US explores its Afghanistan exit options

[Minstrel Boy]

KARACHI (ASIA TIMES, OCT 15) - With Afghanistan daily slipping into more anarchy and chaos, United States authorities, aware that they are unlikely to ever bring stability to the country by military means, continue to explore political avenues that ultimately could pave the way for them to withdraw from the country.

First there were the talks at the Pakistan Air Force base in Quetta with "moderate" elements of the Taliban (which immediately failed due to the US insistence on the sidelining of Taliban leader Mullah Omar). Then came the formation of Jaishul Muslim, a formal grouping of lesser Taliban lights (which failed even to enter into Afghanistan), and moves to pry some of the more powerful mujahideen commanders from the anti-US resistance movement.

And last week, former Taliban foreign minister Mullah Abdul Wakeel Mutawakil was released from US custody in the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, where he had been in detention since handing himself over to the US in February last year.

...

At the same time, options are being explored to recruit other powerful former Taliban ministers into the central cabinet in key positions, including that of defense. On the one hand, they would then be in a position to cool the anti-US resistance, and also serve as a counterweight to the Northern Alliance, which the US is now finding somewhat recalcitrant.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EJ15Ag01.html


Have any US talks with the Taliban been reported in the American media?

Asia Times has been on top of the Afghanistan story from the start, and IMHO provides the most knowledgeable analysis I've found.

[joeybee12]

1. Another example of our incompetent media

No wonder Dumbo's poll numbers have gone up.

[DUreader]

16. Incompetence? Our Media is extemely competent, news is not their goal

Don't let them off so easy

[leftofthedial]

28. took the words right out of my mouth

they are doing what they are paid to do, which is to keep us ignorant and misinformed.

[ixion]

2. according to Moore's research

Bush and the Taliban are old buddies. Read "Dude, Where's My Country"...

[cthrumatrix]

3. any shrub quotes about how committed we are to Afghanistan

after we bombed the hell out of it...and let them grow the drug crops again.

Let's see how committed he is ...he said he's in charge !

[Braden]

4. Moderate taleban?

is that like slightly ruthless?

Mostly Oppressive?

[snippy]

19. To Reich wing fundamentalists, most of the Taliban are moderate.

If not liberal.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

5. Hell, all they needed to do in the first place was

to ask the Russians about it....

"With Afghanistan daily slipping into more anarchy and chaos, United States authorities, aware that they are unlikely to ever bring stability to the country by military means,..."

What this country needs is a good history professor in the White House briefing room!

[lumpy]

6. My thoughts exactly.

The Russians know.

[tlcandie]

7. The Taliban was moderate when they first moved into Afghanistan ..

then they showed their true colors.

So, we have, yet again, another former buddy aka Northern Alliance, now proving to be recalcitrant. Hmmmm

Fool me once, no twice.. damned what was that comment? You would think that these people would get it, but I guess we are forever lost in this friggin loop nightmare of selling, equipping these people and then they turn on us! Like we really ever had them to begin with... phfffft

[leesa]

33. Ummm. WE bombed THEM. What are you talking about

they turned on us???

[Penance]

10. Exactly

What they need is someone who is an expert in the Soviet Union to help them guide their Afghan pol... oh, wait... She's heading the Iraq thing.

[rwork]

8. No, no.

We are bringing democracy to Afganistan.

[jayfish]

9. Well, Well, Well...

what a perfect way to perpetuate the war on terra. Give Osama and Omar all thier base back. WAR WITHOUT END!


Jay

[lumpy]

11. The concern should be how to rid the US

of the American taliban currently ensconced in DC. Give conscience and responsibilty it's base back.

[jayfish]

13. Thats Our Job.

;-)

Jay

[gratuitous]

12. Well, suuuuure!

There's what, 10,000 troops currently tied up in Afghanistan? If the corrupt Bush administration is going to go into Iran, they're going to need all the muscle they can get. A good MBA knows when to cut his losses, and the Afghanistan thing didn't pan out quite the way it was supposed to. Well, Bush and his cronies made a little bit of money off the deal, so it wasn't a total loss (Whew!).

Sure, some people died, but it wasn't anyone important or wealthy, so let's pick up and move on. Surely when the troops march triumphantly into Tehran, we'll be in that Promised Land of low taxes and no deficits. March on, citizen soldiers! Pick up your flag and salute -- it's all being done in the name of freedom and democracy, so it can't be wrong!

[RaulGroom]

14. Why did we invade Afghanistan again?

First, we were bombing and invading them to convince them to hand over Osama bin Laden. Then we were going to find him ourselves. Then it was to get rid of the hated Taliban. Now the Taliban are back, so we need a new reason.

Maybe we were looking for Easter eggs. No? OK, terrorist masterminds were storing large fortunes in the country's banks and hobnobbing with royalty. Oh, no, that's Saudi Arabia. They had nuclear weapons and were threatening the entire world! Oh right, North Korea. My bad.

OK, how about this one? It was a politically convenient war against a defenseless civilian population that paid off big for GOP campaign contributors and intimidated all the other countries in Central Asia so that they won't object next time we want to turn their country into a work farm!

No, wait, that can't be it, because, um, because...

A little help, here?

[ElementaryPenguin]

18. Er, how many of them there 9-11hijackers were Taliban members??

I can't really recollect, can you, Jethro? Nope. But I'll tell you what, bro - I'd blow all them towel heads to smithereens, just like our kick-ass president's been a doin'! You ain't got anymore <burp> a them beers, do you, Bud?

[leesa]

34. Taliban offered to hand over bin Laden twice if Bush would

provide evidence. Bush refused and we have never seen evidence that OBL did anything on 9-11.

[imhotep]

15. the sad part

is that most DU'ers were in favor of invading Afghanistan.

[Barrett808]

17. Not this one

But I hadn't discovered DU at that time.

[NNN0LHI]

22. I was here, and I was against it in 2001 n/t

[IndianaGreen]

23. I was against the invasion of Afghanistan

I advocated that the US used the same strategy that Israel used against the terrorists that planned the 1992 Munich Olympics massacre, use small teams to hunt down the culprits. No publicity. No military. No civilian casualties.

Instead, we chose to invade Afghanistan in the same role the old Soviets did years before.

[NNN0LHI]

25. The Mossad made too many mistakes for me to like that idea

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EA25Ak01.html

On the road with Murder Inc

<snip>Sharon's promise is particularly reminiscent of the last time Israel was active in overseas targeted killings. "This is a turning point, like the massacre at the Munich Olympics in 1972," said Zalman Shoval, a diplomatic adviser to the prime minister. That event, in which 11 Israeli athletes taken hostage by Palestinian terrorists were killed in a botched German rescue attempt, was followed by the systematic elimination of the organizers. The so-called "Wrath of God" battalion of Israeli agents combed the globe searching for the alleged perpetrators. All but one was ultimately killed.

But this same period in Mossad history also shows the dangerous potential for mistake. In 1973, for example, in the midst of hunting the Munich murderers, Israeli agents conducted a targeted killing in Norway. But they hit the wrong guy. Due to mistaken identity, the agents shot a Moroccan waiter, Ahmed Bouchikhi, who was walking home from the cinema with his pregnant wife in the ski resort of Lillehammer.

The gradual drift back toward assassination has raised criticism. Legal scholars and human rights organizations have expressed dire concern over the precedent such actions will have for international law. As agents operate on foreign soil with relative impunity, the sovereignty of nation-states also begins to fall away. Furthermore, it is not altogether clear whether private contractors, such as DynCorp, which the US is using to an increasing degree in overseas operations, will be covered in the new and expanded jurisdiction of targeted killings.

Many worry that if the CIA and Mossad begin killing more suspected terrorists in more countries, it will surely have the effect of "legitimizing" terrorist attacks against US military officers at home or abroad. The US has also attempted to publicly distance Israel from its war on terror so as not to play into bin Laden's rhetoric about Christian crusaders being in league with the Jewish state against the Arab and Muslim world.

more

[Malva Zebrina]

36. I did not support that invasion either

and suffered the loss of many friends because of it. I was never convinced--and the weakest excuse was that the Taliban harbored terrorists---looking back--geez, Bush sure did fool a lot of people who lusted for "revenge" to the point where they believed this liar. They simply could not see the fallacy in the logic of a war on a word-on an all encompassing abstract word-terrorism--revenge is a powerful motivator. I hope at least some have learned enough to vote Bush the Liar out of DC and back to his pig farm with his sow--who is that again? Condoleeza! No, I think it is another woman seen often with him on the way to the helicopter--Laura? Oh yeah--she was so disgusted that the Taliban women could not wear nail polish--and she was billed as the friend who would liberate those women--she had no plan either. She abandoned them--the lump lies as much as the chump.

[Zhade]

21. To be fair, we were in shock.

I'm guilty of originally supporting the invasion - until I learned the truth about a lot of things. Now I know it was completely wrong and doomed to be a failure - perhaps, as one poster noted, a purposeful failure.

[Minstrel Boy]

26. Me too. As you say,

"I'm guilty of originally supporting the invasion - until I learned the truth about a lot of things."

For me, it started with learning of

The report of the CIA's Dubai station chief meeting Bin Laden in a hospital in July 2001;
Tommy Franks saying bin Laden's capture was not an objective;
The pipeline negotiations, and the "carpet of gold or carpet of bombs";
The secret airlift of Pakistani fighters out of Kunduz;
The farcical battle of Tora Bora, in which the objective seemed to be to avoid bin Laden's capture.

By then, my head was on right again.

[NNN0LHI]

27. When things are at there worst we need to be at our best

Anyone can think clearly and makes good decisions when everything is going great.

Don

[leesa]

32. Not me. It was a blatantly immoral thing to do.

Carpet bombing a country for ten months when they did nothing to us? To catch a handful of criminals? I thought 'Merikans had gone insane. It was such a clearly unethical, immoral thing to do. Also, no one ever wanted to remember that the Taliban was threatened BEFORE the war by the US with a carpet of bombs if they didn't approve the pipeline deal.

No one wanted to remember that the Taliban offered twice to hand over OBL if we would provide evidence of their guilt but Bush REFUSED, TWICE, to do so.

We are STILL waiting for that evidence George!

[ElementaryPenguin]

20. Turns out the oil in that region is very low grade - and not nearly as

Plentiful as BFEE/PNAC Mobster James Baker & friends had thought! That pipeline that Prick Cheney and all the other ghouls were drueling over - flat out isn't going to be cost effective to build - especially in a "Road Warrior" country, where it will be blown to bits every other day!! Stupid fucks!!!!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. And now that Enron doesn't need that pipeline to India

that we would never be able to protect anyway, the whole thing was a waste of time, lives and resources. Might as well cut you loses and run, just like they do in the corp. world.

[snippy]

24. Democrats need to use this.

First, an exit strategy should be developed before the military action is begun. Why didn't anyone tell this to the brilliant MBA commander-in-chief, star of the Carrier Costume Party, and mighty warrior against terrorism?

Second, the United States government is meeting with the fucking Taliban about returning some elements of the Taliban to power. Every American in their right mind would find this bizzare and disappointing. And a lot of the Reich wing fundamentalists would go ballistically apeshit.

Whistle Ass can only lose support if this becomes widely known.

[teryang]

29. You are absolutely right

This can only be viewed as a policy failure from a PR point of view. Where's Osama? Returning Taliban to power? Who cares about the merits of these policies? It's a failure, a return to the status quo ante.

[DeepModem Mom]

31. Can't believe we're abandoning Afghanistan again --

Wasn't that part of Osama's motivation for terror in the first place? I remember distinctly Tony Blair looking into the tv camera during a speech, and promising not to abandon Afghanistan again.

And, yes, as Zhade says, we were in shock when we went in there. And some of us bought, over the net, scraps of burka fabric made by Afghani women, to support their cause. That cause, from what I've read, is now lost, with who knows what horrors to come. Meanwhile, we've moved on to liberate Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

35. Afghan women are still wearing their burqas

even in Kabul. Some progress, heh?