Victory impossible in A-stan: sr. British commander

[vinny_121_ND]

Western forces in Afghanistan will never be able to win the war against insurgents and may need to include the Taliban in any long-term solution, Britain's senior commander in the country says in a report.
An absolute military victory in Afghanistan is impossible, Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith told England's Sunday Times newspaper.

What foreign forces must now come to grips with, he said, is reducing the level of insurgency so that it can be managed by Afghan forces and no longer poses a major threat.

"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency … I don’t think we should expect that when we go there won’t be roaming bands of armed men in this part of the world," Carleton-Smith was quoted as saying.
"That would be unrealistic and probably incredible."

As such, striking a deal with the Taliban could be considered as a strategic option, Carleton-Smith said. It is an idea that has been repeatedly — and recently — advanced by Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
A willingness on the part of the Taliban to negotiate a political deal could be a big step towards reining in the insurgency to a manageable level, Carleton-Smith said.

“If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that’s precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this. That shouldn’t make people uncomfortable," he told the Sunday Times.
However, Karzai's offer of peace talks was rejected by a senior Taliban leader on Friday. The Taliban have repeatedly said they will not negotiate until foreign troops have left the country.

Carleton-Smith's comments were publicized as the British government once again sought to dismiss reports it believes the West is losing the battle in Afghanistan.
Britain's Foreign Office said that while it's ambassador, Sherard Cowper-Coles, did hold a meeting with a French official and discussed the situation in Afghanistan, his reported comments that foreign troops there were "part of the problem, not the solution" do not reflect the government's views.

Diplomatic cable

A French newspaper on Wednesday published what it claimed was a diplomatic cable written by France's deputy ambassador to Afghanistan describing a conversation he had with Cowper-Coles.
The alleged cable said Cowper-Coles believes the West's war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan is being lost and the coalition that includes Canada's Armed Forces should leave an "acceptable dictator" in charge of the country within five to 10 years.
"We have no alternative to supporting the United States in Afghanistan, but we should tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one," the cable paraphrases Cowper-Coles as saying.

A Foreign Office official, who demanded anonymity to discuss the purported leaked cable, said Saturday the claim that Cowper-Coles advocated a dictatorship in Afghanistan was "utter nonsense."

Report 'garbled'

A similar dismissal was delivered Friday by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who called the report "garbled" and said Britain is not in favour of a move toward a Kabul dictatorship.
French Foreign Ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier refused on Saturday to either confirm or deny the cable's existence. He said that it's alleged message, however, "doesn't correspond at all with what we hear from our British counterparts in our discussions on Afghanistan."

Canada's military mission in Afghanistan includes about 2,500 personnel, most of them located in the volatile Kandahar region. France has about 3,000 troops in the country, while Britain has about 8,400.
At the beginning of the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr last month, Karzai called for peace talks with the Taliban to bring an end to seven years of military conflict in his country. The United States invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 following the Sept. 11 attacks that killed approximately 3,000 people in the U.S.

Karzai has asked the Saudi Arabian head of state King Abdullah to help moderate peace talks between insurgents and his government, which is supported by Western forces and governments.

Senior Taliban commander Mullah Brother swiftly rejected Karzai's appeal, calling him a U.S. "puppet" and repeating a promise to continue fighting until all 70,000 NATO and U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan leave.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.html?ref=rss

[boone]

Western forces in Afghanistan will never be able to win the war against insurgents and may need to include the Taliban in any long-term solution, Britain's senior commander in the country says in a report.
An absolute military victory in Afghanistan is impossible, Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith told England's Sunday Times newspaper.

What foreign forces must now come to grips with, he said, is reducing the level of insurgency so that it can be managed by Afghan forces and no longer poses a major threat. Unless someone can tell me what "A Victory in Afghanistan" would entail, I'd be inclined to agree with the General.

PS Why do Brit Staff Officers always have hyphenated names?

[Havoc345]

I've never heard this before about A-Stan or Iraq. :roll:

[boone]

I love it when 18-yr-olds use the "roll eyes" smilie like they're all "world-weary" and ****.

[budgie]

I've never heard this before about A-Stan or Iraq. :roll:

The word 'victory' is consistently used to misrepresent the goals here. What the west is trying to achieve in both Iraq and Afghanistan is peace.

The main fight over there is amongst the locals. Without an end to the animosity and hostility between factions there will always be a foothold for groups like AQ and the Taliban.

Now to achieve that, the disparate tribes and groups and factions will have to compromise - all the guns NATO and the US can muster cannot make these guys want to change their ways...

[Havoc345]

I love it when 18-yr-olds use the "roll eyes" smilie like they're all "world-weary" and ****.

Well the reason is there is a story like this every week. They roll out some guy who went to an air show once and now in the eyes of the media he's a "military expert". 9 times out of 10 they predict the same thing, "The U.S. will lose in Iraq or A-Stan" blah blah blah. It's just a good headline that catches readers attention.

BTW I know the person saying this is a senior British Commander but for every defeatist Officer their is probably 9 others who believe we can run an effective COIN in the Middle East.

[budgie]

BTW I know the person saying this is a senior British Commander but for every defeatist Officer their is probably 9 others who believe we can run an effective COIN in the Middle East.


Still, the use of the word 'victory' underscores a deep misunderstanding over here of what we are trying to achieve over there. This is not a simple case of 'win' or 'lose'.

[Havoc345]

Still, the use of the word 'victory' underscores a deep misunderstanding over here of what we are trying to achieve over there. This is not a simple case of 'win' or 'lose'.

Yes I understand, it is a counterinsurgency.

[budgie]

Yes I understand, it is a counterinsurgency.

I think even the classical 20th century understanding of a counterinsurgency is probably a bit dated for the problems in Afghanistan and Iraq. There we have different factions vying for control rather than a simple case of guerrilla groups undermining their governments. On the one hand the COIN tag works well against a resurgent Taliban or against "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" but once those groups are finished, there looms the even larger problems of deep ethnic/sectarian divisions in both of those countries. These divisions, more than any insurgency, are what threaten to tear those countries apart (and in the case of Afghanistan have done a pretty good job since the Soviets left). Simply fighting towards 'victory' won't solve these problems any more than it will make Hamas go away.

In that sense we sit back here and can be easily fooled by the idea that the whole effort over there is a fight against certain guerrilla groups and that once the fight is won, 'victory' can be attained. The officer in the OP appears to be pointing out that simply defeating the Taliban (if even that much is possible in a region where they have such a cultural, economic and tribal foothold) won't necessarily bring the 'victory' we've been led to expect.

[marktigger]

Ah the Northern Ireland solution. Isolate the hardliners and bring the more moderate elements into government with the local police and army having the ability to contain an acceptable level of violence.

Now given the history of tribal conflict in Afghanistan this would be probably an acheiveable end result. What it takes is to fragment the taliban to a point where they aren't a major threat. But to do this the coalition needs to offer the Afghan people a better alternitive with some prospect for prosperiity under a government of their choosing who are honest brokers.

Unfortunatley this will be seen by Karzi as another sleight by the British who he doesn't like as they tend to clip the wings of his appointees. But if he doesn't like it I'm sure his army could do much better in Helmand without British support.

[Connaught Ranger]

We can't win Taliban war - UK chief. (Yahoo news headline):roll:


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20081005/tuk-we-can-t-win-taliban-war-uk-chief-6323e80.html


The public should not expect "a decisive military victory" in Afghanistan (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/al-qaeda.html), Britain's most senior military commander in the country has warned.

http://row.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=sTTsT03uoL3YIqbYSOXt6AL8TmE0iUjocA0ACDKv&T=145st4r92%2fX%3d1223192589%2fE%3d2022435296%2fR%3dukie_news%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dHR%2fY%3dUKIE%2fF%3d2415181156%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d8DA0EE4D&U=13o5jij4l%2fN%3diMIZGlf4eEM-%2fC%3d200107662.201745687.202975627.200222684%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d200875305%2fV%3d1
Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said the aim was to reduce the uprising to a level at which it could be managed by the Afghan army - and made clear that this could involve talking to the Taliban (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/al-qaeda.html).

It was necessary to "lower our expectations" and accept that it would be unrealistic to expect that multinational forces can entirely rid Afghanistan of armed bands, he suggested.

Brig Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade, which has just completed its second tour of Afghanistan, told the Sunday Times that his forces had "taken the sting out of the Taliban for 2008".

But he added: "We're not going to win this war. It's about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army.

"We may well leave with there still being a low but steady ebb of rural insurgency."

Brig Carleton-Smith said the aim should be to change the nature of the debate in Afghanistan so that disputes were settled by negotiation and not violence.

"If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk about a political settlement, then that's precisely the sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this," he said.

"That shouldn't make people uncomfortable."

I see nothing in the above that is not the basic facts with regards the situation in Afghanistan. Brigadier Carleton-Smith sums up the way he sees the future will be in A-Stan. All combatants will have to sit at the table to discuss a cease-fire, stability, peace-process, and the sticky one political rule of the country.

(For example, the Northern Ireland ceasefire - peace initiative, while the terrorist pledged to cease their armed struggle, and most weapons were given up for destruction, in reality we know that some have been kept, by the terrorists, not all of whom agreed to the Peace-process policy.

To think that all weapons could be removed from the public domain in A-stan is totally unrealistic, given the tribal history of the region, such a weapons cleansing policy in that area would take many years to achieve if ever.

Connaught Ranger:)

[El Diablo Rojo]

True or not, this will probably add fuel to the fire of the types who want to make this more of a Vietnam than it already is.

I think in this case peace IS "victory".

[eugenlitwin]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/10/04/afghan-war.html?ref=rss

perhabs Western forces should just cut A-stan, in small pieces...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_%28in_Districts%29_in_Afghanistan.jpg

[Connaught Ranger]

perhabs Western forces should just cut A-stan, in small pieces...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_%28in_Districts%29_in_Afghanistan.jpg

That would achieve nothing, only render the situation more difficult.

These people have to be brought into the modern world, tribal fiefdoms and warlord territory are a thing of the past.

Connaught Ranger

[sp2c]

BTW I know the person saying this is a senior British Commander but for every defeatist Officer their is probably 9 others who believe we can run an effective COIN in the Middle East.

defeatist huh?

he's just saying what everybody else has been saying since the whole thing started, you can't win this by gunplay alone ... at some point we're going to have to talk to some people we don't really like

he's just a little harsh about it :D

[muck]

Peace to accetable terms should be our main goal and not a crushing victory over the Taliban because their movement is nothing that could be defeated that way.
One a sidenote though - I'm neither entitled nor capable to question the general's statement, but for me it's a matter of logic that a war that can be lost could also be won under different circumstances. Three years ago the Iraq War was also deemed unwinnable, and now success is at the doorstep.

[Henry's Fork]

Peace to accetable terms should be our main goal and not a crushing victory over the Taliban because their movement is nothing that could be defeated that way.

I agree 100%, but then something tells me that with 'Taliban Jihadi' types, peace only happens when they win. Acceptable terms usally dont fly well with the brainwashed.



One a sidenote though - I'm neither entitled nor capable to question the general's statement, but for me it's a matter of logic that a war that can be lost could also be won under different circumstances. Three years ago the Iraq War was also deemed unwinnable, and now success is at the doorstep.

Thats strange, i have been told by quite a few Chinese forum goers (here and other forums), that Iraq is already lost and the US has been beat. Hmmm, seeing that the Chinese media is the truest, unbaised, most all knowing on the planet, i will have to doubt your claims Muck.

[muck]

I agree 100%, but then something tells me that with 'Taliban Jihadi' types, peace only happens when they win. Acceptable terms usally dont fly well with the brainwashed.As soon as factions have to share responsibilities they either become tame or they go to the dogs for their own incapability. Take al-Sadr in Iraq, he also had to learn his lesson.

Thats strange, i have been told by quite a few Chinese forum goers (here and other forums), that Iraq is already lost and the US has been beat. Hmmm, seeing that the Chinese media is the truest, unbaised, most all knowing on the planet, i will have to doubt your claims Muck.Well, if the Chinese say so my words shall be disproven.

[Connaught Ranger]

True or not, this will probably add fuel to the fire of the types who want to make this more of a Vietnam than it already is.

I think in this case peace IS "victory".

In realty it bears no resemblance to the Vietnam situation, mainly because it entails the use of more countries than the U.S.A. and there is no sign of anybody cutting and running from A-stan.

[muck]

In realty it bears no resemblance to the Vietnam situation, mainly because it entails the use of more countries than the U.S.A. and there is no sign of anybody cutting and running from A-stan.Iraq has also been called "The next Vietnam" and where is the country now? Close to normality, at least compared to the last five years.

[sp2c]

I agree 100%, but then something tells me that with 'Taliban Jihadi' types, peace only happens when they win. Acceptable terms usally dont fly well with the brainwashed.


though they like to pretend otherwise, the Taliban is not a singular entity
the brainwashed jihadi types need to be and are being dealt with by chucking big bombs in the face but after that theres a big grey area ranging from warlords, druglords, crimelords, pisspoor guys that go off to war because they get some dollars and a beatup car and allmost reasonable folks that can be reasoned with

trick is to find out who's who




Thats strange, i have been told by quite a few Chinese forum goers (here and other forums), that Iraq is already lost and the US has been beat. Hmmm, seeing that the Chinese media is the truest, unbaised, most all knowing on the planet, i will have to doubt your claims Muck.

0w snap ... all is lost!

[Thor]

Leave the white flags to the eurowussies, with McCain in charge there will be victory.

[Henry's Fork]

As soon as factions have to share responsibilities they either become tame or they go to the dogs for their own incapability. Take al-Sadr in Iraq, he also had to learn his lesson.
Good point, lets all hope. I thought Sadr would have been a tougher nut to crack. But then i dont think we have seen the end of him either. He has a lot in common with Herpes.


though they like to pretend otherwise, the Taliban is not a singular entity
the brainwashed jihadi types need to be and are being dealt with by chucking big bombs in the face but after that theres a big grey area ranging from warlords, druglords, crimelords, pisspoor guys that go off to war because they get some dollars and a beatup car and allmost reasonable folks that can be reasoned with

trick is to find out who's who

Another good point, many different players for different reasons. But can we assume, that the majority of them are the brainwashed jihadi type?


0w snap ... all is lost!
You heard it here first!111one

[eugenlitwin]

That would achieve nothing, only render the situation more difficult.

These people have to be brought into the modern world, tribal fiefdoms and warlord territory are a thing of the past.

Connaught Ranger

Pushtuland makes most problem am i right? Iran (has historical right on this aria) can get it

[California Joe]

It's kinda like Northern Ireland, if Boadicea was still running around, with an AK for every person in the country and more heroin.

[Connaught Ranger]

defeatist huh?

he's just a little harsh about it :D

I think a more appropriate word would be blunt.:)

Connaught Ranger:)

[Connaught Ranger]

Pushtuland makes most problem am i right? Iran (has historical right on this aria) can get it

No, I mean the country has to be brought under some form of democratic way of rule, the idea of political positions being permanently held by certain families, often obtained under corruption, has to be eradicated, perhaps the introduction of a rule relegating prominent politicians to a set period of time and a ban on their sons or daughters inheriting the political fiefdom would have to be considered.

But the major problem will be the removal of weapons from the thousands of people who carry them, heavy investment into agriculture to get them away from the traditional poppy harvest, Education of both sexes etc..etc..

It will be a long hard struggle, and there will always be a few diehards who will try to return to the old ways of feudal warlord rule and religious fundamentalism.

The borders of the country will have to remain as they are and on no account the country be carved up due to so-called historical right.
The object of the mission will be to bring the country forward into the modern world and not rekindle old hatreds.

I doubt if it will happen in my lifetime, but the Afghani people deserve a chance at democratic rule, if the countries from the west cut and run the problem will only grow worse.

Connaught Ranger.

[eugenlitwin]

No, I mean the country has to be brought under some form of democratic way of rule, the idea of political positions being permanently held by certain families, often obtained under corruption, has to be eradicated, perhaps the introduction of a rule relegating prominent politicians to a set period of time and a ban on their sons or daughters inheriting the political fiefdom would have to be considered.

But the major problem will be the removal of weapons from the thousands of people who carry them, heavy investment into agriculture to get them away from the traditional poppy harvest, Education of both sexes etc..etc..

It will be a long hard struggle, and there will always be a few diehards who will try to return to the old ways of feudal warlord rule and religious fundamentalism.

The borders of the country will have to remain as they are and on no account the country be carved up due to so-called historical right.
The object of the mission will be to bring the country forward into the modern world and not rekindle old hatreds.

I doubt if it will happen in my lifetime, but the Afghani people deserve a chance at democratic rule, if the countries from the west cut and run the problem will only grow worse.

Connaught Ranger.

do you think that USa/NATO´d stay i A-Stan for so long? don´t forget : A-stan has no oil/gas etc.

[Connaught Ranger]

do you think that USa/NATO´d stay i A-Stan for so long? don´t forget : A-stan has no oil/gas etc.

No, sorry buts its a perfect place to train Fundamentalists, and I don't buy the hype that N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. are only fighting for oil.

So your conspiracy theory goes out the window.

Connaught Ranger

[California Joe]

Eugen, you're apparently operating under the mistaken impression that the American citizen/taxpayer is, in anyway, reaping the rewards from the billions of dollars in oil that is in Iraq.

[sp2c]

Another good point, many different players for different reasons. But can we assume, that the majority of them are the brainwashed jihadi type?



I doubt it ... the jihadi types have the most sway though
that's why it's so important to keep the pressure on at one end but also to keep building stuff to erode whatever support they get from the locals

and I'm not talking schools and playgrounds nobody sends their kids to out of fear either but roads and bridges that make the journey (and life in general) to the market in Kandahar or what not easier ... things the Taliban can (has to because it makes our life easier as well) blow up turning them into the badguys
also build mosques, make them pretty, make them the bestest mosque the locals have ever seen because these people need to pray

and yes, talk to the middle management if nothing else it makes us seem human in their eyes

I don't think all is lost at this point, I just think we need to be a little bit more flexible about what we're doing someties


I think a more appropriate word would be blunt.:)

Connaught Ranger:)

I tend to call it Brittish ;)

[Atlantic Friend]

do you think that USa/NATO´d stay i A-Stan for so long? don´t forget : A-stan has no oil/gas etc.

Er, Eugen, Afghanistan HAS very important natural gas resources, over 2,000 billion cube meters if memory serves me right.

And there IS also oil.

[wilhelm]

All combatants will have to sit at the table to discuss a cease-fire, stability, peace-process, and the sticky one political rule of the country.

Connaught Ranger:)

Are you advocating opening up discussions with the Taleban?

So that a democracy can be formed?

[Connaught Ranger]

Are you advocating opening up discussions with the Taleban?

So that a democracy can be formed?

If you look at any major Peace negotiations over the last 30 years ALL sides were involved in the process, once certain conditions were met, namely the cessation of violence.

Connaught Ranger

[wilhelm]

If you look at any major Peace negotiations over the last 30 years ALL sides were involved in the process, once certain conditions were met, namely the cessation of violence.

Connaught Ranger

So your answer is yes.

I do not think you understand the religious/fascist fundamental outlook of the Taleban then.

[Connaught Ranger]

So your answer is yes.

I do not think you understand the religious/fascist fundamental outlook of the Taleban then.

Yes, of course I do, but, I suppose you would propose the "Final Solution" for them:roll:.
But I doubt if you can eradicate them, or their mentality entirely, they have to be brought to see the error of their ways, the same way as the fanatical Nazis were treated immediate post WW2 in Germany.

Connaught Stranger.

[sp2c]

Yes, of course I do, but, I suppose you would propose the "Final Solution" for them:roll:.
But I doubt if you can eradicate them, or their mentality entirely, they have to be brought to see the error of their ways, the same way as the fanatical Nazis were treated immediate post WW2 in Germany.

Connaught Stranger.

you propose hanging them at Neuremburg?
you sir, are defeatist!!

kidding of course, I actually agree with you ... I mean we can't very well keep them all improsoned for the rest of their lives now can we?
at some point the rank and file is going to have to be rehabilitated (may not be the right english term) back into society anyways, better do this sooner then later or at the very least have options on the table

either way, a dialogue isn't going to kill anybody

[wilhelm]

Yes, of course I do, but, I suppose you would propose the "Final Solution" for them:roll:.

Errrrrr OK...

I'm not sure I understand you here with this Final solution thingy.



But I doubt if you can eradicate them, or their mentality entirely, they have to be brought to see the error of their ways, the same way as the fanatical Nazis were treated immediate post WW2 in Germany.

Connaught Stranger.

So why are you advocating appeasement?

Why condone the extermination of all German Fascists as you have done in other threads, along with wholesale portions of their population, but not Afghanistani/Muslim Fascists? Fascism is fascism is it not?

So are you advocating appeasement with the Taleban? Even though you know that they will try to wreck any power sharing agreement once it is signed. And that they will be hell-bent in eradicating democracy, as it is the very antithesis of what they are. And that they will ruthlessly suppress any dissent, choice or individualism? And that they will seek to export that.

They have done all that before...

That is fascism and I have no idea why you think the Taleban can be accommodated.

[Rudolph]

One only needs to look at Africa's wars since the 1950's to see there's no answer or solution. Except one-party dictatorships. Accept that, and go... Western means not obtained through the natural process of invention cannot be properly used or appreciated. They will fight even if it's against their better judgment.

[wilhelm]

One only needs to look at Africa's wars since the 1950's to see there's no answer or solution. Except one-party dictatorships. Accept that, and go... Western means not obtained through the natural process of invention cannot be properly used or appreciated. They will fight even if it's against their better judgment.

Then you would have to suspend any and all immigration from such places, as their higher birthrate would doom you to a similar fate a couple of generations later.

[Rudolph]

Then you would have to suspend any and all immigration from such places, as their higher birthrate would doom you to a similar fate a couple of generations later.

The best they can hope for is a short-term halt in violence, due to a collapse of structure as the senior leadership are eventually almost entirely wiped out. It will take months, maybe a few short years to build up powerful tribal leaders again.

Otherwise, eventually people will tire, but how long will that take? Another 2 years? Five years?

[eugenlitwin]

No, sorry buts its a perfect place to train Fundamentalists, and I don't buy the hype that N.A.T.O. and the U.S.A. are only fighting for oil.

So your conspiracy theory goes out the window.

Connaught Ranger

i´d call it for: secure oil at the sources instead

[eugenlitwin]

Er, Eugen, Afghanistan HAS very important natural gas resources, over 2,000 billion cube meters if memory serves me right.

And there IS also oil.

is more or less then Finland has?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/table6.pdf


PS Afghanistan can be interesting only as the transit county but not today and not tomorrow

[vinny_121_ND]

Yes, of course I do, but, I suppose you would propose the "Final Solution" for them:roll:.
But I doubt if you can eradicate them, or their mentality entirely, they have to be brought to see the error of their ways, the same way as the fanatical Nazis were treated immediate post WW2 in Germany.

Connaught Stranger.

That is something I agree with. You can't change their thinking. If muslims criticize them, they'll be threatened to shut up, and worse, tortured and killed.

[eugenlitwin]

documentary about the same subject

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/afghanistan/default.stm

PS what game plays Iran i A-stan?

[Connaught Ranger]

Errrrrr OK...

I'm not sure I understand you here with this Final solution thingy.




So why are you advocating appeasement?

Why condone the extermination of all German Fascists as you have done in other threads, along with wholesale portions of their population, but not Afghanistani/Muslim Fascists? Fascism is fascism is it not?

So are you advocating appeasement with the Taleban? Even though you know that they will try to wreck any power sharing agreement once it is signed. And that they will be hell-bent in eradicating democracy, as it is the very antithesis of what they are. And that they will ruthlessly suppress any dissent, choice or individualism? And that they will seek to export that.

They have done all that before...

That is fascism and I have no idea why you think the Taleban can be accommodated.

I am highly amused at your feeble attempts to start a flame war here, in other threads I stated that German civilians who were killed in W.W.2 were killed in a war, and not murdered. Military casualties were also a result of war, and justifiable when engaged in war.

When the Soviets and the Allies finally accepted the unconditional surrender of nazi Germany, the process of de-nazification began, a process of re-education.

The Allies did not load any German people (civil or military) into box-cars for a one way trip to extermination to in an effort to cleanse Germany, but, I accept the Soviets did remove people from their zone to the Soviet Union, however the British and Americans had no control, or any method to for the Soviets to do otherwise.

The Nuremberg trials were held to deal with what remained of the upper echelon of the Nazi Party, as somebody had to pay the piper for the tunes called between 1938 - 1945 As the old German proverb goes "Those that eat soup with the devil need a spoon with a long handle."

With regards the Taliban, they follow a fundamentalist religious belief, in my honest opinion it has no connection with being any type of a fascist. And seeing that Russia was not able to quell them, I doubt if a military solution will be successful unless and all out campaign to win the hearts and minds of the locals is mounted then traces of the Taliban will remain.

Connaught Ranger

[tecumseh11]

What's so bad about negotiating with the Taleban? The US have done something similar in Iraq and the situation there has seen marked improvement.