Saying we need to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban is like saying...

[zulchzulu]

This is an "argument" by those who support a pointless occupation that is a costly quagmire.

It's common to hear the "argument" that the Taliban need to be taken out of Afghanistan. This is so woefully uninformed that it is perhaps not worth even commenting on and proves an absolute ignorance of that region of the World, let alone actually makes the Taliban support there even stronger by giving them a cause to have their fellow Afghans see us as occupiers.

So saying we need to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban is like saying...

[jobycom]

1. It's more like saying we need to rid South Viet Nam of the Viet Cong.

It's not that Afghanistan is all Taliban, and it's not even that maybe the majority wants the Taliban gone, it's just that our presence there is their strongest recruiting tool, and they have nowhere else to go, anyway. So the more we fight them, the more we strengthen them. Kind of like Hercules trying to defeat Anteus by throwing him to the ground, when every time Anteus touched the ground he grew stronger.

[tomg]

2. I absolutely agree, and I admire

an apt allusive analogy.

[midnight]

5. Good point.

[zulchzulu]

7. Bingo

If we want to make the Taliban stronger, let's stay in Afghanistan as an occupying force! That way, they might even want to like Al Qaeda more too! Plus we spend shitloads of money and have more dead soldiers! What a deal!

[Better Believe It]

16. Another bingo!

[cliffordu]

19. Actually, the North Vietnamese killed most of the Vietcong after we left....

Look it up.

Dare ya.

[jobycom]

29. I guess you're making a point.

I just don't grasp it.

[tekisui]

3. It is especially futile when we are working with some Taliban.

[ChiciB1]

4. Ya Know, I'm Almost To The Point Where I Think That The Tali-ban AND

Al Queada are like the "sugar ants" we have down here in Florida, they just pop up here and there and you never really get rid of them. Set out bait, they feed for a while and move to another place!

Trying to CONTROL the above seems to be impossible, they'll just find another place to congregate! I do feel they hate us, but they hate other countries as well, they just might hate us MORE because we keep bombing and killing people!!

When will it ever end???

[IndianaGreen]

14. The Taliban are today's Emmanuel Goldstein

a bogeyman used to justify permanent war.

[polichick]

6. Makes a whole lot more sense to rid the U.S. of our Christian Taliban. nt

[ChiciB1]

8. Good Point! They Are Just Fracturing This Country Each Day They Are Allowed

to exist and antagonize the rest of us! And what's worse is that THEY seem to get ALL the attention with the HATE they spew as TRUE CHRISTIANS!!

I rarely use the word hate myself, but I have to admit that I have one sister out of five that is actually a "fundie!" HOW it happened I don't know since we were actually brought up as Catholics! Me, I no longer associate myself with organized churches instead simply doing my own somewhat spiritual thinking! I care deeply about what happens to those less fortunate and suffering, but I DON'T need a church to tell me how to do it!!

I love my sister, but we CAN NOT talk politics at all! While I left Texas and moved to Florida, I think she got suckered into the BFEE thing! He's her guy for some reason I can't fathom, and she sends me email upon email about RELIGION and how awful DEMOCRATS are! I delete without reading it and have told her I do, it doesn't matter, she keeps sending them! WEIRD!

But we do get along as long as we stay away from my opinions! She's not a political activist, but she's VERY preachy, and I just IGNORE IT because I KNOW she wants me to reply!

[polichick]

9. Good for you for not letting your sister get to you! nt

[zulchzulu]

10. Here's how I got someone I know to stop sending me FreeperMail

All I wrote back (and CCed everyone else on the list of 30+ people) was:

Stop sending me this Teabagger shit. Thanks!

I got a couple Freeperdroids write back and promptly put them on Junkmail. And not a peep from the person who would send that crap.

If you do want to still keep getting emails from the Freeperdroids, www.snopes.com is your friend. 95% of the time, the crap sent in the email can be nuked for false rumors. The other 5% is just nuts.

[ChiciB1]

17. I Am Aware That So Much Of It Is Off The Wall Crap... Don't Even Need Snopes

for that. But why reply? I've told them all that I just delete the email when I see their name, because I KNOW what it will say! I've told my sister that repeatedly and even so she wonders why I never answer her mail! What's the point? She thinks she's getting under my skin, and that's delusional, she KNOWS I delete it!

But I never thought about the "junk mail" option for the others, that sounds workable.

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. It's like the DLC saying they need to purge all the actual Democrats out of the Democratic party

And the same people see the "logic" in either situation.

[Sparkly]

12. I'd have agreed with you if we were talking about "Al Qaeda in Iraq"

I don't think the Taliban is exactly like the "Al Qaeda in Iraq" thing (or exactly like the Viet Cong, either).

Further, I don't think it's all about the Taliban.

And, I don't think massive combat troops are needed to break up the Taliban's power, unless there's a lot I don't know (which is always possible).

The idea that we had to go into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power, and to go after Al Qaeda, was the rationale for the invasion in 2001. But now, the Taliban is (as I understand it anyway) fragmented, relocated, and in a different position than it was then, politically. (So yeah, if we're sending in 34,000 troops to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban, that seems pretty crazy.)

The problem now is largely political, it seems to me. We have to help hold together the fragile government in Pakistan while pressuring that fragile government while not looking like we're involved and while not crossing the border to get to the real targets (Al Qaeda). It's tricky.

Also, I think there are "terrorist groups" of one kind or another -- loosely affiliated smaller associations -- all over the place in that region. As in Iraq, there may also be violent feuds among small factions for any number of reasons (territory, family, traditions and religion, etc.). Iraq has surely shown us that we can't solve all that.

I think the main thing the president needs to do is convince all of us that it's not just about "ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban," a la "ridding Iraq of Al Qaeda," with massive force. I honestly think there's more to it than that... We shall see!

[zulchzulu]

13. Karzai is a former Taliban now in charge of a corrupt narco-kleptocracy

From what I have researched and seen outside the usual News Poodles and Ken Dolls reading Pentagon-approved screed tells me that the Taliban are:

• ...Not going to allow Al Qaeda to hang out since the last time they did that, they had an upgrade to being bombed INTO the Stone Age
  
• ...would flourish even more if we were the Occupiers... like the Soviets, the British and all the others that tried to control the completely disjointed country that never has had a stable central government in its history
  
• ...are part of a extremely corrupt country that will never change and who control villages that don't even have the same languages and are within miles of each other
  
• ...will eventually get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then...
  

Estimates of actually saying that we will spend a million dollars on each soldier there to try to control mercurial madness and have them die for absolute corruption and a woefully medieval social mindset is indeed a preposterous mission hellbent on failure.

[Sparkly]

15. Okay, let's look at those points.

...Not going to allow Al Qaeda to hang out since the last time they did that, they had an upgrade to being bombed INTO the Stone Age

If they'd been bombed into the stone age, they wouldn't be worried about anything, would they? They'd be gone. (I don't know if they're gone or not. Again, I thought they were fragmented, relocated, and had a different set of circumstances than before. And, I thought their main threat was in harboring Al Qaeda, so I'd need a lot more information on all of this.)

...would flourish even more if we were the Occupiers... like the Soviets, the British and all the others that tried to control the completely disjointed country that never has had a stable central government in its history

If they'd flourish from a US occupation, then surely they'd WANT a US occupation. You suggested above that they were worried about being "bombed into the Stone Age" again. These are contradictory assertions.

As far as a stable government -- that's what it's all about, both in Afghanistan AND in Pakistan. Among the things stable governments need is an army, unfortunately. So if this is about building stability, with international collaboration, including but not limited to an army - with a clear rationale in terms of saving hundreds of thousands of lives overall, AND a clear strategy with an exit plan - then it might be worth the price.

...are part of a extremely corrupt country that will never change and who control villages that don't even have the same languages and are within miles of each other

Some aspects of the country may never change -- which is why I don't consider changing customs or implementing western standards of government necessities, much as we might consider them improvements in terms of human rights. Nor can we impose peace through force. BUT -- if there's a broader issue involved (peace and security from terrorist attacks), and a clear and limited mission, then I wouldn't rule out support for it.

...will eventually get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then get toppled by another set of corrupt warlords who will then...

Which is why a stable government is needed.

[zulchzulu]

25. Do we nation-build a narco-kleptocracy into being a "stable government"?

At what costs? How long? And just what is a "stable government" in a country that has NEVER had a "stable government"?

Thinking we can somehow make Afghanistan a "stable government" is an absolute farce if you have a basic grasp of the facts.

There are villages near each other separated by huge mountain terrain that speak in different languages and have done so for centuries. Would they comply with a "stable government"?

Do we get rid of the poppy growing there and make them grow wheat and corn instead? Oh wait. We tried that already and forgot a little thing called having potable water, let alone ANY water in some regions. So they tried to grow wheat by throwing wheat seed into barren land that we gave them. Nothing grows... except poppy.

As for the Taliban somehow being something we need to get rid of, they are an integral part of Afghan society and have been actually considered a "stable government", funded by the US for years. Now we want a "stable government" without them... The Taliban (which roughly is interpreted as "religious students") are part of the original mujahideen that we supported when we sided against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The Taliban take their form of Islamic traditions from the Durrani Pashtun tribe, which is what Harmid Karzai's tribal roots are from.

As for Al Qaeda, they are considered outsiders and trouble-makers (and attracters) by the Afghan people. The Taliban got bombed INTO the Stone Age in 2002... that's how backwards and impoverished that country is. Do they want Al Qaeda there now? Only if the best marketing tool of having an occupying force like the US is there policing, searching and killing Afghan citizens.

The only real solution to making Afghanistan "stable" is to break the country into its tribal regions and not from the fairly careless "Durand Line" that the British contrived based on geographical and other fairly subjective conclusions. The Pashtan tribe would rather have their own nation state and separate themselves from the Galzai tribe... as they have tried to do for centuries.

It will never happen.

[wisteria]

21. Um, I never heard that Karazi was formally with the Taliban. Can you provide some reading material

on this subject?

[zulchzulu]

26. Karzai helped fund the Taliban in the 1980s when they fought the Soviet Union

He is actually considered (or was) a taliban, which roughly means a student of Pashtun-styled Islamic fundamentalism and was raised as a variation of talibanesque aristocracy. He later decided to side against the Taliban around 2001, as most Afghan warlords will do when someone waves some cash and tells them to join their ranks.

You can start here (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Pashtun_people) and follow the links. It will make you dizzy since it's very nuanced and complicated.

[sandnsea]

22. Karzai is an old oil exec

He's a buddy of Condi and the Bushies. I've never read that he had anything to do with the Taliban.

But the Taliban absolutely will let al qaeda hang out because, as you say, corruption in Afghanistan is a state of being and it's just one more group of thugs amongst the rest.

However, I strongly disagree that it can never change. I don't think a war is going to do it, but we definitely have to increase humanitarian work in that region, if for no other reason than the nukes.

[zulchzulu]

27. Karzai help fund the Mujahideen in the 1980s against the Soviet Union

The Taliban were part of the Mujahideen. Karzai also supported the Taliban in the 1990s when he thought they would end the violence and civil war that erupted after the Soviet Union left Afgghistan.

Like you said, he was also working with Unocal, who were working with Halliburton and other interests trying to get the TAPI gas pipeline constructed...

As for the Taliban letting Al Qaeda "hang out", they have actually scared them out of the country because their alliance led to the Taliban getting bombed and killed by 'the Coalition forces" in 2002. They want them in Afghanistan like the Plague, considering them outsiders and interlopers. Al Qaeda is mostly now in Pakistan (and Germany, Britain, Indonesia...)

[sandnsea]

30. The US helped fund the Mujahideen

Does that mean we're part of the Taliban?

Al Qaeda is in Pakistan, in the areas controlled by the Taliban. They work together.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8046577.stm

[zulchzulu]

31. The US and people like Karzai funded the Mujahideen

It doesn't mean we are part of the Taliban.

Silly.

:hi:

[jberryhill]

18. "fall at zero gravity speed"

Umm... okay, you got me... How does something "fall at zero gravity speed".

That would be "not falling".

[wisteria]

20. No one is saying we can ride Afghanistan fully of the Taliban and that will not be our new goal.

Please hear our president out fully before making broad statements like this.

[Garam_Masala]

24. A wise post wisteria! The president has more info on Aghanistan than

all the Duers combined. It will be best if we trust his judgement
based on all the intelligence reports he has access to, and none
of us have.

My gut feeling is he made the right decision in expanding military
power in Afghanistan. And something tells me the real reason for
this expansion is not just the Taliban elements in Afghanistan but
the real target might be Al Qaeda hiding in lawless region of Pakistan.

[zulchzulu]

28. Actually it's Republicans (mostly) who are saying we need to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban

I'm assuming Obama knows that we can't rid the Taliban in Afghanistan... since that would mean essentially genocide.

[depakid]

23. We need to die and be buried in the graveyard of empires...