Wow: Obama administration says “Taliban must take legitimate role” in Afghanistan

And this will not turn out poorly, will it.

The Suicide bomber that killed the CIA agents in Afghanistan might have been considered a good Taliban till he set off his explosives. What test will we have to determine who are the good Taliban and bad Taliban? Must they condemn Sharia Law? I doubt we will find many Taliban willing to give up their extremist muslim beliefs simply to join the Afghan govenment. Obama is once again clueless. Same mentallity that brought us Ft. Hood is now being moved to Afghanistan.

Obama is already showing his true colors by announcing an appeal on the verdict of the Blackwater 5. Obama would rather shed american blood for our enemies then fight for what is right. Its more of the same Obama Socialist crap. Read our enemy their rights, while allowing the trial of our Navy Seals to continue and now allowing the trial to be moved to Iraq so that the lynch mob can get their piece of flesh thanks to Obama and Gates.

The need is to ensure that those elements of the Taliban whom wish for real peace and share in government (as the bad Taliban would not share) commit and prove their commitment to majority rule, ie if laws are passed that they do not support, they have to live with it.

As for your comment on Blackwater, they should be extridited to Iraq, put in front of an Iraqi judge and then punished accordingly. Why, because they are American they are above the law? If the US let real justice happen, half the problem, confusion, mistrust and even hate for the US would be thrown out the door.

I'm sorry, I must have missed those Taliban that wish for real peace and a share in government, they're a little hard to distinguish from those setting off the bombs or shooting at our troops, care to lend a hand there? Maybe you can help by indentifying them for us? Care to name names? I don't see them stepping forward or raising ther hands in peace or calling on Karzai, maybe our left leaning, peace loving media are falling down on the job, but then, it is hard to report while keeping your head down with all those bombs going off and bullets flying around. I'm sure the Taliban will learn to live with majority rule and democratic laws, just like Hizbollah has in Lebanon, and Hamas has in Gaza, We've all seen how well they get along with their neighbors, both inside and outside their borders.

I'll let superllama speak for the Blackwater situation, I really liked his questions.

You need to study the history and make up of the Taliban to get an understanding of who they really are and thus their loyalties and motives. To grossly simplify things, you need to understand that tribalism comes first, that they are almost totally Pushtun and then thier strange mix of that culture and Deobandism - 19th century Indian origin Islamic philosophy comes second. That they hate anything foreign and thus they united first to get rid of the Soviets and then to stop western influence afterwards. During the Soviet invasion they were created and they kept their powe and dominated the fractured nation that Afghanistan always has been. Tha unificaiton was also pushed in refugee camps during that Soviet time and thus the madrassas of those camps were prime recruiting and "sensibilising" opportunities, thus they linked with the verry different version of what is now known as the Pakistani Taliban and the teachings of Mullahs from their.

The non-Pushtun Taliban are only Taliban by name because they are tribal fighters whom joined in the "kick out the foriegners" and because their tribes have long-standing commitment to those other tribes whom you would call Taliban. They have no loyality whatsover to Mullah Omar of the like, add to that if only one dispute was started, they would be just as likely to swap sides and even try and kill them.

Politically, those tribal-linked so-called Taliban need to be worked on to sever the ties and support to the hard-core Taliban. Add to that the Afghani Government has to, along with the US and other allies, accept that the ultra-strong consevatism and tribal structures are not going to be overturned and that recognition will ensure that some of the groups will support the government as they fear the "westernizing of Afghanstan" and that is what they are fighting against.

There are 84 tribal groups that make up the block that are mostly still supporting the so-called Taliban, of those 44 was the last count that would probably make a deal with the government under negotiations based on their concerns. Another 6 groups are lead by the main 6 War Lords and that is a real problem because they are tribal leaders, historically governors of their districts and more importantly, they are the heads of what can only be described as mafias and control the drug trade or the arms trade.

The issue is not easily fixed but there is a difference and your comparisons to hezbollah are frankly speaking a waste of effort, it does not work and the "dodging bullets" is no excuse when there are enough expertise and people know have known, studied, dealt with or have been involved with them. I spent two years in Islamabad covering Afghanistan and have travelled, done consular work etc.

I will answer superllama separately.

I guess I didn't make myself clear enough for you, I asked you to identify those Taliban that are interested in making peace and negotiating with us. I don't see any Taliban like that right now. What I do see are Taliban that only communicate their hostility towards us, whatever their reason may be. I didn't need a run down on how you see the problem. You implied that "elements of the Taliban whom wish for real peace and share in government" existed, so it seemed you might know who they were. Obviously you don't. I think there aren't any because the Taliban won't negotiate until they're beat, if that's possible. But don't worry, I also believe Obama's going to let his "surge" take it's course then pull out no matter what and hand Afghanistan to the Taliban, I guess you'll be happy then.

Sir_W, you will have to excuse me on this one, it is easy to forget that some of us are not native english speakers. I try my best and I think my spoken English is way much better but I am a lazy françaphone and since now I speak Arabic I really only communicate in those two languages. My family back in Rotterdam have even told me that my already accent has changed as well. You want to know who, figures etc. I do not live in Afghanistan and have not been in Pakistan for 13 or so years.

My contacts and through work what I read tells me that of the 44 tribal groups that are only in conflict with the Government and Allied troops due to these tribal solidarity and are more than likely going to stop the conflict and join a peace process with the government. There are those from the west, including "Hizb-e Wahdat-e Islami-e
Afghanistan" whom are strictly anti-Taliban, some are Shia but yet are tribally linked that are pushing for a anti-conflict pact and a demand for unification talks.

Hezb-e-Mutahid-e-Mili, which is in and out of favor with the Government and allies is a key player in finding peace as they have successfully combined themselves as a party outside the "taliban circle" but with those very strong tribal links to most groups that make up much of the 44. Lead by former General Nur al Haq Umori whom was a part of the first non-Taliban government and then broke away citing fraud, corruption and unwarrented pressure by western powers, he is seen as much as other main political leaders apposed to the Talibanization of Afghanistan whom have that correct mix of nationalism, tribal respect but understanding of those western elements that work.

The following parties are all either ex or afiliated directly with Talibanism but were also part of the previous election process and did not boycott it. In your eyes they are militant Taliban but are in fact able to make a deal with and do not support Mullah Omar's Caliphate:

Hezb-i Kar wa Tawsea-i Afghanistan (Omed)
Hezb-i Afghanistan-i Wahed (Rahimi)
Hezb-i Rafa-i Mardum Afghanistan (Gul Wasiq)
Hezb-i Liberal-i Afghanistan (Ajmal Sohail)
Hezb-i Azadi Khwahan Afghanistan (Naseri)
Majma-i Milli Falin Solhe Afghanistan (Ainuddin)
Hezb-i Taraqi-i Watan (Baktash)
Hezb-i Sadat-i Mardum-i Afghanistan (Peroz)
Hezb-i Nuhzat-i Hakimyat-i Mardum Afghanistan (Sobkhani)

More importantly it is necessary to see whom are the real agitators ie the enemy. I have cut & paste a good description from a bulletin that I get that mostly gives background details for my fund-tracking work but has political backgrounds that are well written. They key is knowing the "tanzims" or political groupsings.

They primarily consist of "Rabbani's Jamiat-i Islami, both factions of the Hizb-eIslami, Abd al-Rabb al-Rasul Sayyaf's Ittihad-i Islami, Mohammad Nabi Mohammadi's Harakat-i Islami Inqilabi Islami-yi Afghanistan, Sebghatullah Mujaddedi's Jabhayi Nijat-yi Afghanistan and Ahmad Gailani's Mahaz-i Milli-yi Islami-yi Afghanistan. Divided along personal, ethnic, tribal and ideological lines, the mujahidin parties were internally undemocratic and confronted each other even more violently than they did the PDPA regime. The tanzims also operated along the lines of patron/client networks of regional and tribal militias. Tanzim leaders bought and paid for their parties, primarily by redistributing money and weapons received from their external patrons and income derived from the narcotics trade to their social and political networks."

I recommend you find the book by Mohammad Yousaf and Mark Adkin, "Afghanistan: The Bear
Trap" (South Yorkshire, 1992) that goes into the personalities and explains very well what you generalize as all Taliban and what actually is the "textbook Taliban" and what has been roughly described as them.

This just confirms what I already knew from the media, although most of the names are new. Afghanistan is divided, you mention 44 tribes, all of them trying to hang onto the territory and power they have. Even when the Taliban ruled, they could not unite them. And when the US attacked the Taliban, most of them jumped on the chance to throw them out. Karzai is not strong enough to unite them, but they don't want to live under the Taliban again, but the Taliban is not giving up on imposing their will on everyone, including the US. I don't see anyway to negotiate a way out of the mess, although I'm not saying we shouldn't try. I believe we can and should defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. With them defeated, negotiation would be more viable. Negotiations go better from a position of strength.

i just can't agree with that. vietnam was way different, it doesn't transfer to this area of thinking...we gave that one up. and the blackwater guys should never be tried in iraq. the MO for all of the al-queada people is to claim mistreatment by american affiliated people no matter what, it's in their handbook. and it's getting @ that if you say americans hurt you, you can get off scott free for whatever you do and have the soldiers in jail to boot. giving them to iraq will not make the world love us, it will show we are weak. and what is "real justice", in your opinion? who's law should we obey when we are at war? ours? theirs? who gets to decide what is right and wrong, the people we are fighting, or us?

Wtf!!!!!!!!.
How did we go from 8 years of fighting these barbarians to accepting them?
Cant we impeach this stupid retarded Government.


These people declared war on us and now we accept them as quesi legit leadership in Afghanistan.

They want to KILL US!

We have fallen down the rabbit hole .

Despite the administration now using the words "war on terror" and "terrorism", they really don't believe it. Their actions speak louder than their words. They continue to try and close Gitmo, they continue to arrest and try the terrorists we catch and take into custody, and they continue to treat terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, and now the Taliban, as legitimate political organizations. It's their philosophy, and they will live, and we will die for it. leaders rarely pay the ultimate price for implementing their policies, although Predator drones are doing their best to change that for the terrorist leaders. That's another thing that shows this is war, it's mostly followers and civilians on both sides that are dieing.

Another thing about this war I think we need to keep in better perspective, is that it has been going on since Israel's birth in 1948. We, the US, became more personally involved on 9/11, but we've been Israel's ally for the most part since the beginning, and that what this war is really about. Whether true or not, Israel's enemies blame us for it's survival. There is a deeper struggle in the background between Islamic Imperialism and the rest of the world, but Israel's existence has overshadowed that.

We think wars like WWI and II were long wars, but history shows wars can last much longer, the Hundred Years War for instance, and it seems war is always with us in some form somewhere in the world. Those that would be peacemakers should take that into account, and those that blame the US for being at war should realize it takes at least two sides to make a war, and peace is never unilateral. So the unilateral recognition of the Taliban as "part of the political fabric of Afghanistan" does not make it true, as the Taliban will undoubtably prove. This is what Obama meant by "Hope" when he campaigned, he "Hopes" the Taliban will agree.

How could this happen? It's like forgetting what the Talibans have done and they go unpunished for the people they have killed. Another question will be, will the Talibans help in building the Afghan government or will they just be a nuisance? That is still to be seen.

Oh my God. As a soldier I am appalled at the fact that our President would even consider the idea of letting the tyrannical, murderous leaders who use a religion as an excuse to kill and torment people have control after we just liberated the damn country. I did (and still do) the war in Afghanistan, but all our work is now gonna be for nothing.

The Taliban do not "just want to kill people." They only want to kill those who stand in their way, ie, non-Taliban. (One of our contributors will vehemently dispute this, but he has his own agenda.) Obama and his cronies know this, so what are they up to? They have already given the Taliban enormous encouragement by promising to quit Afghanistan in 18 months' time, and now this. What does it all mean? Is it merely a pathetic CYA exercise they can eventually use in an attempt to salvage credibility when the inevitable comes to pass? The Taliban have been part of the political fabric of Afghanistan since well before America sent in troops, so what is Gates trying to prove? Does he honestly believe these murderers and mutilators, even if they pretend to be conciliatory and accommodating during any discussions that might occur, will later be true to their word? Does he believe that such hard-liners will be swayed one iota by what is said during the reconciliation process? Does this man know anything of history? Of course he does. He knows damn well what will befall the country once America and its Allies pull out, so he and Obama are doing their damnedest to reach a position that will allow them to say, "We tried. They promised to be good boys. Don't blame us." Trouble is, the lefties will believe them.