# US to pay Taliban to switch sides



## TcDohl (28 Oct 2009)

*http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8329129.stm*



> *The US military in Afghanistan is to be allowed to pay Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul.*
> 
> The move is included in a defence bill which President Obama is set to sign.
> 
> ...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Oct 2009)

wow
What a hilarious yet brutal cash grab this is going to be.  Stand by to see tens of thousands of "Taliban" turning themselves in (who have never fired a gun or planted a bomb in their lives) and the Americans (and those of us still there) being shot at by bullets bought with their own money.  
Despite Saddam Hussein being a douche, there was some sort of standard of life in Iraq before the war (Part II).  Afghanistan (read: Kandahar) is *so very not * the same situation.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (28 Oct 2009)

I don't think there gonna set up a booth in Howz-e-madad and hand out 20 dollar bills.It will deal with local warlords in control of area's.

A good way to do to to have a exit strategy.Pay off warlords, declare defeat of AQ and leave.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> I don't think there gonna set up a booth in Howz-e-madad and hand out 20 dollar bills.It will deal with local warlords in control of area's.
> 
> A good way to do to to have a exit strategy.Pay off warlords, declare defeat of AQ and leave.



Yeah, that's a flawless plan.  Hopefully they come up with more than your NDP-esque throw-money-at-it-and-run plan  :

Area influence peddling and warlords are the problem.  If you make them richer, you are only making the problem worse and guaranteeing there will be no exit.  Because sure as hell, as soon as someone indicates that they are good to go and planning to leave there will be a big uprising of "Taliban" (with their ANA/ANP uniforms neatly folded in the back of their trucks) shooting the hell out of some poor town.  
How about holding the pack of thieves that is the Karzai government to some sort of standard, with the caveat that if he doesn't get his feces in a group sooner than later we will leave him high and dry and deal with the next guy?  The average Afghan citizen is looking at ISAF as junk because all we do is provide the muscle for one organized crime family.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (29 Oct 2009)

The Americans have been saying in media:
WASHINGTON — The White House said Thursday the Taliban posed less of a threat to US security than Al-Qaeda, raising speculation that President Barack Obama may decide against huge troop increases in Afghanistan.
Officials involved in Obama's intense Afghan policy review argued that Al-Qaeda poses a grave danger to US interests and the American homeland while the Taliban, though hostile to US forces in Afghanistan, did not.
The assessments seemed to differ with the view of war commander General Stanley McChrystal, who asked for up to 40,000 more troops and warned the counter-insurgency against the Taliban could fail without reinforcements.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who has ruled out any reduction in US forces in Afghanistan, said Obama had yet to make any firm decisions as he conducts an exhaustive Afghan policy review.
But he said there was "clearly a difference" between the two groups, styling Al-Qaeda as an "entity that, through a global, transnational jihadist network, would seek to strike the US homeland."
"I think that the Taliban are obviously exceedingly bad people that have done awful things. Their capability is somewhat different, though, on that continuum of transnational threats."

As I said it's a new direction to finish off the small amount of AQ,declare victory and get the heck out.(That's my opinion of what they were doing)

What else is NATO suppose to do?Stay and fight for the next 10 generations to bring democracy to a bunch of tribal warlords.Do you seriously believe a strong government in the far away land of Kabul will have any effect on the tribal areas?
They will continue to live life as they have forever.

All I was saying is that seems to be the American direction as of lately.

Read some news.

Edit to add:Explain how our countries exit plan is better than the perceived USA FUTURE exit plan?
Enlighten me.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Read some news.



Thanks.  I get my info-tainment just like you do.  Read between the lines and try _understanding_ the news.  



			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> Edit to add:Explain how our countries exit plan is better than the perceived USA FUTURE exit plan?
> Enlighten me.



Our countries plan sucks.  You know that, you were there.  Not being part of the Puzzle Palace, I don't know what it looks like now, but since it appeared everyone in charge during roto 6 was in end ex/going home mode I can't imagine it is much better now that the Americans are on the ground.  
Suggesting a pull out, IMO, is a political move to sew a bit of fear into Karzai and his cabal that they may be left holding the bag.  On a darker scale, maybe if the warlords think support for Karzai is fading from ISAF, they might try to take him out.  Governance is everything and until somebody wants to put a boot in the arse of the government over there nothing is going to change.  They look at us like a bunch of cash shilling suckers that are just there to be bilked for every unearned cent they can get.  And in the Afghans defence, we have MOST certainly given them no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2009)

.... what happens when ISAF/NATO eventually leaves?  Will the AFG government be in any position to ensure such a sustained cashflow?

From what I read, that's one reason the "bribe the tribes" approach seems to work in IRQ, where there's reasonable revenue flows to direct into such payments.


----------



## gcclarke (29 Oct 2009)

I wouldn't worry too much about that. I have a feeling that Afghanistan will be the recipient of "aid" money for decades to come.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2009)

This, from the Taliban's English-language web page, attributed to the "Deputy-Amir of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan":


> We would like to tell Obama that this is an old weapon that has failed already. The British invaders used it in the 19th century but failed; the former Soviet Union used it, it failed too. The Afghan Mujahid people and the Mujahideen at the front lines have vast experiences of the past three decades in this regard and know all tactics used by the enemy.
> 
> Seeing that you failed to win the war with the help of your cutting-edge and sophisticated technology; considering that your media failed to make any ground; bearing in mind that your allies are seeking ways to leave the field and that your internal gunmen are not able even to defend themselves; realizing that your newly- formulated policies face failure one after another, then how you would be able to gain success by resorting to this devilish tactic while our people are already aware of the essence of such tactic ....



PDF version of entire statement at non-terrorist site here, with more highlights here.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Oct 2009)

You have to hand it to them.  Their IO kicks the crap out of ours.   :-\


----------



## X-mo-1979 (31 Oct 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> You have to hand it to them.  Their IO kicks the crap out of ours.   :-\


One thing we can agree on. :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2009)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> You have to hand it to them.  Their IO kicks the crap out of ours.   :-\





			
				X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> One thing we can agree on. :nod:



Only because, unlike us, the Taliban Info-machine isn't slowed down by the need to tell the truth, in whole or in part.  

Let's also not forget the media don't seem to be asking as many probing, "unofficial opposition" questions to the Taliban regarding what they say.  Or if they're asking, I'm missing what they're writing along these lines.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Oct 2009)

X-mo-1979 said:
			
		

> One thing we can agree on. :nod:



Well hell!  Even the sun shines on the dogs ass once in a while  ;D





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Only because, unlike us, the Taliban Info-machine isn't slowed down by the need to tell the truth, in whole or in part.



Yeah, but bullshit in a timely fashion is far more effective than a prepared statement later.  And I don't see anything patently wrong in what they put in that quote.  It's pretty much saying "you guys suck, you always have and appear to be planning on it in the future.  But we're gonna take your money anyway".  They know they couldn't possibly beat us in a straight fight, but then again they don't really have to, do they?  The only thing I disagree with is that _they_ beat the Russians.  If not for some massive assistance, I think the Reds had that one sewn up.


----------



## SeanNewman (31 Oct 2009)

This is nothing new, and we should get our facts straight before we point fingers at Americans on this one.

The "Peace Through Strength" program has been going on in Kandahar for years, and it is completely open source:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060615/afghanistan_defector_060616/20060616?hub=TopStories

While the names have changed since that story was written, the program is still ongoing.  No, it is not as simple as stated above like the programs here where people turn in their weapons and get cash (that's separate).

The PTS Program is not as simple as that, and entails a genuine shift of a person's priorities; similar to a witness protection program if you will.  The CF isn't running it though, it's just going on in KP by Afghans who know where people should go and they get placed on assorted constructions projects (the man running the program is the "Godfather" of KP, and not surprisingly...owns a large construction company).

Again, nothing OpSec here, just something that doesn't get a lot of media time.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (2 Nov 2009)

I know.  I renovated his office  
Not really pointing fingers at the US, except that you would think they could look at our cash hemorrhage and realize that it's not effective or even a good idea.  But until cash spent on an XL spread sheet doesn't equal a good review, we are going to be pissing our national treasure into the wind.


----------

