Taliban- Just misunderstood?

Kevin · Sat Dec 05, 2009 7:14 am

I don't need to know anything about the Taliban to know that they're misunderstood. And really, I'm so bored with the Taliban anyway. It seems to me the president doesn't know what he's talking about. But maybe he's just misunderstood too. In 18 months we begin the withdrawal. What really does that mean? It can be a Nixon style how-slow-can-you-go disengagement of ground troops with increasing bombing... winning hearts and minds all the while.

So some accused terrorists once lived in the region. I don't see that's a valid reason to throw yet more money that we don't have at the military. Obama gets the economics of the situation. And then goes ahead with it anyway. When you have to explain why something is a vital national interest, it's not. If we'd instead ban minarets and through that be done with the expression of our anger and fear, on the cheap, I'd think we'd be doing ourselves a favor.

A corrupt government in power through a fraudulent election, indistinguishible combatents and civilians, a history of resisting foreign invasions, safe havens in bordering countries, a closed yet open-ended commitment - nope no parallels in history for this operation - and it's walking alongside a domestic financial crisis - it's not that the Taliban is so misunderstood, it's that we can't even figure out our own concerns that's the most critical problem. We still operate, largely, under the assumption that they hate us for our freedoms. Accurate?

weaver · Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:40 am

You're probably right about no schools, ssadly. Troops will be too busy trying to survive.
Why do you think there won't be a complete pull out? Are you thinking like Korea? We did abandon Vietnam.
Still think if $$ given to chiefs, fewer desperate young men would join Taliban.
Who funds the Taliban?

Weaver

DWill · Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:49 am


	Kevin wrote: So some accused terrorists once lived in the region. I don't see that's a valid reason to throw yet more money that we don't have at the military.

I don't have much certainty about the whole matter, but it seems certain that al Qaeda terrorists still operate in Afghanistan, and that much of the Taliban can be considered as domestic terrorists. Pakistan is the crux of the matter, though, and without our presence in Afghanistan, we'd have no access to that country. I think it makes sense to raise our taxes, by the way, to pay for anything we would otherwise have to finance by borrowing.


	Quote: Obama gets the economics of the situation. And then goes ahead with it anyway. When you have to explain why something is a vital national interest, it's not.

That assumes that an interested and informed public exists...but since this isn't really the case, then, yes, the President does need to explain why "AfPak" is in our national interest. Don't forget, too, that if we were to "cut and run," our allies wouldn't be cheering us. They certainly seem to see their own national interests at stake.


	Quote: We still operate, largely, under the assumption that they hate us for our freedoms. Accurate?

No, I don't think so, if you mean that radicals want to kill us just because we have freedoms. It's true they hate us partly for what they see as our degeneracy (both social and religious), but Middle East politics has a lot to do with why they attack us and want to spread Muslim government across the region. Don't think that I'm saying that their actions are justified by political grievances; it's just that it's important to recognize the ingredients of their beliefs.

I realize that I'm not the one who's going to risk his life for an uncertain outcome, so it's easy for me to sit back and say that we should continue to send men and women into this battle. If I had to look them in the eyes it could be a different story.

etudiant · Tue Dec 08, 2009 12:05 pm

If one wants to control areas that may serve as a base for terrorists, the problem is where to stop. Terrorist acts can be launched from any number of locations, and really, physical space is the least important issue for these types of groups. The 9/11 attacks were financed through Saudi Arabia, and planned, apparently in hotel rooms in Germany, and most of the “training” was carried out at flight schools in the US.

Pakistan, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Lebanon comprise just a short list of countries where anti western militant groups have operated from in the past, or in some cases probably still do today. The Taliban in Afghanistan were singled out as a target after 9/11 because, yes, they were guilty, generally reprehensible anyway, and most importantly they were accessible. What would the response been if the identified guilty group operated in the vast tangled urban sprawls of Karachi, or Tehran?

Money is probably a more important resource for these types of people, and the west has pretty much failed to do much in this case. Funding for terrorist groups has come from radical Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia, for example, a country that gets a lot of money from……..us. All that cash we spend to drive around in SUVs and to buy nick-knacks made out of petroleum based plastics goes, in large measure, to countries in the middle east that have very spotty records in regard to controlling militants, crazies, terrorists, and out and out criminals. In Afghanistan, the situation is even more ludicrous. Despite the presence of tens of thousands of western troops, the poppy crop continues, producing a large share of the world’s heroin, much of it consumed in North America and Europe. Some of this cash is then funneled off by the very terrorists we are confronting. Maybe this posting should go under Lawrence’s “mindlessness” topic.

Anti-terrorist operations are hugely asymmetrical because it takes an immense effort in resources and manpower to maintain even a minimal amount of control over a large country, but almost nothing to create mayhem. A bomb placed here or there, a bullet fired off at an opportune moment, and the tension and sense of chaos continues. It is almost impossible to stamp out completely. The military is often a blunt and ineffective instrument in these cases, because at its core, this is really a criminal issue. Not much can be done unless the major civic organizations and the majority of the population in the affected areas are onside. This includes police forces in particular, something definitely lacking in Afghanistan.

I don’t know what the answer is, but as Dwill says the issues raised by Middle East terrorist groups are not entirely the ravings of lunatics. Two of the major points they raise are:

Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine, against the obvious wishes of the Palestinians and others in the region. Israel has never come to a negotiated settlement, but continues to get a blank check from Washington. Rightly or wrongly, this is seen as grossly unfair throughout the Middle East.

The west has continually meddled and intervened in the region to support its interests, namely the continued supply of oil. This has included supporting highly repressive regimes at times if it has suited this goal. This has gone on from the colonial days of the nineteenth century to this moment, the Iraq war being only one of the latest incarnations.

I don’t for a moment condone the various terrorist acts that have been committed by these groups, but again as Dwill has said, having a clear headed understanding of the issues will go a long way to limiting the kind of violence we have seen.

weaver · Tue Dec 08, 2009 1:23 pm

DWill, Only disagree with one thing you stated. We would have access to Pakistan in covert operations. Remember, the military was not restricted to Vietnam. There were raids into Laos and Thailand which sparked wide protests here. I remember that vividly and believe it would happen in Afghanistan.
The rest of your post was very well written and I thank you for it.

Weaver

Omid Mankoo Author · Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:48 am

I grew up in the revolution in Iran in 1980s
It occured to me as a young child of 12 that many people did not know the Shah (king) nor did they know Khomeini.
many just heard one way and they went like sheep to one direction, next they heard another thing and they went to another direction. I am not speaking of those who had studied and made an informed decision. i am speaking of many people in the general public who really have no idea. they just hear and react.

I do not greatly understand the Shah or Khomeini, nor do I know about the Taliban. I have not studied about either of them to know. I have known about some situations in Iran but entirely. So, firstly in regrads i believe it is important for anyone who wants to discuss, for them to earnestly study. In regard to myself i have been studying in depth about God in various religions, that is why I did not have time to study in depthaboutIran, talibn and other matters

Forum rules

Taliban- Just misunderstood? Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!