What have we been fighting for all those years? Why are we still there now? There must be some better way to counter the Taliban than to sign over the country to them or keep American troops there in an endless war without a goal or end point.
“The Doha Agreement – Paving The Way For The Taliban’s Takeover Of Afghanistan And Enforcement Of Shari’a-Based Governance,” MEMRI, July 12, 2019:
Introduction
At the July 7-8 talks in Doha, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban organization), backed by Qatar and the U.S., emerged victorious, extracting major advantages from Afghan delegates and the international community. A key Taliban advantage was that they held on to the Islamic Emirate’s long-standing position of not recognizing the elected government of Afghanistan as a legitimate entity. While the Afghan delegates, including those from the government, were forced to attend the talks in their personal capacity, the Taliban representatives came to the table as the Taliban.
As per a statement issued by Qatar, Dr. Mutlaq bin Majid Al-Qahtani, the Qatari Special Envoy for Counterterrorism and Mediation in Conflict Resolution, announced the “success” of the talks, stating: “We are very pleased today to reach a joint statement as a first step to peace.”[1] The “success” and the “first step to peace” which Al-Qahtani spoke of belong to the Taliban and shari’a, not to the democratic government in Kabul, not to Afghan women who suffered under the Taliban’s shari’a rule during the 1990s, and not to common Afghans whose civil liberties are at stake in Doha.
The Afghan Taliban – as a result of the Doha talks which were sponsored jointly by Qatar and Germany – marched closer to their stated objectives of enforcing Islamic shari’a rule in Afghanistan and of restructuring the Afghan government institutions, including the military, to their liking. As discussed below, the Taliban’s realization of their objectives at the Doha talks are clearly seen in four versions of the so-called joint statement agreed to, perhaps under the U.S. pressure, by the Afghan delegates.
Three Versions Of The Doha Agreement And The Taliban’s Own Version
At the official level, there are three versions of the joint statement (henceforth, Agreement) in Pashtu, Dari, and English. However, the Islamic Emirate also published a fourth version in Urdu on its official Urdu-language website.[2] In Point 3 of the Agreement, the Urdu version inserts a sentence – which does not exist in the English version – noting that Afghans made sacrifices “so that all international, regional, and national parties [to the Afghan situation] should become respectful toward the great tenets of our millat [Islamic Ummah].”[3]
The seventh round of the ongoing U.S.-Taliban negotiations were paused to accommodate the July 7-8 talks between the Taliban and the Afghan delegates. In Point 4-b, the English version says that the participants support the U.S.-Taliban negotiations and believe that “an effective and positive outcome from the negotiations will be fruitful for Afghanistan.”[4] Contrary to this, the Urdu version says the participants believe that the U.S.-Taliban talks are an “effective and positive step toward ending the ongoing war thrust upon Afghanistan.”[5]
The English version has nine points, with Point 4, Point 5, and Point 8 having respectively two, four, and eight sub-points. Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation, released the “unofficial translation” of the Agreement via Twitter[6] and acknowledged in a tweet that there was “some confusion about translations…”[7] In a tweet to Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan student of international relations expressed concern that the original Pashtu statement has “ten points.”[8] In the Urdu version, Point 6 and Point 7 have been combined, making it an eight-point document.
The Doha Agreement – A Blueprint For Shari’a Rule
All the versions of the Agreement have some differing points. Point 6 of the English version assures Afghan women of their fundamental “rights in political, social, economic, educational, cultural affairs” of Afghanistan as per Islamic values.[9] It does not “contain any reference to one of the key issues for the Taliban – their demand for the withdrawal of all foreign military forces…”[10]
On the contrary, the Pashtu version of the Agreement includes “references to the withdrawal of foreign troops as part of the roadmap,” but it does “not include any reference to guarantees for women’s rights.”[11] The Dari version, like the English one, includes “references to guaranteeing women’s rights,” but does “not mention the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.”[12] Suhail Shaheen, the spokesman of the Islamic Emirate’s Political Office in Doha, has said that the Pashtu version is the original.[13] The Agreement is non-binding.[14]
Since the Pashtu version does not talk of women’s rights, it leaves the Afghan Taliban ample space to implement their own view of what women’s rights are. The Urdu version, which is the Taliban’s official version published on their website, mentions “women’s rights” and “protection of the rights of religious minorities” in accordance with “Islamic principles.”[15]
Both these rights are understood by jihadi groups differently from the way they are understood by democratic nations. For example, women’s rights mean segregation of women in offices, schools, colleges, and all other spheres of public and home life. Similarly, jihadi groups agree to the “protection of the rights of religious minorities” only in such situations when Islam is in power and minorities live as dhimmis, second-class citizens, and agree to pay jizya, a tax on non-Muslims.
In Doha, the Taliban did not agree to a long-standing demand from the Afghan government that they agree to a ceasefire for meaningful progress to be made in Afghanistan. However, in all versions, the parties are committed to “minimiz[ing] the civilian casualties to zero.”[16] This is an important point, but it is also a surrender to the Taliban. Effectively, it means that the Islamic Emirate has declined to agree to any form of ceasefire.
This point also means that after the U.S.-Taliban negotiations, the Islamic Emirate will continue to fight against Afghan soldiers, as it does now. Also, the fact that the Islamic Emirate forced the delegates not to attend the event as representatives of the Afghan government means that the Taliban are unwilling to adopt a flexible approach on vital points. A day before the talks, the Islamic Emirate issued a statement in which it insisted that the Afghan delegates would participate “in their personal capacities.”[17]
There are points indicating that the Taliban have won this round of the talks with the Afghan delegates. For example, Point 8-a of the English version of the agreement commits the parties to “institutionalizing [an] Islamic system in the country for the implementation of comprehensive peace” – effectively planting the seeds for shari’a rule in Afghanistan.[18] In Point 2, the agreement talks of “Islamic sovereignty” for Afghan people.[19] As per Point 8-d, the participants also agreed to “reform in the preservation of fundamental institutions, defensive [sic, defense] and other national entities” of Afghanistan, effectively demanding a restructuring of Afghan government institutions to suit the Taliban’s ideological objectives.[20]…
Walter Sieruk says
On the morning of April 17, 2019 on FOX NEWS television the subject was covered about the idea of having “peace talks “with the Taliban. Viewing the history of the Taliban when they were in power in Afghanistan and the brutal ruthless misogyny they had engaged in was both vicious and malicious to the extreme.
Therefore the question ,naturally, was brought up ,now that peace talks” might soon begin, the Taliban it was asked it they return to power in Afghanistan “ would they respect female rights ?”
To that question the Taliban replied “that when back in power they would respect woman‘s rights but only to the limits of the cultural of will they permit those rights of women.”
The point is the the “cultural of Afghanistan” is really the religion of Afghanistan, which is Islam.
Therefore the reality is that female rights, for both girls and woman, will not exist in a future Taliban controlled Islamic state of Afghanistan . For Islam is a religion of harsh and malice- filled misogyny.
As explained in the book, by Brigitte Gabriel, of the title THEY MUST BE STOPPED. Her book informs the readers on page 172. “Woman in Islam are considered unclean, deemed inferior even to dirt.”
CRUSADER says
Brigitte Gabriel
ACT for America
http://www.ACTforAmerica.org
Walter Sieruk says
Having actual, real, genuine productive “peace talks” with those brutal ,cruel misogynistic Taliban characters is an absurd and fool idea of folly.
One thing is for sure, even if even attempting to engage on “peace talks” with Taliban it would be best not to be naïve about them and take at face value anything that they might say or promise. To just “give trust away” to those Islamic characters who compose the Taliban would be foolishness and folly. For when trying to have genuine negotiations with the them ,it need to be kept in mind that there is an Islamic doctrine called TAQIYYA This is the Muslim dogma the lying and deception are good things to do, if and as long as the lies and deceit are done for the advancement of Islam.
For the deceptive and disingenuous Taliban have proven many times over, by their own actions, that they are a ruthless, brutal vicious gang of thugs with no honor. So in any kind of “dialogue” the Taliban will most likely speak the truth only when it happened to suite them. The rest of the time they will be speaking half-truths and also be outright lying. Likewise, the Taliban will keep their word in anything that they may happen to promise only and long as in fits into their agenda and no longer. So before engaging of the foolishness of attempting to have genuine “talks for a peace alliance” with Taliban, the officials of the current government would do well to heed the wisdom of Sun Tzu found in THE ART OF WAR. For it instructs “We cannot enter into an alliance neighboring’s princes, until we are acquainted with their designs.” To put this in a more updated and current way, it may be said that “We cannot enter into a peace alliance with the Taliban until we know the actual intentions and real schemes.”
Furthermore, if attempting to engage in “peace talks” with Taliban it would be very naive to take at face value anything that the Taliban might promise. For example, the Taliban might say that they will respect the rights of women and girls, for they ,many times, employ the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya In those so called “negotiations” with officials of the West .Taaqyia ids the Islamic teaching that lying and deceit
So it may be nothing but foolishness and folly to even try to have worthwhile constructive peace discussions with lying brutal cruel men who make up the Taliban . For having a genuine practical peace compromise with Taliban might be impossible
As the former US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, had well-spoken when he said “There has never been – there never can be – successful compromise between good and evil.”
paul 316 says
Well put! What happened to the American resolve that we would not negotiate with terrorists? This idea that there will be an agreement to anything with the Taliban is a farce. As usual, the thugs will rest and regroup and ready themselves for the next strike. Am I just imagining or has there been fewer Islamic attacks on USA soil since Trump came into office?
Hassan says
Taliban are made in America. Don’t you ever forget that it was American politicians n diplomats who constantly visited Afghan refugees camps on neighboring Pakistan and addressed vast crowds of refugees saying that jihad was your religious duty and they should fight against Soviets who were occupying Afghanistan during 1980s. It was Americans who crafted the policy of turning religious sentiments into war against Soviets. They succeeded in turning ordinary people into zealots with the funding of another terrorist country Saudi Arabia. Saudis behead people in public places for crimes even to make negative comments againsts ruling family and America fully supports them.
Neil Schmidt says
The refugees had the choice of doing nothing. “Turning religious sentiments into war against Soviets?” Surely you jest! Had the Americans not influenced Afghan citizens to fight against the Russians, little old Afghanistan would have now be part of Russia, under Russian control.
You seem to want it both ways, and insinuate that America is to blame for nothing other than trying to support Afghanistan’s own citizens to fight for their own country. In case you forgot, “ordinary people” in America turned themselves into “zealots” two hundred years ago when the country fought for its independence from England. Sad that you now blame America for the failure of Afghans to follow suit.
gravenimage says
I see the grotesque Hassan is saying that his pious coreligionists would not be oppressing infidels and stoning women to death if the ‘filthy Infidels’ hadn’t made them do it.
Try again, creep.
Angemon says
Right, everything is Infidel America’s fault – next you’ll be telling us it was Trump’s tweets that created the sunny-shia split…
Angemon says
“It was Americans who crafted the policy of turning religious sentiments into war against Soviets”
Right, because who, until then, ever connected islam with religious war?
Clive Delmonte says
I agree. However, taking the longer view, I think it also true that all empires eventually crash and burn. This will happen to the Syrian, ISIS, Chinese and other regimes. The question is: How much effort and blood should expended to hasten the collapse of a regime ? Perhaps it is best (especially if you live somewhere else!) just to wait. After all, the Soviet regime collapsed without anyone firing a shot !
b.a. freeman says
U’re right, Clive, they taliban *are* just waiting for the west to collapse. and judging by the complete and utter lack of knowledge of islam among the “leaders” of the west, not to mention the leftist-inspired lack of knowledge of our own culture by the majority of citizens in every western republic, they don’t have too long to wait. the west has the best technology and the best-trained troops in the world, but in the end, our societies will collapse, thanks to the attacks of the pious ummah on a blind and unprepared public. the left will grab control of the west … for a while. sooner or later, the ummah will take over, because the hundreds of thousands of hard-core leftists want to live, but the millions of the pious ummah want to die more than the hard-core leftists want to live. suicide bombers succeed where leftist governments fear to go.
CRUSADER says
Why did FDR compromise a blend of evil with good
for America with his Big New Deal?
Large Government and Welfare Wickedness have only grown
and groan since then!!!
Don McKellar says
So … you invade a hardline moslem country which is devoid of any other religion or culture or world view. Then it comes time to leave the country because you wiped out the moslem sect who attacked you first and that was being harboured by the country and now their leader is dead. So how do you think this is going to end when you leave? Do you really think that you’re going to negotiate an end to the war with a fake democratic government you prop up yourself with your own money and military support? They couldn’t exist before you came, so what in the world makes you think they can exist when you leave? No, you have to negotiate with the hardline moslems who were there when you got there. If you knew anything about Islam, you would realize that it is always an ongoing battle for who is more pious and more vicious and cruel. That’s the Taliban — or rather it was…
Look on the bright side. When you leave the Taliban in charge of Afghanistan again, this time they have an even more pious group growing in their midst: the Islamic State. And they’ll battle the Taliban. So really, if you play your cards right, you could set it up as a perpetual war in Afghanistan between hardline moslems. That, to me, seems the best outcome possible given the hopelessness of the situation.
Frankly, this is the correct way to approach the entire moslem world. An all out war between Iran and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged and enabled in a stealthy way, keeping distance. Then keep it sustained for as long as possible until the whole devil’s cauldron is reduced to rubble.
RonaldB says
An even better way to approach the whole Muslim world is to not approach it at all. Stay away and leave them to their own devices. If contractors, such as oil field workers, want to work their for the wages, they’re on their own. They choose to work away from the protections of law and constitutional government, they take their risks.
PRCS says
Agree.
How bad do they want that money?
CRUSADER says
Is this the end result that Charlie Wilson wanted?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbOI7oiMEWE
Don McKellar says
Charlie was on a plane with Epstein to the island when this decision happened. There are no such characters as Julia Roberts played in this world — they exist only in left-fascist Hollywood screenwriters’ imaginations.
CRUSADER says
The Washington Times writes that, “Conservative officials who served in the Reagan administration are upset by the left-wing slant of the new movie” — Charlie Wilson’s War. They “said the movie promotes the left-wing myth that the CIA-led operation funded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and ultimately produced” the 9/11 attacks. “The officials blamed the anti-Reagan slant of the film on the movie’s screenwriter, Aaron Sorkin.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/hollywoods-dangerous-afghan-illusion-charlie-wilsons-war/5331107
Below is Robert Parry’s incisive and timely April 2013 article on Hollywood’s slanted interpretation of the Soviet Afghan war. The US supported “Freedom Fighters” were Al Qaeda. The Afghan Mujahideen were jihadist mercenaries recruited by the CIA. It was all for a good cause: destabilize a progressive secular government, occupy and destroy Afghanistan, undermine the Soviet Union.
“Reagan’s pet “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan as in Nicaragua were tainted by the drug trade as well as by well-documented cases of torture, rape and murder.”
Robert Parry’s Legacy is Truth in Media!
At this juncture in our history during which independent media is threatened, Robert Parry lives in our hearts and minds.
— Michel Chossudovsky, January 29, 2018
**
A newly discovered document undercuts a key storyline of the anti-Soviet Afghan war of the 1980s – that it was “Charlie Wilson’s War.” A note inside Ronald Reagan’s White House targeted the Texas Democrat as someone “to bring into circle as discrete Hill connection,” Robert Parry reports.
Official Washington’s conventional wisdom about Afghanistan derives to a dangerous degree from a Hollywood movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War,” which depicted the anti-Soviet war of the 1980s as a fight pitting good “freedom fighters” vs. evil “occupiers” and which blamed Afghanistan’s later descent into chaos on feckless U.S. politicians quitting as soon as Soviet troops left in 1989.
The Tom Hanks movie also pushed the theme that the war was really the pet project of a maverick Democratic congressman from Texas, Charlie Wilson, who fell in love with the Afghan mujahedeen after falling in love with a glamorous Texas oil woman, Joanne Herring, who was committed to their anti-communist cause.
However, “Charlie Wilson’s War” – like many Hollywood films – took extraordinary license with the facts, presenting many of the war’s core elements incorrectly. That in itself might not be a serious problem, except that key U.S. policymakers have cited these mythical “facts” as lessons to guide the current U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan.
The degree to which Ronald Reagan’s White House saw Wilson as more puppet than puppet-master is underscored by a newly discovered document at Reagan’s presidential library in Simi Valley, California. I found the document in the files of former CIA propaganda chief Walter Raymond Jr., who in the 1980s oversaw the selling of U.S. interventions in Central America and Afghanistan from his office at the National Security Council.
The handwritten note to Raymond appears to be initialed by then-National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane and instructs Raymond to recruit Wilson into the Reagan administration’s effort to drum up more Afghan war money for the fiscal 1985 budget. The note reads:
“Walt, Go see Charlie Wilson (D-TX). Seek to bring him into circle as discrete Hill connection. He can be very helpful in getting money. M.” (The notation may have used the wrong adjective, possibly intending ”discreet,” meaning circumspect and suggesting a secretive role, not “discrete,” meaning separate and distinct.)
Raymond appears to have followed up those instructions, as Wilson began to play a bigger and bigger role in unleashing the great Afghan spending spree of 1985 and as Raymond asserted himself behind the scenes on how the war should be sold to the American people.
Raymond, a 30-year veteran of CIA clandestine services, was a slight, soft-spoken New Yorker who reminded some of a character from a John le Carre spy novel, an intelligence officer who “easily fades into the woodwork,” according to one Raymond acquaintance. But his CIA career took a dramatic turn in 1982 when he was reassigned to the NSC.
At the time, the White House saw a need to step up its domestic propaganda operations in support of President Reagan’s desire to intervene more aggressively in Central America and Afghanistan. The American people – still stung by the agony of the Vietnam War – were not eager to engage in more foreign adventures.
So, Reagan’s team took aim at “kicking the Vietnam Syndrome” mostly by wildly exaggerating the Soviet threat. It became crucial to convince Americans that the Soviets were on the rise and on the march, though in reality the Soviets were on the decline and eager for accommodations with the West.
Yet, as deputy assistant secretary to the Air Force, J. Michael Kelly, put it, “the most critical special operations mission we have … is to persuade the American people that the communists are out to get us.”
The main focus of the administration’s domestic propaganda was on Central America where Reagan was arming right-wing military juntas engaged in anti-leftist extermination campaigns. Through the CIA, Reagan also was organizing a drug-tainted terrorist operation known as the Contras to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.
To hide the ugly realities and to overcome popular opposition to the policies, Reagan granted CIA Director William Casey extraordinary leeway to engage in CIA-style propaganda and disinformation aimed at the American people, the sort of project normally reserved for hostile countries. To oversee the operation – while skirting legal bans on the CIA operating domestically – Casey moved Raymond from the CIA to the NSC staff.
Raymond formally resigned from the CIA in April 1983 so, he said, “there would be no question whatsoever of any contamination of this.” But from the beginning, Raymond fretted about the legality of Casey’s involvement. Raymond confided in one memo that it was important “to get [Casey] out of the loop,” but Casey never backed off and Raymond continued to send progress reports to his old boss well into 1986.
It was “the kind of thing which [Casey] had a broad catholic interest in,” Raymond shrugged during a deposition given to congressional Iran-Contra investigators in 1987. Raymond offered the excuse that Casey undertook this apparently illegal interference in domestic politics “not so much in his CIA hat, but in his adviser to the president hat.”
Raymond also understood that the administration’s hand in the P.R. projects must stay hidden, because of other legal bans on executive-branch propaganda. “The work down within the administration has to, by definition, be at arms length,” Raymond noted in an Aug. 29, 1983, memo.
As one NSC official told me, the campaign was modeled after CIA covert operations abroad where a political goal is more important than the truth. “They were trying to manipulate [U.S.] public opinion … using the tools of Walt Raymond’s trade craft which he learned from his career in the CIA covert operation shop,” the official said.
From the NSC, Raymond organized inter-agency task forces to bombard the U.S. public with hyped-up propaganda about the Soviet threat in Central America and in Afghanistan. Raymond’s goal was to change the way Americans viewed these dangers, a process that the Reagan administration internally called “perception management.”
Scores of documents about this operation were released during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987, but Washington-based journalists never paid much attention to the evidence about how they had been manipulated by these propaganda tactics, which included rewarding cooperative reporters with government-sponsored “leaks” and punishing those who wouldn’t parrot the lies with whispering campaigns in the ears of their editors and bureau chiefs. [See Robert Parry’s Lost History.]
Even after the Iran-Contra scandal was exposed in 1986 and Casey died of brain cancer in 1987, the Republicans fought to keep secret the remarkable story of this propaganda apparatus. As part of a deal to get three moderate Republican senators to join Democrats in signing the Iran-Contra report, Democratic leaders dropped a draft chapter on the CIA’s domestic propaganda role.
Thus, the American people were spared the chapter’s troubling conclusion: that a covert propaganda apparatus had existed, run by “one of the CIA’s most senior specialists, sent to the NSC by Bill Casey, to create and coordinate an inter-agency public-diplomacy mechanism [which] did what a covert CIA operation in a foreign country might do. [It] attempted to manipulate the media, the Congress and public opinion to support the Reagan administration’s policies.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Iran-Contra’s Lost Chapter.”]
“Kicking the Vietnam Syndrome”: U.S. Interventionism and the Victory of ‘Perception Management’
Raping Russians
Hiding the unspeakable realities of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan was almost as high a priority as concealing the U.S.-backed slaughter in Central America. Reagan’s pet “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan as in Nicaragua were tainted by the drug trade as well as by well-documented cases of torture, rape and murder.
Yet, Raymond and his propagandists were always looking for new ways to “sell” the wars to the American people, leading to a clash with CIA officer Gust Avrakotos, who was overseeing the Afghan conflict and who had developed his own close ties to Rep. Charlie Wilson.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/hollywoods-dangerous-afghan-illusion-charlie-wilsons-war/5331107
Chand says
Fortunately for the world, there are saner heads at work amongst the powers that be that’ll try their best to prevent another Islamic State Caliphate in Afghanistan.
somehistory says
Remembering the war, the photos and film of the women dressed completely in black, hunched-over, running from the taliban creeps carrying whips, and the film of the women being stoned by the taliban creeps for “adultery” or other “crimes,” even when pregnant…and the reporters saying that was going to stop.
The taliban watching over the poppy fields…and claiming they were against the drugs made from poppies, while raking in the money from the sale of same….
What was all the dying for? One of the “four horsemen” in the Book of Revelation, is “war”…given a large sword and granted to “take peace away from the earth.” There will be no “peace” from these creepy taliban.
I noticed Karzai…the guy who was “elected” by the people, showing their purple fingers, and then who was found to be corrupt. Evidently, nothing has changed for all of the blood shed.
“They are saying ‘there is peace, there is peace’ when there is no peace.”
“There is no peace for the wicked one, my God has said.”
Tricia Stuercke says
somehistory, those images are exactly what are circling my mind… those beautiful, exuberant, proud faces as they held up their purple fingers! This is so far beyond devastating! Everyone, PRAY for MARCUS LUTRELL, “The Lone Survivor”: his entire unit was killed by The Taliban… he’s had a helluva road; may Jesus hold him tight right now.?
CRUSADER says
“Operation RED WINGS”
Burner Jack says
Peace? With the Taliban?
Know Islam, no peace.
No Islam, know peace.
Satan has no honor.
No bargain struck with Satan will ever hold.
Stan Lore says
Get out. Leave Afghani civil matters to them. It is a Muslin dominant country and always will be. It is not a country like Iraq or Egypt or Ssudi Arabia with central government. Afghanistan is made up pieces of turf controlled by chieftains and small militias. The only advantage we gain by staying is preventing it from being infiltrated by Iran backed forces or other less desirable forces.
RonaldB says
The US has a history in the Middle East and Muslim countries of going in like gangbusters, winning the war, and losing the peace spectacularly. And the US is going to lose the peace each and every time it attempts to form a representative government in a Muslim country.
I was reading a list of countries with special forces
https://www.thetoptens.com/most-well-trained-special-forces/
and it seems most US allies have sent special forces, in their goggles and webbed feet, to Afghanistan. And what did it get us?
The one important objective for Afghanistan was to kill bin Laden quickly and cleanly, and all our special forces and air superiority couldn’t manage that. They subordinated that task to the objective of nation-building, and it went downhill from there.
Of course, the Taliban are going to institute a sharia regime. The alternative is to continue to dump trillions of dollars and thousands of soldier lives into the trash heap of Afghanistan. The failure of 9/11 was not the Taliban’s aggression against the US, but the complete and utter failure of any US entry controls (thank the Bush State Department) and the “wall” built between US foreign intelligence and domestic security (thank Clinton Justice Department’s Jamie Gorelick, now padding her resume as lawyer for Ivanka and Jered Kushner).
The principle was enunciated as early as Machiavelli: if you’re going to conquer a foreign country, either plan on moving there to live permanently, or forget about occupying it. Israel did the first; the spectacularly disastrous US occupation of Iraq illustrates the second.
So, the sooner we get out, the better. The Taliban are not going to give up anything because they don’t have to. We put ourselves in that position as soon as we decided to nation build in Afghanistan.
Shirley Ann says
So, Afghanistan will Once Again be a Taliban Stronghold. May we send all Afghanis in the
U.S.A., back to their Peaceful Paradise. One of the Bloodiest “Sports” I read About in Afghanistan, was Playing Polo with Live Cats. The Beings of Afghanistan, are Not Human Beings, regardless of what Our Politicos & Military Say.
Krishna says
AFGANISTAN now officially enters sharia fiasco country
Angemon says
Better than the US and its allies leave ASAP. What’s the point, anyway? Either most of the population outright refuses to live under sharia law – and I mean ALL of it, not some sort of half-way law like “we don’t behead blasphemers, we just whip them a couple of hundred of times” – and the taliban will find it very hard to wage guerilla against the rest of the nation, or they won’t, n which case no amount of foreign meddling will have any sort of lasting results. No need to waste any more Western blood and bullion trying to force a solution that must come from within the Afghani population itself.
Angemon says
Oh, and earlier this year I read reports about ISIS’s growing presence in Afghanistan. I wonder how they’ll fare if they don’t have a common foe to rally against?…
RichardL says
The Allies established the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan whose constitution is based on the shari’a. It is a small step to re-establish the Caliphate of Afghanistan. All the dead and wounded, all the money wasted are no argument not to withdraw today and drone the shit out of terrorist camps when they pop up.
gravenimage says
I don’t think any of the Infidels realized what it meant to base a society on Islam. Of course, they *should* have found out.
Ravi says
The exit of Communist Soviets led to the fall of communism. The exit of defeated US will lead to the rise of Sharia and Islamic militancy. This is a great motivator for all Muslim extremist organizations from Mindanao to Damascus and from Chechnya to Sri Lanka. Keep committing suicide bombings, terrorist acts and reward is ding…ding…ding you get to own a country. Is Europe next? Already France is fraying with an almost certain possibility of Islamic partition. French, Belgian, Swedes had only no go areas until now, now they will have no go countries in their own fatherlands.
Demsci says
Withdrawal from Afghanistan, in as honorable a way as possible, but with no more illusions of stopping the Taliban terrorists taking back power. Yes please, pleeaase.
There is such a complicated situation that makes it difficult what is the most humane way to withdraw. Is the US honor bound to save current allied Afghans? Let’s do it, but withdraw, finally. Afghanistan is so hopeless.
Among other factors it comes from trying to save MUSLIMS from other Muslims. From thinking that Westerners can make an Islamic country a democratic country and that the Moderate Muslims could be trustworthy allies against radical Muslims. It comes from ignorance about Islam. And from political correct attitudes from both the Bush and Obama administrations.
There are hardly any successes, improvements in Afghanistan after 18 years of war and it is still one of the most corrupt countries in the world. The US lost and wasted trillions of dollars. The American and Western people by and large surmise this. Pres. Trump feels it. And some in the Democratic Party advocate it too; notably Tulsi Gabbard, who also wants out of this war badly.
So if it is at all honorable enough, saving the few “good allied people” who are in fear of their life, take and cut your losses, get out, and hopefully the American people will appreciate president Trump for it, making Tulsi’s Appeal moot, November next year.
Demsci says
C;arification; with “it comes from” I of course mean the failed. Still disastrous, hopeless and very costly in lives and money situation In Afghanistan
Eric Jones says
Reagan had Afghani leaders in the White House to negotiate access to oil and gas in Central Asia. Oil and gas is what it is about. When we leave we should cut ties with Pakistan and leave Afghanistan to ts own devices. Our position should be that we will not do business with a Afghanistan under sharia.
Eric
gravenimage says
What claptrap. We’ve never been able to extract oil and gas in significant amounts in chaotic, violent Afghanistan.
Mark Swan says
gravenimage,
Perhaps what Eric Jones was pointing out was the following.
“Transnational energy giants that have been scrambling for ways to exploit the huge oil and gas reserves in Central Asia“—the needed pipeline could pass through Afghanistan.
http://www.prorev.com/2009/08/why-is-afghanistan-so-important.html
Eric Jones says
gravenimage
My comment is not claptrape. There is a photo of Ronald Reagan meeting with Afghani leaders in the White House. Afghanistan is a gateway to oil and gas reserves in Central Asia. Check the record.
Eric
Mark Swan says
“Transnational energy giants that have been scrambling for ways to exploit the huge oil and gas reserves in Central Asia“—the needed pipeline could pass through Afghanistan.
http://www.prorev.com/2009/08/why-is-afghanistan-so-important.html
gravenimage says
I am well aware of this. The idea that because an American president over 30 years ago thought it might be possible for the region to one day be peaceful enough to lay a pipeline hardly means that “oil and gas is what it is about”.
gravenimage says
And Mark, I would take the claims of the Progressive Review with a rather large grain of salt.
Mark Swan says
Yes, I agree, the link I provided did show several articles from different media sources—
this was just a first glance and grab at what the search for oil and gas in central Asia
brought-up—information that has been around since the 90’s, at least, nothing new.
Thank gravenimage.
CRUSADER says
“Another Broken Window” scene
from
CHARLIE WILSON’S WAR….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ_4m2ocxhI
Gork says
Yes, withdraw now, with a caveat: Should we ever have to go back, we won’t bother with boots on the ground. May God have mercy on them. We won’t.
CRUSADER says
Decorated Green Beret, 40, killed in Afghanistan remembered by commander
https://www.foxnews.com/world/decorated-green-beret-killed-in-afghanistan-remembered-as-beloved-warrior
A decorated Green Beret on his seventh combat tour was identified Sunday as the U.S. service member killed in action in Afghanistan.
Sgt. Maj. James “Ryan” Sartor, 40, of Teague, Texas, died Saturday in Faryab Province “as a result of injuries sustained from enemy small arms fire during combat operations,” the Pentagon said.
“We’re incredibly saddened,” said Sartor’s commander Col. Brian Rauen, KKTV reported. “Ryan was a beloved warrior who epitomized the quiet professionals. He led his soldiers from the front, and his presence will be terribly missed.”
The death was under investigation. Green Beret James “Ryan” Sartor, 40 was on his seventh tour of combat when he was killed in action in Afghanistan on Saturday.
Sartor was assigned to Fort Carson’s 2nd Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group. His awards and decorations include a Bronze Star, the Army Times reported.
KKTV reported that Sartor joined the military 20 years ago and served five tours of duty in Iraq, one as an infantryman and four as a Green Beret.
He served another full tour in Afghanistan and was on his second in the country when he was killed, KKTV reported.
Sartor was the tenth U.S. service member to die in Afghanistan during combat in 2019.
The Taliban claimed it was behind the attack that resulted in Sartor’s death.
Don Ameche says
We made the mistake of not doing as we did in WW II……completely annihilating the enemy.
Simon Sinak has a 2015 youtube on game theory and American foreign policy. We seemed to be fighting the FINITE conflict whereas they are fighting the INFINITE conflict. Ie, we are not and have not approached this with the goal of our values but rather of a limited “interest”.
Carl Goldberg, PhD says
The whole purpose of these “peace’ talks with the Taliban is to allow America to save face when we withdraw. Our government needs to save face before all of our wounded veterans and all of the loved ones of our American soldiers who were killed. Then, when the Taliban renegs on any “peace promises”, we can blame it on them. If America’s leaders had understood anything about Islam, we would have gotten out of Afghanistan right after overthrowing the Taliban nearly eighteen years ago. We should never have undertaken the impossible task of remaking the Afghan Moslem society into a Western-style democracy. That was a fool’s errand because the Taliban are much closer in every way to the majority of the Moslem Afghan population than we infidels could ever be.
OLD GUY says
Well said ! The only other way would be to level the place.