Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban

[bemildred]

Source: Times Online UK

The Obama administration is considering outbidding the Taliban to persuade Afghan villagers to lay down arms as it struggles to find a new approach to a war that is fast losing public and congressional support.

Despite five war councils in two weeks, President Barack Obama has so far failed to come up with a strategy for the conflict that may define his presidency. Fierce infighting continues between his own generals and advisers.

Obama has been handed three options by General Stanley McChrystal, commander of the US forces in Afghanistan. These range from 20,000 to 60,000 more troops, which would almost double the US military presence. McChrystal is said to favour an increase of 40,000 men, without which he warns the mission will fail.

The White House is uneasy about sending so many on top of an extra 21,000 already dispatched this year, fearing this could escalate the war which has already claimed the lives of 241 American soldiers this year.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6869503.ece

[ixion]

1. well, gee, that's just a ducky idea.

:eyes:

[saigon68]

29. Ah "THE SURGE" is coming to Afghan-Nam

Similar to the Chimpanzee and Betrayus, hiring Saddam's army not to fight amerika at approx $1000.00 a month, per resistance member. And most definitely not to fight to eject the Oil Occupiers and Hooligan Mercenaries of Eric Prince and Bilgewater Industries.

Gen McCrazy and his fellow War Criminals come up with this bright idea. Lets prop up the PUPPET Mayor of Kabul and his opium growing cartel, so they can make billions in drug money laundered in Swiss banks. Lets pay off at least temporarily the opposition who we hired years ago to fight the Russians.

Meanwhile in my state there is no health insurance for laid off workers in some counties the unemployment rate is 18%. This all thanks to china which has stolen most of our manufacturing jobs.
Ya this makes sense </sarcasm>

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

39. If this is all coming down to finances for you...

I'd say there are better places we can remove our troops from. Like Germany. Or Kosovo. Handing a victory like this to the Islamic radicals of this region only kicks the can further down the road. This is a threat we're going to have to deal with at some point - we can do that now, or we can wait until the next major attack on an American city. Which sounds better to you?

Frankly, I think the idea is a decent one if it can be coupled with efforts to reach out to the population in general and win their trust, as well as efforts to bring tribal leaders into the fold and get them to back the government.

[Arctic Dave]

2. Finally, a "real" plan.

I would think this would be a lower costing and a less destructive plan.

Put THEM to work rebuilding THEIR country. Then we can do the same for our country.

[theophilus]

3. Spend the money on hiring Afghanis into the army or helping them

with starting new non-opium related crops. Money better spent, imo, than for a troop "surge".

[izquierdista]

4. I don't like SPAM!

"Well, the Spam, egg, sausage, and Spam doesn't have much Spam in it"

How about an option that doesn't have any troops at all in it? Maybe Obama could go for that. I know I would.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. Insurance Companies pay our Congress to ditch the American people, so it may work

[IndianaGreen]

6. Yep, money talks!

This worked in Iraq, it can work in Afghanistan provided we stop killing civilians with Predator strikes.

[Lost-in-FL]

7. It worked in Iraq.

Many in the military say that was the reason the insurgency stopped killing Americans, not the "surge".

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

40. I Partly Agree

It seems to have been a number of factors, but the increased troop presence helped. Some of the other factors included the absolute bloodthirstiness of al-Qaeda in Iraq which splintered the Sunni insurgency, the winning over of tribal leaders and insurgent leaders through direct talks, ensuring a constant U.S. presence in neighborhoods vs. the old method which essentially turned the cities into insurgent playgrounds at night, etc. I see no reason to believe that these factors aren't present in the urban areas of Afghanistan as well though. If I'm overlooking anything, feel free to hammer me on it.

[drgonzosghost]

8. There's always the "Final Boss" solution to the conflict....

We get Bin Laden's fuzzy hind end we could probably wrap it up in a few months afterward. The political climate here would be favorable for that as well. Sure it's not likely to happen, but it is a possibility.

[w4rma]

52. Bin Laden means nothing in the grand scheme of things. He's just 1 man, easily replaced.(nt)

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

54. Tactically speaking, sure, but he's an extremely important symbolic target.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

9. Fine By Me

This really isn't a bad idea, assuming the funding can be tied to security improvements and acceptance of the Afghan government.

[Psephos]

10. Yeah, we'll just borrow the $$ from China. Turn the Afghans into money grubbers. Awesome idea. n/t

[Oregone]

14. The other options are to borrow more to fight them or leave cold turkey

[Psephos]

16. I support figuring out a way to get the job done without bribery.

Even leaving would be better than that.

[Oregone]

17. Then don't complain about the dough

Its a moot point if you rule out cheaper options but insist on heroic victory

[Psephos]

18. Bribery = dough.

So it's not about cheaper options to me, it's about options that might result in a good and sustainable outcome.

Bribery does not pass that standard. I'll be happy to entertain examples from history that prove me wrong.

[Oregone]

19. Perpetual bribery would be a fraction of the cost of a real military solution

And we have no idea if any military solution would actually produce a sustainable result, period.

[Psephos]

20. Agreed on both points. The problem is bribery cannot yield a sustainable outcome.

When the money is gone, so is the "loyalty."

Again, I'm open to historical examples that show a long-term good result.

[Sinti]

22. Not bribery, more like The Marshall Plan - we pay to fix what we broke

It's an investment in yours and my long-term security. We help them rebuild their infrastructure, help them develop sustainable agriculture, and give them a live worth cherishing - then they won't want to risk it killing others. You win this way - you win peace. The caveat is that we don't need to hire them "fight" for us - we need to hire people to do infrastructure work. It will be cheaper, and actually improve world security.

They accept the Taliban, or any other strongman organization, because they don't see other options. Strongman governments form when the people are robbed of their right to self-determination. Afghani people, like you and I, would like to live and raise their children in safety, and relative comfort. They are just as capable of self-governance as we are, they need something worth governing.

[Psephos]

24. It sounds good.

The problem is that the Taliban insurgents have other ideas, and an indomitable will to have their way.

Money means nothing to people driven by religious conviction and a willingness to use any means necessary to achieve their ends. They will happily kill Afghanis who don't see things their way.

Seriously, what you said sounds good - absent a determined, violent, and focused insurgency like the Taliban.

[Sinti]

25. I understand your hesitation, but I want to fill the vacuum

that lets the Taliban exist. The Taliban are like our religious extremists, a small group with a big mouth. They filled the void left by the Russians when they left. They hope to fill the void when we leave, I suspect.

Afghanistan used to be a nice place. I am certain the Afghan people would also like to see their children live without war. The regular people never want war, they have to be driven to it with a strong hand. Also, if we help them rebuild we remove their ability to recruit young desperate men.

In the article it stated that it's only 5 percent of the Taliban that are true believers, if you will. There are 15,000 Taliban fighters, 5 percent of that is 750. Am I reading this wrong?

Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban. Doubling this to win them over would cost just $300,000 a day, compared with the $165m a day the United States is spending fighting the war.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

42. Only Partly True

I would argue that your characterization is only accurate with a small portion of those who have taken up arms against us in Afghanistan. The Taliban is loosely knit and people are in it for a variety of reasons. Some have already defected, others surely will if we increase the incentive.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

41. Not Necessarily

What the payoffs to tribal leaders does is provides a window for us, our allies, and the Afghan government to get their crap together and demonstrate that there's something worthwhile in supporting the Afghan government once the payoffs end. It's a gamble, but then again, so is every option at this point.

[happyslug]

38. Ever heard of the Barbary Pirates?

Yes, we went to war with them under Jefferson and later under Madison but both Presidents saw the wars as a way to best negotiate how much we pay the Pirates NOT to attack our Shipping. Europe was doing the same and continued to do the same till the French Invaded Algeria in 1830 (And that invasion was to show the people of Paris that French did NOT need another Napoleon to be a great Military power then to STOP the Pirates).

Washington and Adams both paid off the Barbary Pirates, Jefferson decision to go to war with them was to continue these policies i.e. to make Americans the least disable people by showing we would pay the least and took the longest time to pay. From the 1600s till the French Invasion of 1830 (and in many ways, The Pirates would continue till Steam became the main form of transport in the Mediterranean which lead to the Steam freighters being to fast for the sail and oar driven boats of the Pirates more then the French Invasion).

Another example was the Iroquois in the late 1600s to the early 1700s, the French in Canada paid them to be neutral in the conflicts between France and Britain, it eventually failed and the Iroquois ended up supporting the British in the French and Indian wars (and later the American Revolution) but it worked for about 100 years.

Attila the Hun was similarly paid off by the Eastern Roman Empire thus he attacked the Eastern Empire just once (and was paid off) and then he attacked either the Persians (Via the Caspian area, paid by the Eastern Empire) or attacked the Western Empire which did NOT have the money to pay him off (and finally did as he approached Rome, paid off with 20 mule loads of Gold).

I can go on, the Bible has cases where the Kings of Judea and Israel paid off the surrounding herding Arabs NOT to attack Judea and Israel because the Israeli army could NOT defeat them in their homeland, and you could NOT predict when they would attack, but you can cut off the payment if such an attack occurred, so the best way to control such herding societies was to pay off the leadership.

We Americans did this for almost 200 years, starting in the 1600s and only ending in the late 1800s. In some ways exist to this day among the Native Americans, we had a habit of designating a Native American as the "Chief" of that tribe and making sure all the trade goods promised to that tribe went through him. One of the last time you see this in action is after 1867 when we provided money and support to Red Cloud, a chief of the Sioux to strengthen him in the years up to the Battle of the Little Big Horn. This was to weaken not only the chief Sioux Shaman, Sitting Bull but also the the leading warrior Crazy Horse. This reappeared in the years after the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Red Cloud, who did NOT participate in the Battle of the Little Big Horn (through he had participated in the 1867 Sioux War with the Whites) became stronger for he had access to what aid the tribe was given by Congress, while the power of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull slowly declined.

Most books try to minimize the above or ignore them, but often it involved something like the people of Afghanistan, the only people who can prevent them from attacking is their own leadership (Such as Red Cloud among the Sioux). That Leadership has no reason to stop such attacks for any retaliation strengthen them for only that can provide the people to fight off the retaliation (Thus if the attack ends up in retaliation, the Chief get to help the people injured by the Retaliation AND get the credit for any attacks made afterward).

Now, if the leadership has an incentive to stop such attacks they will do so, but the key is they MUST have a reason and the resources. Payment to such leadership providers then the resources to pay people NOT to attack and the threat to cut off such funding gives the leadership an incentive NOT to attack. We did this extensively with the American Indians, providing money to the Chiefs to strengthen then over the Shamans and head warriors (The story of Red Cloud, Sitting bull and Crazy Horse is typical of the result). Every so often it fails (Such as during the Battle of the Little Big Horn) but most time it is successful (Such as the Sioux agreeing to the terms offered them in the years after the battle). It is generally so successful that it is ignored in most history for NOTHING happens, for that is the desire result. i.e. peace.

Books are written about BAD things not good things thus rarely reported, thus you do NOT hear of the payments to the Barbary Pirates from the 1500s to the 1800s, but you do year of the Wars the US (and later France) did fight with those same pirates. The Military victories are reported but the actual terms of the Peace Treaties are rarely mentioned in the history books (i.e. that the US would pay the least and take the longest to pay for any hostages). Yes, such payments have occurred, yes they have been successful, but no they are NOT reported for all they are are numbers in the Budget not front page news.

[saigon68]

30. Great Idea !!! Lets leave "Cold Turkey"

Get the hell out of that Quagmire. Anyone who dies there from now on, is dying for NOTHING.

[mbperrin]

35. Yes, put the transports in NOW! There's no reason we can't be gone

in days.

"Dyin' ain't much of a living." -JW

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

43. What Are the Likely Results of Your Suggestion?

[saigon68]

50. No more GOLD STAR MOTHERS !!!!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

51. Anything Else?

[saigon68]

56. Enjoy your stay

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

58. Look, I'm Asking

...is that you think through the practical consequences of a unilaterial American withdrawal from Afghanistan. We can't afford to sit here pretending this wouldn't embolden al-Qaeda or radical Islam as a whole.

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. I can see this. Spend the inevitable money on infrastructure

schools, and setting up farms. Fewer dead US Soldiers and they get to have their country back.

I would much rather see that investment here, but we have to play the cards we were dealt the last 8 years.

[Mari333]

12. Can we use the incomes of all the politicians to pay for it?

just get the hell out of there. out. now.

[seminal]

13. Weak article

Obama is considering it, say the sources. Not "ready."

[smoogatz]

15. It's how we routed the Taliban in '91.

At the beginning of the Afghan war we had about 500 spec-for guys riding around the country in 4-wheelers and on horseback with sacks full of money, buying off the local warlords. The we decided to fight 'em instead of paying them off. Big mistake.

[No Elephants]

32. Was that before or after we gave money and arms to Bin Ladin?

[smoogatz]

34. Bin Ladin is a Saudi Wahabbi, not an Afghani.

But okay, I'll engage. We gave the anti-Soviet jihadis a few million bucks and some stinger missiles and within a few years they'd destroyed the imperial USSR, or at least knocked a hell of a big hole in it. Now we're the imperial occupiers: how do we avoid the Soviets' fate?

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

44. Myth

There's actually no evidence that U.S. aid ever went to bin Laden - directly or indirectly.

[AusDem]

21. could use some of the money that goes into the

sinkhole known as pakistan. its a tragedy that some of the billions and billions given to pakistan in the past 50 years has probably made its way back into the hands of hardcore fundamentalists, and spent on propping up the taliban.

what a disaster. but rather give it as decent wages, directly to basic soliders and officers than to politicians who would pocket most of it, and use the rest for nefarious purposes.

[DesertDiamond]

23. This can enable us to leave with little or no further bloodshed, with the majority of Afghanis

having a positive view of America. And also, as someone else in this thread mentioned, we do owe them a bit of reconstruction money.

[LiberalLovinLug]

26. A true American solution

:patriot:

[western mass]

27. Remember how billions $ disappeared in Iraq?

Lots of people are going make some $$ off this scheme when the money starts flowing into Afghanistan. And if you think it's going to be poor villagers, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[saigon68]

31. THE MONEY WILL GO TO SWISS BANKS Karzal living large

The Puppet in charge of Kabul and his DRUG CARTEL will love this set up.

By the way (How much is the bridge?) </sarcasm>

Charlie McKarzai (Mayor of Kabul Below) about to clean up $$$$$$ once more

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

45. Corruption is Evil, Nonetheless....

I realize that to some, this is going to sound like a cheap excuse, but it isn't. Corruption of this sort is always wrong and simply shouldn't take place. With that said, however, even with some inevitable amount of corruption factored in, there will certainly be positive, tangible results.

[Democracyinkind]

28. Anyone who actually knows anything about Afghanistan would not support such an idea.

The Taliban have no hold over that country without foreign meddling. Tribalism is the cohesive factor, not some sort of crazy Salafist/Wahabist fundamental religion. Now that the Pentagon is paying Anthropologists to fight this war, it's about time Democrats at least start actually informing themselves about Afghanistan. The american people will always be fleeced by the MIC as long as they entertain notions about Afghanistan that are derived from Rambo III and the evening TV news.

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

46. Really?

Are you suggesting that if we withdrew the Taliban wouldn't take over?

[Democracyinkind]

49. Yes. Without the renewed set of circumstances that were a given in the 90's they could not

repeat that coup. It depends on the definition of "taking over"... They could control the south and destabilize the northeast, but they would not have the operational capabilities they had in the 90's absent massive ISI supplies and airlifts and absent an absurdly asymmetric deployment of US foreign aid.

We would have to get to the table with the Iranians, the other-stans, the Russians, the Chinese, the Pakistanis and declare that we won't meddle if they don't. All parties except some multinationals and the Pakistanis have made their interest in such an arrangement clear. I'd have further suggestions but that about covers the point you have asked me.

And, just to be clear, that's not to say that Afghanistan hasn't still hell to go through once we leave. No doubt about that. And I don't hold the illusion that the Afghanis care much about whether they are bombed to pieces by americans or other Afghanis, so I'm not suggesting some kind of "they are just that way" ... underlying afghanistan are several conflicts that will eventually be decided by those who take up arms... But that's not to say that the Taliban have the same hold they had in that exceptional phase of history in the 90's. Although they might have made progress in terms of recruiting, their operational capabilities in terms of strategy are very narrow. If they have made progress then symmetrical to the non-Taliban warlords, so it's really not a question of them running over Kabul and Mazari-el-Sharif like the VC did over Saigon back in the days.

[No Elephants]

33. Let's buy the poppy crops.

[saigon68]

57. Its already here

And has been for some time

[timo]

36. sheesh

when will we realize "buying" friendships just dont work!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

47. The thing is... in some circumstances? It can.

[timo]

55. buying friends never works

thats how we got to where we are today, look at all the money we pissed away in pakistan, our foreign aid give away is a huge clusterfluck and is a major reason we are in the mess we enjoy today, on multiple levels...YOU CANNOT BUY PEACE!!!

[YouTakeTheSkyway]

59. We Don't Need to Buy Their Friendship

We simply need to buy some time.

[joeycola]

37. Throw more cash out the door. It may work for a year or two-until

the big shots get most of it and then the money will dry up.

[sattahipdeep]

48. No way to make it look good.

Before the CIA Jawbreaker team deployed on September 27, 2001, Black gave his men direct and macabre directions: "I don't want bin Laden and his thugs captured, I want them dead.... They must be killed. I want to see photos of their heads on pikes. I want bin Laden's head shipped back in a box filled with dry ice. I want to be able to show bin Laden's head to the president. I promised him I would do that." According to CIA operative Gary Schroen, a member of the Jawbreaker team, it was the first time in his thirty-year career he had been ordered to assassinate an adversary rather than attempt a capture.

http://www.alternet.org/story/142098/former_cia_agent%3A_%22what_the_agency_was_doing_with_blackwater_scares_the_hell_out_of_me%22/?page=2


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=386998&mesg_id=386998

[MisterP]

53. well, since we're giving them all their arms already... n/t