Taliban Isn't U.S. Enemy ?

[JJClamdip]

W.T.F?

Maybe Snopes could clear up this insanely stupid position that the White House has taken.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/white-house-stands-by-biden-statement-that-taliban-isnt-us-enemy/#ixzz1h4NWQiFE

This country is being led by morons.

[pinstripers]

Washington PC.

[60Shock]

My experience through the years with Snopes is that they will very, very, very, rarely contradict anything this administration says or does. They will simply avoid the issue with some bland statement that no information is available or the statement is correctly stated.

If the item is non-political, they do a decent job.

[pinstripers]

IT SUX, BUT THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT.

[DUShock]

The statement is posturing for an eventual drawdown of US military forces in the region, this eventuality may take 1/2 a decade or more. This position is similar to previous US foreign policy. I am not defending the VP but contextually he is speaking of the Taliban in the same manner as other ruling political parties of defeated governments. Think back to WWII where Japanese royalty & ruling class families and former Nazi party members held positions of responsibility within the new governments of Japan and East & West Germany. Recently we also have taken a similar position with Baathist in Iraq, once denounced now welcomed as it was a key to the success in quelling Al Qaeda Iraq and splinter groups lead by Baathists perpetrating attacks against US, Brits, ANZACs and other coalition troops. While the fighting goes on so does our diplomatic efforts to eventually turn Afghanistan over to its people. That is all this is, nothing more and nothing less.

RLTW

[JJClamdip]

Yea, the Nazi's overall were really great guys they just had a few that were a little wild and crazy.

[DUShock]

Yea, the Nazi's overall were really great guys they just had a few that were a little wild and crazy.

I know the whole foreign policy adage "Nations have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies. Only permanent interests" gets quite messy, especially in the third world, let alone the fourth world regions of Afghanistan.

[Maggie]

The statement is posturing for an eventual drawdown of US military forces in the region, this eventuality may take 1/2 a decade or more. This position is similar to previous US foreign policy. I am not defending the VP but contextually he is speaking of the Taliban in the same manner as other ruling political parties of defeated governments. Think back to WWII where Japanese royalty & ruling class families and former Nazi party members held positions of responsibility within the new governments of Japan and East & West Germany. Recently we also have taken a similar position with Baathist in Iraq, once denounced now welcomed as it was a key to the success in quelling Al Qaeda Iraq and splinter groups lead by Baathists perpetrating attacks against US, Brits, ANZACs and other coalition troops. While the fighting goes on so does our diplomatic efforts to eventually turn Afghanistan over to its people. That is all this is, nothing more and nothing less.

RLTW

I understand where you are coming from; however, I think the Taliban is quite a different animal than historical examples you cite. The Japanese, Nazi party members, former communists in East Germany, and even the Baathist Party in Iraq all held key positions in a functioning government. Therefore, it was necessary to keep some of these individuals working within the government, as unsavory as it might be, to ensure stability.

I don’t think you can say the same thing about the Taliban.

[DUShock]

I understand where you are coming from; however, I think the Taliban is quite a different animal than historical examples you cite. The Japanese, Nazi party members, former communists in East Germany, and even the Baathist Party in Iraq all held key positions in a functioning government. Therefore, it was necessary to keep some of these individuals working within the government, as unsavory as it might be, to ensure stability.

I don’t think you can say the same thing about the Taliban.

I strongly encourage you to visit a fourth world area, especially in the rock pile (Afghanistan/Pakistan region) and tell me that it is possible to coordinate anything, let alone the delivery of service/education/food/water without engaging members or former members of the Taliban. It is precisely because of a lack of central government (in a loose sense) that engaging Taliban and former Taliban members is essential. It would be akin to trying to deliver and distribute grain in Western Kansas using only members of the Democratic Party, that is to say it’s very problematic.

[pinstripers]

I know plenty of grain farmers who are Democrats.

[Maggie]

I understand where you are coming from; however, I think the Taliban is quite a different animal than historical examples you cite. The Japanese, Nazi party members, former communists in East Germany, and even the Baathist Party in Iraq all held key positions in a functioning government. Therefore, it was necessary to keep some of these individuals working within the government, as unsavory as it might be, to ensure stability.

I don’t think you can say the same thing about the Taliban.

I strongly encourage you to visit a fourth world area, especially in the rock pile (Afghanistan/Pakistan region) and tell me that it is possible to coordinate anything, let alone the delivery of service/education/food/water without engaging members or former members of the Taliban. It is precisely because of a lack of central government (in a loose sense) that engaging Taliban and former Taliban members is essential. It would be akin to trying to deliver and distribute grain in Western Kansas using only members of the Democratic Party, that is to say it’s very problematic.

I have been to “fourth world” countries (although not Afghanistan) and what you write I don’t dispute. But what was done in the past, with regard to Japan, Germany, Iraq – doesn’t seem to me to be a good model to strictly follow for the very reasons you cite. Maybe it is necessary in a limited way (I am not on the ground, I don’t know, and I suspect it would vary from place to place) – but not on the scale your analogy suggested.

[DUShock]

I know plenty of grain farmers who are Democrats.

I guess that depends on the definition of "plenty"...

[DUShock]

Maggie, I believe we agree conceptually and if we were decision makers our disagreement would largely be over the splitting of hairs. On a separate note, I do believe the US squandered the opportunity to win hearts and minds when the focus shifted to Iraq rather than on Afghanistan. I do not believe the US will ever make a Afghanistan a safe place for Afghans or westerners and as you are aware, whatever policy is utilized must not an Afghanistan policy or a Pakistan policy but an Af-Pak policy. Wars are easier to start than to end (and this in no way implies that the US started the Afghanistan war) it is just a statement of fact.

[pinstripers]

I know more Democrats who are arrogant, overbearing jerks than I know Democrats who are good folks, I admit. I am pretty certain that I know more grain farmers and more ranchers than you know.

[Maggie]

Maggie, I believe we agree conceptually and if we were decision makers our disagreement would largely be over the splitting of hairs. On a separate note, I do believe the US squandered the opportunity to win hearts and minds when the focus shifted to Iraq rather than on Afghanistan. I do not believe the US will ever make a Afghanistan a safe place for Afghans or westerners and as you are aware, whatever policy is utilized must not an Afghanistan policy or a Pakistan policy but an Af-Pak policy. Wars are easier to start than to end (and this in no way implies that the US started the Afghanistan war) it is just a statement of fact.

Fundamentally we do agree – but hair splitting can mean a lot at certain times. I am not sure the shift from Afghanistan to Iraq, as you characterize it, made the difference you write it did, or might have - I am not in a position to say.

But: Afghanistan is not Germany. Afghanistan is not Japan. As you know, Afghanistan is Afghanistan. I am not sure, even on the most basic level, providing the Taliban with some sort of legitimacy is good thing – for U.S. interests (or for that matter the people of Afghanistan). That is what gives me pause – there is nothing good, in my judgment, the Taliban ever had to offer to society. So why give them what they want?