|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News More Than a Religious Movement|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
New Member |
RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,151601,00.html
not a bad idea, except for the fact that when he goes to see mullah omar, omar will probably stab and mutilate him, then try to claim power again. |
||
|
|
New Member |
Mr. Morgan thanks for another Oustanding Article. The more we understand Foreign Cultures and History the quicker we will stamp out ignorance in our own political and decision making process.
|
|||
|
|
Experienced Member |
Quote: "Thus, the outreach to the Taliban extremists is about more than incorporating Islamist fundamentalism back into Afghan governance. It is about providing a structure for underprivileged groups to have nonviolent ways to take part in the government. Two of the most remote Pashtun provinces, Zabul and Oruzgan (where Taliban leader Mohammed Omar was born), had the lowest voter turnout levels in the country in the 2004 presidential election. Thus, the historical marginalization of these tribal groups remains. Karzai's outreach represents an important truth about Afghan politics. The Taliban are more than a temporary radical regime. They are an ethnic movement that taps certain needs of the society that must be addressed before a viable, sustainable democracy evolves."
In my opinion, talks (when reasonable) in search of peace isn't a bad thing! I wish President Karzai success! From A Proud Vietnam Veteran |
|||
|
Member |
Thanks, Wes, for the key words WHEN REASONABLE.
Better to talk than fight.... unless the enemy is little more than a savage murderer... Omar and his folks are little more than terrorist despots, hoping that the Western inspired Karzai will do what the West does... talk. Omar would then take the opportunity to 1) kill Karzai, and 2) reassert Taliban power. These guys can not be trusted. Unfortunately, I DO understand Foreign Cultures, Afghanistan is NOT as complex as is believed... but it IS an area with a 10th Century mentality... like the rest of the Middle East. They believe in force and strength... and that those who talk are weak. Omar knows that by supporting terrorist violence, he can undermine Karzai and pave the way for a Taliban resurgence. Note that the Taliban will only talk to the elected government "once the Americans are out." IE Once the guys with the bigger guns are gone. Diplomacy is just a way of saying "nice doggie" while you grab a stick. We in the West, are quick to trust the enemy, thinking that peace is in everyone's best interest. Sadly, that is NOT true of the Taliban. They want power, and they know the way to power is to kill as many innocents as necessary. Sometimes, negotiations are best conducted with your foot placed directly on the enemy's windpipe, your rifle in his face and saying, "This is how this is going to work." As bad as this may sound... negotiating with the Taliban is a VERY bad idea. |
|||
|
|
suspended 90 days as of 5/19/09 |
You're being simplistic. And you're coming at this from a position of basic ignorance. You can call it a "10th century mentality" if you like, but it's a "10th century mentality" that's trying to accommodate the changes of the 21st. And doing quite well if left alone. What they had been doing was "reasonable" what's happening there now flies in the face of 'reason', it's war. The '10th century 'kingdom' model of government was overthrown by a corrupt 20th century 'democratic' model, which was, in turn, overthrown by a 20th century socialist model. The 10th century religious outlook of the Afghani people found fault in all three. They revolted against the socialist government's notions of dragging them into the 21st century. The government appealed to Russia, the revolt spread, encouraged by the United States. (Which at the time had no problem with a 10th century religious outlook, in fighting a proxy war with Russia.) Despite their "only respecting power", the mujaheddin disrespected the Russians, and socialist Afghans, right out of the country. There followed a period of civil war among the victors - who, in 10th century fashion, didn't want to 'share' the spoils. Out of this emerged the Taliban and the Tazikhs. The Taliban ran the government and left the Tazikhs more or less alone. Afghanistan entered a period of tranquility - perhaps due to religious repression of 'modern' politics and political action. Part of that was allowing mujaheddin groups to remain in the country. Eventually, we are led to believe, this led to 9/11 and 'sheltering' AlQaeda - the effects of which have reduced Afghanistan to 8th century living conditions at present, or worse. If you think that any form of western style 'democracy' has a chance of a long life in Afghanistan while most people remain Muslim, brace yourself for a long hard stay. If you think you can stop them being muslim, or 'tame' them with a stick or a bowl of alpo, start making antennae for your tin cap. In Afghanistan, negotiating with the Taliban - finding a way to live with the Taliban is the ONLY to bring about a resolution. Taliban is 'family' - we're not. Get this straight - the west WILL be going home. The question is how long it will take until we realize our presence there is a negative one. |
|||
|
|
New Member |
Thank for the article and insight.
It is my opinion that the Taliban is a very small group that was raised in Pakistan. They were originally Afghan orphaned boys taken from Pakistan refugee camps during the Soviet occupation in the eighties, raised in religious Mosques and trained as a group to take over Afghanistan. They were labeled the Taliban. They did not grow up with Muslim honor and traditions of hospitality to strangers but brainwashed in a fundamentalist religious way that valued fear and oppression. I am not sure why the Pakistani government saw it fit to do this. It was funded by the way by American money meant for refugees but it would seem to me, Pakistan had ulterior motives for Afghanistan and its people. Possibly a form of its own control that backfired. It is my understanding Canadian forces have rid of all the Taliban leaders. The Taliban, what is left, not to be confused with al-Qaeda is mostly on the run. They have been asked to negotiate but have yet to agree to it. I think the Military should focus in the the north where stabilization can occur, money and lives not wasted and the leave the south to work it out amongst themselves. People will move to the cities when they are safer and more prosperous. |
|||
|
New Member |
The Taliban are nothing more than utter filth who cannot be negotiated with. Any attempts at negotiations with them is futile. We here in the West are either too stupid or too naive and nothing short of eradication of them is the only solution. A german Waffen SS anti partisan sort of campaign needs to be launched on these folks. Every attempt at even trying to talk with them shows them that we are weak.
|
|||
|
New Member |
Modern warefare involving counterinsurgency calls for outside the box tactics. We've seen much more success in Iraq when, instead of simply engaging the enemy, we convice the enemy that we aren't the bad guys. We unite them against a common enemy (such as Al Qaeda) and it seems to work well. Maybe we need some of that in Afghanistan.
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
It would be a good idea to really look to what is taking place in this country. We have been invaded by a peasant army of mexicans who have eroded and infiltrated our infrastucture yet most people that are citizens accept . Our own government has sold us out, Nobody cares,, All this govt who supposed to look out for the welfare of this country have failed. If I as a young marine did my duties as our representatives have, I would have been treied for treason..Semper Fi USMC Ret Old corp
|
|||
|
|
New Member |
In 2001, there were 500 internationals in Kabul–today there are 45,000, all with their own languages, economy, domestic interests and no direct spin-off work for Afghans. Six years later–Mr. Stewart (author of "Places in Between")notes with shame and embarrassment–there is still seven feet of garbage in Kabul's streets. What Afghanistan needs are clean streets, clean water and clean toilets. And after that, maybe universities.
The usual aid chat predominates. Earlier, international talk was about massive infrastructure, now it's micro-credit. There remains a great disconnect from the rural 80 per cent of the Afghan population, he says. We ought to realize that Afghans will do 90 per cent of the rebuilding, so we need to bridge the gap in order to get real rebuilding underway. The buzzwords continue and the concept of "capacity building" assumes that Afghans share Western objectives. In Mr. Stewart's view, we cannot: 1. Beat the Taliban 2. Eliminate corruption from the government 3. Change how Afghans treat their women 4. Eradicate poppy growth 5. Establish a stable liberal government. Nonetheless, we can help Afghans with: 1. Relatively good military support 2. Technical assistance 3. Stabilizing the currency 4. Building dams and promoting water resources essential for sustainable and healthy living 5. Helping Afghan businesses 6. Finding export markets for Afghan goods 7. Removing the seven feet of garbage that disfigures the streets of the Kabul. Afghanistan would benefit from a road network so that its economy could return to what it was historically, a border-trading nation–an ancient reality so often forgotten. Mr. Stewart says, noting that all of the surrounding countries are rich in natural resources. |
|||
|
Member |
Namely Drugs  |
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News More Than a Religious Movement
