Gen. Petraeus Supports Talks With Taliban?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   
I had heard of the Gen. going for an alternative interaction With the Taliban for purposes of banishing the top leaders of Al Qaeda members beyond some of the controversial boarders that the US has really no access to by means of air or troop deployments with out an in-depth consideration of these said Governments and their approvals.
I guess the one thing that sticks in my Craw is , "If we do get the Taliban to side with us, knowing their past history of how they feel about the US being capitalists and the real terrorists, how could we possibly trust they wouldn't leak out future deployment operations or status of troop placements by someone in the Taliban that is extremist against the USA occupation?"


October 30, 2008 · Gen. David Petraeus, who once led U.S. troops in Iraq, becomes head of the U.S. Central Command Friday. That position includes responsibility for the war in Afghanistan. Petraeus already has endorsed reaching out to less-extreme Taliban elements. He also is expected to send more troops and air power to support the war in Afghanistan.


There is a long list of Gen. Petraeus's (hopeful} accomplishments, but the real out comes of these ideas has yet remained as idea's to be seen as factual and/or doable.


"If you had the luxury of a peacetime environment," Fallon says, "you could focus on long-term strategies and have a reasonable time to phase them in. But CENTCOM is pretty hot. You become in many ways a hostage to current events."


And this is what I am talking about, there is a strong possibility that there are those of the Taliban that would play allied just to be in the "Circle" to do more harm than good for the US troop's.
Though Gen. Petraeus has his mindset to win this war is it possible he is getting too brave with his powers of being the head of such military operations of this magnitude and is jeopardizing the welfare of our troops?


High Profile Creates A Backlash
He also displayed some of the traits that have made him unpopular among some fellow officers, including intense ambition and competitiveness, qualities that have earned him the nickname "King David."


www.npr.org...

Knowing that Centcom is the basic beating heart of the US force engagements, what would happen if it turns out we were being duped into thinking that the Taliban was "Totally" in agreement with the US's ideas of infiltration and extermination of Al Qaeda representatives of the areas in question?
Gen. Petraeus is now in a position of this power and has pretty much indicated that he wants to go through with this uniting of the US and the Taliban enforcements.


Gen. David H. Petraeus, who most recently served as commander of multi-national forces in Iraq, will assume command of Centcom, which is at MacDill Air Force Base, in a ceremony scheduled for Friday.


www.bizjournals.com...

Though there has benn much Hub-bub over the advent of the Centcom construction since Gen. Petraeus's inauguration back in September of this year, it is still a far cry from being the attempt of absolute surety or even for that matter a congregation of people in total agreement with it's publicly announced creation of up and coming ideas for the strategies of the war on terrorism.


Petraeus team to review CentCom


In addition, some of those involved worried that if the initiative became public too quickly, “people could get their knives out and try to undermine this thing,” the source added. “There could be the suspicion that this is kind of a military takeover of policy, which it’s not. The idea is to take enduring interests and policy, and then figure out how to be more effective at applying a whole-of-government approach to the problem sets across the [area of responsibility].”



This particular idea of Gen. Petraeus does have it's good aspects, and at the same time there are those of the committee that have their doubt's as well. Though very ingenious of it being brought to light by the Gen., there would be very hard and very , how should I say, "Compromising" scenarios if this idea were to go south.


“We all know what needs to happen,” Nagl said. “The question is whether we’re going to commit the resources required to resource the strategy.”





“It validated some things, it brought other things to light,” the officer said. “Not all the recommendations were taken at face value, but it’s very useful to have those kinds of, so to speak, external looks to bring new ideas [and] new sets of eyes onto the problem.”



www.armytimes.com...

US Air Force Brigadier General Robert Holmes had made a statement on a US military website sometime back, and there was one line in the rebuttals of his statements that really caught my eye. I have been staying undivided about the Gen. Petraeus instituting the Taliban as allies, but I still have a bad feeling about the possibilities that lay wide opened for a possible counter intelligence being created by the Taliban that are still very much capable of hatred towards the USA.Even though this was back in 2007, the stable or most promising act would be to follow protocol as it was already set. I am not being paranoid,I'm looking at the eye's of the poker player's and knowing what I have in my hand..


U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Holmes, Deputy Director of Operations, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM)
Foreign Press Center Briefing
New York, New York
May 24, 2007

Now, in having said the security operation continues, we see successes, I would be disingenuous with you if I said that, yes, there is still violence. We see violence that we want to assist the Iraqis in curbing because that is essential that we do that.
In Afghanistan, NATO remains committed. Their operations are well underway in continuing to route and engage the Taliban, which creates the conditions for continued development and reconstruction and the economic development of Afghanistan as that nation also stands up its very fledgling government.


fpc.state.gov...

"Their operations are well underway in continuing to route and engage the Taliban?"

That doesn't sound as if there is a good representation of possibly recruiting them as an ally, by no shot in the dark. ....IMHO


So, I don't know if I am the only one to feel this way, but there should be some concerns as it begins to unravel itself for possible realities of our troops and national securities of our military strategies.

"So, what do all you military and political gurus think will happen, whether we do or don't incorperate the Gen. strategy into the war on terrism?"



If the government of Afghanistan, as they have now publicly expressed the desire to, wishes to step up its reconciliation efforts with the Taliban, that is their prerogative,'' Geoff Morrell said in Washington yesterday. Omar, because of his support for al- Qaeda ``has the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands. We do not reconcile with al-Qaeda.''


www.bloomberg.com...

{Thought's?}


[edit on 103131p://2974 by Allred5923]

[edit on 123131p://4274 by Allred5923]




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
"Should the US confide in the Taliban regime and take possible chances of 'Cloak and dagger scenario's, or should we as concerned citizens of the terrorist possibilities feel comfortable with this involvement of such people that have truly injured us before?"

I , for one fall in the rift of concern and conjunction of not to allow this to happen. But, as I had said before, it would be a great asset if there were any guarantee's of no exposures of US military involvement disclosed to the wrong people by the matrimony of taking the Taliban as an ally on the war on terrorism.

It's really hard not to want this to happen for possible the affects of getting the war over sooner than anticipated, but at the same time, it could be one of the biggest blunder's to ever hit US militant leaders decisions.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:40 AM
link   
In some areas of the country, the Talibs are certainly better talked to than shot at. Any advance on negotiations is certainly an option it would be a mistake to discard outright.

Having heard AF Brig. Gen. Holmes talk about this on the radio, I would have to say Petraeus has some excellent advisors in the context of Afghanistan but their effectiveness is mitigated somewhat by

1. The ongoing economic destabilizing of the country by the war, inc. heroin production

2. The general unpopularity of the kasai government

3. The taliban troop build up in and enclaves in Pakistan



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by undermind
 


I do agree with you that it would be a waste of good intel. but at the same time we have to understand of how the affiliations of the US and the Taliban had emerged.



VI. The Covert-US Taliban Alliance

Western motives become clearer when one recalls that it was the US that originally trained and armed the faction in Afghanistan - even “long before the USSR sent in troops” - which now constitutes the “leaders of Afghanistan”.[40] The record illustrates the existence of an ongoing relationship between the United States and the Taliban. AI reports that even though the “United States has denied any links with the Taliban”, according to then US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphel Afghanistan was a “crucible of strategic interest” during the Cold War, though she denied any US influence or support of factions in Afghanistan today, dismissing any possible ongoing strategic interests. However, former Department of Defense official Elie Krakowski, who worked on the Afghan issue in the 1980s, points out that Afghanistan remains important to this day because it “is the crossroads between what Halford MacKinder called the world’s Heartland and the Indian sub continent. It owes its importance to its location at the confluence of major routes. A boundary between land power and sea power, it is the meeting point between opposing forces larger than itself.


And for the US to have such an affiliation with found out undeniable evidence's of this affair taking place to our general public allows me to think that there is strong possibilities of there being that one "Insider" that is willing to betray the trust of the US military to further their cause of radical actions and attacks against the US.


VII. US Policy Shifts Against the Taliban

The shift in US policy in Afghanistan from pro-Taliban to anti-Taliban, has not brought with it any change in the tragic condition of the Afghan people, primarily because the policy shift is once more rooted in America’s own attempt to secure its strategic and economic interests. Since the Taliban no longer plays a suitably subservient role, US policy has grown increasingly hostile to the faction. The shift has also, unfortunately, occurred “without public discussion, without consultation with Congress and without even informing those who are likely to make foreign policy in the next administration.”



www.mediamonitors.net...

The website posted above is an old one, but it does give some very insightful views of how the Us and Taliban had it's companion conception place in the past.

To me, it is obvious that the US and Taliban have been bed fellows from the time the Taliban have been assembled, and the history of the US and Taliban is a bit less explosive today than back in the earlier years, and like any other disassociated groups all over the world, there seems to be an element of possible security and treason problems, both from the US to the Taliban affiliation and the Taliban members that still wish us harm, no matter what the consequence of their personal actions.

I am not saying all Taliban member's are bad people, but if there was an opportunity for something very bad to happen to possibly even one of our troop battalions, this would be the best guess to cause problems amongst the ranks of the US military and the affiliates of the head leaders towards the US being extremely vulnerable to an inside attack, which is not thought left too be left a side.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I do see this topic is not getting the attention it deserves, whether it be from the long read or the sickening of a bad topic, it should be addressed as a possible down fall of the US military operations and infiltrations t combat the alleged "Terrorist" groups and the powers that still linger on the front of the war on terrorism.


Before its ouster by U.S.-led forces in 2001, the Taliban controlled some 90 percent of Afghanistan's territory, although it was never officially recognized by the United Nations. After its toppling, the Taliban has proven resilient. In November 2007, the Senlis Council, a London-based think tank, estimated that the Taliban maintained a "permanent presence in 54 percent of Afghanistan" (PDF), and continued to exert influence on regions outside the central government's sphere of control, predominantly in southern and eastern provinces. In rural regions where government or coalition aid has not materialized, the Taliban continues to "rally popular support" for its policies, Senlis says.
Western military analysts say it is difficult to gauge the number of Taliban fighters under arms in Afghanistan. In October 2007, the New York Times reported the group might field as many as ten thousand fighters, but a much smaller fraction—less than three thousand—are full-time insurgents. Those numbers inched up in June 2008, when coordinated suicide bombings freed roughly four hundred Taliban fighters from a prison in Kandahar.



After the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan ceased to be a priority for U.S. strategists, but Saudi Arabia and Pakistan continued their support.


www.cfr.org...

This particular information comes from "The Council of Foreign Affairs" and deserves to be understood and recognized as what it is, I am amazed that this issue is not getting the recognition it deserves.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923
reply to post by undermind
 

... we have to understand of how the affiliations of the US and the Taliban had emerged.

That's a very long story, which goes back arguably to Rockefeller exploring for oil in the area in the 1890s.

Leap forward to US agencies response to Soviet expansion in 1980's, where they funded the wahabist Madras system in pakistan and parts of afgh. As a source of insurgent warfare against the USSR.

Take another leap forward and look at the interaction between Pak. And US intelligence cooperation in promulgating the war and right there you get into some very murky waters.



VI. The Covert-US Taliban Alliance

Western motives become clearer when one recalls that it was the US that originally trained and armed the faction in Afghanistan - even “long before the USSR sent in troops” - which now constitutes the “leaders of Afghanistan”.[40]

If the US did originally train them - and they did - then all bets were off after the first gulf war, and the wahabist declaration of the US as commiting the great blasphemy of having troops present in Saudi Arabia.


The record illustrates the existence of an ongoing relationship between the United States and the Taliban.

Yes, but see this could not be a public relationship, at least as far as the Talibs were concerned. They would lose all credibility amongst their wahabist supporters.
In was in this context that US diplomacy..


AI reports that even though the “United States has denied any links with the Taliban


Where denying links with the taliban was a pre-condition of having links with the taliban, if that makes sense.

So, implications? It means the talibs could never have official links with the US unless it proclaimed itself an official enemy of foreign wahabist insurgents in both afghan and iraq, with a view to forming a coalition with the present afghan government after NATO withdrawal. This is their alternative to civil war after withdrawal.


[edit on 31-10-2008 by undermind]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
If the infra-structure is in place, "Then why all the secrecy other than worrying about the Wahabists thought of the integration of the Taliban as an ally to the US secret and working forces?"


So, implications? It means the talibs could never have official links with the US unless it proclaimed itself an official enemy of foreign wahabist insurgents in both afghan and iraq, with a view to forming a coalition with the present afghan government after NATO withdrawal. This is their alternative to civil war after withdrawal.


I still don't see the reason why there would be such Hub-bub over this affair taking place in the public eye, if there would be some sort of citizen coup to the aftermath of joining the US as allies, wouldn't there be some kind of commitment from either side to not allow this to happen?

In one of the findings I had posted, there was a mention of how clouded the general estimate of the Taliban had remain even after they had be ousted by the US military. One states that , by the American assessment, there were fewer than 30% of the original Taliban left, but on another study, by the Afghans, it said that there still remained approximately 54% of the original. Now, to me, this sounds as if the US really doesn't know what the true statistics are, or they were intentionally misinformed to allow a resurgence of the Taliban to take place only under the title of Taliban, but could be a possible Wahhabist connection of secrecy's and agenda.


The fort is 12 miles outside Wana, the main town in South Waziristan, a tribal region considered a hub for al-Qaida and Taliban fighters involved in attacks on U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan.



In a statement Sunday, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani condemned the suicide attack in South Waziristan, saying he "deplored the loss of innocent lives."


news.yahoo.com...

This is an event that could some very possible grievous effects on all aspects of this turning into a more serious and very plausible war that the US and the citizens of the US do not need or want after the botched previous wars in the middle East. IMHO...





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join