Readers’ Responses to Our Question (18)

Before any excuse the first thing we should know about the past of these taliban.The very first question is that from where the Taliban came? who trained them? Who tried to enter the violence mentality in muslim youth?Who got the reward of making all these nonsence.
The taliban are product of Seminary of pakistan and Afghanistan funded by the American establishment and saudian Goverment to tarin the youth of that reason to use them against Russia in afghanistan.To make them more acceptable to islamic society and encourage them to join this seminary anf fighting they were given the highest tilte of islamic world-MUJAHID.when they were killing rusian they were mujahdeen not a terrosit.
The second question is that they were trained by CIA led Pakistani military establishment.At that time no American ever pondered that what will happened to islamic society and rest of the world peace.No one evr to think that once lion have tasted blood will ask for more blood.
The third question is realted to reward and that reward was the pakistan nuclear adventure.the whole American and west goverments kept silence and pakistan reached on nuclear mile stone.why they keep quit? And answer is that the American and allies had their own conspiracy and that was who will; controll these fallen vaccum central Asian countries?Pakistan under zia was hoping to get some advantage.Islamist wanted to get a new islamic kingdom and American had plan to use these taliban for violence and then in the name of violence led the declaration of concept of terrorism .And for that famous terrorism the need was the tragic events.which provided in the form of 2001.and American started a a march of NERO with empretive strike.The question remain unsolved that who committed that 2001 strike.why not an international enquiry about this?.
Then american entered In Afghanistan ,not this time to help Afghani but to capture that area and relate the nuclear safety to terrorist near hand theory,compelled pakistan to abondon the nuclear assest and then American go for china and India in long term.The theory to use one power with another till all powers destroy.
So in present time if American have a truce it means a compromise with the long term plan to subjugate the centarl Asian nations.
so in my opinion the truc notion will come in press but not for peace but to divide the Taliban and Afghanistani goverment to strenthene the posititon of American interest there.The killing of innocent Afghani people both by past Jihadi and American fellow will continue.

Why exactly is the Taliban such a threat to the U.S. that pretty much both political parties in the U.S. agree it was worth sending troops against them? Because the Taliban protects terrorists? Because the Taliban and the terrorists are a little too close to the WMD in Pakistan? How strange it all is. On one hand we have this remote place (Afghanistan), a place which seems nice to visit (good hash, opium, meals, scenery--nice place to get wasted and talk about a truce), but on the other hand we have the Taliban which would probably behead you should you ask for a bit of opium to smoke to open negotiations...And behind the Taliban terrorists from elsewhere, and just over the horizon Pakistan with WMD. It just all seems so strange. A true postmodern phenomenon. Probably we cannot negotiate with the Taliban though because they seem so intent on preserving a way of life they imagine that they are unwilling to tolerate the luxuries produced by their own land (the hash, opium). They seem plain flat out strong Muslims who want to live as they want to live and want no outsiders. Precisely negotiating, trying to loosen them up are what they are most suspicious of. I feel sorry for them actually. I find them romantic--a wilder, stranger, more ancient way of life. If their way of life were not so threatened they probably would loosen up and pass the pipe around...I doubt Americans realize how catastrophic the American way of life is to so many people. I am talking about how the American way of life destroys all adventure and mystery just leaving us with Indiana Jones fantasies. Well the Taliban is something of an ancient way of life and something of a fantasy and dreadful reality (should they acquire WMD). We had better increase the possibility of living fantasies in Western society or more peoples than the Taliban will rebel and make reality dreadful. Ways of life, peoples. If the Taliban were not so terrifying I would like to live among them and just farm the land far away from Western civilization. Smoke a little opium, eat a simple meal, converse with the extended family, the tribe, and just live a less pretentious life. But no, we have either America or terrorists....

MikeB,

My position on this topic has remained fairly stable over the past 2 years. It starts witht he fact Aghanistan committed an act of war on the United States by condoning and supporting BinLaden and AlQaida. Afghanistan is equally responsible for the 9/11 attacks and must be made aware they are going to held accountable for committing acts of war. I don't think this position is too far from Bush's position and it may be one of the few things we agree on.

That being said the response and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan has been and remains a shambles. Inherent in the definition of war is brutality. It is armed conflict to achieve a desired goal (winning) or armed conflict that does not produce a desired effect (losing). Obviously, very few things are that black and white in life and Afghanistan is no exception. Ridding the country of the Taliban in power is surely a win. However, not setting up a system that has a probability of succeeding in stopping the Taliban or groups like the Taliban from seizing power in Afghanistan is a loss.

My answer to this dilemna is simple. Afghanistan has the right and the responsibility to run their own affairs. If those affairs lead to another act of war committed against the US then the US has the right and the responsibility to protect itself by blowing Afghanistan back into the Stone Age. I don't want to hear any crap how the average Afghanistan citizen is really good and it's just a few bad apples that need to be dealt with. That argument was weak prior to 9/11 and now has no validity at all. The people of Afghanistan are responsible for their country the same way the people of the US are responsible for our country.

You may think my position is one of threats. I assure you it is not. My position is one of promises. I (the US) promise on a stack of Korans if the government of Afghanistan allows another act of war to be committed on the US I (the US) will level every structure in the country and kill every living thing that isn't holed up in a cave. Hence, my solution is get out of Afghanistan, turn it back over to the Afghanistian's and make certain they are well aware of the fact if we're forced to come back they better be able to out run our bombers and cruise missles to their borders.

Also, I stick to my statements concerning the humor I find in the concept we are able to negotiate with the Arabs. There is simply no history of successful US/Arab negotiations and that's a very different discussion as to why. Not a bad question for PG to run sometime.

BobL-VA - I respect what you say, but I think the way the question was framed misled a lot of readers. If we are delussional enough to think we are in Afghanistan to help the people or nation build, we need to pull out at once. If, on the other hand, we are there to conquer, smash, wreck, ruin, and kill and enemy, then we need to forgot the nensense and turn the marines loose. I fall into the late camp. As much as I can understand killing Wall Street types in the Twin Towers, I cannot forgive the lose of innocents lives - children, ordinary airplane passengers, policeman, and firemen. The Taliban help, in the most direct manner possible, Al Qaida's doing this great evil. For that, we need to EXTERMINATE them.

As in Iraq (as in Vietnam, earlier on), I see no acceptable military solution to the conflict, in Afghanistan. Only by negotiating an overall political solution for each of those countries and their respective regions, can there be enduring peace and sustainable prosperity in those countries.

All of us should therefore call for open-ended truces now. All of us should demand that negotiations then begin in earnest, under the auspices of the UN, leading, without delay, to International Accords on Afghanistan and on Iraq, spelling out those political solutions all parties concerned can live with, accompanied by detailed implementation plans, with strict deadlines. It must be an integral part of those International Accords that all foreign troops be repatriated and leave immediately thereafter. Those International Accords will then be implemented under the close supervision of the UN (with the help of non-aligned countries, if necessary), according to plan.

Iraqis and Afghans are in their own countries to stay; we are there to leave, and leave we will. The only issues remaining are: 1. how many military personnel and innocent civilians still need to die before we leave; 2. whether our children and grandchildren will be spared the deadly unintended consequences of those conflicts, or not.

As in the case of Iran, as in Palestine, the major obstacle to those two conflicts being resolved is for the US authorities (and a large majority of US citizens) to still believe that economic sanctions, together with military intervention and occupation, are adequate substitutes for sound foreign policy and diplomacy. It so happens that they are not. The reckless 4 B’s (brainwashing, blackmailing, bribing and bullying people throughout the world) never described a foreign policy. They only characterize political disorder on a grand scale, something incompatible with the nascent world order, in this post-American world.

Now who really wants to see the bottom of that ultimate dead-end, on our famous, panoramic road leading nowhere? Who would want one's progeny (no heroes, no glory!) to crash on a dead-end road?

Enough babbling. Time to act.

Sending more US troops to Afghanistan will help if they work with the Afghan and Pakistani troops. The success of peace deals with the Afghan Taliban - or for that matter the Pakistani Taliban - depends on capacity to implement, military technology to monitor, and political will to support the mutually agreed upon terms - on both sides of the Durrand Line. In the past Kabul - and Islamabad - have raced toward peace deals without a clear method to execute them.

Time is another factor. If peace deals are successfully executed but break down after a few months - like they have - Kabul will continue to have a credibility problem. Finally, carrots and sticks should be used judiciously. While ethnic and ideological differences fuel the war, Afghanistan must be thought of as a coherent nation state by Kabul and the Taliban. Only then increasing American troops can bring about sustainable security.

Truce with Taliban ?This sound very astonishing after many years of fighting with Taliban directly in Afghanistan and their offshoot arounrd the world.The basic question that comes in mind is what objectives the west want to achieve by waging a war with a stateless power?Second is that can west defeat an ideological very powerfull out brust with military power?
On these two questions the answer is not good for the west.What west got in afghanistan and Iraq? a change in regime that always is helpless in fighting Taliban and baathist and Al-qaedist in iraq or a powerful Strategy to led the clash of muslims in islamic countries?If these are aims then there would be no peace in the world.if the peace in real term is needed then we have to take all those people who wants a change in sictuation by use of force by method of truce.we cannot defeat the staeless,formless powers like alqaeda in long run.In sort term we can defeat them but in long term we will be effected.see example there is initial success against those Jihadi and west is happy. now these jihadi decide to be intact till the long adventure is ended and then start when got opportunity .would the west will keep aarmy for long?
other hand we cannot have cure of surgical nature of all our deseases.There are certain desease that needed the cure of tablet .This truce is also a nature of mdeicine.we have seen the result of surgical operation for many years.why not let experiment on medicine of truce for some time.

To ANAJU CHANDELA
There is much talk of "Calsh of civilisation" between Islam and christian.And in my opinion this point is repeatedly circulated and used by the scholar of neo rising power of coming days.can any one naswer me that after calsh of islamic world and christian world and destruction of both these which civilisations are going to benifit and getting benefit?which civilization countries are going to dominant of the world.The present changing scenerio is giviing indication that due to clash of civilisation the most benfiteed powers will be china,India,Russia and Israel,all will be most powerfull in there respective region.
so taliking about clash of civilastion in term of citing radical fundamentatlist and the civilized world is well documented conspiracy by a particular section of the world.who wish to dominant the world by putting American led west power in dustbin of past glory of world.
let there start of change.see the eminant soul of the world.All of them were most sinner of the world.But when they got the touch of love and time to repent they becam the saints of the world,to whom we now adore.

This is sad to say that negotiations for the truce are least possible option available today. Henry Kissinger once wrote that when the forces march then they can not be asked to comeback without achieving their targets.

NATO forces today deployed in Afghanistan possibly due to a tactical mistake taken in Panic , but now field commanders will never appreciate talking truce with the enemy ,. Instead they will pursue an enforcement which can put the Taliban on defensive and then a truce can be negotiated on their own terms.

The problem in Afghanistan is very complex. The enemy is scattered all around the place, it doesn’t have a disciplined army, it doesn’t have any international binding and the NATO forces have to honor international commitments. They can not differentiate that a local dressed bearded person moving with the sheep is a Taliban or not, and therefore they are on constant threat in a hostile land where as their enemy is freely moving with light weaponry and small vehicles.

I am sure that additional three brigades today requested by the highest military officer will be accepted. But again this will not bring the peace and stability in the region so easily.

So what is the solution?? I think instead of offensive the military should be confined to forts and play an honest broker role between different factions. They must concentrate on nation building tasks and accept local traditional values. They should provide more medical aids with out any discrimination and bye passing all brokers.

I am sure slowly they will start winning the hearts of the local population, and then only they can enforce their respect and command.

Not related but today we have a golden chance in Iran for negotiations. The time will never stop, and once the open confrontation starts then the events will not be in control of anybody.

W Bush resist turning over evidence to Impeach him He keeps putting himself above the law. He should be handcuffed and put in jail for his UNLAWFULL war and lies, he is a massmurderer for almost 2 terms he has been misleading american people. Make you think: What kind of people are the americans that they cannot impeach him for crimes committted against humanity. Yet they even are willing to get killed for this deceiver and lier. This is his war personal vendetta has nothing to do with the country. Iraq never declared war against the US. In foreign countries he would not even be considert for a garbageman, they know how to profile and investigate a man. Make you really come to the conclusion, americans don't know any better? That is why Bush had no problen deceiving them and knows how dom americans are? Is this why he got away with his war, because nobody stopped him???

Truce with Taliban? Then what? A coalition government with Taliban as its significant ‘other half’ in Afghanistan? Couldn’t the world be a bit more imaginative and think of a better credible alternative?

These conflicts with radical Muslim regimes – including Taliban - are not simple wars; these are basically a manifestation of “Clash of Civilization”: Islamic Fundamentalism vs. The Rest of the Civil World. Islamic civilization which was otherwise so rich - still is in most parts of ‘their’ world - has become grotesque in its mutated and modern version being practiced and preached by proliferating breed of fundamentalists. This is being fuelled by so-called identity crisis and insecurity notions that many people in ‘that’ part of the world nurture inside themselves which get displayed in form of terrorism.

“Us and Them” need to INTROSPECT otherwise this menace will keep growing and prove to be a peril to humanity. Moreover, escalating extremism can be curbed substantially by serious intervention of influential Muslim leaders in the Middle East especially as they can understand their mindset better and also are with means and measures to make it happen. Because, either troops or truce will not be able to reign in Taliban easily forever.

what the truce means now...at a moment when Taliban insurgency strengthens day by day....it means Coalition forces are facing defeat......history reveals Afghan people never allowed any foreign power to rule on them.....they always take revenge....I suggest ......send large number of troops for a long war and use new strategies of war or leave Afghanistan.....it is a Global war against terrorism .....Only united Coalition can defeat the Taliban.

Truce? Wishful thinking at best.

No, it's time to get out and return Afghanistan back to the people. Our pull out should be well publicized and should let every man, woman and child in Afghanistan know that if they elect or condone a government again that commits another act of war against the US we will come back and what they have have witnessed in the last 6 years will look like a church social.

The US has no history of negotiating anything with the Arab world. Now all of a sudden we'll be able to negotiate a peace? I'm sorry, but that makes me chuckle. Just the thought of our State Department actually sitting down with any Arab Country and trying to negotiate anything with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. is funny.

And what will be the conditions of this truce?
What are the "meet me halfway" points?

-Half of the girls should be allowed to attend school?
-Half of the strict interpretations of the Koran should be observed?
-Classical music will be allowed, but not Pop?
-And perhaps the most difficult: are people to clap with only one hand at sporting events, since the Taliban banned clapping altogether when they were in power?

Negotion is a half baked endeavor, that will only buy us time until they have driven liberal thinking people half crazy once again and half out of their mind Taliban extremist begin another full out attack on the most basic of human values.

Bobby McGill idlewordship.com

There is an old Afghan saying to the effect that the real fighting does not begin until after the peace treaty is signed.

No, we shouldn't negociate with the Taliban. Negotiating with the Taliban is what got us the Taliban "resurgence". The central government of Pakistan is too weak to control its Passhtun tribal areas. It tried and failed. So it negotiated and settled for a mutual understanding. The government will continure to pay lip service to the GWOT and to kill and capture terrorists operating outside of the Pashtun tribal zone, but it will not inhibit Taliban recruiting, organizing and fund-raising within the tribal zone.

That's why we have a Taliban "resurgence". The reason I put resurgence in quotes is because the word implies a strengthening in position. However, the Taliban has just become stronger relative to the already-weak Pakistani central government. The Taliban's strength vis a vis the NATO and Afghan government alliance has not improved. So all the Taliban has accomplished is that it is able to recruit greater numbers of Pakistani jihadis to lead to their deaths in Afghanistan.

Why does this indicate we should negotiate with them?

The western world does not seem to understand the mentality of the radical moslem countries. This is why the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is so lousy.
One cannot consider these two conflicts as wars. A war is between two countries and between two regular armies. Whilst the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are between regular armies and an enemy who is embeded in the civilian population.
Consequently, it is very difficult to win such kind of a war, especially when the enemy may be helped by the local population and is ready to die as a martyr and kill solders and civilians without distinction.
As regards Afghanistan, thousands of lives have been wasted and billions of dollars have already been spent without obtaining any tangible result. The talibans, who have a safe haven in Pakistan, are able to control various areas, of which, sometimes they are repulsed, but they come back. They seem to attract radical moslems from other countries to fight alongside them.
Also, before the talibans were ousted in 2001/2 the poppies fields were practically inexistant, but now they have proliferated and produce 90% of the drugs exported in the USA and the rest of the world. The warlords and the talibans use the money from the drugs to finance their needs.
To send more troops will not help in such conditions, and an eventual truce cannot be conclusive, as the talibans wish to regain full control of the country, where the present government and its troops are too weak to figh them, whilst corruption is practically endemic.

During the first gulf war, we were ordered not to hit any civilian targets. The reason was simple. If we hit civilian targets (apartment complexes, sewer and water systems and electric facilities, schools and hospitals) that would turn the people against us and they would hate us and fight us with every fiber in their bodies. We were respected throughout the Middle East after that war.

Bush came along and did just the opposite and Stormin' Norman's fears were realized.

In Afghanistan, we decided to use advanced technologies via satellites and joysticks to fight the war. Afghanistan is a training and testing ground for future wars. With this advanced technology and the attitude--"hey, there is a tall Arab and he must be meeting someone at that wedding party. Can't tell if he is Osama or not, but what the hell, blow it up anyway."

One of the things the government and the military refuses to discuss in detail is the PTSD/suicide rate among returning soldiers. Much of the PTSD is related to one hell of a clash between what the soldier did and the soldier's ethics/moral values.
The only reason we are in Afghanistan is for the oil pipeline.

Have the moderators lost their minds? The home of Al Qaida, of Omar and Bin Laudin is Afghanistan. Instead of wasting our treasure and lives in Iraq or elsewhere, Afghanistan is one place we should be pouring in troops and material. The Taliban should have been exterminated by now, the various war lords and their opium crops simply gone. Instead, the idiots in Washington took their eye off the ball and we have a mess. Of course we need to stay in Afghanistan. We need to be rid of the phony puppet government, the parasitical private contractors and security firms, and anything else that stands in our way of conquering the entire country. Either this is a war worth winning, and that means fighting with every available resource, or it isn't.