Taliban leader rejects U.S. attempts to lure away fighters with money

Aleenik

Deity
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
2,203
Location
France
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/30/taliban.obama/index.html

I wonder if this idea would get a lot of people to leave the Taliban. Would those in the Taliban, who already hold radical views, be swayed by money...instead of focusing on their mission that they joined the Taliban for? I suppose some might be swayed, but how many could be swayed? I guess we may find out.

Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A top Taliban political leader delivered a message Friday to President Obama, calling his attempt to lure away Taliban fighters with money "an old weapon that has failed already."

"The Mujahedeen of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan are not mercenaries and employed gunmen like the armed men of the invaders and their surrogates," Mullah Brader Akhund said in the statement. "This war will come to an end when all invaders leave our country and an Islamic government based on the aspirations of our people is formed in the country."

Akhund is the deputy emir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, which is the political arm of the Taliban.

He was referring to the Taliban reintegration provision, part of the $680 billion defense appropriation bill that Obama signed Wednesday to pay for military operations in the 2010 fiscal year.

The provision would separate local Taliban from their leaders, paying the fighters to quit the organization, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq, according to the Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Akhund said 19th century British invaders and Soviet fighters in the 1980s tried the same tactic, unsuccessfully.

He said the Taliban consider the U.S. measure "a sign of weakness and complete despondency of the enemy."

Obama is considering whether to approve the request from his top commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, for as many as 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan. The decision is being weighed against the backdrop of suddenly spiraling U.S. military fatalities. Fifty-six American troops have died in Afghanistan in October, the highest U.S. monthly toll since the war began eight years ago.

Obama meets Friday with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who will tell the U.S. leader how a large deployment to Afghanistan would affect the military.

Akhund warned Obama against maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan, saying it "will only deepen your economic crisis and will harm your international reputation."

"Pull all your forces out of our prideful country and put an end to the game of colonialization by shedding the blood of innocent Muslim people under the unjustified name of terrorism," he said.

The Taliban reintegration provision is part of the Commander's Emergency Response Program, which is now receiving $1.3 billion. CERP funding also is intended for humanitarian relief and reconstruction projects at commanders' discretion.

"Afghan leaders and our military say that local Taliban fighters are motivated largely by the need for a job or loyalty to the local leader who pays them and not by ideology or religious zeal," Levin said in a Senate floor speech on September 11. "They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the government's side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families, and if there is no penalty for previous activity against us."

While the plan has a "reasonable chance for some success," analyst Nicholas Schmidle said that it may not be a long-term solution.

"So long as the Americans are keenly aware of this, you're buying a very, very, very temporary allegiance," said Schmidle, an expert on the Afghanistan-Pakistan region for the nonpartisan New America Foundation. "If that's the foundation for moving forward, it's a shaky foundation."

Peter Bergen, CNN security analyst, said the idea of paying off Taliban members to quit is nothing new.

"There's been an amnesty program for low-level Taliban in place for many years now, and thousands of people have taken advantage of it," he said. "So this is not entirely a new idea. The idea of bribing people, local guys, to come over. ... It's one of the most cost-effective ways to get people to lay down their arms, either to negotiate a peace or coerce them."

McChrystal has backed the Taliban reintegration plan, saying that most are not ideologically or even politically motivated.

"Most of the fighters we see in Afghanistan are Afghans, some with [a] foreign cadre with them," he said in a July 28 Los Angeles Times interview. "Most are operating for pay; some are under a commander's charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders."

CNN's Ed Hornick, Thomas Evans, Adam Levine, Barbara Starr and Nic Robertson contributed to this report.
 
Does luring the fighters away with money involve $50 bills, bits of string and hiding behind a big rock?

Trying to get the fighters to disband using money is not too dissimilar from trying to get them to disband by showing them that they can create a society with a decent standard of living in their own country, by building infrastructure and so on. Of course, that hasn't worked so far, but the money idea is perhaps cynical enough to work.
 
Most of the foot soldiers are likely poor and it is not inconceivable that they can be swayed with money.

A similar strategy was successful in Iraq. Of course Afghanistan is different but there's only one way to find out. One analysts suggested that it would be possible but only temporary. Which is of course true, this isn't going to singlehandadley solve everything and no one believes that, other measures also have to be taken in addition to this but this is a good tactic also.

And congratulations on using CNN.
 
Does luring the fighters away with money involve $50 bills, bits of string and hiding behind a big rock?

Sounds like my method of getting all the squaddies to line up and walk from north to south, pushing anyone in their way backwards. Result - no Taliban! The army should listen to us CFC posters, amirite?
 
Most of the foot soldiers are likely poor and it is not inconceivable that they can be swayed with money.

A similar strategy was successful in Iraq. Of course Afghanistan is different but there's only one way to find out. One analysts suggested that it would be possible but only temporary. Which is of course true, this isn't going to singlehandadley solve everything and no one believes that, other measures also have to be taken in addition to this but this is a good tactic also.

And congratulations on using CNN.

Ya, I don't think it would solve everything either. Was it a huge sucess in Iraq? Like, did it make a big difference or did it work, but the affect of it was small?

I used CNN just because I happened to be browsing their website at the time. It doesn't bother me to use it though I guess. I think I prefer Fox News over CNN and CNN over MSNBC.
 
Maybe if they offered them Euros rather than US Dollars they might be interested???
 
I'm sure it would work quite alot. These people have nothing but a cave and some dirt. Poverty is part of the problem. Just because their leader says "it won't work" does not make me think so.

Terrorists/taliban are disgusting, murdering, woman-hating neanderthals but we can't kill them all.

Is rehabilitation really feasable for full-on talibaned people? I dunno. I guess, like in Iraq, we must work with some of the garbage because after a genocidal dictator or murderous regime annihilates everything that thinks... there's not much else around. We need a Neo-Exodus.


ps. Ima try to take that word. It's not as popular on google search as equatist (damn racist bastards ruined that word invention for me).
 
Does luring the fighters away with money involve $50 bills, bits of string and hiding behind a big rock?

How can you possibly know that?! That's classified information! :eek:
 
One analysts suggested that it would be possible but only temporary.

That seems pretty obvious. Again, Afghanistan's main problem is its neighborhood, and there's no way one more foreign power, one very far away, attempting to interfere there can stabilize it.
 
Why not lure them to a trap with some guy armed with a minigun?;)
 
Do they realy think that the Taliban are a social club that one can join or leave like that?
I meen, I don't know personaly but I think that the foot solger can not exacly walk over to the nearest Taliban general and say "I quit."

The Taliban are a militairy organisation held together by strong religius and ideological ties and their members will not pick up and leave just for some money.

And besides, I have a sneeking suspition that just like in the Mafia the only way to leave is in a casket.
 
Do they realy think that the Taliban are a social club that one can join or leave like that?
I meen, I don't know personaly but I think that the foot solger can not exacly walk over to the nearest Taliban general and say "I quit."

The Taliban are a militairy organisation held together by strong religius and ideological ties and their members will not pick up and leave just for some money.

And besides, I have a sneeking suspition that just like in the Mafia the only way to leave is in a casket.

I think you overestimate the central organization and control of the Taliban. Its forces are drawn from Pashtuns largely farmers, tribals and other poor who reside in rural areas who form their support base. In fact one of the reasons they had such support in Pakistan and advanced till Swat was that Pakistan has an archaic landowning system which can be somewhat described as feudal, by promising land reform they were able to win support. They are not a professional army, they are a guerrilla force.
 
Yes and in a guerilla cell what happenes if one of the fighters tries to get out?
 
Well shoot, if their unbiased leader said it can't be done, I guess it can't be done.
 
Top Bottom