I didn’t say we should always negotiate because it indeed even opening negotiations often can make your opponent think they have the upper hand. But if everyone followed your precept, then there would be no negotiation at all and that would be even worse. I don’t know what we should do in this particular situation. I think even worse than our relative strength is the rather amorphous composition of the Taliban. If they weren’t amorphous we would have killed them already. Since we can’t be completely sure who they are, we can’t be sure that whoever claims to negotiate on their behalf will either be able to convey their demands accurately or enforce any agreement.
Most parties that come out of negotiations on top follow my precept, so you are incorrect.
This is a big part of the problem.
A few things: first this was the Taliban in Pakistan, not the Taliban in Afghanistan; second it is a mistake to think of the Taliban as a monolithic organization, any attempt to negotiate with the Taliban is actually negotiating with the Talibans; third, I’m not aware of any attempt by the US to negotiate with the Taliban responsible for this act. Other than that, the OP is spot on.
Are you suggesting a course of action that would kill a lot of people? Will any of these people be kids? Because I might see a flaw in your plan.
Skipping over the Pakistan/Afghanistan distinction (since I didn’t make it either), no, the Taliban is not in control of Afghanistan. Parts of the country, yes. They had greater control of the country in late 2001, which ought to make it obvious what kind of position they are in: they can wait out the U.S. and the coalition and they can try to terrorize the locals, but they can’t defeat it militarily. If they were in a position of strength they wouldn’t be fighting an asymmetric war and threatening to cut off flu vaccines if drone strikes against them aren’t stopped.
I was being somewhat facetious. The answer is that no one is in control in Afghanistan. However, they are a tail wagging the dog there. They can control us more than we control them. Land war in Asia dontcha know?
nm
Well, to me Taliban are Saudis with no money.
The question comes back to can you deal with their women and any other recognizable group (e.g. sex orientation) living under such a regime and over time, in 100 years or so, gain little.
I’m not convinced that this is what drives effort in Afghanistan b/c if it did, it would collapse within a month.
And while personally, I’d like to see them totally destroyed any move on that front is self-defeating; i.e. what then? Who stays and who will perish? And if you do this to Taliban are you preserving Saudis because of money? How would US deal with Taliban if they had money? And then, let me juxtapose the fact that you have people dying in Africa, you know, little girls who would like to go to school but they are so weak they can’t walk to school b/c of starvation. Why not spend lot less for bigger gain?
I’m having a hard time pinpointing what really drives US interests without resorting to something insidious. Which, as always, is met with :rolleyes:
That’s one of the hardest questions, I agree. With or without a deal I don’t know what the best way is to protect vulnerable people in that country.
Differently because the situation would be different. If the Taliban had money maybe they would not have gotten into bed with Al Qaeda.
It’s not one or the other, and unfortunately, foreign aid negotiations frequently involve making complicated deals with bad people who you don’t like very much.
Maybe try harder?
I guess the point of my OP was that you can’t negotiate with a party that has an absolute stance. If they are willing to kill children for merely speaking their thoughts, what makes you think they are willing to give in on anything? They don’t have to. Like someone up thread said, we don’t have anything that they want. We’ve already said that we’re leaving. They don’t seem to care about dying (virgins and all that). No carrot and no stick.
An awful lot of people held the same view of the godless communists during the Cold War. Those were mindless commie hoards, intent on nuclear first strikes, human wave attacks, and the end of capitalism and baseball! They took their orders telepathically from Lenin’s embalmed body, and there was no individualism anywhere in the USSR until Reagan made a few speeches and then there were Levi’s jeans and Bruce Springsteen.
Imagine how things might have turned out in October 1962 if the United States Government believed that there was no use in negotiating with those Red absolutists.
If it were actually an absolute stance the negotiations would last around three minutes. That’s not the case: there have been negotiations of various types for a very long time. So obviously there are issues they would be willing to compromise on in order to be part of some type of government. Are they offering enough? Can they be trusted? I don’t know. As you say, these people are extremists and some are butchers. But that doesn’t mean you can’t run military operations to kill terrorists (like people who shoot children and torch schools) and negotiate with some people who might listen to reason.
At this point we are in agreement.
A theocracy is not a narrow political goal.
Frankly, all of these could have been forseen. So, Yes, we will wind up negotiating with the Taliban. The Karzai regime has proven itself incapable of running Afghanistan-frankly, for the average Afghan, the rule of the Taliban would be seen as an improvement.
As far as I can see, we have wasted hundreds of billions $$, and 2200 lives, for next to nothing.
Next time, read some history.:mad:
Negotiations have been happening for years, I thought.
Bullshit. What is your basis for saying this? Karzai and his bunch are corrupt and the Taliban were brutal and intolerant. Are you under the impression the Taliban maintained the roads and built lots of hospitals and kept the Afghan economy growing? Because none of that is true. Maybe they were better for the average fanatical Pashtun or the average warlord.
Apparently, he changed his mind when he was in control of his nation in WW2. That 'unconditional surrender" thing.
The “jaw-jaw” quote is from 1954, not that this comment is on-point in the first place.
OK…“apparently he changed his mind from when he was in charge of his nation…”
Negotiation is often used as a delaying tactic. It will only be fruitful when the parties negotiate in good faith. Something that is sometimes impossible to do. But both parties may do it anyway as a means of avoiding war-war.