:::POST UPDATE, 11/24/09:::
Steve Schippert posts that the US Embassy in Kabul denies this story. Like Steve, I’ll take them at their word. We’ll see soon enough. -admin:::END UPDATE:::
I am not sure what to make of this, but my first gut-instinct is, “oh, please, don’t appease.”
Steve Schippert over at Threats Watch keeps an eye on all those places I refer to as “guy sites” (well, they never have recipes) and he writes:
It comes to our attention that the MEMRI Blog highlights an article from the Saudi _al-Watan_ in Arabic that – according to an Afghan source – the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases. MEMRI summarizes:
An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.
Kunar province borders the Khyber Pass region where the majority of US and NATO supplies pass enroute from Pakistan. And the4 remaining four provinces constitute fully the southern 25% of Afghanistan’s territory.
This, if true, is a disturbing development.
Do go read Steve’s post and see why he is disturbed. Rick at Brutally Honest (and Wizbang) writes, “perhaps this explains the dithering?”
Schippert again:
I have tried to come up with scenarios of why someone would lie about it in a leak. What would be to gain? Who would gain, and what would they gain? Without sleeping on it, the options for such appear narrow at best.
What does seem logical is that an Afghan privy to the negotiations could have become (rightly) spooked that they might just pull it off, and leaked word in hopes that it might so anger American public opinion that the entire endeavor might be scrapped. That’s the most logical explanation for motivation I see at the moment.
It would also fit in consistently with Ambassador Eikenberry’s leaked cables recently railing against a ’surge’ in forces in Afghanistan. He wouldn’t voice such without thinking he has his hands on something else. Could this be it? The surrender of 25% of Afghan territory in exchange for some form of ceasefire?
One would hope not.
I am sure it is all much more complicated, much more “nuanced” than any of us could possibly realize, but to a layperson like me, one question matters: did the president, who called Afghanistan “the war of necessity mean it when he said -only weeks ago- that the war in Afghanistan was “crucial” to the safety of Americans, or was he blowing smoke, looking for the most expedient way to pull out of an action he appears to have no stomach to fight?
If America cuts a deal with the Taliban, giving them control over regions in exchange for their keeping Al Qaeda in check, she instantly confers credibility upon them – at least for as long as America’s credibility remains. Can they be trusted? If the Taliban can be trusted -and recall, Democrats have used the example of these human-rights-oppressing religious fanatics to characterize Republicans, so their sudden trustworthiness is both convenient and suspect- can they, in a theater as large as Afghanistan, actually disallow and prevent Al Qaeda from using that vast land-of-caves as their planning and training base?
I suggest the Taliban will not be able to keep its end of this face-saving bargain, and that the whole tactic is simply a way to blow smoke in front of our faces.
Understand, it’s not that I love war; I don’t. I hate war. But pulling out of a theater before accomplishing the serious goal of utterly disabling an enemy and coaxing their surrender does two very detrimental things in war:
First, it sends a message that resonates to an enemy like Al Qaeda, which understands only power: we are again a weak horse.
Second: It tells the families who have lost sons and daughters in Afghanistan that their loved ones deaths were in vain, because the enemy is still able to thrive and nothing has changed.
Schippert writes: “. . . this demonstrated type of ‘effort’ in Afghanistan would prove to be the strongest indication that it may be time to advocate the full pullout of American forces from Afghanistan.”
Can’t say I disagree. If we’re not serious enough about victory to give the Generals on the ground what they say they need in order to win, if we do not have the stones to surge -even the example of its positive outcome in Iraq- then let’s just bring our troops home, rather than leave them there without a strong sense of mission, a declining morale, and the possibility of slaughter by a newly emboldened foe.
We’ll find out soon enough, then, whether winning in Afghanistan was “crucial” to the safety of the United States. But at least we’ll all find out together.
Related:
Four Troops Die in Afghanistan; some 200 have died since August. Somehow military deaths don’t get the headlines like they used to.
Iraq confronts Syria over Terrorism while US Dithers. That’s interesting. Iraq could be a powerful ally, if we don’t fold.
From UK Telegraph: Taliban says “Cut us a deal”
Pakistan: Yes, talk to Taliban!
Domestic Terror Threats: and we’re unprepared in various ways
Der Spiegel: Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on World Stage. No, he’s restored our standing. He said so!
Obama treated Asia like a Campaign Stop: It is all he knows how to do
Michelle Malkin: 9/11 Trials will be Platform to Bash USA
Money-obsessed Congress: A War Surtax because after we pay off the special interests, takeover banks and corporations, fund the pork, and buy the votes of Mary Landrieu and Blanch Lincoln, there’s nothing left. At least it is a tax I can support.
Obama hearts Hollywood: It’s so much more fun to be a celebrity than to be president
Slightly O/T: Gary Sinise makes time for the Troops (H/T)
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:09 pm | #1
[...] A Tactical Surrender in Afghanistan? [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:24 pm | #2
I don’t know — maybe it is better than his incessent dithering. Someone in Afghanistan seems to be supportive of the Taliban and while the word is that the people as a while are not, they probably are tired of the war. If the Taliban keep AQ in check, so be it — we have made deals like this before. We will again. It might work, it might not.
It has to be better than the One’s constant dithering.
November 23rd, 2009 | 1:47 pm | #3
Anthony, perhaps it isn’t so much “support” for the Taliban & its revolting agenda, as digust with the Karzai government’s performance & annoyance that Bush & Obama have stood by it.
The Bravest Woman In Afghanistan
I recommend reading the book as well.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:10 pm | #4
it sends a message that resonates to an enemy like Al Qaeda, which understands only power: we are again a weak horse
Osama’s next message to the world: “I told you so.”
Second: It tells the families who have lost sons and daughters in Afghanistan that their loved ones deaths were in vain, because the enemy is still able to thrive and nothing has changed.
And it tells the Afghan people to not trust America; it tells them that anyone who works with the Americans will be targeted and raped and killed by the Taliban when the Americans run away and hide. Lesson? Don’t cooperate with the Americans. Cut your own deals with the Taliban. And too bad about the degradation and enslavement of your women. They will simply have to be sacrificed to save weak America’s sorry ass.
Problem is — it won’t work. This is not an enemy we can run away from. Bringing the troops home won’t change anything either. The war will come here. The war has already come here with guys like Hasan. Bringing the troops home will only give the Taliban and al Qaeda permission to overthrow the Pakistan government and steal their nuclear weapons. It gives Iran permission to develop their own nukes, and give them to al Qaeda.
There is one answer. Only one answer. There has been only one answer from the beginning. We all knew then what that answer was. Nothing has changed to alter than answer. The length of the war has not changed the answer because we were told and we knew at the beginning that it would be a long, long, long war. We knew from the beginning that the war would last the remainder of our lives.
There is only ONE answer: victory — to win, to defeat the enemy, to kill the enemy and destroy his will to resist.
Unfortunately, what with all our fancy equipment and smart weapons and nuclear bombs, the enemy has a superior weapon — the will to win.
November 23rd, 2009 | 2:38 pm | #5
“according to an Afghan source – the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I agree with all your points in opposition to this, in addition:
I would be willing to bet that if this happens, we WILL see another Al Qaeda attack – a big one – on US soil or against US interests (e.g., embassies, military bases overseas) some time in the future. Yes, Taliban =/= Al Qaeda but they certainly support their agenda.
Not to mention the Afghan women who will be killed for doing audacious things like wanting to learn how to read.
GAH. This is disgusting. I get so fed up by the “feminists” who yammer about crap like “inclusive language” and the “right” to abort unborn babies, while they remain apparently BLIND to the mistreatment of women by the Taliban.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:14 pm | #6
How about the Afghan Women who we are condemning to the Burka and to Sharia law? Karzai was already instituting repressive actions. We are and have been already selling out months ago.Underway by U.S. and Britain.
[Unfortunately, this is not a new development. Jay Leno's wife, Mavis, was a loud (and often lone) voice for the Afghan women under the Taliban, even before we went in -although she seemed quieter during the Bush years, she's speaking out again. These women got no attention during the Bush era, even though (as Code Pink has even admitted) our presence there had helped the women and kids. It's a dreadful situation, isn't it? I am appalled at the idea that Obama will "deal" with the Taliban -admin]
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:34 pm | #7
Nothing if not predictable.
Barry is going to surrender, bloodshed of Biblical proportions will follow, it’ll be Bush’s fault, health care will fix it, and the Democrats will finally run for election on their long-awaited platform of promising never to attack anyone, anywhere unless it’ll work to America’s detriment/help the environment.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:44 pm | #8
This kind of deal did not work in Columbia, and it wont work in Afghanistan, either. It is like telling the roaches “you can have the attic if you promise to stay out of the rest of the house.” Ask your pest control guy what he thinks of that strategy.
November 23rd, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #9
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by The Anchoress and The Anchoress, Nate Nelson. Nate Nelson said: RT @TheAnchoress Is Obama gonna cut a deal with the Taliban? http://bit.ly/92RWTh // That's like asking if Rahm Emanuel swears a lot. [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #10
IF it is true, it’s not a good precedent to set by ANY means.
That said, we’ve heard this song (or, at least, a similar melody) before – with the Taliban saying “no, we weren’t talking” or “no deals as long as foreign troops are in Afghanistan” – more here if you’re interested:
November 23rd, 2009 | 5:33 pm | #11
[...] The Anchoress – A Tactical Surrender in Afghanistan? [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 6:17 pm | #12
[...] Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, … View post: A Tactical Surrender in Afghanistan? » The Anchoress | A First … Share and [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:21 pm | #13
Sounds like Obama is going to take the middle route between his hand-picked general’s middle option and the cut-and-run option, all with the added benefit of micromanagement by a guy who doesn’t know the business end of a rifle from his rear-end.
November 23rd, 2009 | 7:41 pm | #14
[...] to Afghanistan to support American forces fighting there. Of course, there are also reports that Obama may propose a tactical surrender too. The AP reported: The White House said President Barack Obama could use an unusual evening war [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:27 pm | #15
Wasn’t the Left always claiming that America was at fault, for supporting the Taliban during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan?
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:35 pm | #16
The Taliban will not hold AQ in check. They didn’t do so before, and they will not do it now.
And the whole “it’s all because they’re disgusted with Karzai” argument reminds of the Vietnam War (dating myself, here); it was claimed, back then, that the problem with Vietnam wasn’t the Communists, but the corrupt Vietnamese government. The Communists just couldn’t be as bad as they were, we were told! We should just get out!
Countless boat people, and thousands of dead Vietnamese later, it was pretty obvious the Communists weren’t better than the old, “corrupt” government. Sadly, no one was really paying attention, and, hey, when you’re in California, don’t forget to try those wonderful restaurants, in Little Saigon!
The Taliban are NOT the solution for Afghanistan, or for taking care of AQ. Or, to put it another way—if the Taliban is the answer, what the heck was the question?
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:38 pm | #17
[...] The Anchoress has more. And Chris Wysocki never thought he’d see the day. [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:48 pm | #18
[...] with The Anchoress — Dear God, please don’t let Obama channel his inner Chamberlain. Steve Schippert over [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 8:57 pm | #19
Quoted from and Linked to at:
BETRAY HUBRIS OBAMA
November 23rd, 2009 | 9:56 pm | #20
“And it tells the Afghan people to not trust America”
Well, the 80’s should’ve taught them that. Reagan used to support the Taliban. Not to mention other decades, other nations: Iran, Chile, and any number of other “allies.” US foreign policy under practically every post-WWI president has been shameful when it came to the Muslim world. Rather than stick up for the truth and take the high moral road, State and the presidents behind it left a lot of people high and dry.
No real news is out, yet people are already prepared to believe what they want to believe. The real dithering has been going on since 2003, when Bush II took his eye off the Taliban and went for his dad’s old adversary instead.
I think this is just another anti-Obama meme searching for a reason-to-be. Yawn.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:08 pm | #21
[...] thoughts from The Anchoress, Little Miss Attilla, and Darleen Click at protein [...]
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:17 pm | #22
I’ll play along.
Let’s assume for the sake of the argument that all that you said is true, Todd. What should the United States do in Afghanistan NOW — not 30 years ago, not 10 years ago, now, what should we do now? What will Obama do now?
News flash — Obama is president. Time to quit bitching about the past.
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:47 pm | #23
Todd, Bender is right; the bash-Bush routine is getting really old. What should Obama do now? He’s the president, not Bush.
And, if he does surrender to the Taliban, is the Left going to start criticizing him for supporting them?
November 23rd, 2009 | 10:52 pm | #24
And, Todd, what’s this about every post WWI president being “shameful” to the Moslem world? Are you saying we haven’t been supportive enough? That we haven’t helped them enough? If so, that’s nonsense. What is the “truth” and “moral high road” you think our presidents should have taken?
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:19 pm | #25
Barry would throw anyone under the bus that would allow him to continue his remaking of the USA into a socialist state. He hates anything that is a distraction. It is time to redistribute the wealth, not defend the existing America. He listened to G D America for 20 years. If he cared about the terror attacks, why would he be putting on a show trial in NYC? Not sure when everyone will understand that there is a single focus, a single agenda.
I note the idiots rushing around on the healthcare agenda as if they do not understand the final act or that little can be done. They give the senators anything they want to get the bill through the senate now with 60 votes. In conference it will get loaded up with everything the left truly wants and it will then only need 51 votes in the senate and will pass with the at least 54 leftist senators. If the people do not really rise up now, it will be too late. Once it is in place, they have the setup to use every aspect of healthcare to control america.
November 23rd, 2009 | 11:27 pm | #26
ok Bender, I’ll bite.
I don’t know *what* the president will do.
I think we’ve lost any moral stance to be continuing this war, not to mention a lack of cooperation from Afghanistan and not much more from the rest of the world. I say to support the troops and bring them all home.
Bush supporters have an easy line in suggesting to forget the past. Unfortunately for them, errors (not to mention sins) have consequences in this life. So I’d say history, including American errors, should be remembered in the hope, possibly vain at times, that we won’t repeat them.
To that point, I don’t have a problem when somebody brings up the theme of trust, to point out that recent American presidents, be they GOP or Dem, do not have a history of supporting allies in small-time wars when American self-interest lies elsewhere. It would surprise me if Mrs Clinton’s State could somehow develop and implement a more loyal and moral foreign policy. I don’t see it happening, but I’m a pessimist when it comes to the Dems. (You can imagine, I’m sure, I have even less confidence in the GOP.)
Declare victory like the last president, then get out as soon as humanly possible. Let our soldiers and their families repair their disrupted lives. Take care of our wounded. Stop wasting money in South Asia.
November 24th, 2009 | 12:40 am | #27
Well, yes, Todd, actions have consequences, but the fact is, Obama’s been president for nearly a year now. Whatever Bush did wrong, it’s past time for he, and his supporters, to stop dragging out the “It’s all Bush’s fault!” explanation, every time Obama faces a problem. At this point, it’s beginning to sound like an excuse. Obama’s the president now; he’s got to lead, if he can. His dithering on this issue has been disgraceful, as has his attempts to bribe/placate the Taliban; he can’t blame these on Bush.
By the way—you say every American president since WWI has dealt shamefully with the Middle-East; that’s a pretty sweeping statement, can you elaborate on that a bit?
November 24th, 2009 | 12:44 am | #28
Blaming it all on Bush is getting to be way too easy a line. Obama is president now. So far, he’s not inspiring much confidence, and he needs to take responsibility for what happens on his watch.
November 24th, 2009 | 12:53 am | #29
[...] O November, 23, 2009 — nicedeb How much will we surrender for peace? [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 1:50 am | #30
So, Todd, in other words, screw the Afghan people. Especially the women. Screw ‘em.
It’s one thing to talk about how we should help people around the world, how we should stop this atrocity and that atrocity, in Darfur, in Tibet, and all over, but when it comes time to stop talking and actually help? When it comes time to actually follow through on one’s words of a “necessary war”? Forget about it.
Time to move on and screw the people left behind.
You wanted to look backwards, rather than forwards? OK, except, instead of looking back to find people to blame, let’s look back to let history be our guide to what will happen in the future. What happened in previous occasions when the U.S. promised to help a people and then ran away?
How many millions died in Cambodia and Vietnam because of America running away? How many thousands and tens of thousands died when America ran away in Somalia? How many died in Lebanon after we left or Iraq after the Gulf War when we encouraged people to rise up and left them hanging?
How much blood is too much blood on our hands, Todd?
Enough. We made a commitment to these people, we made them promises. Not merely Bush, but Obama and Clinton too with their reset button. We have encouraged them to stand up against the enemy. And now we are to simply abandon them and walk away?? No. Enough people have died and been oppressed because of America abandoning them.
It’s time to be a man. It’s time to keep our word. It’s time to actually finish the job.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:16 am | #31
[...] Nice Deb, The Sundries Shack, Atlas Shrugs, ThreatsWatch, The Anchoress, protein wisdom, BLACKFIVE, Wizbang, American Power, Mudville Gazette, Wake up America and Weasel [...]
November 24th, 2009 | 3:45 am | #32
I’ve mentioned that I’ve been haunting Commonweal lately. This is not an uncommon thought over there: “the Afghans simply are not worth the effort or the sacrifice.”
“The Afghans simply are not worth the effort or the sacrifice.” Despicable.
And then there is that old tactic of changing the subject, of insisting that we cannot do X because Y is just as, if not more, important (a tactic we’ve seen all too often by the seamless garment crowd). Sure, the Afghan people need help, this argument goes, but the people in Africa are even worse off. And besides, isn’t this a job for the United Nations? Despicable.
Now do you guys see why Democrats cannot be trusted with our nation’s security and defense? There is now no doubt whatsoever that Obama is now bowing down before the image of Lyndon Baines Johnson, taking all his war lessons from him, all too eager to turn this into one giant Charlie Foxtrot.
November 24th, 2009 | 6:54 am | #33
Beamer is absolutely right.
The Left’s inability to offer anything concrete in terms of going forward is something I noticed for years now.
They’re great if you want to assign blame to something that happened in the past. They’re excellent at that. In fact , that’s about all they’re “good” at. of course that depends on if you want the blame to be put onto the United States. They seem incapable of putting blame on any enemy of the US.
Also, they’re incredibly cowardly and risk-averse. They’re attitude is “I was born into this rich and comfortable society and I dont want to see it be tasked with using its riches and power to restrain evil around the world because that only makes the evil get mad at us and forces us to fight it”
They rather just pretend that 1) the evil doesn’t exist.. or 2) we are the cause of the evil or 3) the evil is legitimate and we are not and they should help the evil in its just cause against us
They also dismiss that Muslims have independent goals and the ability to act towards acheiving them.
They think the Muslims are just mindless puppets who respond only to things we do to them.
So Jihad isn’t an offensive expansionist doctrine inherit in Islam.. instead it’s a defensive anti-colonial response to the evil USA and Israel.
It’s a catastrophe that these people are in the leadership of American government.
Something I blame the Republicans for enabling via their arrogant abuse of Conservative voters.
November 24th, 2009 | 7:31 am | #34
Ooops when I said Beamer I meant Bender
November 24th, 2009 | 7:49 am | #35
Vince:
>They’re attitude is “I was born into this rich and comfortable society and I dont want to see it be tasked with using its riches and power to restrain evil around the world because that only makes the evil get mad at us and forces us to fight it”<
Well, maybe that is the correct attitude to have. All our security guarrantee has gotten us is a Europe unwilling to defend itself. Maybe the time has come to tend our own gardens a bit and let the rest of the world worry about itself.
Given its own life, maybe the Afghan people would straighten themselves out (after all, the Taliban only came to power becuase the Clinton administration wanted "stablility" in central Asia following the anarchy after the Russian withdrawal).
November 24th, 2009 | 8:14 am | #36
“Maybe the time has come to tend our own gardens a bit and let the rest of the world worry about itself.”
That’s nice. What world do you live on?
In 1784 the United States was compelled to start paying tribute to the Muslim powers of North Africa or else have our merchant shipping be attacked.
In March 1785, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja). Upon inquiring “concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury”, the ambassador replied:
“It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy’s ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once.”
Between 1948 and 1950 Sayyid Qutb lived in the United States.
Qutb was extremely critical of many things in the United States: its materialism, individual freedoms, economic system, racism, brutal boxing matches, “poor” haircuts, triviality, restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, “animal-like” mixing of the sexes (which went on even in churches), and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle.
In an article published in Egypt after his travels, he noted with disapproval the sexuality of American women:
“the American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs — and she shows all this and does not hide it”
Qutb is one of the intellectual sources of the revival of Jihadism in the Islamic world and worked with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Qutb’s brother was a mentor of Ayman Zawahiri who is Osama Bin Ladin’s partner in Al Qaeda.
Your theory fails. It fails due to your ignorance.
The lesson of WW-II was that wishful thinking and appeasement only guarantees that when the war comes it will be horrific as opposed to merely costly.
November 24th, 2009 | 8:15 am | #37
I forgot to state, portions of what I wrote come from wikipedia (namely the info regarding the Barbary ambassador and the grievances of Qutb)
I know those portions are factual and accurate.
November 24th, 2009 | 9:35 am | #38
“Whatever Bush did wrong, it’s past time …”
Well, if you had been reading carefully, I’ve been critical of most all recent presidents. I’m not going to type several hundred words off-topic here to justify why I and many others don’t agree with American foreign policy since WWII or I.
“Time to move on and screw the people left behind.”
A few quick points on this bit. Consider the tens of millions of abortions in China. If any of us thought we could “save” anyone, it would seem best to go to war with China and reform that country too.
You assume that a military victory will assure freedom for citizens in a country, that the US can actually be effective in freeing women, children, slaves, and all. At some point one has to assess with realism what military might can accomplish and what it can’t.
There’s nothing cowardly in telling an alcoholic you won’t prop up her or his life. Take the last word, people. Sounding too much like an echo chamber in here today. Not enough original thinking.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:07 am | #39
My 23 year old son recently spoke to me about enlisting…..I told him not under this president. If you join, it should be to defend our country and under a president who wants to WIN that fight.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:50 am | #40
We are living in a dream world if we think we’re negotiating with these people. Our “negotiation” is “surrender” in their eyes. And nothing will be enough because the ideology of radical Islam claims the right to enforce its standards and mores on all people. We believe in “cultural diversity;” they seek domination.
And I am literally sick when I think of the women and girls of Afghanistan who are so easily abandoned to the mantra “well, it’s their culture. Too bad, isn’t it?”
November 24th, 2009 | 11:03 am | #41
First, two responses to comments.
The Taliban did not exist as an organized body until after the soviets had left- their first action as “Taliban” was in 1994. We did train and supply elements that became the Taliban, but it was our walking away that allowed them to form as such.
Also, I was in Afghanistan in 2003 and am here again for the first time since. We never ignored this war. The level of construction of infrastructure and operating bases is mindboggling. This country has little cohesion, virtually no infrastructure of its own, and little interest in development. To say we were distracted by Iraq is to miss the bigger truth that we distracted our enemies in Iraq much more. In the meantime we did, and still do, as much as we can here. If we want to deny terrorist’s this safe haven, we must stay.
Finally, on a personal note, the last time I left here I was escorting my fiancee’s casket, who died in an attempt to rescue injured children. If the surrender rumors are true (though I just read something to the contrary) then it seems she died for nothing and I will know how Vietnam vets feel. I hope that is not the case.
November 24th, 2009 | 11:45 am | #42
Well, Todd, I did notice that you accuse all post WWI presidents of dealing shamefully with the Moslem world; that’s a pretty sweeping accusation! All of them? Can you explain a bit more clearly how they went wrong re Islamic countries?
China isn’t at issue here; Afghanistan is. Afghanistan provided a haven for Al Queda, and Osama bin Ladin, where they could plot 9/11, so, yes, we went to war, to destroy their stronghold. We went there as much for our own protection, as to save the people of Afghanistan (though I think it would be wrong to abandon them now, and turn them back oer to the Taliban).
November 24th, 2009 | 11:47 am | #43
Yes, Mary Jane, I know; “It’s their culture, and are all cultures equal? Anyway, it’s the west’s fault, for supporting Israel, and not being sensitive enough to Islamic countries. And the secular government was corrupt.”
“Meanwhile, be sure to try some of those wonderful Pho restaurants, when you’re in Little Saigon, California. . . “
November 24th, 2009 | 11:56 am | #44
But, is this really even winnable?
Do you not understand that to the average Afghan, the Taliban represents the patriots and Karzai’s bunch represent the hated royalists who are on the take from the infidel USA?
If those in power are corrupt, is this war worth fighting or are we, as Ron Paul says, “only saving face.”
Note that the Anchoress does not really make an argument for “winning” in Afghanistan promotes our national security so much as she says that leaving would hurt us by making us look weak. That would be hard for me to sell to a parent who had their child die.
I’m not saying “no way” to Afghanistan–I realize that the Taliban represents a threat.
On the other hand, there is a such thing as containment, and I do think that the more we can get out of the arena in the Middle East, the better it is in our own interests.
We better be darned sure we know what we’re doing before we surge this war.
November 24th, 2009 | 12:27 pm | #45
Way to spit on the graves of Canada’s war dead, Mr. President.
Along with other coalition countries we’ve been holding the line since 2006, waiting for the US to commit the troops necessary to finish what you started. Our tiny, underfunded military has exhausted all resources and will have to pull back from combat operations in 2011.
Now all the blood we’ve all sacrificed in this long conflict will have been for nothing, because you’ve decided to give up and hand back partial control of Afghanistan to the Taliban. The Taliban! Who gladly opened up their country to Al Quaeda before 9/11, and will do so again. It will be like we were never there.
133 of our brave men and women in uniform made their final journey home down the Highway of Heroes. Also lost were 600 Americans, 11 Austrailians, 235 Brits, 29 Danes, 20 Dutch, 36 French, 37 Germans, 22 Italians, 15 Poles, 11 Romanians, 88 Spaniards and 2 Turks.
There is no shame in fighting a losing battle, and it might be too late to win in Afghanistan. Once the West withdraws, the current government could very well be overrun by the Taliban once more.
But to not even try? To officially hand the country back to the Taliban without even giving the Afgan government a chance to stand on its own? To render the last 8 years moot? A waste of time? Every life lost, a wasted sacrifice?
Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame.
November 24th, 2009 | 12:58 pm | #46
RS — I do not think all cultures are equal. In fact, I think we are much superior to that of the Taliban.
In any event, rumor has it that next week the President finally stops dithering and will send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
I hope and pray it works. It is about time he stopped dithering and made a decision
November 24th, 2009 | 1:52 pm | #47
“Time to move on and screw the people left behind.”
A few quick points on this bit. Consider the tens of millions of abortions in China. If any of us thought we could “save” anyone, it would seem best to go to war with China and reform that country too.
Thanks Todd for this excellent example of what I was writing about before (3:45) — the tactic of changing the subject to avoid dealing with the issue before us.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:56 pm | #48
Way to spit on the graves of Canada’s war dead, Mr. President.
Come on, Marie, if Obama was going to grab his crotch at a ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery to honor the war dead of the United States, do you think that Canada is going to be treated nice? You (Canada) need to be much more autocratic and thuggish before Obama will bow down to you.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:45 pm | #49
As an American, I’m sorry, Marie. I don’t agree with his decision, and I’m furious with Obama’s waffling, and indecision and attempts to surrender to the Taliban.
As Bender says, I’m afraid Canada is going to have to become far more tyrannical and totalitarian before Obama will treat it well.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:50 pm | #50
Again, Greg, these are the same arguments which were used to get us out of Vietnam. The government we’re backing is corrupt, the people see the Vietcong as patriots, it’s time for us to get out, etc.
As it turned out, the Communist government turned out to be far crueler than the old, “corrupt” one, and thousands of Vietnamese voted with their feet—or, rather, their boats, fleeing the country; a good indication, I think, that they didn’t support the Communists (though the Left assured us they had.)
I’m afraid of a similar scenario playing out in Afghanistan. And, considering that the Taliban is not only cruel and tyrannical government, that treats women shamefully, but played host to AG, providing a headquarters for Osama bin Ladin to plot 9/11—no, they will not be an improvement, even over a corrupt government.
As I said earlier, if the Taliban is the answer, what the heck was the question?
November 24th, 2009 | 4:13 pm | #51
With Obama, it is a reset, a new beginning, the Year Zero, in more ways than one.
November 24th, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #52
Obama’s trip foretells the future
November 24th, 2009 | 7:17 pm | #53
In any even, this whole discussion seems mooted as the President is going to send 34,000 more troops and the US embassy in Kabul denies the reports of secret negotiations with the Taliban
[As perhaps you did not notice, I had already updated -admin]
November 24th, 2009 | 10:22 pm | #54
That is hardly an Emily Litella moment, Anthony.
Each point made still stands. Those troops — far less than what was asked for — will come with strings attached and micromanaging and a confused mission.
Obama is not looking for victory — he lacks the will.
He is looking for an “exit strategy,” more troops, but with “off ramps.” He is LBJ all over again.
November 24th, 2009 | 10:32 pm | #55
US Embassy spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden: “There is no truth to reports that the U.S. Embassy is engaging in secret talks with elements of the Taliban.”
It has long been necessary to parse words with these folks. OK, so maybe the “U.S. Embassy” is not engaging in such talks, but is Eikenberry (who is not the entire embassy)? Are they using an intermediary, are officials at the embassy in talks with people who are talking to the Taliban? Are people from the State Department not attached to the embassy talking to them? Are people associated with Richard Holbrooke or George Mitchell or someother Obama hack talking to the Taliban? How about good ole Joe Biden?
It was reported some months ago that Obama was prepared to cede areas of Afghanistan to the Taliban. So this denial of talks, even if technically true in the most specific and narrow sense, is lacking in credibility with respect to the bigger question.
November 25th, 2009 | 6:02 am | #56
On the home front
Once things like this are allowed. Not only are Islamic fundamentalists allowed to cow moderate Muslims into submission, but also fundamentalist Hindus & Sikhs (we’ve got them, maybe America will find out soon) start asking why they can’t join in, then you obviously get evangelicals & Catholics asserting themselves.
Not such good news for a secularist, is it?
November 25th, 2009 | 6:04 am | #57
I probably wouldn’t share this woman’s views in the first place. But since when has that mattered, when it comes to the question of whether she should have freedom of speech?
November 25th, 2009 | 6:49 am | #58
[As perhaps you did not notice, I had already updated -admin]
Sorry, I had not.
My issue with this whole thing as been his inability to make up his mind. My Obama loving friends say “Unlike Bush he refuses to be rushed into things2 to which I reply, “But Obama has been president for 10 months and had been calling for more troops in Afghanistan for 2 years — he is dithering while American & allied troops die”
My whole feeling was make a decision, ANY decision. Either decide to win or get our troops out. And while he is not using the word “victory” he seems to have decided to win.
I am just annoyed it took him so so long.
November 25th, 2009 | 5:58 pm | #59
From the Washington Post –
Obama to address nation on Afghanistan strategy Tuesday:
President to Use West Point Cadets as Political Props at 8 p.m. ET –
. . . Administration officials say the speech will outline a modest endgame for Afghanistan that would allow U.S. forces to leave and set a general time frame for achieving that result. . . . White House advisers say Obama is looking for “off ramps” that would allow him to adopt a strategy more narrowly focused on al-Qaeda if the one he chooses is not showing results.
I repeat —
Obama is not looking for victory — he lacks the will.
He is looking for an “exit strategy,” more troops, but with “off ramps.” He is LBJ all over again.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban will be cheering the speech, I’m sure.
[I do not want to be cynical and call his address to WP a "photo-op." But that is certainly an unfortunate phrase he should not have opened and allowed to get attached to him, isn't it? -admin]
November 25th, 2009 | 5:59 pm | #60
Change your name back, “Mr. Kettle”!
December 2nd, 2009 | 1:41 pm | #61
[...] Der Spiegel is searching for the Obama “magic” Last night was not a tactical surrender, but clearly, if he could leave Afghanistan right now, and not have to bother with anything but [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact