# Possibility of withdrawal from Afghanistan?



## benl (7 Apr 2007)

http://spaces.brad.ac.uk:8080/download/attachments/748/Brief3finalised1.pdf

This is a link to an article, on Pakistani/Taliban/Co-alition relations.  It talks about Pakistans wishes to present the "West" with an intermediate Taliban regime that would be an pseudo acceptable version that we on this side of the pond could stomach, while simultaneously appeasing the pro Taliban Pashtuns, thus solidifying more lucrative relations between Pak and Ghan.
I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't be in Ghan...I was just wondering out of my own curiosity if this is a viable option for a "face saving exit" (to paraphrase the author) of Co-alition forces?  Is any version of the Taliban tolerable by "our" standards of living and human rights?
I really do not intend on starting a thread for rhetorical rants, so please only post based on legitimate fact, or links to other articles/websites please!!!


----------



## geo (7 Apr 2007)

Uhh...
1.  Who says we need to save face?  Or is it Pak & TB who are looking to save face?
2.  What is there to be gained by our pulling out at this stage?
3.  What is there to be lost by abandoning the mission at this stage?
4.  Will the Afghan people be in any better position with a TB gov't in place?
5.  Will the International community be in any safer position with a TB gov't in place? (this question is, in actual fact, key to the analysis - with radical extremists declaring victory - will it not encourage other groups to strike out as well?)


----------



## benl (8 Apr 2007)

The author was not saying (nor was I implying) that we need to save face as far as the mission goes, at all.  I didn't articulate that point properly so you took it out of context (my fault) so let me elaborate.  What was meant by saving face was that leaving Afghanistan under the control of a "stomachable" version of the Taliban would be as though neither side won or lost.  On the one hand, Ghan would be under Tliban control, which according to this article is what most Afghans want...(according to this particular article, which my post is based on!  As far as I know actual public opinion in Ghan could be completely antividous to this statement).  Then with a watered down version of the Taliban being less fundamentally extreme and psychotic (under this scenario) they would be more likely to stick to their own devices of procuring a more ecenomically sound and globalized Afghan nation by trading with Pak and Iran, leaving the West alone rather than "fighting western decadence" (I ****** hate that slogan by the way)  
Essentially in this scenario it's a mix of a win/win, lose/lose, stalemate for all sides involved, but theoretically as far as any lefty is concerned is the best outcome for all parties involved, Ghan, Pak, us.
Now from reading your post I couldn't help but feel that I offended you or gave the impression that I'm a bleeding heart whiner that "just can't wait until this vile bloodshed ends...sob...sob"  when in truth I really want to know more about the whole geopolitical scene over there and was hoping I could get some legitimate information from first hand experience regarding the whole Taliban situation...They're with Al-qaeda, then they're selling out bin laden, they're for the people, then they're women abusers??? There is so much information it's hard to sift through it all to the actual truth and not always rely on popular opinionas being entirely factual.  Basically my main questions would be, can there even be such thing as a Co-alition/Taliban negotiating table with Pak as a sort of Arbiter or mediator to both sides...or is every last one of them so fanatically embedded with hatred for our culture that fighting truly is the last and only resort we have left?
And also I start basic training on May 7th for infantry and just want to know if this conflict has the potential to be over before I even get to serve my time?


----------



## onecat (8 Apr 2007)

Sorry man, but what you just wrote is giving up.  Canada would not be saving face and it would be a lose for Canada. The Taliban would never let go, and there is no lesser Taliban.  The Key for Afghanistan is for the west to stay there long enough to get the country working.  Its been broken for a time and will take more than 5 yrs to fix.  This is the key problem as most westerns think everything is a quick fix and if its not a quick fix, they want out.


----------



## redleafjumper (8 Apr 2007)

I think the premise of the question is flawed in that it assumes that there is a more tolerable version of a regime which as its base  principle holds a view that western culture is fundamentally evil.  The Taliban is a political, cultural and monotheistic (like Judaism and Christianity) religious-based entity which hates the west so much that they harboured and trained Al-Queada terrorists who have carried out terrorist acts around the world, including bombings, hijackings and the odd low-level flight into New York.  The Taliban's treatment of women, of cultural and historical sites and of their own people is well known.

The Taliban has declared jihad against the west, by all the evidence this is no mere idle boast, it is serious and longterm.  
"We have the watches they have the time..." is the usual refrain about the westerners.

Is there a tolerable version of the Taliban; I don't think so - was there a tolerable version of the 3rd Reich?

Cheers,


----------



## geo (8 Apr 2007)

Lucky Strike said:
			
		

> The author was not saying (nor was I implying) that we need to save face as far as the mission goes, at all.  I didn't articulate that point properly so you took it out of context (my fault) so let me elaborate.  What was meant by saving face was that leaving Afghanistan under the control of a "stomachable" version of the Taliban would be as though neither side won or lost.  On the one hand, Ghan would be under Tliban control, which according to this article is what most Afghans want...(according to this particular article, which my post is based on!  As far as I know actual public opinion in Ghan could be completely antividous to this statement).  Then with a watered down version of the Taliban being less fundamentally extreme and psychotic (under this scenario) they would be more likely to stick to their own devices of procuring a more ecenomically sound and globalized Afghan nation by trading with Pak and Iran, leaving the West alone rather than "fighting western decadence" (I ****** hate that slogan by the way)
> Essentially in this scenario it's a mix of a win/win, lose/lose, stalemate for all sides involved, but theoretically as far as any lefty is concerned is the best outcome for all parties involved, Ghan, Pak, us.
> Now from reading your post I couldn't help but feel that I offended you or gave the impression that I'm a bleeding heart whiner that "just can't wait until this vile bloodshed ends...sob...sob"  when in truth I really want to know more about the whole geopolitical scene over there and was hoping I could get some legitimate information from first hand experience regarding the whole Taliban situation...They're with Al-qaeda, then they're selling out bin laden, they're for the people, then they're women abusers??? There is so much information it's hard to sift through it all to the actual truth and not always rely on popular opinionas being entirely factual.  Basically my main questions would be, can there even be such thing as a Co-alition/Taliban negotiating table with Pak as a sort of Arbiter or mediator to both sides...or is every last one of them so fanatically embedded with hatred for our culture that fighting truly is the last and only resort we have left?
> And also I start basic training on May 7th for infantry and just want to know if this conflict has the potential to be over before I even get to serve my time?



Funny thing  about the taliban...
- They approve of religious schools... that only teach the Koran & only to men - so the women go back to illiteracy.
- They believe that all women should neither be seen nor heard... so back to the full burkha.
- They want to control the media - so no more international TV & radio... back to a single radio station that is controlled by the taliban & their propaganda
- They want........... etc, etc, etc...

The Afghan people are tired of war & want peace in their time.... this does not mean that they support the TB

The current Afghan gov't is a hodge podge of individuals & groups - you don't build a democracy overnight.  A gov't infrastructure, staff & services requires revenues - and the Afghan people are in no position to start paying taxes - so it'll be a while and take some time to develop the resources from which to pay it's employees consistantly and on time every month....

All the people of Afghanistan want the TB ???

I for one don't think so!


----------



## benl (8 Apr 2007)

Thanks redleafjumper...that last senence really puts it in perspective...that's all I wanted to hear.


----------



## Flip (8 Apr 2007)

Actually I think the Third Reich were perfectly reasonable by comparison. ;D

If the Taliban had the resources of the Third Reich - God help us all.

Anyway, you can't blame Pakistan for trying to wiggle out of a very hard place.
I think the document described what would be easiest for Pakistan.( no one else )

The Northern Alliance people would not like to put up with "Taliban Light"
on their southern side - this would certainly lead to trouble.

The Taliban - like the Third Reich should to be eliminated so that they NEVER have
political influence again.

Pakistan is the spoiler, A safe haven for what's left.  It would be best if the Taliban 
could be separated from their Pakistani supporters.  But that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2007)

Flip -- its not Pakistan specifically that is the spoiler -- its the border arears -- which are Pashtun in buildup -- and for all intensive purposes the Taliban home.
  
Like Iraq, we (the West) cannot afford to give up.  We need to show the moderates that the West will support them, and that they have not foolishly allied themselves with us.  If we fail in this task no one will be safe again.  Islamofacists will have a staging base to create a large web of terror.  I for one would rather take the fight to them in an area where we can help the moderates to win, and in doing so, we all win.


----------



## TCBF (9 Apr 2007)

It's not a case of if we pull out, the Taliban load up in a bunch of landing craft and hit the beaches of Vancouver Island.

It's a case of all of the wannabee's in Europastan and Londonistan watching which way we go on this, and seeing which way the wind will blow.


----------



## KevinB (9 Apr 2007)

Crap I just lost a long reply.

Basically its not just that -- sure pink Europe is watching -- but its greater than that.  
 Not only will the homgrown radical islamic militants have a base of support -- but we will have shown we don't have the balls to stop them.
  The moderates in those countries will be dead.

Its two major things -- supporting our allies -- and ensuring our collective safety.

Don't want to have the nuts to do that -- fine show up to the execution booth in your coveralls for your handing them the blade to cut your neck.


----------



## benl (9 Apr 2007)

Eeesh!!!! not a chance MO FO!!!  I actually feel like a bit of a puss-puss for posting this now.  I mean in my own defence I didn't know I was 100% clear on the issue, but apparently it's pretty cut and dry, and apparantly I am.
I thought the author made light of some interesting points, but they are entirely based on the best outcome for Pakistan and Pak alone.  If a withdrawl of any kind encourages these islamofacist (I really like that one by the way) in their cause then we have to stay and we have to, and WILL win the fight.
I do get it now...It's like some jackass bully that keeps saying he's gonna beat your ass beacause he hates you because your cooler than him and actually get girls and go to parties/have friends, etc...you hear from people that he's planning on jumping you in a dark alley when your not expecting it.  Now you can either wait for this guy to bring down the hammer...or you can walk up to his front door...ring the bell...wait until he comes out...and trottle him to within an inch of his life so he and everyone like him knows that that kind of bull**** won't be tolerated!!
Now I hope I don't sound like a gung ho idiot here but goddamn man I really want to be our buddies overhand left and strike a blow for our side!!!


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Apr 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Crap I just lost a long reply.
> Its two major things -- supporting our allies -- and ensuring our collective safety.



In the case of this war, at this point, I personally dont give a rats ass about supporting our allies or looking after their collective safety. I do, however, care about taking care of this murderous cancer of Islamic fundamentalism before it takes further root at home. Landing craft are not required [as per TCBF] if these pricks push us out, they will simply move from the mosques in Brampton to your local public square.          



> Don't want to have the nuts to do that -- fine show up to the execution booth in your coveralls for your handing them the blade to cut your neck.



Agreed.


----------

