Comments on: Right By My Side Where You Supposed To Be http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/ Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:59:36 -0600 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: macaquerman http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3192 macaquerman Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:03:59 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3192 <p>Call me crazy, but I always thought you tried that before going to war.</p> Call me crazy, but I always thought you tried that before going to war.

]]> By: marcs http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3191 marcs Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:44:19 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3191 <p><i> Meeting you enemies core needs in order to stop fighting? Is that as important as meeting your own core needs? </i></p> <p>everything depends on whether your enemies core needs really conflict with your own core needs. Negotiation is the process by which you examine whether that conflict is really there, or whether everyone can satisfy their needs at once. It’s amazing how often you can discover that core needs really don’t conflict.</p> Meeting you enemies core needs in order to stop fighting? Is that as important as meeting your own core needs?

everything depends on whether your enemies core needs really conflict with your own core needs. Negotiation is the process by which you examine whether that conflict is really there, or whether everyone can satisfy their needs at once. It’s amazing how often you can discover that core needs really don’t conflict.

]]> By: macaquerman http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3187 macaquerman Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:42:27 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3187 <p>Meeting you enemies core needs in order to stop fighting?<br /> Is that as important as meeting your own core needs?<br /> marcs, above, points out that our focus should be on terrorists looking to strike us in the US. That is exactly why we went into Afghanistan. It seems to me that any negotiation with factions of the Taliban should be in furtherance of that objective.<br /> Ask not what we can do for the Talban…</p> Meeting you enemies core needs in order to stop fighting?
Is that as important as meeting your own core needs?
marcs, above, points out that our focus should be on terrorists looking to strike us in the US. That is exactly why we went into Afghanistan. It seems to me that any negotiation with factions of the Taliban should be in furtherance of that objective.
Ask not what we can do for the Talban…

]]> By: marcs http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3184 marcs Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:56:04 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3184 <p>Negotiating with the Taliban strikes me as an absolute no-brainer. Afghanistan was supposedly just a means to the end of combatting the Al-Qaeda led conspiracy against us. Now, it is threatening to become an end in itself. That is very dangerous, both because it is a drain on our strategic resources and because military presence as an occupying force in that region of the world puts us in a conflict situation with the Taliban and even Pakistan. We don’t necessarily need to be in that situation. We should be looking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan that allows for maximum strategic focus on terrorists looking to strike us in the U.S.</p> <p>The neocons have had a lot of success in selling a strategy of multiplying our enemies as much as possible — you’re not morally or strategically serious unless you want the U.S. to lead a world crusade uprooting Muslim fundamentalism wherever it lives. But Muslim fundamentalism is a phenomenon rooted in local conditions halfway around the world, that does not require conflict with the U.S. except under particular conditions. This is like the Cold War situation where we had to be the enemy of any local nationalist movement that used communist rhetoric.</p> Negotiating with the Taliban strikes me as an absolute no-brainer. Afghanistan was supposedly just a means to the end of combatting the Al-Qaeda led conspiracy against us. Now, it is threatening to become an end in itself. That is very dangerous, both because it is a drain on our strategic resources and because military presence as an occupying force in that region of the world puts us in a conflict situation with the Taliban and even Pakistan. We don’t necessarily need to be in that situation. We should be looking for an exit strategy in Afghanistan that allows for maximum strategic focus on terrorists looking to strike us in the U.S.

The neocons have had a lot of success in selling a strategy of multiplying our enemies as much as possible — you’re not morally or strategically serious unless you want the U.S. to lead a world crusade uprooting Muslim fundamentalism wherever it lives. But Muslim fundamentalism is a phenomenon rooted in local conditions halfway around the world, that does not require conflict with the U.S. except under particular conditions. This is like the Cold War situation where we had to be the enemy of any local nationalist movement that used communist rhetoric.

]]> By: jimportlandor http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3178 jimportlandor Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:04:35 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3178 <p>darn: too early to write sentences: above, I meant “and that just does not seem to be in the cards.”</p> darn: too early to write sentences: above, I meant “and that just does not seem to be in the cards.”

]]> By: jimportlandor http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3177 jimportlandor Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:02:48 +0000 http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2008/10/28/directustalksafghanistan/#comment-3177 <p>Mixed emotions here. Yes, we should talk and even negotiate with those we perceive as our enemies - without preconditions. But there’s a spot on the back of my neck that says that a Taliban reconciliation means the not-distant future brings a Taliban government - right back where we were in 2001. I scratch the spot with fingers and then apply realism balm. </p> <p>We aren’t apparently ‘winning’ (whatever that would mean) in Afghanistan (or in northwestern Pakistan for that matter). Iraq has inter-Islamic conflicts and ethnic conflicts but it was a modern state. Afghanistan is a whole different animal with tribal alliances, language and cultural barriers, etc. We naively thought we could make it a modern democracy, and that just seem to be in the cards. </p> <p>Agony of Defeat: Are we ready to leave Afghanistan to its destiny in the 16-18th century as long as Al Queda isn’t able to be active? Is that the bottom line? I don’t see the US or European peoples being willing to pump money and military lives into a country where the Taliban is a major political, religious and social force that we are supporting.</p> Mixed emotions here. Yes, we should talk and even negotiate with those we perceive as our enemies – without preconditions. But there’s a spot on the back of my neck that says that a Taliban reconciliation means the not-distant future brings a Taliban government – right back where we were in 2001. I scratch the spot with fingers and then apply realism balm.

We aren’t apparently ‘winning’ (whatever that would mean) in Afghanistan (or in northwestern Pakistan for that matter). Iraq has inter-Islamic conflicts and ethnic conflicts but it was a modern state. Afghanistan is a whole different animal with tribal alliances, language and cultural barriers, etc. We naively thought we could make it a modern democracy, and that just seem to be in the cards.

Agony of Defeat: Are we ready to leave Afghanistan to its destiny in the 16-18th century as long as Al Queda isn’t able to be active? Is that the bottom line? I don’t see the US or European peoples being willing to pump money and military lives into a country where the Taliban is a major political, religious and social force that we are supporting.

]]>