This goes hand-in-hand with Biden’s comments last week that the Taliban aren’t our enemy “per se.” As I mentioned at the time, his remarks weren’t a “gaffe,” they were prepping the way for a complete surrender by our Golfer-in-Chief. Truly, there seems to be nothing Obama and his lackeys won’t do to damage this nation.Outrageous.
The Unites States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has removed the name of Afghan Taliban supreme commander Mullah Muhammad Omar from its list of “most wanted terrorists”.
Earlier, reports about the US establishing contacts with Omar had surfaced. The reports said that the US wanted to bring the Taliban to negotiation table in order to end the conflict in Afghanistan.
So far, several claims have been made by the US about negotiations with the Taliban, but Islamabad and Kabul have never been taken into confidence over the much speculated-about talks.
I guess Mullah Omar is not ”per se” an enemy of the USA?
Here is his opinion of that in his own words:
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/world/2011/12/hunt-talibans-mullah-omar-takes-urgency/1997651#ixzz1hleVNPo4
So Ofucknuts isn’t protecting America from enemies domestic and abroad.
There are two ways of looking at this. First, just because this is something being done by the Obama administration, one can automatically take the knee jerk position to oppose and denounce it. Second, one can actually examine the reasons and possible strategy behind it.
We have to start with acknowledging certain realities. The first of these is that no one has ever been able to “pacify” Afghanistan. The second is the realization of the limitations of externally-imposed nation building. It doesn’t look as if it came close to succeeding in Iraq. Afghanistan is an order of magnitude (10 times) more of a tough nut to crack. Hamid Karzai is a corrupt and unreliable ally, who does not have the respect of his own people. He is no George Washington. He isn’t the leader of an indigenous popular uprising. He has no street cred and no nation cred and he’s not even close to being a reliable US ally.
At some point, some adult with a sense of pragmatic reality testing has to look over the situation and look where it’s going and look at the range of possibilities.
That’s what’s going on here.
Some conservatives seem to be convinced that the US can impose its will pretty much anywhere it wants, simply by throwing an inexhaustible supply of blood and treasure at a problem. This may or may not be a correct assessment. But, at a certain point, one also needs to ask the questions: was it really worth it? At what point does it become a case of diminishing returns? Is it in our interest to maintain military bases in perpetuity in hostile countries where even our ostensible allies want us out?
If the answer is that the Hamid Karzai government has no possibility of ever garnishing popular support and that the Hamid Karzai government is an untrustworthy ally, then is it prudent to keep plugging ahead with “Plan A,” especially given the lessons of Iraq, in which “Plan A” was followed to completion, down to the timeline laid out by the Bush Administration?
Odom said that Iraq would end up the way is is going to end up; with a power struggle decided by violence, no matter how long the USA maintained boots on the ground. If that’s true for Iraq, which I believe it is, then it’s ten-fold true for Afghanistan.
I think that Biden’s comments weren’t off-the-cuff jaw flapping. I think that it’s part of a serious strategy, based on political, historical, and military realities.
I think that the US military is the greatest counter insurgency military in the history of the world, but, in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan, that’s not nearly sufficient to quell internal conflicts that won’t be resolved by external intervention. These conflicts may be controlled, temporarily, but not resolved.
The Taliban was never a threat to the USA. They certainly made a mistake in allowing Bin Laden to gain a foothold, but I think that they are happy to see him gone and don’t intend to allow the likes of him to return. If that’s the reality, then doing a deal with them may be the best path forward.
It’s at least worth serious consideration and discussion, as opposed to knee jerk cynicism.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
Outstanding! Now Omar can run for mayor of Huntington Beach, he’d probably be a shoe in, err sandal in.
If we only looked at ”pragmatic reality testing,” we would never have fought in Italy during WWII.
After all Benito Mossolini had all the trains running on time.
Hi Nan, Your implication of historical equivalency between Italy and Afghanistan is duly noted. It is true that Italy has a long post war history of government instability; however differences of opinion have always been resolved at the level of the ballot box.
– Larry W/HB
Larry, there is a lot behind the scenes that I have been collecting for a post INRE Pakistan’s leadership, and supposed negotiations with the Taliban.
First you have to remember history… that the US backed the Northern Alliance against the Soviets, only to see them become radical and inhumane power and challengend by Bhutto’s Taliban/Mullah Omar creation as protection for Pakistani shipments thru Afghanistan during her regime.
Omar’s Taliban became just as heinous as the Northern Alliance in their radical rule and, because they are the latest/greatest in Afghanistan opposition power, now become the focus of the “good vs evil” battle today.
It’s not that I can’t disagree that Afghanistan was going to be a serious clusterf*#k for many reasons. I might say I disagree as to what your reasons are. Mine? They are a tribal community, and without international business investment, aiding in creating a reason for a central government… aka schools, infrastructure etal… these tribes see little reason for a central government at all.
Unfortunately, without a central government’s security over the tribal areas, there will be no foreign investment and growth. An uneducated nation hasn’t figured this out yet.. that their key to entering modern times and urbanization actually lies with national security. Tough road to hoe, at best.
But the behind the scenes story is Pakistan… with vested interest in Afghanistan. Zardari is out of favor and on his way out. Obama has totally destroyed all good faith between them as an ally. We now have three choices in what is likely to be an early Pakistani regime change (not unusual for them, BTW…).
Nawaz Sharif – a known radical that supported terrorists, is the darling of Pakistan’s most populous urban areas, and who the Obama admin was woeing back in 2009 as their liason between the Taliban radicals and the west. The most recent demonstrations, burning Obama in effigy, are the Sharif supporters. Nawaz is the father of the PML-N… (Pakistan Muslim League… Nawaz faction). Since then, the PML has split, and a portion of them have turned to supporting the return of Musharraf. Nawaz is no friend to the US… nor to freedom of religion in Pakistan. He is a radical supporter of Islamic rule in Pakistan.
Version 2 of new Pakistan regime: former cricket player turned politician, Imran Khan. The peaceful demonstrations of 100K plus of late have been supporters of Khan. His party, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI), or Pakistan Movement for Justice, is also rising in support. Kahn is another leader who detests any cooperation with the US on intel and rooting out terrorists cells in Pakistan. His only difference from Sharif is that he detests the terrorists as much as he detests the US. He is no friend to the US either. On the flip side, he says he supports religious freedom in Pakistan and doesn’t say much on Islam as rule of law for the land.
Version 3… the return of Musharraf. Because Musharraf is enjoying support from the disgruntled Sharif crowd, as well as his own party members from the past, he represents a serious threat to Sharif.. who’s been around as a political power in Pakistan as long as the Kennedy’s have been around in Washington. Thus why the latest little press releases of a Sharif loyalist, now claiming that Musharraf knew all along that UBL was in Pakistan, and claimed it was a government provided safe house. Spreading rumors and hoping the western press will again hop on the “demonize Musharraf” bandwagon is their quest…. in order to bolster an even worse choice, Nawaz Sharif.
This is, of course, somewhat odd since Musharraf, as President, had little control over the military who was supposedly privvy to UBL’s location. And in fact out of the two, it was Sharif who has documented meetings with UBL on record… not Musharraf. However this is a necessary political tact, via media, that is required in order to prevent another rise of Musharraf.
INRE all three, the US… in order to reverse Obama’s diplomatic damage inflicted with his extraordinarily heavy drone attacks, the murder of two Pakistanis by a CIA agent, followed by invasion of sovereign territory for the UBL raid and then the NATO screwed up killing of Pakistani military members…. Musharraf is the only potential for a US ally.
What the US, under Obama, is doing is cutting their allied diplomatic losses and making appeasement gestures towards both Omar’s Pakistan created Taliban, and hoping that the cricket player supercedes Zardari over Sharif. They are totally ignoring the only genuine US potential for the most friendly ally… Musharraf.
That, however, given Obama’s poor choices in foreign policy, is not surprising.
Hi Mata, Interesting analysis and point of view. None of us knows how any of this will turn out, but I’ll keep your present analysis as a useful heads up.
I will say that it’s perhaps a bit of a double standard to condemn Obama for taking out 22 of the top 30 AQ, at a cost of collateral damage, when the same criticism could be leveled at taking out Saddam and various bad guys in Iraq, at a similar cost (considerable loss of civilian life, with resultant generation of antipathy throughout the Islamic world). It was the Bush Doctrine that countries which harbor terrorists won’t be allowed to be safe havens. The fact that those AQ were in Pakistan when they were killed is a bit of a res ipsa loquitur regarding this — don’t you think?
– Larry W/HB
Larry, I do have to say I do not support US intervention in Pakistan elections… just as Dubya didn’t when Musharraf was coming under fire. He did the only diplomatic thing… unlike Obama. He said that Musharraf was an ally, and left it up to the Pakistanis after that.. offering no further input. No calls for stepping down etal. Sharif gained some power, but Bhutto’s heir… bolstered mightily by the western press, canonizing her sketchy regime as “democratic”… left Zardari as the winner.
As is normal in Pakistan’s history, that popularity is short lived.
We can only wait to see what Pakistan decides to do. But I do concern myself with what Obama chooses to do. As I said, the only US choice for our interests is Musharraf. However that endorsement… something I doubt Obama is likely to give… should not be forthcoming. However nor should Shari’s faction be lent support.
Unfortunately, dismissing Mullah Omar’s Afghnaistan Taliban as no longer a threat indicates to me tacit support of Nawaz Sharif. Or perhaps prepping for anti-American rule under his leadership.
As far as AQ in Pakistan… moot question and point. The borders between Afghanistan’s western border and Pakistan’s eastern border are porous and indistinguishable in a political sense. I agree that Bush’s “no tolerance for harboring terrorists” is wise.. which is why if it were a Bush presidency, he would tread lightly, but also not be rooting for a Sharif rise to power. Politics and money can go a long way to establishing a workable diplomatic ME ally in Pakistan. So far, all of Obama’s decisions have been extremely short sighted, poor and politically expedient in my opinion. I know you disagree… big surprise. LOL But then I tend to think I follow Pakistani politics more closely than you do. I was on record as being quite skeptical as to the fallout from the UBL raid when it happened… just for this reason
Would I give up UBL’s death over a Pakistan ally today? In a heartbeat. He was an ineffective figurehead with lots of grandiose ideas, but little ways to implement them. The price we paid for a feel good moment is, in my opinion, overrated.
You really need to learn not to address me with repeated headlines, and start supplying some documented facts. For me to accept the above is to assume that the US “collateral damage” of combined coalition warfare.. which includes the new Iraqi government armed forces… is somehow miles above what the opposition jihad movements have caused with their attacks.
Sorry… don’t buy that line. Neither do statistics. Suggest you start supplying facts and documentation instead of emotional talking points as a counterpoint.
INRE the schoolyard crap argument about “my guy killed more bad guys than your guy” tact… Larry, please. This is a long war that depends upon splintered factions with psuedo “heads” all over the place. Throwing drones over head and randomly dropping bombs isn’t my favorite tactic as the mainstay. I see it’s value, but not to the extent that it damages diplomatic relations.. as it has. Unfortunately, most of Obama’s “kills” you want to credit are drone attacks that carry an additional negative with the positive.
Again, you have to decide if the tradeoff is worth it. Considering that another “general” steps in to the global jihad movement forces as soon as another leaves and the loss of diplomatic allies in Yeman, Egypt, Pakistan and Libya? Hell no….
I got dizzy reading this part and decided the rest of the post is probably the same type of bullshit.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim: Just how did Obama take out 22 of the top 30 AQ? It was our military and CIA that were responsible for that just like it was our military and not FDR or Truman that defeated Hitler and Japan and our military and not Bush that took out Saddam. The recent successes against AQ can be attributed to the prolonged military campaign that was in place well before Obama was elected. Attributing these successes to Obama is like saying Truman ended the war in Europe and that the wearing down of the Axis Power’s military prior to that under FDR, had nothing to do with it. The killing of 22 of the top 30 AQ can be attributed to attrition. As the enemy becomes weakened over a period of time due to losses, it’s only natural that those at the top become more vulnerable.
Not to mention the tools were put in place by Bush. I give obama credit for allowing them to be used.
There are a lot of other terrorists that should be removed from the Don’t Fly list. The Special Ops community is very adept at that!
@Hard Right: As far as the credit to be given to the presidents, your assessment is right on the money. Bush initiated the action. Obama to his credit kept the ball rolling. Had McCain or Hillary won in 2008, they would have done the same. If anything, McCain may have been even more aggressive than Bush or Obama. Had Paul gone all the way in 2008, that would have been a different story.