Concessions for peace talks with the Taliban
According to Fox News, the Obama Administration is deciding whether or not they should give the Taliban one of their commanders now being held in Guantanamo as an incentive for peace talks;
A senior U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that Mullah Mohammed Fazl is among the prisoners being considered for release. Held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002, Fazl was suspected in sectarian killings of Shiite Muslims before the U.S. invasion that toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan in 2001.
Oh, that’s not all, they’re also thinking about setting up some demilitarized zones as a concession to the people who throw acid in the faces of pre-adolescent girls. Those zones worked so well in Vietnam and between the Koreas, how could they not be considered in Afghanistan?
And, oh, yeah, the Taliban should have a headquarters financed by American tax payers, too.
Those steps were to be matched by assurances from at least part of the Taliban leadership that the insurgents would cut ties with al-Qaida, accept the elected civilian government of Afghanistan and bargain in good faith.
Yeah, this should work well. Do those mutts even know what “good faith” means? These are people who bomb market places, for Pete’s sake.
Remember when the embassy said there were no peace talks, now we’re discussing concessions.
Category: Terror War
I just read of the idiocy of giving up this Talibani. Do those imbeciles who have taken on the mission of destroying everything that is American, (that would be the present administration), think this would help our cause? It would damage us just to see the Taliban as other than a gang of thugs. Just as apologizing for all that is great about America is not doing us any good.
Damn! 2012 had better bring some true patriots to the voting booth.
I remain convinced that a political solution is a mandatory component to any cessation of hostilities, but I’m not in favor of subsidizing it [even though a case could be made for that avenue being cheaper in the long run].
@1 – I disagree on two counts. If you take away our elevation of Islamic fundamentalists as being warriors worthy of our entire foreign policy focus, it damages their IO campaign.
I also hear the ‘apology’ narrative amongst the Hanni-bot crowd, but have yet to see any evidence.
Consession? You want a consession? I’ll give you a consession! How’s about we don’t hang his scrawny neck with with a pig gut rope, then leave his carcass to rot & the buzzards to pick his eyeballs out? That concession enough for ya?
Now, ya wanna sit down an’ talk? Or not? Yer choice. Bomb’s in yer court.
Bwahahahahahaha.
This entire enterprise is based on wishful thinking. We HOPE that if we make gestures the Taliban will do like wise, the problem they never have and don’t intend to now. Mainly because they think their winning and plausibly are. How many times have the Afghan numbnuts we or the Afghan government released, who pledged fidelity, almost immediately took up arms again? They will say almost anything to get paroled, then do exactly what they had been doing before.
At the very least if we’re going to make concessions, we should at least get something from the Taliban in return.
#2″I remain convinced that a political solution is a mandatory component to any cessation of hostilities…” I agree with you but you negotiate from a place of strength. That ideal end state should be with former members of the Taliban, being given terms upon which to be welcomed back into society. You get there by elimimating the cadre, government, and, control of said movement. Not by being extra nice and hoping they’ll be nice in return.