Gen. McChrystal: Go fuck yourself. I’d have expected as much from the army. You apparently do not grasp the concept of natural rights. You’re a politician, not a warrior. Coward.
Back to studying law. See you guys again in a few weeks.
mike
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Gen. McChrystal: Go fuck yourself. I’d have expected as much from the army. You apparently do not grasp the concept of natural rights. You’re a politician, not a warrior. Coward.
Back to studying law. See you guys again in a few weeks.
mike[/quote]
We can’t afford to protect the natural rights of the world. If the Taliban are willing to end support for the Sunni terrorists that attacked us, then I say negotiate away.
You have to remember why we are at war with the Taliban in the first place. If they were not providing refuge to Al-Qaeda, we wouldn’t be there. Their natural rights abuses would be as important to us now as they were before 9/11.
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
Obama said this very same thing when he first became president. The funny part is the taliban telling him to go fuck himself. That cracked me up…I’ll see if I can find that old thread because the story links are in there…
Oh goody I found it…
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
The call the Taliban terrorists is quite a bit of a stretch.
Plus, you do plenty of negotiating with terrorist.
Every now and then you even finace them when they terrorize peopel you dont like.
So puullllleeeeaaaaze…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
Of course you do. I was covering Afghanistan at the end of the 90’s when the US was very eager to put a pipeline though Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea. This was of course so that Iranian terrorists could not stop the flow. Human rights abuses in Afghanistan were not a major deterrent.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
The call the Taliban terrorists is quite a bit of a stretch.
Plus, you do plenty of negotiating with terrorist.
Every now and then you even finace them when they terrorize peopel you dont like.
So puullllleeeeaaaaze…
[/quote]
Hmmm taliban not terrorists??? Hmm, suicide bombingson innocent civilians, check; homicide bombings on innocent civilians, check; beheadings and public executions, check…Not sure what your definition of “terrorist” is, but they qualify in most places…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
The call the Taliban terrorists is quite a bit of a stretch.
Plus, you do plenty of negotiating with terrorist.
Every now and then you even finace them when they terrorize peopel you dont like.
So puullllleeeeaaaaze…
[/quote]
Hmmm taliban not terrorists??? Hmm, suicide bombingson innocent civilians, check; homicide bombings on innocent civilians, check; beheadings and public executions, check…Not sure what your definition of “terrorist” is, but they qualify in most places…[/quote]
Well they use terror yes, but so does every other government or proto government.
I would invite you to define terrorist in a way that does not include the US government and its puppet regime in Kabul and that is not prima facie ridiculous.
Bonus points for explaining how public beheadings are “terrorism” in Afghanistan yet not in Saudi Arabia.
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
Of course you do. I was covering Afghanistan at the end of the 90’s when the US was very eager to put a pipeline though Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea. This was of course so that Iranian terrorists could not stop the flow. Human rights abuses in Afghanistan were not a major deterrent.
[/quote]
Plus, their tactics are similar to those used against the SU.
When those tactics are terrorism now they must have been terrorism then.
Was Ronald Reagans administration giving aid and comfort to terrorist?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
Of course you do. I was covering Afghanistan at the end of the 90’s when the US was very eager to put a pipeline though Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea. This was of course so that Iranian terrorists could not stop the flow. Human rights abuses in Afghanistan were not a major deterrent.
[/quote]
Plus, their tactics are similar to those used against the SU.
When those tactics are terrorism now they must have been terrorism then.
Was Ronald Reagans administration giving aid and comfort to terrorist?
[/quote]
Thats irrelevant because theres no place for morality in international politics; each nation must work or eliminate competition depending on their own interests, which change frequently, so that your ally one year turns into an adversary the other.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]TQB wrote:
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
You cannot negotiate with Taliban as they’re not organized like a regular army.
Sure, they have certain frontmen like bin Laden, the occasional training camp, even a think-tank (or cave;).
But that’s about it.
You can negotiate with a few clans or warlords, not with the “Taliban”, a construct that today stands for international and radically islamist terrorism.
[/quote]
Not really. 1)They ran Afghanistan and the country was more stable than anytime since the early seventies. 2)They probably have around 20% of the population as supporters. 3) Once the international force goes home, they will still be there.
At best, that Afghanistan will not support al Qaida, not be linked to extremist movements elsewhere and acheive a certain degree of tolerance for other points of views among its population. The two first are acheivable, the latter will require more effort. Massive funding/bribes will play a major role.
Afghanistan will not be a liberal democracy where rights of women and minorities will be fully respected. It is more a question at what level we can halt the slide.[/quote]
You do not ever negotiate with terrorists, period.[/quote]
Of course you do. I was covering Afghanistan at the end of the 90’s when the US was very eager to put a pipeline though Afghanistan from Turkmenistan to the Arabian Sea. This was of course so that Iranian terrorists could not stop the flow. Human rights abuses in Afghanistan were not a major deterrent.
[/quote]
Plus, their tactics are similar to those used against the SU.
When those tactics are terrorism now they must have been terrorism then.
Was Ronald Reagans administration giving aid and comfort to terrorist?
[/quote]
Thats irrelevant because theres no place for morality in international politics; each nation must work or eliminate competition depending on their own interests, which change frequently, so that your ally one year turns into an adversary the other.
[/quote]
But that is not how it is sold to the American public.
It is never about the US military doing the bidding of at best amoral people but always about the “most noble and brightest” bringing the light of civilization to undeserving savages.
This whole idea of “we dont negotiate with terrorists” is pointless when you a) do it all the time and b) define everyone as a terrorist defending his country against a US invasion.
It is almost as if many Americans expect everyone on this planet to roll over and spread them whenever the US federal government makes a demand, just because they themselves do that almost by instinct now.
That strategy won’t work. This one will. Pick a local warlord that has respect and power. Back him quietly. Make sure you id his enemies for him with your western voodoo magic (predators and spy satellites). Help him become the strongest warlord. Make sure he crushes AQ and any other anti-western groups. Keep a short leash on him. Slowly introduce reforms to the Afgani’s so they decide they would rather make money than blow each other up.
[quote]hedo wrote:
That strategy won’t work. This one will. Pick a local warlord that has respect and power. Back him quietly. Make sure you id his enemies for him with your western voodoo magic (predators and spy satellites). Help him become the strongest warlord. Make sure he crushes AQ and any other anti-western groups. Keep a short leash on him. Slowly introduce reforms to the Afgani’s so they decide they would rather make money than blow each other up.[/quote]
This sounds exactly what my foreign policy wonkish friend used to tell me about counterinsurgency.
Essentially, you become the local Don. (A good Don, hopefully.)
Trouble is, “Taliban” is a descriptive term rather than a distinct political group. Your friendly warlord, if I understand correctly, might be a talib himself.
I think McChrystal probably knows more about military strategy than we do. I’m also sure he’s not a fan of human rights abuses, and he thinks this would be better on net.
I think Hedo has the right and most prudent idea.
We (the US) have supported terrorism for a long time. How about the Ukranian resistance led by Stephan Bandera that was funded to commit atrocities and beheadings (gasp) against the Soviet Union forces WHILE they were still our allies during WW2. So we dont behead people but we can drop a bomb that eviscerates a whole village? Terror is such a subjective term, yes its plain to see the Taliban and other middle eastern paramilitary groups are FUCKED UP. But to pretend our shit doesnt stink is downright laughable.
[quote]hedo wrote:
That strategy won’t work. This one will. Pick a local warlord that has respect and power. Back him quietly. Make sure you id his enemies for him with your western voodoo magic (predators and spy satellites). Help him become the strongest warlord. Make sure he crushes AQ and any other anti-western groups. Keep a short leash on him. Slowly introduce reforms to the Afgani’s so they decide they would rather make money than blow each other up.[/quote]
That could have worked.
Whether it will work 8 years into the war is another matter.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
That strategy won’t work. This one will. Pick a local warlord that has respect and power. Back him quietly. Make sure you id his enemies for him with your western voodoo magic (predators and spy satellites). Help him become the strongest warlord. Make sure he crushes AQ and any other anti-western groups. Keep a short leash on him. Slowly introduce reforms to the Afgani’s so they decide they would rather make money than blow each other up.[/quote]
That could have worked.
Whether it will work 8 years into the war is another matter.
[/quote]
Well after 8 yrs. the allies should know who the strongest warlord is. Get a CIA or MI6 guy on the inside as one of his aides so we can keep an eye on him if he veers off course.
[quote]hedo wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]hedo wrote:
That strategy won’t work. This one will. Pick a local warlord that has respect and power. Back him quietly. Make sure you id his enemies for him with your western voodoo magic (predators and spy satellites). Help him become the strongest warlord. Make sure he crushes AQ and any other anti-western groups. Keep a short leash on him. Slowly introduce reforms to the Afgani’s so they decide they would rather make money than blow each other up.[/quote]
That could have worked.
Whether it will work 8 years into the war is another matter.
[/quote]
Well after 8 yrs. the allies should know who the strongest warlord is. Get a CIA or MI6 guy on the inside as one of his aides so we can keep an eye on him if he veers off course.[/quote]
The problem is that if they hate Americans they will also hate an Americas, um, partner.
Plus, the strongest one already will be in power once America leaves, he has no reason to cooperate.
And then I seriously doubt that the Obama administration can pull something like that off.