OpieRadio Logo
Compound Media Logo
Jim Norton Logo

Karzai: US in peace talks with Taliban

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Party Rooster, Jun 19, 2011.

  1. Party Rooster

    Party Rooster Unleash The Beast

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    40,304
    Likes Received:
    7,462
    Great. Just "talking" with our enemies...:icon_cool

     
  2. Token White Guy

    Token White Guy Continuously Jaded

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    349
    Oh noes! It's not like we never talked to the British, Germans, and others we've waged way with. But these savage animals only know how to run head first into a bullet.
     
  3. lajikal

    lajikal Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    3,802
    Hasn't karzai brought this up every year for the last several years
     
  4. OilyJillFart

    OilyJillFart Well-Lubed Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,835
    Likes Received:
    1,107
    I suppose it's a good thing to have on record that we tried.
    As long as nobody's surprised when it doesn't do shit.
     
  5. VMS

    VMS Victim of high standards and low personal skills.

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    Inherent to peace talks is the assurance that any agreements that would be reached would also be adhered to. Inherent with our wars against the British, Germans, etc. has been an adherence to the Rules Of War (it's at least in part why we pushed for unconditional surrender of the Japanese, who didn't adhere to any Rules Of War).

    Terrorists, by definition, don't adhere to the Rules Of War. If they did, they would be properly classified as guerrillas, not terrorists. If the people you're fighting don't follow any set of agreed-upon rules, then any negotiations are just a waste of time.

    If you can't trust them to stick to what your agreements, what's the point of talking to them in the first place?

    Other than peeling off the less-crazy portion of the Taliban, this is just a waste of time and gives these retards legitimacy.
     
  6. Token White Guy

    Token White Guy Continuously Jaded

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    349
    That is why the only way to win is to wipe the Taliban out completely, which isn't possible because of the disorganization in their structure and Pakistan is no help either. The best thing to do is push the Jihadists into Pakistan's FATA, and have ANA & ANP man bases near the boarder.
     
  7. lajikal

    lajikal Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    3,802
    that might work, if the ana weren't also the taliban and the anp weren't local scared youngins trying to make some cash to feed their family.
     
  8. TheDrip

    TheDrip I'm bi-winning.

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    5,051
    Likes Received:
    3
    So, in other words, Karzai has finally loaded his bank account up to the point where he's allowing his Taliban underlings to come to the bargaining table. It's about time.
     
  9. Token White Guy

    Token White Guy Continuously Jaded

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,967
    Likes Received:
    349
    The most loyal fighters are from the Northern Allience, Afghan SOF that work with ISAF SOF, and tribes that have a blood feud with the Taliban.
     
  10. VMS

    VMS Victim of high standards and low personal skills.

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,307
    Likes Received:
    2,647
    I've said it for a while, now: IMO there are only two workable strategies for Afghanistan.

    Option 1: small hunter-killer teams in the mountains to take out the Taliban, small garrisons of US (or, eventually, ANA) troops in the various villages, 3-4 airmobile (helicopter) battalions around the country ready to support the garrisons if they're seriously attacked (each battalion with an alert company ready to go), and a ton of hearts-and-minds work with engineering battalions, training for the ANA and ANP, so the Afghanis can slowly get their shit together. From invasion to majority pull-out, we're talking 20-25 years, minimum. We'd probably have to leave the airmobile and a fair percentage of the hearts-and-minds people, but the garrisons could be turned over to the ANA in that time.

    Which is essentially what the Bush plan was for 7 years. I really don't know what President Obama's Afghanistan Surge is doing, except making a lot of noise. Afghanistan isn't a problem you can throw troops at. At least, not the kind of troops we're sending there.

    Option 2: exact same thing as Option 1, except instead of small hunter-killer teams in the mountains we fully mobilize the 10th Mountain, 82nd Rangers, 101st Airborne, the Ranger battalions, and maybe even a MEU or two and go border-to-border with them. All troops activated for the duration, no more of the 1 brigade-in-theater, 2 brigades-refitting game. From invasion to pull-out (same terms as above), it would have taken maybe 5-10 years from invasion to majority pull-out.

    Oh, and for the record, Iraq wouldn't have had a major effect on that process, either: the problem would have been having the political will to keep 5-6 divisions worth of troops fully activated and in combat without coming back home for 5-10 years.
     
  11. lajikal

    lajikal Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    15,478
    Likes Received:
    3,802
    yeah sof is capable but they're about 10k pax with a lot of support from us/nato and taliban at 25k+ with deeper pockets and support.

    in the end, history repeats itself.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/world/asia/20assess.html
     
  12. Party Rooster

    Party Rooster Unleash The Beast

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Messages:
    40,304
    Likes Received:
    7,462
    This time Gates is confirming it a bit...

     

Share This Page