Oh my… From Helene Cooper and Sheryl Gay Stolberg’s NYTs story today, we now know the the Delegator/Campaign in Chief is confusing the Taliban with Sunni tribal leaders in Iraq.
President Obama declared in an interview that the United States was not winning the war in Afghanistan and opened the door to a reconciliation process in which the American military would reach out to moderate elements of the Taliban, much as it did with Sunni militias in Iraq.
Mr. Obama pointed to the success in peeling Iraqi insurgents away from more hard-core elements of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a strategy that many credit as much as the increase of American forces with turning the war around in the last two years. “There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region,” he said, while cautioning that solutions in Afghanistan will be complicated.
First, it may be presumptuous of me to point out there is no such thing as a “moderate element” in the Taliban. Secondly, it was not al Qaeda that the US engaged in it’s first military action post 911… it was against the very elements that Obama now wants to engage in chit chat…. Afghanistan’s Taliban.
I guess all that fatigue from domestic issues, detracting from his foreign policy judgment is really affecting the guy’s thinking process….
And while somewhat off topic, but related to my other “fatigued” post, Obama seems to feel a bit cheated that he didn’t inherit the Clinton era economic and world trends:
“Look, I wish I had the luxury of just dealing with a modest recession or just dealing with health care or just dealing with energy or just dealing with Iraq or just dealing with Afghanistan,” Mr. Obama said. “I don’t have that luxury, and I don’t think the American people do, either.”
That was never to be the case from the moment Obama started campaigning, to his “historic” installation in office. Each POTUS has it’s own devils to parry… tho for Clinton it was surprisingly easy. Saddam had already been driven out of Kuwait, and sanctions and inspection put into place.
For Bush, it started out to be the mild (by comparison) recession inherited, followed by the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor.
So do forgive me if I take Obama’s petulant and whimsical wishes for an easy, high profile gig with nary a wisp of sympathy.
But back to the latest and greatest thought on Obama foreign policy… confusing the Taliban with a negotiable ally against a common enemy.
Listen up, Mr. POTUS… the Taliban and al Qaeda are indistinguishable. Unlike the Sunni tribal leaders, suffering genocide and mass murders at the hands of the AQ friendly and associated jihad groups – plus the Saddam disgruntled – the Taliban are not being oppressed by al Qaeda.
Yet even on the campaign trail, candidate Obama fooled the American voter into believing that “exploring” the options of a Taliban faction breakaway was a possibility. That’s about as possible as Pelosi pulling away from the WH admin agenda on differences of a few billion in spending….
Truly this is a tragedy that Obama still, after taking office, doesn’t understand that a fireside chat with Taliban leadership – (or suspected underlings who may rebel… and are virtually powerless in the organization) – is not one hair’s breadth different than hosting Bin Laden himself. This is, after all, the same organization headed by Mullah Omar that the US and coalition ousted for harboring Osama Bin Laden
“If you talk to General Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq,” Mr. Obama said.
At the same time, he acknowledged that outreach may not yield the same success. “The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex,” he said. “You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes. Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge.”
But of course, Mr. Obama. Or perhaps, better put, duh wuh. Afghanistan and it’s tentacles to Pakistan could not be more different.
It should be noted that those Islamic fundamentalists in Iraq did not seek to overthrow the elected Iraq government when they allied to the side of the Iraq-US battle, and had agreed to participate in that same government. There is no indication of such similar cooperation within the Afganistan (or Pakistan) Taliban.
In fact, in 2005, the Taliban staged a limited but violent resurgence to *disrupt* the first Afghanistan election in three decades. Even this year, the Fghanistant government is postponing the elections until August for better weather and improving the ability to secure the polls against Taliban antics.
Then, of course, there is history of such negotiations between the Taliban and Pakistan from Bhutto’s era to today… of which this POTUS seems determined to ignore (or is reluctant to profess his ignorance). Leaving aside all these failed historic “truces” surely the POTUS and his advisors have the wherewithall to just look back to the past month and note the latest deterioration by Pakistan willingly surrendering SWAT to the Taliban elements in these supposed agreements with the jihad movements.
This politically and militarily cowardly move by Pakistan’s government has resulted in the Taliban creating a new united front with Mullah Omar to battle US/NATO troops in Afghanistan. And it’s not made life from the SWAT denizens too peachy either… especially the women.
And how has that been received in Pakistan? With worry, and justifiably so.
And a more recent update to the worries about expanded control rather than peace with such agreements? The NYTs expounds just yesterday.
The Taliban and the Pakistani Army signed a truce last month in Swat, the once popular tourist area just an hour north of the capital. But far from establishing peace, the pact seems to have allowed the Taliban free rein to expand their harsh religious rule.
Just days after the truce was signed, a member of a prominent anti-Taliban family returned to his mountain village, having received assurances from the government that it was safe. He was promptly kidnapped by the Taliban, tortured and murdered.
The militants then erected roadblocks to search cars for any relatives who dared travel there for his funeral. None did.
This week, two Pakistani soldiers who were part of a convoy escorting a water tanker were shot and killed because they failed to inform the Taliban in advance of their movements.
~~~Previous accords with the militants in Pakistan’s semiautonomous tribal areas have effectively created ministates with sanctuaries for Qaeda and Pakistani militants. The Pakistani government argued that the truce in Swat would free up the Pakistani Army, reduce civilian suffering and satisfy popular dissatisfaction with the local judiciary
~~~The government said it saw the truce as a way to separate what it considered to be more approachable militants, like Mr. Muhammad, from hard-line Taliban leaders like Maulana Fazlullah, his son-in-law, who is a young warlord flush with money and weapons. Mr. Fazlullah, backed by the main Pakistani Taliban group and Qaeda fighters, led the fight in Swat against the Pakistani Army in the past year.
Critics of the deal say that it has accomplished nothing like that, and that it has simply handed Swat, once a tolerant, princely kingdom, to the Taliban.
~~~Despite the truce, most people remain terrified of the Taliban, said Mohammad Amad, executive director of a private aid group, the Initiative for Development and Empowerment Axis. Militants continue to hunt down anyone who backs the government and the army.
Read the NYTs link, and the story of the trusting business man who returned after this so called “truce”, only to be found days later with the skin ripped from his back.
Note also that this Taliban “truce” now demands that every village household contribute one “one young man to their ranks”.
That, Mr. Obama, would be the ranks dedicated to battling the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, as per their recent re-affirmation of allegience to the Afghanistan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar. The same Mullah Omar that the US fought to depose with it’s post 911 battle for giving Osama Bin Laden safe haven.
Three rival Pakistani Taliban groups have agreed to form a united front against international forces in Afghanistan in a move likely to intensify the insurgency just as thousands of extra US soldiers begin pouring into the country as part of Barack Obama’s surge plan.
The Guardian has learned that three of the most powerful warlords in the region have settled their differences and come together under a grouping calling itself Shura Ittihad-ul-Mujahideen, or Council of United Holy Warriors.
Nato officers fear that the new extremist partnership in Waziristan, Pakistan’s tribal area, will significantly increase the cross-border influx of fighters and suicide bombers – a move that could undermine the US president’s Afghanistan strategy before it is formulated.
The unity among the militants comes after a call by Mullah Omar, the cleric who leads the Afghan Taliban, telling Pakistani militants to stop fighting at home in order to join the battle to “liberate Afghanistan from the occupation forces”.
Lest this be construed as Obama wanting a chit chat with just those friendly Taliban, we need to Defense Secy’ Gate’s comments just last month:
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Friday that Washington could accept a political agreement between the Afghan government and the Taliban if the insurgents will lay down their arms and accept the government’s terms.
~~~ The reporter asked whether, if Pakistan succeeds in pacifying militant activity in Swat, the United States would allow Afghans to make a similar type of agreement.
Gates replied: “If there is a reconciliation, if insurgents are willing to put down their arms, if the reconciliation is essentially on the terms being offered by the government then I think we would be very open to that.
“We have said all along that ultimately some sort of political reconciliation has to be part of the long-term solution in Afghanistan.”
This reconcilitory mood, on the heels of Pakistan gifting the Taliban with the SWAT valley, makes me wonder if the new US POTUS is thinking of following Pakistan’s lead….
Hello?? Just what part of the “Taliban” does Obama think will negotiate without using it as an opportunity for “reload” or advantage in the battle for power and control over Afghanistan??
Go get some rest, Mr. President, since you are unable to focus on foreign policy adequately, simultaneously with the domestic issues. In the meantime, there are many of us who wait out your term, and hope you cause minimal damage in the interim… both foreign and domestically. In the meantime, your inadequacy scares the begeezus out of me.
Hard to win a war when your president is the coward with a white flag.
Quotes from Mata’s first link.
Good Grief!
Fatique again? Obama said what he said. Is this another moment where Axelrod has to step in and correct the boy wonder?
Obama didn’t understand what he was talking about when he had the 911 families in to discuss closing GITMO. He flat out doesn’t know what he’s doing but shoots his mouth off anyway. Pray for our troops.
Nope, he couldn’t credit President Bush, especially after he just released those damning memos that weren’t damning, but the spin and press was good. What an ass!
Look, I could probably come up with a long-winded post about the failings of Obama and how wrong this “negotiations with Taliban” idea is, but it’s getting late. I’ll save time by just saying this – Obama’s a naive idiot.
Oh, and one more thing – considering his recent intelligence pick (Freeman), Obama may be more resistent to negotiating with the Taliban if they liked Israel.
You negotiate with your adversary with your knee in his chest and your knife at his throat.
Posted on a pen and ink drawing of two Intruders outside of the ready room at Attack Squadron One Two Eight, NAS Whidbey Island, Washington.
I saw this on a very regular basis as I did two tours in the Golden Intruders.
Maybe someone should pass this on to obambozo.
By comparison, Obama’s administration is beginning to make Carter’s look good. And that’s saying a lot.
Mata,
A straighforward, as opposed to paritisan, reading of the NYT article indicates that the President is considering the option of using a similar tactic toward the Taliban that Gen. Petraus used toward the Sunni insurgents. As the article notes, the Presiden himself understands the situation in Afghanistan is different and more complex.
We need creative thinking about foreign policy. That thinking then needs to be submitted to rigorous analysis and critique. But various options should be considered and not dismissed out of hand. What if that had been done with Gen. Petraus’ successful Sunni Awakening plan?
Dave Noble, I am aware that Obama is attempting an “awakening” in Afghanistan. The entire point of the post is not that “awakenings”, if possible in Afghanistan at all, should not be considered. But the ones to deal with on the “awakening” are certainly NOT the Taliban. If Obama thinks there are “moderate elements of Taliban”, he’s dumber than a rock.
Iraq was an entirely different animal. Far more advanced in modern technology and a more educated society. They have more developed cities. And remember that they were dealing with Sunni elders and chieftains. By contrast, most of Afghanistan is still simple tribal villages.
I would suggest that if Obama is looking for candidates for an Afghanistan “awakening”, he may have to look thru the local village tribal leaders and find those who also battle the Taliban and it’s AQ affiliates from seizing control of their territory. If there’s any left alive, that is. The Taliban have a tendancy to assassinate tribal leaders en masse.
But there is nothing “creative” about negotiating with the same enemy we deposed in 2002…. i.e. Mullah Omar’s Taliban. Petraeus has suggested even last year that talking to the Taliban, IF they could find any that would reconcile with the Afghanistan government, might have some value. That cooperation with the Afghanistan government is the linchpin in the axle… and the Taliban demonstrates no desire to take part in the government structure. They, like Osama Bin Laden, believe elections and democracies are unIslamic.
Look to history on these elements, Dave Noble. You can pine for all the hope and goodwill you want. But any hope of the Taliban changing their stripes and becoming a contributive political party in an Afghanistan government is as likely as Obama picking me as his running mate on re’election.
NOTE: the misleading headline: “Karzai welcomes Obama call to reach out to Taliban.
Let’s get one thing straight. No where does Karzai say that negotiations with the Taliban is a good idea.
Now let’s see what “Taliban” Karzai believes is ripe for a “reach out”:
Well, now… one can safely assume that it’s not likely to be Taliban leaders with authority who are “afraid” to come back to their country. They don’t reward leadership positions to those who are anything less than devoted supporters to the anti/west Islamic law cause.
So both appear to be looking for a few strays in the ranks?
Do not misunderstand. NO one talks for the Taliban but Mullah Omar and his appointed spokesmen.
So what about these less powerful “strays”? Why “talk”? You simply put into place an amnesty for those that have had a change of heart and want to join the goverment system… just as Iraq did. But I’d sure keep my eyes open for those doing so merely to infiltrate the government ranks.
And oh, BTW… what’s this “come back” bit? Is he talking about Pakistan Taliban migrants??
I’d still be looking for the local tribal elders who want the Taliban and AQ out of their midst. *That’s” the “awakening” group. They need arms for self-defense, training, and back up… and pay.
“Mata,
Are you suggesting you know more about the Taliban than Gen. Petraeus?
You concede he suggested the feasibility of the same tactic being considered by the Obama administration – peeling off Taliban members who were receptive to reconciliation. Like the President, he said Taliban members, not local tribal leaders:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE497AIT20081008
Your tribal leaders suggestion is also valuable. I am sure it is being considered as well.
It’s irrelevant to me whether the idea is original with the current Administration or not. What matters is whether it will work or not.
Lot has happened in Afghanistan since General Petraeus spoke at the Heritage Foundation last October. Are you aware of any recent comments from the General? I’m not trusting anything coming out of Obama’s mouth at this time, but am wondering if General Petraeus wishes he would keep it shut.
February, 09, Zawahiri speaks to the events included in the link provided in comment #9.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/02/taliban_waging_jihad.php
I see your forced sojourn from FA hasn’t improved your snippy manners and arrogant delivery, Dave Noble.
Petraeus is no fool. He knows what I know… and more. Obviously what is at stake here is what *you* don’t know.
What I *am* suggesting is that Petraeus is not advocating he speak with Taliban leadership any more than Karzai is. They are talking about trying to find fringe elements whom they suggest are too scared to leave the Taliban nest. Therefore I can read a headline and comment, and understand the “element” he seeks for discussion. I’m also pretty sure that Petraeus knows finding these people who would support the Afghan government – if they exist at all – falls somehwere between highly unlikely to impossible.
So let’s see what Petraeus has to say about the Taliban last month:
This more overt involvement of Iran with the Taliban increases a desperation level. Everyone knows you can’t fight your way to success with jihad groups unless the citizens are not only fed up with their BS, but are just as well armed and trained to fight. It is these more desperate times that I question less what Petraeus is saying, and wonder more about what Obama means.
What Taliban or mujaheddin can Petraeus and/or Obama elist to their cause? (i.e. getting on board with the Afghan government) Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? Hang, he’d agree (and has) to talks. Then again, it was Hekmatyar who was overthrown by Bhutto’s Taliban under their current leader, Mullah Omar. Of course he’d be happy to participate in dampening his competition. But he will not ultimately be part of the Afghanistan government. He too will seek a takeover.
This chit chat with the Taliban came up latest during last fall… not new news, nor some instrument of Obama’s famous global outreach. Gates also has suggested it. It was also discussed as far back as Sept 2006 when the violence again started to rise under the NATO security.
If it could have been done (and there have been various attempted “summits” on occasion), it would have.
The problem is the sheer fantasy aspect of it happening or, (if it did) the chance that it would last before a coup was attempted on the government. After years of reading about Mullah Omar, and Hek, I’ve got a pretty good handle on their ideology. And it sure ain’t an elected government in Afghanistan.
As Newsweek’s article by very in the know guys, Sami Yousafzai and Ron Moreau, stated back then:
Mullah Omar, their supreme leader, doesn’t surface in public much. Yet his dictates gain the allegience of even Baitullah Mehsud, the powerful, defacto Pakistan Taliban leader. Hekmatyar, the mujaheddin warlord the US supported against the Soviets, is not a snippet better. None of these power players are “moderate” elements that will agree to work within the Afghanistan government.
This means Obama and Petraeus are looking for those rare birds they think are Taliban strays that don’t hate Karzai, don’t demand Islamic law, yet still live among the Taliban ranks. Right… If they do exist, Dave Noble, they wield no power. And if their support is found waivering, they will be killed before they can be “talked” to.
Petraeus and Karzai know there is no talking to the Taliban, which is why they specifically say they are looking for “moderate elements”. (that oxymoron still makes me laugh…) And I think, with Iran’s increasing aid to the Taliban, they are getting more desperate for some semblence of security. Back in November, even Obama knew that, saying:
They will not find that initiative in any Taliban member, nor in Hekmatyar’s ranks, for both are radical elements at war with each other. In Iraq, it was tribal leaders who turned the tides… not the “insurgent” jihad movements themselves that were plied into the awakening. This leaves only one faction left… the tribal leaders.
Missy, everything I see about Petraeus references his comments back from last fall. And all of those he has been cautious about those pesky (and likely improbable) preconditions reinterated in this Radio Free Europe Feb 16th article, where he states:
This is again rising to the surface because SOS Hillary (boy doesn’t that work for an acronym…) is advocating a pow wow about the Taliban that includes Iran. You will note a distinct absence of the name “Petraeus” anywhere in that WaPo article.
I see nothing about Petraeus thinking this will work. The latest from him is announcing that Iran is officially meddling in Afghanistan’s affairs.
I suppose, for the glittery eyed hopefuls, you can have a sit down over some Arab coffee to convince them to participate in the Afghan elected government. It will yield about the same results as sitting down with Ahmadinejad in the hopes he’ll give up their nuke program.
Most think this is a no harm, no foul move. Then again, most don’t understand how these elements view “negotiations” and “talks” as a sign of their enemies’ weakness. Cultural ignorance reigns supreme, and it’s all about putting on a sideshow.
Mata,
When did President Obama, his Secretary of State suggest negotiating with Mullah Omar?
The simple fact is that the President suggested exactly what General Petraeus did – pursuing the possiblity of peellng off dsigruntled supporters of the Taliban.
So returning to the remarks in your orignial post, how is that suggestion a manifestation of the President’s fatigue?
Mullah Omar IS the Taliban, Dave Noble. Talking with anyone else is not talking to the Taliban. No one other than Omar’s designated proxy has that authority.
Or perhaps this will sit with you better. Obama is in error using the word Taliban synonymous with “talk” when he attempts to describe what they want to do. The media is perpetuating that error. Does that work better for you?
Regardless of what makes you comfortable, a “reach out” to “moderate Taliban” cannot be accomplished by Obama in any way. It can, however, be accomplished in a couple of ways:
1: an amnesty program by the Afghanistan government. or….
2: The other way it can, and *has* happened, was with capture and imprisonment (i.e. Mullah Abdyk Salaam)
While in custody, Kabul cut a deal with Salaam and his tribe (note he was a tribal leader who was also acting as a Taliban commander in his area). His other local tribes now support him in the Helmand province (Gov of Musa Qala). That did not happen because they enticed him to the table for a chit chat…
Of course, Afghanistan is not a state with a “national” identity. It’s all local. Musa Qala doesn’t care about the other areas, or Afghanistan as a whole. Therefore he has no incentive to go out and convince other tribal leaders to cooperate with the Afghanistan government.
But what was done there needs to be done elsewhere – individually – tribe by tribe with the most influential leaders. However, most that “outreach” is best done by those like Salaam and other Kabul representatives. Not the NATO or US forces, and certainly not Obama.
Obviously the only contribution by NATO troops in the Musa Qala success was to arrest their leader. Actually, it’s great cover for them to come in… supposedly under arrest. In which case, the US POTUS, advertising an outreach program, puts all these tribal leaders, like Salaam, under suspicion and in unnecessary danger if they take a trip to Kabul.
If you’ll follow the link to the other post, Dave Noble, you will find the story that Obama is too fatigued to multitask domestic and foreign policy simultaneously. Guess all those PR road trip theatrics, flurry of stepped up White House entertaining, plus the weekly Wednesday cocktail soirees are getting to him.
Oh, Dave Noble… forgot to mention… my wondering about Obama’s more recent “outreach” invitations to the Taliban stem from three notable changes since last fall:
1: Petraeus pointing out Iran’s noted involvement, albeit small at the moment.
2: Hillary’s desire to convene states on Afghanistan, including the Taliban patron, Iran
3: Gate’s statement last month that said “Washington” (meaning, Obama) was open to an Afghan agreement with the Taliban if it included laying down of their weapons and accepting the government’s terms.
Thus I wonder if Obama’s suggestion of “talking” has stepped to a new level that we don’t know of yet.
Mata Mullah Omar is not the Taliban. If you do not know that then you know next to nothing about Afghanistan or Afghan society or Afghanis. We are not winning in Afghanistan. Things are getting worse, we are trying to fight a land war in an Asian country that is surrounded by our enemies. Exactly what is our objective there? A complete rebuilding of Afghan society ?
Congratulations, John Ryan. On your latest drive by posting, you have truly taken the “Dumbest Person of the Day” award. If you have no clue who Mullah Omar is – ala the founding father of the Taliban with Maulana Fazlur Rehman under the Benazir Bhutto Pakistan rule – please refrain from posting and giving American education in general a bad rap. You’re embarrassing yourself.
That would be the same Mullah Omar Taliban that sheltered Bin Laden. This would be the same “Supreme Leader” of the Taliban that recently sent a message to the self-styled Pakistan Taliban leader, Baitullah Mehsud, to knock it the f*#k off attacking the Pak Army, reminding him that the NATO/US troops in Afghanistan is the real enemy.
You are a cell short of being more clever than an amoeba, John Ryan.
As far as an Afghanistan objective, why don’t you ask your campaigner-in-chief to “define victory”? And while you’re at it, don’t forget to ask for an “exit strategy”.
“Carnival of the Clueless” unit #16 has come and gone.
It’s a shame that it was such a short visit.