- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,606
- Reaction score
- 19,348
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Taliban and "peace deal"... never thought I'd see those two together.
Any talk of a deal with the Taliban should make your hair stand on end. But...IF the Afghani people want to negotiate this deal and live by its arrangements then we should honor it...and get the hell out of Dodge. Because once they start with the Taliban they will be back under their control in short order...and if thats what they want...**** it. **** them. We did our job and should have been out of there a long time ago.
Taliban and "peace deal"... never thought I'd see those two together.
Some might consider it more appropriate to call that a "surrender deal".
Not so, at least not according to your article. It appears that in fact the Afghan government IS asking for it and the US is facilitating discussions with the Taliban who refuse to meet with the Afghan government at this time. Looks to me like what the US is doing is in accordance with what the Afghan government is asking...but the peace deal wont work unless and until the two sides sit down together.Who's asking the Afghan government about it?
The US doesn't appear to be doing that. If the US government was coordinating with the Afghan government then the Afghan government wouldn't be saying "Don't make a deal without us." (or words to that effect).
Not so, at least not according to your article. It appears that in fact the Afghan government IS asking for it and the US is facilitating discussions with the Taliban who refuse to meet with the Afghan government at this time. Looks to me like what the US is doing is in accordance with what the Afghan government is asking...but the peace deal wont work unless and until the two sides sit down together.
"We want peace, we want it fast but we want it with a plan," Ghani said in his address Monday.As far as we know, the bare bones of the tentative deal that would lead to the US.troops being pulled out of Afghanistan.coming home, is that if the Taliban agree not to allow any attacks on US interests to be based in Afghanistan the US will.pull out.get its troops home to their families.
What happens in Afghanistan is NOT a part of that "deal".
U.S. inches closer to deal with Taliban that could lead to American troop pullout; Afghan president calls for direct talks with insurgents
U.S., Taliban Agree on Key Points in Peace Deal (sorry, article truncated unless you go around the pay wall).
and the current Afghan government is NOT involved in it at all (the Taliban taking the position that the REAL government of Afghanistan is located in Washington DC) and it doesn't (currently) appear that the US government cares.
"We want peace, we want it fast but we want it with a plan," Ghani said in his address Monday.
"We should not forget that the victims of this war are Afghans and the peace process should also be Afghan-led... No Afghan wants foreign troops to remain in their country indefinitely. No Afghan wants to face suicide attacks in hospitals, schools, the mosques, and parks."
Ghani spoke hours after his office said it has been reassured by Washington that the talks in Qatar remain geared towards bringing the insurgents to the table with Kabul.
U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad -- who has been leading the negotiations -- arrived in Afghanistan late Sunday to update officials including Ghani on the progress made."
Seems like they care at least a little bit.
Taliban and "peace deal"... never thought I'd see those two together.
Indeed. I'll be eager to read the finer points since the Taliban is pretty one dimensional in its views of law outside of strict adherence to Islamic law. If this means that peace is essentially keeping the Taliban happy, Afghanistan will be more or less in the same boat it was in when they were in power.
The American invasion and conquest of Afghanistan had nothing whatsoever to do with "improving the lot" of the Afghans.
I'm sure that whatever they agree on, the Taliban can be relied upon to keep their word.
I know, but it makes it seem like an even more pointless endeavor if the Taliban is left having significant influence in the country; which is where I think this is heading anyway. The truth is Afghanistan has always struggled with progress because it is mainly a rural nation, so it's going to change much if at all.
From CBS News
US and Taliban "draft" framework for Afghanistan peace deal on ceasefire and withdrawal as President Ghani calls for talks
Kabul, Afghanistan -- Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said Monday the Taliban should "enter serious talks" with his government, as both the Taliban and Washington's top envoy touted significant progress during unprecedented negotiations in Qatar last week. A months-long diplomatic push by the United States to get the Taliban to talk to Kabul culminated in six days of meetings between the U.S. and the insurgents in Doha, but the Taliban have long refused to negotiate with the government of Afghanistan to end the 17-year conflict, branding them as "puppets." Even while engaging in the talks with the U.S., the militants have continued to stage deadly attacks on Afghan security forces.
"I call on the Taliban to... show their Afghan will, and accept Afghans' demand for peace, and enter serious talks with the Afghan government," Ghani said in a nationally televised address from the presidential palace in Kabul.
Both the Taliban and the U.S. cited "progress" over the weekend, and the U.S. envoy to the talks has said a "draft of a framework" for a peace deal has now been reached -- though the details still need to be filled in, and agreed to by Kabul.
COMMENT:-
I seem to recall that there was some minor "blowback" when outside parties (without bothering to involve the Czech government) discussed what would happen in Czechoslovakia some time back.
Not sure what you are advocating here.
Unending war by the U.S. in Afghanistan?
More American kids killed and wounded?
Spending tens of billions for what exactly?
Rejoice at refusing to spend additional dollars for border security for our borders but waste lives and dollars there because Obama thought it was the one war we should fight?
Is "rural" the currently acceptable alternative for "tribal"?
Rural areas cover 97 percent of (America's) land area but contain 19.3 percent of the population (about 60 million people),
"We want peace, we want it fast but we want it with a plan," Ghani said in his address Monday.
"We should not forget that the victims of this war are Afghans and the peace process should also be Afghan-led... No Afghan wants foreign troops to remain in their country indefinitely. No Afghan wants to face suicide attacks in hospitals, schools, the mosques, and parks."
Ghani spoke hours after his office said it has been reassured by Washington that the talks in Qatar remain geared towards bringing the insurgents to the table with Kabul.
U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad -- who has been leading the negotiations -- arrived in Afghanistan late Sunday to update officials including Ghani on the progress made."
Seems like they care at least a little bit.
It's not a replacement for tribal. I mentioned rural because a part of the challenge in a unified government is governance of isolated areas which are also very tribal. The population distribution between rural and urban areas in Afghanistan is very different than the US.
And the Afghan society is also one hell of a lot more "tribal" than the American society is.
For sure. You're not getting much done without talking to a tribal leader.
Controlling urban centers makes more strategic in centralized, developed nations; in Afghanistan the tribes are pretty self sufficient.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?