Is it better for the Pakistanis (and NATO in Afghanistan) to keep warring with the Taliban?

[bigtree]

. . . or, is it better to try and make peace with them - even at the cost of accepting their Islamic rule in some regions?

I don't think there's a possibility of the Taliban gaining any kind of significant political majority in Afghanistan or Pakistan, but there may well be provinces in the country where the population prefers or tolerates the Islamic rule they insist on. (It is of course, highly objectionable to our own, mostly, secular sensibilities)

I did see a report yesterday where registrars in Afghanistan say some Taliban members are sporadically coming in to register for the upcoming elections . . .


Taliban agrees 'permanent ceasefire' in war-torn valley
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/taliban-pakistan-ceasefire

Gates: Eventual truce with Taliban in Afghanistan acceptable
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11750455

[Why Syzygy]

1. You know, Bush was explicitly warned of the 911 strikes.

That he chose to do nothing and skips scott free, while Afghanistan's civilians take the beating, seems askew.
IOW, we had the Intel. Something should have been done at the time. Then, we wouldn't even have to have this conversation.

[LakeSamish706]

2. If one believes it was Al Qaeda that pulled off 911 in the first place! n/t

[bigtree]

4. There are really a couple issues in our involvement there

. . . retribution (and justice?) for the 9-11 attacks and nation-building.

The Taliban are antithetical to the nation-building effort in that some factions 'harbored' the original 9-11 terror suspects. But, they are also objectionable to that effort because of their anti-democratic, functionally abusive, Islamic rule they insist on.

[leftchick]

17. more likely the real issues

are a continued Mid-East presence to protect our 51st state and to get that Caspian Pipeline.

[bigtree]

18. that would require a compliant regime

. . . and a security force for the pipeline and workers . . . much like the Clinton administration sought to use the Taliban for.

[Traveling_Home]

3. I was upset....

with Sec of State Clinton going to China and putting human rights on the back burner. There are no human rights under the Taliban. For the US to acquiesce to a situation guaranteed to be completely debasing of women, girl's education, freedom of religion, freedom of speech - it would be like saying Darfur is OK with me.

[bigtree]

6. so, we don't want them leading the nations

. . . so, perhaps, we defend the secular one against any (other) forced regime change and help ensure a process of 'elections' which would keep the unpopular organization from imposing it's rule nationwide.

That's different from waging continuous war on the Taliban. Would it really be better right now to have active (potentially destabilizing) combat in the Swat region of Pakistan, rather than the apparent cease-fire?

[Traveling_Home]

10. Yes

- supporting a region 'stabilizing' under Taliban rule is going along with the complete suppression of human rights. We should rather support destabilizing areas under Taliban rule.

[bigtree]

13. I think many of the military efforts have been counterproductive

And, in the Swat region of Pakistan, that military effort had resulted in a deadly stalemate, much like our own occupation of Afghanistan has been described. The obvious course of that military effort is a self-perpetuating conflict. Our own commanders say that the military can only do so much to turn the population away from support and assistance to these objectionable groups. They advocate an ultimate political solution. After 7 years of this military effort, it's perhaps, time to try something new, unless we're prepared for a devastating generational battle lasting a decade or more.

[Traveling_Home]

15. The struggle with ....

totalitarian jihadis is already a multigenerational battle (consider the Barbary Pirates). Supporting human rights by opposing Talibanistic regimes must contimue despite what happens in Swat. You seem to think that they are only acting and reacting to us. I think you're wrong. The Taliban have their own agenda and it isn't power to the people and liberty and freedom for all.

[bigtree]

16. I'm not against opposing them at all

What we're faced with is a considerable force of our nation's defenses directed at them. The purpose of that escalating engagement is (supposed to be) either a defense of our national security or a defense of the Afghan and Pakistan regimes against the resisting or combating segments of the Taliban and other factions, sects, tribes or individuals.

What you are describing, however, is akin to the 'crusade' described by George Bush which is directed against ideologies or beliefs. That 'multi-generational battle' has already been determined ultimately best-waged politically than militarily, evidenced by the 7-year stalemate in which our militarization in Afghanistan has resulted in a swelling of the ranks of the Taliban and an increase in the number of individuals who are inclined or resigned to violence in the face of our military advance on their homeland.

The U.S. has an agenda rooted in the response to the 9-11 attacks which is antithetical to the 'stability' we intend in Afghanistan with our military forces and their counterproductive reprisal attacks and raids. The Afghans seem to think so, anyway . . .

Afghan public opinion turning against presence of US forces - February 23, 2009
http://www.smh.com.au/world/afghan-public-opinion-turning-against-presence-of-us-forces-20090222-8eqk.html

[jody]

5. Suggest you consider the Pashtun People who live in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are the largest

ethnic group in Afghanistan (13 million) and make up most of the Taliban numbers.

Pakistan has about 28 million in its population, about 173 million.

Pashtun People

[bigtree]

7. I'm looking at many of the polls, none of which show any significant support for the Taliban

[jody]

9. I understand that Taliban ideology is a mixture of Islamic fundamentalism and Pashtun nationalism.

My point is Pashtun territory covers Afghanistan and Pakistan and the Taliban are predominately Pashtun.

IMO an armistice with the Taliban must consider the larger Pashtun people and their strong tribal alliances.

[anonymous171]

8. Our goal should be to make the region as a whole despise the taliban,

so that when the leave the local warlords will not tolerate them. Division is an extremely powerful tool and is too often underused by the American military.

[bigtree]

12. that's going to take a massive aid and reconstruction and development effort

. . . rather than the collateral flailing we've been doing at all elements of resistance to our military presence. As Obama has said, the Taliban isn't building, they're tearing down.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. The government of Pakistan is facing threats from all sides. The Taliban is but one of them.

That they are making (a sort of) peace with one of them is obviously in their interest. They face an ongoing threat from India, they are being bombed by the Americans (with predictable results in Pakistani public opinion), they have to worry about China and NATO.

Not to mention the threat of their own military taking power through a coup.

[bigtree]

14. to hear the opposition here to the Taliban expressed as justification for the military build-up

. . . makes me wonder if these folks are advocating military action in Afghanistan/Pakistan against 'terrorists' or against fundamentalist Islam?