Afghanistan

[classicman]

Taliban Leader in Secret Talks Was an Impostor

KABUL, Afghanistan — For months, the secret talks unfolding between Taliban and Afghan leaders to end the war appeared to be showing promise, if only because of the repeated appearance of a certain insurgent leader at one end of the table: Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, one of the most senior commanders in the Taliban movement.

But now, it turns out, Mr. Mansour was apparently not Mr. Mansour at all. In an episode that could have been lifted from a spy novel, United States and Afghan officials now say the Afghan man was an impostor, and high-level discussions conducted with the assistance of NATO appear to have achieved little.

“It’s not him,” said a Western diplomat in Kabul intimately involved in the discussions. “And we gave him a lot of money.”

American officials confirmed Monday that they had given up hope that the Afghan was Mr. Mansour, or even a member of the Taliban leadership.

NATO and Afghan officials said they held three meetings with the man, who traveled from across the border in Pakistan, where Taliban leaders have taken refuge.

The fake Taliban leader even met with President Hamid Karzai, having been flown to Kabul on a NATO aircraft and ushered into the presidential palace, officials said.

Link

[sexobon]

Does it matter? Does anyone really believe that Taliban leaders' negotiations would be anything other than delaying tactics for circumventing hostilities to conserve firepower with which take over again after US withdrawal? President Karzai's pathetic government wouldn't be competent enough to prevent a takeover a decade from now let alone by the 2014 commencement of US downsizing there. The US - Karzai alliance has to capture the hearts and minds of Taliban followers. If the alliance deals with the Taliban leadership, it gives that leadership legitimacy to bind their followers to anyone they choose ... including Al Qaeda. Trying to wean Taliban followers from its leadership after that is a fool's errand and commits us to perpetually buying their passiveness. McCrystal understood that the current US administration's policy (it's cheaper and politically expedient to dance with the devil) made him an impotent flunky for short term gain. He rejected it. Petraeus understands this too; however, Betrayus has ambitions that make him willing to accept the role. He knows he'll be retired before the ramifications come back to haunt us, a lesson he learned from GWB.

[Griff]

US presence in Afghanistan as long as Soviet slog

By PATRICK QUINN, Associated Press Patrick Quinn, Associated Press – Thu Nov 25, 4:37 pm ET

KABUL, Afghanistan – The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.

Anyone remember how long did the SU lasted after their over-reach?

[ZenGum]

That fake Mansour incident has me torn.

I find it very amusing that some scammer has just conned a global military force, and gotten away with the loot. Cheeky and talented.

I find it very worrying that it is our side in the war that just got scammed. It appears we don't even know what our enemies leadership looks like, and are hopelessly lost among the politics of Afghanistan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

We know who they are, just not where they are, or what they look like.

[tw]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

I find it very worrying that it is our side in the war that just got scammed. It appears we don't even know what our enemies leadership looks like, and are hopelessly lost among the politics of Afghanistan.

Welcome to VietNam. Exact same scenario. Back in America, we had no idea who was winning or losing in 1968 even though reality had been known in 1965.

Did we lose that war in 2003 when George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban? How many years had the Taliban retaken Afghanistan before you knew it?

The purpose of war is always - there is no exception - to take the conflict back the negotiation table. Apparently in trying to do just that, a scam artist prospered. But it does not change the only way to win a war - we must always talk to our enemies. No way around that reality. The only problem in Afghanistan is trying to get them to talk. And to know we are talking to our enemy.

But again, we will only learn how well we are doing in ... well in Vietnam, we were losing in early 1960s. For many who are experts on this stuff, that reality did not become obvious until 1968 - the Tet offensive. For many Americans, the defeat was not apparent until 1972 or 1975 when the Pentagon Papers or the fall of Saigon made it impossible to deny reality.

We do not yet know if we lost the Afghan war back in mid 2000s. Hard facts are hard to separate from the chaff. So much chaff because many are preaching a political agenda rather than grasping the number one purpose of war. To take that conflict back the negotiation table.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw neglects to mention the Democratic-controlled Congress of the first half of the 1970s, and its direct role in collapsing the Saigon government. And of course the "reeducation camps" that followed, along with a couple million extra deaths, all because of socialism, and a quarter million surviving boat people, same cause -- with all of which he seems altogether content, as long as it impairs both this Republic and humanity's God-given birthright of freedom together. The motivations beneath what he writes about Vietnam remain disgusting. If only the man were perceptibly anti-totalitarian. He isn't.

[Lamplighter]

The US Administration has "completed" it's review of the war in Afghanistan, but the
public debut and the prospects of it becoming public information seemed very, very slim.
Where's Wikileaks when you need them ?

On TV, Sec of State Clinton said very little of substance,
except the current montra of "Pakistan needs to do more"

NY Times
Report Shows How Pakistan Still Bedevils Obama
By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: December 16, 2010

Even the toned-down, public version of the one-year progress report
released by the White House on Thursday makes clear President Obama is still in search
of the leverage he needs to persuade, or compel, Pakistan to close down
the safe haven for terrorists and insurgents that has let a battered al Qaeda leadership
and a vigorous Taliban survive.

The classified version runs more than 50 pages, and the White House is holding it
so tightly that it is unlikely to be widely distributed on Capitol Hill;
senior members of Congress can request classified briefings, officials said.

They spent a year developing this report, but I should done it for them
My report has been stuck on the back of my truck for about a year:

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

They spent a year developing this report, but I should done it for them
My report has been stuck on the back of my truck for about a year:

Uh, no. They didn't spend a year developing the report. They report is where they stood when it was completed, 5 months after Petraeus took command, and may not even be valid now.
Your cutsie bumper sticker, is just a less than clever statement of your opinion, and has no bearing on the realities or consequences of any actions taken but the coalition in Afghanistan.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Your cutsie bumper sticker, ... has no bearing on the realities or consequences of any actions taken but the coalition in Afghanistan.

And let's be perfectly clear about this. We have no idea if we have already lost. The consequences of not doing nation building may have already sown the seeds of defeat. At some time, we must decide whether we were already defeated long ago when George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban in 2003.

All other relevant parties are also making decisions based upon what occurred in 2003. For example, why would Pakistan want to be helpful? Pakistan is vying for control after America leaves. Pakistan is at war with India over who will be their ally in Afghanistan. From Pakistan's viewpoint - and especially because Afghanistan is so much like the South Vietnamese government (corrupt) - Pakistan only cares about winning the hearts and minds of the victor. Doing so to defeat India.

How do we get Pakistan to conduct war against the Taliban? The Karzai government must be replaced by a government that does not promote overt corruption. But that is not going to happen. Just one of so many reasons why we have been defeated so many years ago. And we still do not yet know it.

How do great nations fold? They end up trying to get into wars everywhere. The two longest (hot) wars in America's history - Mission Accomplished and Afghanistan. And we are paying for them at Halliburton prices using Chinese money.

Even if we win militarily, how serious is this defacto defeat? And bin Laden still runs free thanks to George Jr's surrender in 2003. Never forget the disaster preached by George Jr when he said, "America does not do nation building."

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Uh, no. They didn't spend a year developing the report. They report is where they stood when it was completed, 5 months after Petraeus took command, and may not even be valid now.
Your cutsie bumper sticker, is just a less than clever statement of your opinion, and has no bearing on the realities or consequences of any actions taken but the coalition in Afghanistan.

Oh, I'm sad it didn't appeal that much to you.

I'm not sure, how many countries from the original "coalition of the willing" are still in"?
People don't usually leave the winning team

As in the last years of the the Viet Nam war (for those of us old enough to remember ),
the situation seems very similar... militarily and politically.

Presidents have a very hard time getting past the "not on my watch" attitude.
So we hear more and more often from leaders that,
- even tho our troops have done everything we asked of them,
the war can not be won militarily, only politically and so it's now up to
[insert current favorite - Vietnamization / Afghanstanmization / Pakistanimization].

So rather than wait for a another political turning-point,
like the Tet Offensive, where we won the battle but lost the war
it's reasonable to support our troops by bringing them home.
Yes, it is just my opinion.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The sentiment, In my opinion, is an option which should be seriously placed in consideration, and not trivialized as a bumper sticker slogan.

[DanaC]

Popular expression of hot and very deeply felt political issues has always contained that kind of thing though. Ok, granted there weren't any 'Free the Slaves' stickers on the carriages during the civil war, but there were coins, and plaques and ceramics, and other such objects with pictures and slogans: such as the abolitionist emblem of the kneeling slave, in chains, and the slogan 'Am I not a man and a brother' across the top.

From History Org.

Any political movement needs a symbol and a motto. The American abolitionists found theirs in the kneeling slave in chains, surrounded by the words "Am I Not a Man and a Brother." First adopted by the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade in England, it became the enduring emblem of abolitionists and antislavery activists on both sides of the Atlantic. Josiah Wedgwood manufactured unglazed stoneware cameos like this medallion [at right] by the thousands and gave them away to supporters of the movement. Benjamin Franklin, always one to recognize good publicity when he saw it, thought the cameos would be an effective weapon against the slave trade.

This kind of sloganizing in European and American popular and political culture has deep roots. I don't see it as trivialising.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Your cutsie bumper sticker, is just a less than clever statement of your opinion, and has no bearing on the realities or consequences of any actions taken but the coalition in Afghanistan.

Heh. I should post a pic of my bumper stickers.... I have some that reflect my clever statement of how F'd up our government is currently. One says "Got Bilked?" with a pic of Pelosi, Reid, and Biden.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

This kind of sloganizing in European and American popular and political culture has deep roots. I don't see it as trivialising.

Sloganizing is exactly what's wrong with our politics.
Factions tossing slogans back and forth, never discussing solutions, never even finding out what they actually agree on.