Poll: Negotiations With the Taliban

[Marauder06]

There has been a lot of press lately about ISAF allowing Taliban leadership back into Afghanistan to negotiate with the Karzai government. Is negotiating with the Taliban a good idea? Vote for one of the three choices in the poll, and then explain your position.

 

[Chopstick]

No, because we dont negotiate with terrorists and some people just need killing. The Taliban are those kind of people.:2c:

 

[Ranger Psych]

the only negotiations we need are between a FIST'er and a platform delivering high explosives.

 

[RackMaster]

Stating that we will negotiate with the Taliban is not as straight forward as some may think. For one the Taliban hierarchy spans across borders, there are "moderates" and "extremists" among them but as a whole they encompass pretty much all of Afghan and Pakistan society. If any sort of negotiations are to be done, it has to be done with all Taliban leaders from both sides of the border and then carve up both countries into the obvious tribal regions. But this will never happen, it's just going to turn into another West Bank/Gaza.

Although if another couple of major natural disasters hits the region, it'll just solve our problem and then we can turn it into a wasteland.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Hell NO! We should be killing each and every one of them and AQ.............

 

[AWP]

In general, no.

However, it isn't straightforward because "Taliban" has taken on a life of it's own. "Taliban" almost refers to anyone who isn't aligned with the US/ GIRoA and more than a few "Taliban" are caught between a rock and a hard place, "joining" the TB because out in the middle of nowhere they don't have any options.

So, are we negotiating with those who joined out of necessity or those hardcore, Mullah Omar types out there?

I'd like to think that we're talking to the less extreme elements out there, but I fear out of desperation the GIRoA will talk to anyone and that's a bucket of fail.

But we need to vett who's eating at our table and kill everything else.

 

[HOLLiS]

In general, no.

However, it isn't straightforward because "Taliban" has taken on a life of it's own. "Taliban" almost refers to anyone who isn't aligned with the US/ GIRoA and more than a few "Taliban" are caught between a rock and a hard place, "joining" the TB because out in the middle of nowhere they don't have any options.

So, are we negotiating with those who joined out of necessity or those hardcore, Mullah Omar types out there?

I'd like to think that we're talking to the less extreme elements out there, but I fear out of desperation the GIRoA will talk to anyone and that's a bucket of fail.

But we need to vett who's eating at our table and kill everything else.

2x...............

 

[RustyShackleford]

We should give two shits about Afghanistan. All we should care about is bringing Bin Laden's head back to the U.S. on a Pike pole.

 

[buffalo61]

Hell no!! As it has already been stated, we need to be killing as many of those savages as we can. Maybe, once the Afghan government has weeded out all of the corruption, then they can "negotiate" with the Taliban. But until then, we should remain in hot pursuit of each and every one of those filthy savages that threatens the lives of the people that came here to give them a better life.

 

[Boondocksaint375]

In this instance, negotiations are a sign of submission, IMO.

 

[DA SWO]

I voted other talk to them-but keep to your demands that they lay down their arms.
Afghanistan seems to have turned into a Civil War a-la Viet Nam/El Sal.
The Gov of Afghanistan can negotiate, but insist on a cease-fire and make Mullah Omar agree to a multi-party Afghanistan; otherwise no-deal.
We gave up the Tactical/Military advantage to invade Iraq, we now have to look at this as a protracted civil war/insurgency. Today's political reality fores us to at least pretend to negotiate.

 

[pardus]

I had a slew of thoughts on this but it boils down to this...

We aren't going to win this campaign because we aren't being allowed to, so what choice do we have but negotiate the best deal we can?

 

[Crusader74]

Most definitely NO! Not only is it a submission but they will see it as a victory.(Look at the British pullout of Basra) They will spread/increase the campaign to look for more concessions and in the end ISAF will be right back where they started 9 years ago. IMO

 

[HOLLiS]

I had a slew of thoughts on this but it boils down to this...

We aren't going to win this campaign because we aren't being allowed to, so what choice do we have but negotiate the best deal we can?

I agree, it is a complex issue. IMHO the biggest problems is not in A-Stan but petty partisan politics here at home. I think our enemy knows better the politics at home more than our own civilians do. Leave it to our politics to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that was hard won by out military.

 

[///M3]

No. Find a way to make a peace deal with India and Pakistan and then Pakistan will have no incentive to keep the Taliban.

 

[pardus]

I agree, it is a complex issue. IMHO the biggest problems is not in A-Stan but petty partisan politics here at home. I think our enemy knows better the politics at home more than our own civilians do. Leave it to our politics to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory that was hard won by out military.

Yep, just look at Vietnam for a classic example of that (a conflict you may know a little about ;) ).

A war must be fought or left alone, you do it 100% or stay at home, it turns my stomach to accept a view like this but like I said what choice to we have.

To all saying no to this, I'm with you in principal, my views of total victory with a campaign akin to what the Romans, the Crusader and Genghis waged are well known on the board I'd say but like I said our politicians and populace back home (regardless of what western country we are talking about) will not allow that to happen.

Think about this, at the end of the Vietnam war, the North was told it was going to get USD 3.3 Billion of reconstruction aid to normalize relations between them and the USA (The US was offered oil exploration rights by the North Vietnamese as well), the US reneged on that deal and any hope of getting any live POWs back was gone...

Was it worth it?

Basically its a shit sandwich that we have to take a bite from, we are just deciding now which side looks less disgusting.

We could win this if we had the will...

What's that saying "people get the government they deserve"...

 

[Scotth]

We gave up the Tactical/Military advantage to invade Iraq, we now have to look at this as a protracted civil war/insurgency. Today's political reality fores us to at least pretend to negotiate.

I agree with what you said SOWT.

My heart says NO piss on the Taliban. But looking at the reality on the ground and the politics in our country I think that time is running out for the mission in Afghanistan. The first and most glaring problem we have to deal with is the partner we have in the Karzai government. A stolen election, by most accounts, makes the Karzai administration an illegitimate government not to mention a hugely corrupt government. How do you build a successful mission in Afghanistan if your partner is illegitimate? I view the Karzai government as a bigger problem then the Taliban. How do the Afghan people get behind the country if there two choices are between the Taliban or the corrupt Karzai government?

Public support at home is slipping after 9 years and as time goes by it's not going to get better. While like everyone else I agree that is bullshit and the American people should be smarter then that but that is the way it is and has been for a very long time. If it was a matter of peace keeping it would be one thing but the American public isn't going to support combat operation indefinitely. I also fear after the elections you will see anti-war Democrats and Republican combining force like they did about Somalia in the 90's and try to block funding for the war.

It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the Taliban being put on the US payroll in exchange for stopping the fighting. It's kind of what they did in Iraq paying some of the Sunni's insurgents to stop the violence.

 

[AMRUSMCR]

Putting the US politics and the question of the duration of sustainable warfare aside, here are the reasons I think the US Government should not consider any form of "negotiations" with the Taliban on their re-introduction into the Afghanistan government:

Google Query of Women's rights under the Taliban

http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/showthread.php?2860-Know-Your-Enemy&p=404391#post404391

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

Acid thrown in girls face because they went to school.

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

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm

Our politicians seem to forget that we're supposed to be the good guys and just maybe it's ok to forcibly say "NO" the bad guys.

We like to tell other countries when they're violating human rights but we'll turn around and accept the idea that we have to give ground in negotiations to an organization with the mentality like the Taliban?

It's not even a women's rights issue. It's a basic issue of humanity where people should be able to walk down the street without fear of mutilation or execution. When, we as a public, have devolved into the mass though that we are "ok" with the long term human rights violations under the Taliban....just to end a long term campaign.... maybe it's time to hang our cape up as the world's 911.

 

[Marauder06]

lol, looks like I'm the only one to vote yes. Here's my reasoning:

The main goal in any war is to compel the enemy to do your will. You don't necessarily have to annihilate his fighting forces to do that- although many times that's what ends up happening.

Our country has the ability to destroy the Taliban, but lacks the will. The Taliban has the will to thwart our goals in Afghanistan, but lacks the capability. Because of the two aforementioned conditions, it is unlikely either side will achieve victory for the forseeable future. If we can work a negotiation that will allow us to meet our objectives in the area but still allows some people who had been with the Taliban to live, I'm OK with that.

The Taliban existed in Afghanistan long before we invaded, and if they hadn't allowed AQ to use their country as a base to attack us, the TB would probably be in power there today. If the TB will completely break with AQ, and will adopt a political position that is acceptable to our values, then I'm OK with some of them coming back into the government. The two conditions that must be met first are that a) we must negotiate from a position of relative strength, and b) we must kill the insurgent leaders who will not reconcile.

This applies to the Taliban and associated organizations only (HIG, HQN, etc.) not AQ. AQ is completely incompatible with our value system and is an existential threat to our country- much like Nazism was. AQ must be destroyed, not just merely defeated.

 

[Brooklynben]

I had a slew of thoughts on this but it boils down to this...
We aren't going to win this campaign because we aren't being allowed to, so what choice do we have but negotiate the best deal we can?

This was my first thought as well, but when one further considers what the Taliban believe and the history of their scruples, a huge question arises; when could any type of agreement with the "Great Satan" be expected to be honored by them? The bottom line end result - A bit of Freedom will be negotiated away for a cheap and hollow promise.

The charade of peace talks with the Taliban serve only the Taliban and the public relations programs of politicians.