# Negotiate w/Taliban? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 9, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247 "2012-10-09T19:45:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/41 "2012-10-11T14:51:07Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > OK…“apparently he changed his mind _from_ when he was in charge of his nation…” He didn’t change his mind. He said negotiations were preferable to war, not that he was opposed to war. And insisting on a particular term in a negotiation is not refusing to negotiate. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/42 "2012-10-11T15:17:09Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > …Frankly, if we just started shooting the [criminal element](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81ngel_Maturino_Res%C3%A9ndiz) of the illegal aliens we catch instead of bothering to deport them, might keep the criminal element of the illegals away. Behave, you live, start robbing and killing, die. Well, this is an odd distraction from the subject of the thread. Ángel Maturino Reséndiz was never caught & deported as an illegal alien. After a long string of murders, his sister contacted the Texas Rangers; a Ranger finally arrested him. Then he went to trial in Texas, was convicted & executed. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/43 "2012-10-11T15:41:30Z")
I suppose, with absolutely no evidence, that there may be “moderate” Taliban. The T were given free rein in the Swat valley (not to mention the whole of Afghanistan) and look what happened there. When death sentences are issued for drawing cartoons, women are imprisoned or stoned for being raped and children are shot on the street with impunity, I have a hard time believing that any moderates hold much sway. The shooting of the girl may have backfired, causing the already-despised Pakistani Taliban to be hated even more. But I don’t think the Taliban were ever in the “hearts and minds” business, anyway. They are more about heads. They don’t care about convincing people with arguments or persuasion. Its “Do what I say or die.” The masses are too terrified and the governments to weak to challenge them. Until that changes the murderous few will control the many. The “negotiations of various types” that have been going on for so long don’t seem to have yielded much. As long as we (allegedly) stand for democracy and they seek a caliphate I don’t see much room for negotiations. I suppose the comparison between T and the Soviets has it merits. Maybe the answer is to let the T take the governments over completely, isolate them from the civilized world and then let them collapse from the inside. It may take several generations but, given the history of this region, that’s not so long. My belief is that T and other radicals will never be satisfied because the whole world will never be run by Muslim extremists. God willing. That being the case, innocents will continue to be slaughtered, also God’s will. That’s quite a belief system. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/44 "2012-10-12T12:19:06Z")
Of course there is no way to negotiate with the Taliban. They will continue to kill innocent people until everyone in the territory they’ve arbitrarily decided is Taliban territory is completely cowed. What? You think that people with this mindset > [@](#): > > [“We had no intentions to kill her but were forced when she would not stop (speaking against us),” said Sirajuddin Ahmad, a spokesman of Swat Taliban now based in Afghanistan’s Kunar province.](http://news.yahoo.com/talibans-radio-mullah-sent-hit-squad-pakistani-schoolgirl-102133286.html) are amenable to compromise? Forget it. The Taliban must be destroyed. Of course it would be preferable if they were to simply disband and stop being terrorist. That’s not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/45 "2012-10-12T12:49:31Z")
And yet we managed to negotiate with Soviet leaders who pointed tens of thousands of nuclear warheads at Americans and say things that everyone at the time interpreted as meaning, “We will dig your grave and say too-da-loo to you at your funeral.” If we can find the courage to negotiate with tyrannies that threaten nuclear holocaust like the Soviet Union did, and manage not to to surrender to them, I’m sure we can talk with the Taliban. Negotiations do not guarantee success, but not negotiating guarantees no solution. Ultimately, it is completely impossible to kill your way out of conflict without conducting negotiations at some point. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/46 "2012-10-12T14:11:10Z")
The difference is that the Soviets were using rhetoric. The Taliban actually do intend to kill anyone and everyone who defy them. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/47 "2012-10-12T14:23:35Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > The difference is that the Soviets were using rhetoric. The Taliban actually do intend to kill anyone and everyone who defy them. You are saying this about the Soviets with the benefit of hindsight, and even then it is not fully historically accurate. Every single President during the Cold War took the Soviet threat and statements like that very seriously, and it damn near led us to the brink of nuclear war over a stupid, underdeveloped Caribbean island. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch the documentary “The Fog of War” in which Robert McNamara states his view that one of the underlying problems with the Vietnam War was that we thought we understood the North Vietnamese reasons for fighting, and we were totally wrong. It is not a safe assumption that we actually understand well the motivations of each of the various factions of Taliban that are out there. To use an analogy, it may be completely fruitless for Democrats to try to negotiate a budget agreement with Senator Rand Paul. Should one then state that it is a waste of time to try to negotiate with all Republicans? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/48 "2012-10-12T14:25:32Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To use an analogy, it may be completely fruitless for Democrats to try to negotiate a budget agreement with Senator Rand Paul. Should one then state that it is a waste of time to try to negotiate with all Republicans? Yes. But there are plenty of reasons for that. The Soviets were not irrational. We often misunderstood their motivations and interests, but they aligned with ours sufficiently to have a _cold_ war. No such thing is possible with the Taliban. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/49 "2012-10-12T15:16:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The Soviets were not irrational. We often misunderstood their motivations and interests, but they aligned with ours sufficiently to have a _cold_ war. No such thing is possible with the Taliban. You agree that we often misunderstood the Soviets. If we can spend god knows how many billions of dollars and many human lives spying on the Soviets over a half-century in order to understand their inner workings, and still be misinformed; how is it that you know with such great certainty that we fully understand the Taliban? I’m not arguing that the Taliban may actually be a bunch of cuddly characters with a secret penchant for Hello Kitty dolls. I’m saying your claims to understand fully the Taliban, their motivations, their interests, their weaknesses, and their goals, and therefore declare there’s no use even talking to them is exactly the kind of error of reasoning and knowledge that is shown time and again by history to be a mistake. For example, why should anyone take seriously your implication that the Taliban is irrational? Just because someone has different, or even depraved, values does not mean they act irrationally. If you look at some heinous act like shooting children and conclude that it is irrational because it is an immoral thing to do, then you don’t even understand what rationality is. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/50 "2012-10-12T15:25:50Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > From CNN: > > A 14-year-old girl who was awarded Pakistan’s first National Peace Prize for her online diary reporting on the Taliban’s ban on education was shot on her way home from school today. The Taliban claimed responsibility. > > How the hell do you negotiate with them when they start with “Its our way or we will kill you?” Simple. “Would you like us to shoot you or hang you?” That’s negotiation right? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/51 "2012-10-12T15:32:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > You agree that we often misunderstood the Soviets. If we can spend god knows how many billions of dollars and many human lives spying on the Soviets over a half-century in order to understand their inner workings, and still be misinformed; how is it that you know with such great certainty that we fully understand the Taliban? > > I’m not arguing that the Taliban may actually be a bunch of cuddly characters with a secret penchant for Hello Kitty dolls. I’m saying your claims to understand fully the Taliban, their motivations, their interests, their weaknesses, and their goals, and therefore declare there’s no use even talking to them is exactly the kind of error of reasoning and knowledge that is shown time and again by history to be a mistake. > > For example, why should anyone take seriously your implication that the Taliban is irrational? Just because someone has different, or even depraved, values does not mean they act irrationally. If you look at some heinous act like shooting children and conclude that it is irrational because it is an immoral thing to do, then you don’t even understand what rationality is. Had I claimed to fully understand the Taliban you might have a point somewhere, but I didn’t. I understand enough to see how they operate. I may have used the wrong word when I said irrational because that is only in relative terms to ourselves. They are quite rational about killing innocent people. They do it to enhance their own power. And their base is a group of irrational people who do not see that the Taliban has killed more of them than us. Their stated goal is religious law that they claim required the killing of all those who disagree with their stated religious principles. But my point about irrationality is that a mutually assured destruction scenario would not stop them. It didn’t stop them when it was only their own assured destruction. I’m quite sure they would be willing accept control of Pakistan and Afghanistan where they canl wantonly kill anyone who threatens their power. But they have nothing to offer us. There’s no basis to believe they would negotiate in good faith even if they offered us an assurance not to kill Americans. We have killed Taliban wholesale, and they have not so far budged an inch, and they are proud of it, and they use that to enhance their status among their allies. Your entire argument is that we could send Pollyanna over to Pakistan to show them how to brighten their lives by looking at the good side of everything, thawing their frozen hearts so that they will in the future act like civilized people. Nothing could be further from the truth. ETA: We never understood the Soviets, nor did we spend much effort trying to do so. We luckily understood early on that they had no more desire to die than we did. The same can not be said for the Taliban. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/52 "2012-10-15T09:33:24Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > But they have nothing to offer us. Wrong. They have what we want most of all. The key to the door marked ‘Exit’. Just like with the ending of the Vietnam War all we want is the be able to declare victory, high-tail it out of there and for a few months to pass before it all falls apart and the war of the fanatics against the kleptocratic, drug-dealing, corrupt, raping warlords and their ilk resume. And to do this we need to get them to pretend to play along for awhile. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/53 "2012-10-15T13:11:48Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Wrong. They have what we want most of all. The key to the door marked ‘Exit’. > > Just like with the ending of the Vietnam War all we want is the be able to declare victory, high-tail it out of there and for a few months to pass before it all falls apart and the war of the fanatics against the kleptocratic, drug-dealing, corrupt, raping warlords and their ilk resume. > > And to do this we need to get them to pretend to play along for awhile. So, basically, you need to negotiate safe-passage out of the surrounded fort. You can arrogantly tout that you will stay in that besieged fort for another 100 years and will continue to bombard the surrounding area, but you and they both know this is not going to happen. Like the Soviets before you, you will pick up your kit and leave. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/54 "2012-10-15T13:23:43Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > So, basically, you need to negotiate safe-passage out of the surrounded fort. > > You can arrogantly tout that you will stay in that besieged fort for another 100 years and will continue to bombard the surrounding area, but you and they both know this is not going to happen. > > Like the Soviets before you, you will pick up your kit and leave. In the sense we’ll be leaving a situation where the basis of conflict remains unchanged and both sides remain unchanged. I never believed it would end any other way. If the USSR’s much more brutal approach didn’t work ours was never going to. I also remember that the Taliban were welcomed as saviours when they took over as the other side were just so much worse. We forget what a brutish set of rulers The Northern Alliance were. Just leave them to it and if anyone puts one brick on top of another in a way we don’t like then bomb it. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/55 "2012-10-15T13:53:43Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Just leave them to it and if anyone puts one brick on top of another in a way we don’t like then bomb it. Agreed. That’s what the mission should have been. ‘Show that we will retalliate, when attacked.’ ‘Hard’. Short and to the point. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/56 "2012-10-15T14:46:20Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I also remember that the Taliban were welcomed as saviours when they took over as the other side were just so much worse. I don’t remember that at all and I’m pretty sure it isn’t true, so I’d be interested to see a cite. There’s no question the Najibullah government was also awful, but if the Taliban were ever welcomed as saviors by anyone it’s because the fall of the Najibullah government was followed by civil war (and the country had been in turmoil for decades at that point anyway). [Here’s a PBS report from the time of the takeover.](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec96/afghan_background_10-9.html) [Here’s a cite saying the Clinton administration was initially supportive in the hope the Taliban could end the civil war, but gave up on that idea within a year.](http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a_5.htm) [This CNN report describes them as “honest, fierce, and devoutly Islamic”](http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/index.html) but also notes their draconian criminal methods and their treatment of women. Would you mind explaining who welcomed them as saviors? As I said earlier, I can believe that militant Muslims and Pashtun men welcomed their ascent, but I would say that was probably about it - everybody else was just hoping they would end the civil war, which didn’t really happen and [they proved to be horrible on their own.](http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=APAB&d_place=APAB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0F8B4F98500EA0F8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM) ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/57 "2012-10-15T15:07:09Z")
Now I’m really curious. What led the CNN reporter(s) to describe the Taliban as honest? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/58 "2012-10-15T15:09:34Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Now I’m really curious. What led the CNN reporter(s) to describe the Taliban as honest? Beats me. To my eyes it comes off as rather patronizing. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/59 "2012-10-15T15:23:36Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Now I’m really curious. What led the CNN reporter(s) to describe the Taliban as honest? There were a lot of early reports about the Taliban that were based on the observations of both: A. Afghans who had been traumatized by the Soviet occupation and the lawlessness that followed their withdrawal. B. Taliban partisans who were playing the press. This didn’t last long. Also some reporters are just plain stupid. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2012, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247/60 "2012-10-15T15:53:37Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t remember that at all and I’m pretty sure it isn’t true, so I’d be interested to see a cite. I remember a Newsweek article at the time - The Army of Scholars or something like that. It was something I followed a lot and the BBC in particular ([BBC world news](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p009vmsd)) ran many stories of the utter atrocities that the warlords were indulging in. Shelling each other in Kabul etc. It wasn’t a government the Taliban overthrew - but a multi-sided battle between warlords fought in the capital itself with heavy weapons. This corresponds with my memories. People just wanted peace and justice - not civil war and corruption. And the Taliban were a better alternative - which is a dreadful indictment of the warlords. They were the people ending the civil war. [10 years after the Taliban](http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/10/14/10-years-after-taliban) > [@](#): > > That was when fractional warlords controlled sections of Kabul and fired rockets across the city. It has been quite a relief when the Mujahedin were driven out of Kabul. The people loved the Taliban and welcomed them; many Afghans joined the Taliban to fight the Mujahidin, which also included, Chechens, Pakistanis, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Saudi’s and Yemeni’s. [Kabul fears Northern Alliance](http://www.rawa.org/kab-worry.htm) > [@](#): > > From 1992 until the Taliban seized Kabul in 1996, the factions turned the city into a war zone, with each group controlling parts of the urban area. They flattened entire neighborhoods with rockets and mortars, and planted land mines and booby traps across vast areas. [Taliban Take Over Kabul](http://terrorism.about.com/od/warinafghanistan/ss/AfghanistanWar_5.htm) > [@](#): > > By 1989, the mujahideen had driven the Soviets from Afghanistan, and three years later, in 1992, they managed to wrest control of the government in Kabul from the Marxist president, Muhammad Najibullah. > > Severe infighting among the mujahideen factions continued, however, under the presidency of mujahid leader Burhanuddin Rabbani. Their war against each other devastated Kabul: tens of thousands of civilians lost their lives, and infrastructure was destroyed by rocket fire. By the time the Taliban arrived people were desperate. What would be shocking would be if they were not welcomed. Anything to stop the chaos. To end the suffering. Sadly the same dynamic is playing out again. [Taliban win over locals at the gates of Kabul](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/24/afghanistan) > [@](#): > > Although news bulletins inside and outside Afghanistan are dominated by bomb blasts or clashes, the real strength of the insurgents lies not in their ability to ambush convoys or plant roadside bombs but in the parallel administration they have managed to establish in huge areas across the south and east of Afghanistan. There they make the law, enforcing a harsh, but sometimes welcome, order while intimidating any dissenters. Their strategy is deliberate and long-term. From this new position of strength, they are building durable networks of support. What has happened in Wardak province shows how they have done it. > > The only cases that come before Amanullah Ishaqzai, a government judge in Wardak, are those which require an official stamp or disputes among the province’s mainly Shia Muslim Hazara ethnic minority, who have historically suffered at the hands of the Sunni Pashtun tribes who make up the bulk of the Taliban. Most of the province’s 800,000 inhabitants, mainly peasants, go to the insurgents for rough but often effective justice. > > ‘I can’t blame them,’ Ishaqzai said. ‘A court case in the government system takes five years and many bribes. The Taliban will settle it in an afternoon.’ When we leave and when the Warlords go back to their old ways, when the army and police disintegrate along sectional lines and Afghanistan returns to its normal state of a war of all agianst all, the Taliban will probably be back. It’s tragic. And to answer your question: - it was the people being shelled, bombed and killed in their own homes while the Warlords fought it out in the capital that welcomed them. Of course they did. You or I would as well. That they soon showed themselves to be evil frackers is beside the point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/negotiate-w-taliban/637247.md?page=4)