The Latest: Mattis says trust is question in Taliban talks

[VanceMack]

As I said, they were not the only Democrats who said things. Back then, I argued that there was no coherent plan and that the expectation that the country welcome us with open arms was dangerously naive.

So did I.

 

[Cardinal]

So did I.

Cool.

 

[SCrider]

Ben Laden found refuge among the Taliban, but there's no evidence that the Taliban had anything to do with Ben Laden's plans for 9-11, which was done because of US presence in the holy land of Islam, in Saudi Arabia, not because of any problems the US had with the Taliban per se. I suspect that if the Taliban knew what Bin Laden planned they would have kicked him out.

The US attacked Afghanistan because that's where Ben Laden's organization was, n'est-ce pas?

Ben Laden is long gone. What are we still doing there?

We ended up killing him in Pakistan, right? Why did we not attack that whole country as well?

 

[ecofarm]

We ended up killing him in Pakistan, right? Why did we not attack that whole country as well?

Nukes.

 

[SCrider]

Nukes.

yep, and I can see why Iran and N Korea want them so badly.

 

[ecofarm]

yep, and I can see why Iran and N Korea want them so badly.

Ukraine sealed the deal. No one will ever give up nukes again.

 

[braindrain]

When the US commandos were given a stand down order after they had him, Bin Laden cornered in the mountains.

Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies, and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan's loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency...."

TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN LADEN AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY​

So the reason you think that Bush wasn't serious about Afghanistan is because Bush wanted the Afghan fighters who were working with us to be involved in the destruction of the Taliban in order to try and give them legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people. Sorry but that doesn't really make any sense what so ever.
When attempting to have a local force overthrow their government a very key task is ensuring that group has legitimacy with the local population. Making every effort to not have them apart a US puppet is incredibly important That is pretty common knowledge for any one who has a clue about unconventional warfare.

The US made many mistakes in Afghanistan but trying to keep the locals as involved as possible was not one of them. In fact

 

[Moot]

So the reason you think that Bush wasn't serious about Afghanistan is because Bush wanted the Afghan fighters who were working with us to be involved in the destruction of the Taliban in order to try and give them legitimacy in the eyes of the Afghan people. Sorry but that doesn't really make any sense what so ever.
When attempting to have a local force overthrow their government a very key task is ensuring that group has legitimacy with the local population. Making every effort to not have them apart a US puppet is incredibly important That is pretty common knowledge for any one who has a clue about unconventional warfare.

The US made many mistakes in Afghanistan but trying to keep the locals as involved as possible was not one of them. In fact

That's not what I think, nor was nation building the reason or goal for invading Afghanistan, Mr. Strawman.

The goal was to "dismantle al-Qaeda, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power." The best way to dismantle Al Qaeda was to kill it's ideological leader, Bin Laden and his small band of terrorists when they had the chance. Get a clue, braindrain.

 

[braindrain]

That's not what I think, nor was nation building the reason or goal for invading Afghanistan, Mr. Strawman.

The goal was to "dismantle al-Qaeda, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power." The best way to dismantle Al Qaeda was to kill it's ideological leader, Bin Laden and his small band of terrorists when they had the chance. Get a clue, braindrain.

Who said nation building was the goal for invading Afghanistan. Oh thats right Noone. Just because your nonsense got called out there is no reason to start making crap up.

And you think that Noone in the US government understood that by removing the Taliban, the acting government of that country, that another group would have to take over. And we wanted it to be the somewhat less extremist groups we were working with. I am sorry but this is really simple stuff here. That fact that you can't figure this out is surprising. And yes using US troops unilaterally would have been the best way to kill OBL but that wasn't our only goal as you yourself just stated and it would have hurt are chances to achieve those other goals.

It's quite clear one of us needs to get a clue but it sure isn't me.

 

[Moot]

Who said nation building was the goal for invading Afghanistan. Oh thats right Noone. Just because your nonsense got called out there is no reason to start making crap up.

And you think that Noone in the US government understood that by removing the Taliban, the acting government of that country, that another group would have to take over. And we wanted it to be the somewhat less extremist groups we were working with. I am sorry but this is really simple stuff here. That fact that you can't figure this out is surprising. And yes using US troops unilaterally would have been the best way to kill OBL but that wasn't our only goal as you yourself just stated and it would have hurt are chances to achieve those other goals.

It's quite clear one of us needs to get a clue but it sure isn't me.

You don't know what I think. But at this point, I can tell you it's not nice. So take your stupid strawman and go somewhere else because I'm not interested in reading your BS.

 

[RAMOSS]

True, there was no clearly defined mission. Without that it's damn near impossible to know when the mission is accomplished.

We should have never invaded Iraq. If it had been debated in Congress and voted on - as the Constitution dictates - I doubt seriously that the US would have invaded Iraq.

I'm not certain America learned that much from our experience in Vietnam.

There was also the misinformation that was given to Congress about Iraq from the white house, such as the state of their WMD capabilities.

 

[braindrain]

You don't know what I think. But at this point, I can tell you it's not nice. So take your stupid strawman and go somewhere else because I'm not interested in reading your BS.

You are right I don't know what you think which means I have to rely on what you wrote. Which unfortunately up to this point has been absolute nonsense

But it is also rather clear you can't actually address any thing I said so are playing stupid games.
So please quote the strawman I made up. That or simply admit you simply are making things up.

Look I get it you don't like that your nonsense was called out but there is no need to simply make crap up.

 

[bluesmoke]

From Associated Press

The Latest: Mattis says trust is question in Taliban talks
​

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on U.S. negotiations to end the war in Afghanistan (all times local):
12:35 p.m.

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis says that when it comes to trying to negotiate an Afghanistan peace deal with the Taliban, the key question is whether or not they can be trusted.

Mattis cites past U.S. nuclear talks with the Russians, when the American side talked about “trust but verify.”

He tells CBS’ “Face the Nation” that “I think you want to verify, then trust” in dealing with the Taliban.

Mattis says the U.S. since the Bush administration, has “demanded that they break with al-Qaida” but “they’ve refused to do so.” He also says “we should never forget” that they were behind the Sept. 11 attacks.

COMMENT:

Mr Mattis is correct when he says that "trust is (the) question". The US doesn't trust the Taliban and the Taliban doesn't trust the US.

However Mr. Mattis' "'we should never forget' that they (the Taliban) were behind the Sept. 11 attacks" is an absolute howler. There hasn't been anything funnier than "Mission Accomplished".​

Trust is the question. And that question is "How can we trust Trump?"

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Al Qeada is still in Afghanistan and the Taliban are still giving them a safe haven.

But I think it's really Pakistan that concerns the US....

"...Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP; Urdu: تحریک طالبان پاکستان‎, or the Taliban Movement of Pakistan), alternatively referred to as the Taliban, is a radical terrorist armed group which is an umbrella organization of various militant groups based along the Afghan–Pakistani border. Most Taliban groups in Pakistan coalesce under the TTP.[21] In December 2007 about 13 groups united under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud to form the Tehrik-i-Taliban.[22] Among the Tehrik-i-Taliban stated objectives are resistance against the Pakistani state.[22][23] TTP aim is to overthrow Government of Pakistan by waging terrorist campaign against the Pakistan armed forces and the state.[24] TTP depends on tribal belt along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to draw its recruits. TTP draws ideological guidance from al-Qaeda and maintain ties with al-Qaeda.[24]..."

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan - Wikipedia​

You might also be interested in reading "Al-Qa`ida’s Comeback in Afghanistan and its Implications" (admittedly it's a bit dated by now).

You might also find "Deadly Cooperation: The Shifting Ties Between Al-Qaeda and the Taliban" from which

"Allies can have areas of major divergence. And the Taliban and al-Qaeda certainly do. Since the inception of their relationship, the two groups have differed on their strategic objectives, priorities, and tactics. The Taliban continues to be staunchly focused on Afghanistan and has never embraced al-Qaeda’s global jihadist ambitions. For its part, al-Qaeda has consistently pursued its agenda with a disregard for how doing so has affected the Taliban."​

comes to be interesting.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Taliban can be trusted -- as much as Kim and Putin can be trusted.

The amount of trust that can be reposed in any person or organization really depends on how well your understanding of the motives and goals of that person or organization accords with the actual motives and goals of that person or organization.

"Trusting" a person or organization without an actual understanding of the motives and goals of that person or organization is just about as useful as "trusting" that a coin toss will come up heads everytime you call heads. However, you can do quite well shooting craps with someone else's loaded dice if you know how they have loaded their dice.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I'm just stating the facts, not my opinion.

My opinion is that Afghanistan became a lost cause when Bush took his eye off the ball and focused on Iraq.

Tora Bora convinced me that Bush wasn't serious about capturing Bin Laden. Maintaining the Saudi's as an ally merely confirmed it.

At this point, I think if the US pulled out of Afghanistan it would empower the Taliban to take over not just Afghanistan, but Pakistan as well.

The last is a good point - PROVIDED that you think that the Saudis actually want the Taliban to have access to nuclear weapons.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

When the US commandos were given a stand down order after they had him, Bin Laden cornered in the mountains.

Fewer than 100 American commandos were on the scene with their Afghan allies, and calls for reinforcements to launch an assault were rejected. Requests were also turned down for U.S. troops to block the mountain paths leading to sanctuary a few miles away in Pakistan. The vast array of American military power, from sniper teams to the most mobile divisions of the Marine Corps and the Army, was kept on the sidelines. Instead, the U.S. command chose to rely on airstrikes and untrained Afghan militias to attack bin Laden and on Pakistan's loosely organized Frontier Corps to seal his escape routes. On or around December 16, two days after writing his will, bin Laden and an entourage of bodyguards walked unmolested out of Tora Bora and disappeared into Pakistan's unregulated tribal area. Most analysts say he is still there today.

The decision not to deploy American forces to go after bin Laden or block his escape was made by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, the architects of the unconventional Afghan battle plan known as Operation Enduring Freedom. Rumsfeld said at the time that he was concerned that too many U.S. troops in Afghanistan would create an anti-American backlash and fuel a widespread insurgency...."

TORA BORA REVISITED: HOW WE FAILED TO GET BIN LADEN AND WHY IT MATTERS TODAY​

Do you know how many "foreigners" it takes before an Afghan decides that there are "too many foreigners" around?

In some areas the number is as low as one.

Do you know what it takes to be defined as a "foreigner" in Afghanistan?

In some areas all it takes is "Wasn't born in this village." (in others the definition is the MUCH stricter "Isn't actually related to me even by marriage.").

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We ended up killing him in Pakistan, right? Why did we not attack that whole country as well?

Oh, that's an easy one, it's because

Pakistan is one of America's best friends in "The War on Terror" and the Pakistani government had absolutely no idea that Osama bin Laden was living in Pakistan. We know that the Pakistani government never told the US government where Osama bin Laden was living and the Pakistani government would have informed the US government IMMEDIATELY if they had even the slightest suspicion where Osama bin Laden was living. We know that the Pakistani government would have informed the US government IMMEDIATELY if they had even the slightest suspicion where Osama bin Laden was living because Pakistan is one of America's best friends in "The War on Terror", and ...​

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

That's not what I think, nor was nation building the reason or goal for invading Afghanistan, Mr. Strawman.

The goal was to "dismantle al-Qaeda, and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power." The best way to dismantle Al Qaeda was to kill it's ideological leader, Bin Laden and his small band of terrorists when they had the chance. Get a clue, braindrain.

Did you know that it is REALLY difficult to "kill an ideology" (which is what "The Base" is built upon)?

The non-Nazi nations succeeded in killing Adolf Hitler. That means that absolutely no one pays any attention to the ideology behind Nazism any more - right?