliban government in talks in Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan has grown steadily despite the presence of tens of thousands of international troops helping the Afghan security forces. There is consensus that the violence will not be ended solely through military means.
The Taliban ruled from 1996-2001 using a restrictive and extremist interpretation of Islam before being overthrown by US-led forces.
On October 8, General David Petraeus, incoming head of the US Central Command, said that attempts were being made to open talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Petraeus used a similar approach in Iraq, where a US drive to enlist Sunni tribes in the fight against Al-Qaeda in Iraq helped sharply reduce the country's violence.
I'm not saying the plan is wrong- I just wanted to note that if it does backfire, or make us look like terrorist appeasers, this effort wasn't initiated by Obama, or McCain.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
From: Crestview, FL
from what i read it would be meetings with the lower level guys to try and "buy them off" in some way. so in a sense it would crumble the taliban from within. its not a bad approach if you can get the lower level guys to turn on their leadership.
if it fails it will be all bushes fault. if it does anything good obama will take all the credit. i suspect this is how alot of things will go the next 4 years.
if it fails it will be all bushes fault. if it does anything good obama will take all the credit. i suspect this is how alot of things will go the next 4 years.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Houston and Lil ol' England
We already "buy" them off.
There's only 3 outcomes to a war. Lose, Win or negotiate a settlement.
You're not prepared to lose and give into their demands. To win, you need to kill them all and there is no political will to do that.
Can anyone see what the alternate will be?
For the record again, Tony Blair and the British Govt, negotiated a settlement with the Irish Republican Army at the same time as fighting "The War on Terror"
But apparently that was ok because they didn't wear turbans and were white
There's only 3 outcomes to a war. Lose, Win or negotiate a settlement.
You're not prepared to lose and give into their demands. To win, you need to kill them all and there is no political will to do that.
Can anyone see what the alternate will be?
For the record again, Tony Blair and the British Govt, negotiated a settlement with the Irish Republican Army at the same time as fighting "The War on Terror"
But apparently that was ok because they didn't wear turbans and were white
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
From: Southeastern Virginia
So, if this happens, whether the new President is McCain or Obama, I wanted it to be noted here, for the record, that utterances of this possibility began on Bush's watch- not the new President's.
I'm not saying the plan is wrong- I just wanted to note that if it does backfire, or make us look like terrorist appeasers, this effort wasn't initiated by Obama, or McCain.
I'm not saying the plan is wrong- I just wanted to note that if it does backfire, or make us look like terrorist appeasers, this effort wasn't initiated by Obama, or McCain.
Some time ago he said timelines in Iraq...Now Pres. Bush says timelines.
AND a while back Obama also said the policy of ignoring enemies has been a failure....Pres. Bush sent envoys to talk to Iran....Now Gen. Petraeus wants to talk to Taliban.
We already "buy" them off.
There's only 3 outcomes to a war. Lose, Win or negotiate a settlement.
You're not prepared to lose and give into their demands. To win, you need to kill them all and there is no political will to do that.
Can anyone see what the alternate will be?
For the record again, Tony Blair and the British Govt, negotiated a settlement with the Irish Republican Army at the same time as fighting "The War on Terror"
But apparently that was ok because they didn't wear turbans and were white
There's only 3 outcomes to a war. Lose, Win or negotiate a settlement.
You're not prepared to lose and give into their demands. To win, you need to kill them all and there is no political will to do that.
Can anyone see what the alternate will be?
For the record again, Tony Blair and the British Govt, negotiated a settlement with the Irish Republican Army at the same time as fighting "The War on Terror"
But apparently that was ok because they didn't wear turbans and were white
Sometimes there is no military solution or that solution is so expensive as not to be practical.
Terrorist can fight a cheap inexpensive war with terror and disruptions and force the organized armies/governments to spend billions defending as happened with IRA and happening to US in middle east currently.
Most future conflicts with major powers will not have a military solution.
War on terror will always have to be fought as long as people dont understand why....and they don't hate us because we are Christians or free as many seem to think.
