US to ask Taliban for peace

[RedRalph]

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

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

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.

Listen, all of thyat is true, but it doesn't change the end result: Ye can't beat them.

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.

Which means eventually you have to accept that the cockroaches aren't going away. Look, you know my views on religion, I have no love for the Taliban. But the fact is, even if ye were to absolutely hammer thenm militarily this summer, politically they are a major force in Afghanistan, and they aren't going away.

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.

Agreed. Like I said, ye have made a much better stab at it, but the end result appears to be the same.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Taliban for peace? Sure...


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_leaders

 

[holy king]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_leaders

pshh, stop drawing a differentiated picture of the situation.

 

[capslock]

@RRW
The objective isn't necessarily to destroy the Taliban. Its a long process, but the idea is to win the support of the locals by providing them security from these thugs, working with them to build infastructure and a stable government, and then the big one, help them establish a strong national security force so they can fight off the Taliban thugs themselves.

 

[MobBoss]

Listen, all of thyat is true, but it doesn't change the end result: Ye can't beat them.

Militarily we have. Like I said. Every. Single. TIme.

Which means eventually you have to accept that the cockroaches aren't going away.

Perhaps. Cockroaches, despite popular belief, arent infinite. And can be largely denied the things they need to survive.

Point being, they dont have to 'go away' for a victory to be a result.

Look, you know my views on religion, I have no love for the Taliban. But the fact is, even if ye were to absolutely hammer thenm militarily this summer, politically they are a major force in Afghanistan, and they aren't going away.

Well, from the looks of things, neither are we (anytime soon that is).

Agreed. Like I said, ye have made a much better stab at it, but the end result appears to be the same.

Not over yet, and I remind you a lot of people said this same thing about Iraq before it quieted down.

 

[RedRalph]

Militarily we have. Like I said. Every. Single. TIme.

Thats really doesn't matter, ye beat the VC nearly every time militarily and lost there too. Beating them militaril every time is not winning the war for you, paradoxical as that is.

Perhaps. Cockroaches, despite popular belief, arent infinite. And can be largely denied the things they need to survive.

But that's not happening now, is it? Not by a long shot. And its not going to happen, the US cannot exterminate the Taliban.

Well, from the looks of things, neither are we (anytime soon that is).

But eventually, ye will, and every Afghan citizen knows that. As does every Taleb.

Not over yet, and I remind you a lot of people said this same thing about Iraq before it quieted down.

That's true (Iraq isn't won yet either), and I have admitted Afghanistan could yet be won, but I just dont see it happening. Do you, realistically?

 

[MobBoss]

Thats really doesn't matter, ye beat the VC nearly every time militarily and lost there too. Beating them militaril every time is not winning the war for you, paradoxical as that is.

The person who says we 'lost' Vietnam doesnt know their history very well. But I agree it takes more than military victory....didnt I say this was a battle of wills earlier? Why yes I did.

But that's not happening now, is it? Not by a long shot. And its not going to happen, the US cannot exterminate the Taliban.

I dont think that was ever an expectation, RRW.

But eventually, ye will, and every Afghan citizen knows that. As does every Taleb.

/shrug. This is why we need the Aghan government able to conduct its own defense.

That's true (Iraq isn't won yet either), and I have admitted Afghanistan could yet be won, but I just dont see it happening. Do you, realistically?

I can see a variety of outcomes, some good, some bad. Ultimately, just like in Iraq, its going to be up to the Aghans themselves....

 

[RedRalph]

Hmm.... I'm not going to split hairs with you, but I will say that your assessment of the situation seems a lot more realistic now than it did a few months ago.

 

[MobBoss]

Hmm.... I'm not going to split hairs with you, but I will say that your assessment of the situation seems a lot more realistic now than it did a few months ago.

My assessment hasnt changed at all.

Maybe you have just gotten more reasonable.

 

[Formaldehyde]

@RRW
The objective isn't necessarily to destroy the Taliban.

It's interesting how that objective has changed over time.

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." -- George W. Bush, 9/20/01

"Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocence, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril." -- From George W. Bush's speech announcing that attacks on Afghanistan had begun

"And you all also may remember that early on, I said if you hide a terrorist, if you feed a terrorist, if you provide comfort to a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist. The Taliban now knows what we mean. They're gone. And, guess what? People in Afghanistan don't miss them one bit." -- George W. Bush rallies the troops in Alaska on 2/16/02

The person who says we 'lost' Vietnam doesnt know their history very well.

The person who says we didn't "lose" in Vietnam doesn't know what it means when you flee a war zone after supporting their puppet regine and your opponents take over the country as a direct result.

 

[Ecofarm]

Listen, all of thyat is true, but it doesn't change the end result: Ye can't beat them.

We certainly can "beat them", presuming that means to get our way politically. What we cannot do is "kill them all", which noone ever proposed we could. Nice strawman though.

 

[trader/warrior]

We certainly can "beat them", presuming that means to get our way politically. What we cannot do is "kill them all", which noone ever proposed we could. Nice strawman though.

If by get your way politically you mean a non-islamic liberal democracy, that looks further off now than it did a year or two ago.
If you just mean pro-US, anti-terrorist, the US hasn't learned anything the past 10 years.

 

[MobBoss]

The person who says we didn't "lose" in Vietnam doesn't know what it means when you flee a war zone after supporting their puppet regine and your opponents take over the country as a direct result.

You may want to read up on the Paris Peace Accords. Your statement indicates an ignorance of them.

 

[Karalysia]

More ignorant than ignoring what happened 2 years after the Paris Peace Accord?

 

[Formaldehyde]

More ignorant than ignoring what happened 2 years after the Paris Peace Accord?

"Quitter" sounds so much more dignified to some than "loser" does. But in this particular case, I think most people do agree they are synonymous.

 

[MobBoss]

More ignorant than ignoring what happened 2 years after the Paris Peace Accord?

Actually, yes.

We didnt violate the peace accords, did we?

Quitter" sounds so much more dignified to some than "loser" does.

Actually, I dont either is actually the case, but 'quitter' is a bit more accurate than 'loser' in the application. We had signed a peace accord. They broke it 2 years later. We declined to renew hostilities over it. End of story.

If you decide to call a war in which we won every major engagement with the enemy that ended with the Paris Peace Accords as a loss, then thats your business.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

If this actually becomes policy, it is going to come as quite a disappointment to all those who have tried to paint the Taliban as being evil incarnate.

Well, that is pretty close. The problem is that so is every other power in the country. The best government Afghanistan ever had was the Communist (read: modern) government the Mujahideen tried to overthrow. They tried to overthrow it because they were a bunch of ignorant, backward, female-oppressing farmers.

It isn't to say it was because it was specifically "Communist" that it was good, but because it wasn't medieval. I am sure some modern Western-backed government would have been good too. Also, it isn't to say that the Soviet Army was good... I am talking before the invasion that was meant to save the Communist government. Finally, it isn't to say the Communist government was great by the standards of the rest of the world. There were just half-civilized at least.

EDIT: Meh, maybe the government before the Communists was acceptable too. The point is that Afghans themselves are the problem

 

[Aegis]

Asking for peace is a sign of weakness and it will be abused extensively.

 

[say1988]

More ignorant than ignoring what happened 2 years after the Paris Peace Accord?

Did anyone with good knowledge about the situation really expect that to hold up? Without the US there, South Vietnam was going to fall.

 

[Karalysia]

Actually, yes.

We didnt violate the peace accords, did we?

I don't understand why or how you can possibly take the Peace accords in isolation in order to claim the Vietnam war was somehow a success for the US. Our major goal of preserving South Vietnamese independence, failed miserably. Not only did South Vietnam fall but so did Cambodia, and Laos. North Vietnam signed the peace accord and almost immediately promptly violated it. US forces were forced to pull out. The US population lost the will to fight.

So:
-Failure of US geo-strategic goals to preserve independence of South Vietnam
-Failure to prevent spread of communism as Laos and Cambodia both went commie

Essentially a waste of 50,000 US lives and 2 million Vietnamese in order to prevent something that was inevitable. If thats what you call a success what do you call a defeat?