US to ask Taliban for peace

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, banning bathists (for a period of time)...

You mean like this month?

And you don't see the hypocrisy in that ban, since a democracy still doesn't actually exist in Iraq despite all the far-right rhetoric to the contrary?

The Taliban is evil incarnate.

And yet you now want the "moderate" ones to be part of the Afghan government, unlike the Baathists in Iraq?

It seems like this "plan" which you referred to earlier is more a matter of the revision of rhetoric as new events occur.

 

[amadeus]

Taliban

moderates

I'm assuming (hoping?) by having these two words together in the same sentence you mean "guys presently fighting for them, but not necessarily believing the group's doctrine".

 

[Flying Pig]

It sounds like what they mean is 'we're going to convince them that it's in their best interests to agree to a hugely disadvantageous peace which they can trumpet as a victory over the infidels if they want' to me

 

[RedRalph]

It sounds like what they mean is 'we're going to convince them that it's in their best interests to agree to a hugely disadvantageous peace which they can trumpet as a victory over the infidels if they want' to me

Given the comparitive strenghts of the two sides, it will be very, very easy for them to portray this as a victory, and in some ways, they will be right. As a final result, this wouldnt be much better than the Red Army got

 

[Flying Pig]

Except the actual terms of it would be awful for them. We are killing them at an insane rate already and with this new operation they will be asking us if we don't ask them. Realisitically, we're hoping for a mutually agreeable allied victory. We have pretty much won already, don't forget.

No, you have not. For 9 years you have had the most powerful military alliance in history fighting against farmers with old Soviet weapons, the fact that ye are even having to consider coming to the table with them says ye did anything but win. They know eventually ye will leave; they will always be there, in some form or another.

The US is going to try one more time to win through arms (and you never know, they could surprise me and do it), but they are already looking to form a way out with some dignity for if/when that fails.

Read through the objectives again? Get rid of the government - check. Find Bin Laden - removed because it's far too hard. Bring in a legitimate government - in the works, but nearly done. Establish a free and stable Afghan state that can exist on its own - that's the bit that's being done now. With an expansion of the lead umbrellas, the allies will have done everything they set out to do. Taking out the Taliban who remain in the country is a secondary objective to facilitate the others; but it's the LUs' job now.

 

[RedRalph]

Except the actual terms of it would be awful for them. We are killing them at an insane rate already and with this new operation they will be asking us if we don't ask them. Realisitically, we're hoping for a mutually agreeable allied victory. We have pretty much won already, don't forget.

No, you have not. For 9 years you have had the most powerful military alliance in history fighting against farmers with old Soviet weapons, the fact that ye are even having to consider coming to the table with them says ye did anything but win. They know eventually ye will leave; they will always be there, in some form or another.

The US is going to try one more time to win through arms (and you never know, they could surprise me and do it), but they are already looking to form a way out with some dignity for if/when that fails.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'm assuming (hoping?) by having these two words together in the same sentence you mean "guys presently fighting for them, but not necessarily believing the group's doctrine".

Also, people who are too scared to oppose them so they live uder their rules and keep quiet. Also, people who are tangentally associsated with them on some business or logistics where they make money but don't really care for the doctrine.

Unfortunately, the Taliban has influence beyond the direct brainwashing and basically forcing of people to suicide. There's no solid line between Taliban and not-Taliban among those who exist on their perimeter.

 

[MobBoss]

No, you have not. For 9 years you have had the most powerful military alliance in history fighting against farmers with old Soviet weapons, the fact that ye are even having to consider coming to the table with them says ye did anything but win. They know eventually ye will leave; they will always be there, in some form or another.

The US is going to try one more time to win through arms (and you never know, they could surprise me and do it), but they are already looking to form a way out with some dignity for if/when that fails.

These arent old soviet weapons, but more modern stuff (shaped charges, etc). The insurgents are limited to IEDs, small arms, mortars and RPGs, which essentially makes this a war of attrition. They dont have the ability to defeat us by military action, but continually harass our forces when they can, even if it results in massive casualties for their side.

This isnt a battle of military power, if it were we won that long ago. Its now a battle of wills. In consideration of that, traditional meanings of victory or loss dont mean the same thing. Nor should they. Its like fighting cockroaches, and if the expectation is we have to get them all to claim victory, then thats just not going to happen. Nor is the country going to be 100% violence free anytime in the forseeable future, but again, that shouldnt be a victory condition.

 

[Quackers]

No, you have not. For 9 years you have had the most powerful military alliance in history fighting against farmers with old Soviet weapons, the fact that ye are even having to consider coming to the table with them says ye did anything but win. They know eventually ye will leave; they will always be there, in some form or another.

The US is going to try one more time to win through arms (and you never know, they could surprise me and do it), but they are already looking to form a way out with some dignity for if/when that fails.

NATO is the most powerful military alliance in history yet it isn't working at maximium ability maybe 20% of what it can do.

 

[RedRalph]

These arent old soviet weapons, but more modern stuff (shaped charges, etc). The insurgents are limited to IEDs, small arms, mortars and RPGs, which essentially makes this a war of attrition. They dont have the ability to defeat us by military action, but continually harass our forces when they can, even if it results in massive casualties for their side.

This isnt a battle of military power, if it were we won that long ago. Its now a battle of wills. In consideration of that, traditional meanings of victory or loss dont mean the same thing. Nor should they. Its like fighting cockroaches, and if the expectation is we have to get them all to claim victory, then thats just not going to happen. Nor is the country going to be 100% violence free anytime in the forseeable future, but again, that shouldnt be a victory condition.

Actually MB, as you are so fond out pointing out, in the past the US did indeed have the capability to win guerilla wars comprehensively. But after almost a decade of fighting, they still haven't won this one. It's dragging on and on, there is no end in sight and even the US military is admitting it's now unlikely to be won militarily. Its really is a poor result. Not just for the US, but for NATO. Maybe if the Yurps had helped a bit more it would have been different, cant blame everything on the US.

NATO is the most powerful military alliance in history yet it isn't working at maximium ability maybe 20% of what it can do.

Really, 20% of history's most powerful military alliance should be able to defeat farmers. But they can't. Dont feel bad, made a better stab at it than the Reds, but in the end, it's basically going to be the same result.

 

[Ecofarm]

Really, 20% of history's most powerful military alliance should be able to defeat farmers. But they can't. Dont feel bad, made a better stab at it than the Reds, but in the end, it's basically going to be the same result.

Russia is not shooting our helicopters. I think we are ok and Afghanistan will have a semi-stable quasi-democracy (complete with infrastructure for a real liberal western one) in place this generation or next.

I know, aiming for a semi-stable quasi-democracy is pretty weak, but look what we started with. At least the infrastructure and some appreciation for democracy will be there.

 

[Karalysia]

We're headed toward a terrible political disaster in Afghanistan. The legitmacy of the Karzai government has evaporated with the recent elections.

The Taliban have disassociated themselves from Al-Qaida and remodeled themselves as a nationalist insurgency fighting foreign oppressors. The Taliban are changing their tactics. They're aiming for broader recruitment, the New York Time estimates they have up to 100,000 fighters mostly Pashtun tribal forces who feel alienated from the government in Kabul, and increasingly resentful of what they view as the Kabul government insensitivity toward Pashtuns.

The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar I believe has also begun to change the tactics, ordering that his forces avoid targeting Afghan civilians in suicide bombings, he's established new rules regarding prisoners and which prisoners can and can't be killed, he's replaced the more brutal and bloodthirsty Taliban commanders, he's banned videotaping executions of captured prisoners and various other things and generally speaking he's increased recruitment. The New York Time estimates that up to 500,000 additional fighters might become available for the Taliban. In the battle of hearts and minds the US is losing. These changes in tactics have furthermore differentiated the Afghan Taliban from the Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistani Taliban are known to be more brutal and indiscriminate in their attacks targeting civllians and military in their suicide bombings.

Overall Afghanistan is not shaping up well. US forces have more or less pulled out of the countryside, and retreated to the cities, supposedly to given the Afghan population in the cities a sense of greater security and in order to conserve their overstreached forces, but this will be seen as a victory for the Taliban and it isolates the urban areas in a great streaches of rural land as small islands which the Taliban can now strike at will.

Afghanistan is looking to be doomed for failure. By guess is that the Karzai government in Kabul will collapse, the US will withdraw, and the Taliban will take over.

 

[MobBoss]

Actually MB, as you are so fond out pointing out, in the past the US did indeed have the capability to win guerilla wars comprehensively.

Yeah, but the methods you have to use to win them are called warcrimes today. Wussies.

But after almost a decade of fighting, they still haven't won this one.

If it went no holds barred, it wouldnt last long. Silly law of landwarfare.

It's dragging on and on, there is no end in sight and even the US military is admitting it's now unlikely to be won militarily. Its really is a poor result. Not just for the US, but for NATO. Maybe if the Yurps had helped a bit more it would have been different, cant blame everything on the US.

Because this isnt a war in the conventional sense. Believe it or not, its hard to stop a couple of dozen insurgents in extremely rough terrian when you have to be cognizant of killing civilians. Its not like you can easily tell them apart until they open fire at you.

More troops simply escalates the effect of attrition on their side via more insurgents dead. Its a step in the right direction, but not in-of-itself a knockout punch.

Really, 20% of history's most powerful military alliance should be able to defeat farmers.

We do. Every single time they engage us. Every. Single. Time. But, just like cockroaches, although you kill a bunch every time you spray, it doesnt mean there arent more out there.

But they can't. Dont feel bad, made a better stab at it than the Reds, but in the end, it's basically going to be the same result.

I dont think so, as our goals are different than the reds was. We also havent taken anywhere near the casualties the soviets did, and have been much more effective in military ops than they were.

 

[GenMarshall]

Taliban for peace? Sure...


...so long as I have there leader's heads on a silver plate, including Osama's.

This is no longer the classic armies vs armies. This has became small squads vs a rag tag insurgent. Certainly we don't want to make the same mistake now as we did in Vietnam.

 

[MobBoss]

Taliban for peace? Sure...

I know. Sounds kinda like Jumbo Shrimp, doesnt it?

 

[capslock]

We're headed toward a terrible political disaster in Afghanistan. The legitmacy of the Karzai government has evaporated with the recent elections.

The Taliban have disassociated themselves from Al-Qaida and remodeled themselves as a nationalist insurgency fighting foreign oppressors. The Taliban are changing their tactics. They're aiming for broader recruitment, the New York Time estimates they have up to 100,000 fighters mostly Pashtun tribal forces who feel alienated from the government in Kabul, and increasingly resentful of what they view as the Kabul government insensitivity toward Pashtuns.

The Taliban leader, Mullah Omar I believe has also begun to change the tactics, ordering that his forces avoid targeting Afghan civilians in suicide bombings, he's established new rules regarding prisoners and which prisoners can and can't be killed, he's replaced the more brutal and bloodthirsty Taliban commanders, he's banned videotaping executions of captured prisoners and various other things and generally speaking he's increased recruitment. The New York Time estimates that up to 500,000 additional fighters might become available for the Taliban. In the battle of hearts and minds the US is losing. These changes in tactics have furthermore differentiated the Afghan Taliban from the Pakistani Taliban. The Pakistani Taliban are known to be more brutal and indiscriminate in their attacks targeting civllians and military in their suicide bombings.

Overall Afghanistan is not shaping up well. US forces have more or less pulled out of the countryside, and retreated to the cities, supposedly to given the Afghan population in the cities a sense of greater security and in order to conserve their overstreached forces, but this will be seen as a victory for the Taliban and it isolates the urban areas in a great streaches of rural land as small islands which the Taliban can now strike at will.

Afghanistan is looking to be doomed for failure. By guess is that the Karzai government in Kabul will collapse, the US will withdraw, and the Taliban will take over.

What are your sources? Or are you just speculating.... (about Taliban tactics, not the Karzai gov, corruption is a problem)

 

[Karalysia]

New York Times newspaper article a few days back. Thursday or Friday I think.

 

[capslock]

Oh, I've been getting different information. Last I heard they "win" popular "support" the same way the mob does. IE, you pay or they break your legs. or rape your sister. or something bad.

 

[Karalysia]

Oh, I've been getting different information. Last I heard they "win" popular "support" the same way the mob does. IE, you pay or they break your legs. or rape your sister. or something bad.

The paper mentioned that its a fairly recent attempt by Mullah Omar to change their tactics and its questionable how much of an impact it has. Due to the geography, and loose command and control over Taliban forces it most likely won't have a sweeping effect immediately but overtime it may.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, still not addressed. Guess that was 9 years for NOTHING. Great, wonderful.

That's what you expect to get when you let conservatives run things.