The top commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan said Friday he sees no signs of a major al-Qaida presence in the country, but says the terror group still maintains close links to insurgents.
This from the same commander who asked for more troops on 1 September.
Now, I thought we were in Afghanistan to fight Al Qaida, which attacked us on 9/11. That seemed like a very worthy ambition to me. It sounds, however, like they have been defeated in Afghanistan — an insignificant number remain, apparently — so what is our goal now? A guarantee that they will never come back? What, precisely, might constitute such certainty, or will we just know it when we see it. Victory for Hamid Karzai in a civil war with the Taliban? But why should our soldiers die for Hamid Karzai and his corrupt regime. “[N]o signs of a major al-Qaida presence” in neighboring Pakistan, too? Can someone help me out here, or are you just as confused as me.
Discuss
14 Comments . Leave a comment below.is to deal with the Taliban, who made it possible for Al Qaida to operate from within Afghanistan. The Taliban has not been defeated, and it would be a good thing to put them to rout decisively to prevent Afghanistan returning to a terrorist-friendly breeding ground.
So where is Al Qaida now, if not in Afghanistan or Pakistan? I have no idea, although I'm not convinced their not dug in in Pakistan.
Somalia looks like the next breeding ground to me.
What does Juan Cole have to say about all this?
"A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" on 27 March from WhiteHouse.gov:
No mention in there about "defeating the Taliban" as a goal in itself.
You welcome to sit next to me on the "confused couch."
The "New Strategy" document has a lot in there about the Taliban. For example it says:
True, it "never mentions defeating the Taliban as a goal in itself" but this is pretty close (from the report's concluding paragraph):
Remain "confused" if you will but I think the national policymakers have laid out our strategy pretty clearly and it includes fully addressing the Taliban.
The tactics needed to do succeed remain fuzzy (at least to me) but the strategy is more clear than you suggest with selective quoting.
If Obama wants to make defeat of the Taliban the goal in Afghanistan -- and I agree, there is a lot about the Taliban in the strategy documents -- by all means, let him say that and let's discuss it. No doubt there is some case to be made. At the moment, however, the condition for victory is the one I quoted: "to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
In that context, the elaboration you cite -- "The war in Afghanistan cannot be won without convincing non-ideologically committed insurgents to lay down their arms, reject al Qaeda, and accept the Afghan Constitution" -- is, I repeat, confusing.
By that measure, presumably we cold have killed every member of AQ but still be fighting because some "non-ideologically committed insurgents" refuse to accept the Afghan Constitution. What sense does that make?
The President recognizes (and I acknowledge) that a strategy cannot be too complex or difficult to explain to the populace who's continued support for American military action is a moral imperative. Thus the primary focus on Al Queda.
But Obama has been clear all along that preventing the re-emergence of the Taliban is a leading objective. In that very same speech you keep quoting Obama said:
We could have killed every member of al Queda, yes, but the War would not be won. Instead, the Administration has made pretty clear that American interests would dictate that we continue to fight to ensure against a reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
You just need to listen a little deeper to hear this message above the continuing "we must defeat the terrorists" rhetoric.
In my opinion. Why should we send us soldiers to die to fight against the Taliban themselves absent any association with AQ. Oppose them, sure. But billions of dollars to fight them: I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense.
And if we do want to fight the Taliban just on general principles, there are a lot of other barbaric regimes we should take on on the same grounds.
I stand by my statement that the President hasn't been especially clear about this -- and I think the other comments on the thread support me -- but your observations are well made: thanks!
The fight against the Taliban is mostly about "general principles" and about their association with al Queda.
But "a lot of other barbaric regimes" are not in charge of countries which border Iran, Pakistan and three of the most "difficult" of the former Soviet Republics. Other "barbaric regimes" are not Islamic, have no concievable major role to play in the distribution of oil, and are not ruling a country that has been a political football for centuries.
I also do not discount "revenge" for the 9/11 attacks - particuarly with Osama Bin Laden still at large - as an important motivating factor.
All these factors influence the policymakers thinking and distinquish the Taliban from other "barbarians."
Maybe we could negogiate an agreement with the Taliban, where the US will stay out of the internal politics of Afghanistan as long as they keep al-Qaida out. The Taliban are more involved with local interests than with a bunch of foreigners and we can be freed from choosing between one corrupt group or another. Let the Afghanis make their own mistakes, its better than asking them to live with the mistakes we make.
Certainly it points to the Obama administrations' inability to find an oil rich country that may be harboring al-Qaida we could attack.
Here is Juan Cole's take, though I don't know why the headline refers to Israel.
on the confused couch. If the Taliban are the enemy, then fine, I would expect to see and hear about a new strategy because of the new (not really, but I get it) enemy, with different goals and so on.
As for Pakistan, I thought it was mountainous region of Pakistan on the border of Afghanistan that was a safe haven for members of al-Qaida? Is this not the case? Can they not see them? Confused for sure.
This quote from the President's strategy in a previous post is quite alarming:
If that is not picking a side in someone else's civil war I don't know what is. To me blurring the Taliban and AQ is just as dangerous as blurring the Soviets with the Maoists, the Soviets with the Vietcong, and more recently Iraq with Al Qaeda. It is incredibly important to know who we are fighting and why. The Taliban are primarily concerned with maintaining local control over Afghanistan to institute their admittedly draconian vision of militant Islam. In contrast Al Qaeda is focused on securing an overall withdrawl of US support from the Middle East and Israel with a long term goal of overthrowing the Saudi's and establishing a Pan-Arab Caliphate with Mecca and Jerusalem as co-capitals. In the short term this goal is achieved by attacking the US abroad and domestically until its government gives up its support for those governments and groups. Its actually a quite rational strategy if you are familiar with Dr. Bob Pape's work 'Dying to Win'.
That said those goals are in fact completely different. The Taliban offer no external threat to anyone, albeit to Western eyes they are an internal threat to their own people. Yet by refusing to engage the moderate elements of the Taliban and securing a solid agreement that they will not harbor Al Qaeda the President is making a horrible mistake by closing off a potentially lucratice avenue of diplomacy and essentially pursuing a war of choice and not necessity.
Just as disturbing is this next sentence from the same report:
So now the US is actively wasting the lives of its troops and the money in its coffers to prevent 'medieval social policies that give up the quest for equal rights and gender equality'. WOW
First off this 'quest' is unique to the American political system, a grassroots quest for civil rights and gender equality has never emerged in Afghanistan. They clearly have never felt the need to achieve these ends. Similarly if another nation wants to pursue medieval social policies and economic isolation how does this concern the US? You don't see us sending tanks into Saudi Arabia which has just as a medieval social policy towards women as Afghanistan. In fact they are one of our closest allies because we share mutual interests. This strategy is clearly being written by the Clinton lead neoconservative wing of the Democratic party and Obama's administration. The US cannot go around the world finding dragons to slay as John Adams once warned. It is wrong for the US to militarily force its values upon a sovereign people that have rejected those values for over three millennia.
If Alexander the Great could not get the Afghans to accept Hellenic culture we sure as hell will fail in getting them to accept American notions of equal rights and gender equality.
I agree that the Taliban is an awful, horrific, barbarian force. I fervently oppose leading a war against them.
As wealthy and powerful as America is, we have limited resources and those resources are already strained close to or beyond their breaking point. The economic recovery that we all seek will be accomplished and sustained by focusing on these priorities. I believe that we therefore need to remain focused on our national priorities.
These are America's priorities -- priorities that President Obama articulated for us in inaugural address:
1. Transportation infrastructure and energy 2. Health care 3. Education
Fighting the Taliban is not among these. The fight against the Taliban should be lead by our allies and friends in the civilized world. When those allies and friends ask for American help in specific and preferably non-military ways, then -- and only then -- we should consider supporting them.
America has been gravely wounded and demoralized by the catastrophically incompetent and immoral "leadership" of the prior administration. Our urgent and immediate task is to heal and revitalize the tissues, sinews, and organs that make us vibrant, strong and healthy.
http://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.p...
-Foreign helicopters have killed two people, one of them believed to be one of al Qaeda leaders in Barawe town in southern Somalia.
Residents said four helicopters bombed a car in Rooboow Village near Barawe town in southern Somalia killing two peope and injuring two others.
Unconfirmed reports say Saleh Nabhan, who the US says was behind the attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 was killed in the raid.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Sat 25 May 5:52 PM