'Unacceptable' for Taliban to refuse peace talks, U.S. official says

[TU Curmudgeon]

From Reuters

'Unacceptable' for Taliban to refuse peace talks, U.S. official says
​

KABUL (Reuters) - Pressure is building on the Taliban to respond to President Ashraf Ghani’s offer for peace talks, in the face of growing demands for an end to the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan, a senior U.S. official said.

“Increasingly, I think it’s becoming unacceptable for the Taliban not to negotiate,” Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells told reporters during a visit to Kabul.

“Right now it’s the Taliban leaders, and frankly it’s Taliban leaders who aren’t residing in Afghanistan, who are the obstacle to a negotiated political settlement,” said Wells, one of the State Department’s top officials dealing with Afghanistan.

Her remarks were made on Saturday but embargoed for release on Sunday.

COMMENT:-

Generally speaking, the side that thinks that it is winning doesn't call for "negotiations".

On the other hand, exactly how does Mr. Trump's administration think that it is going to "negotiate" a solution which leaves the Taliban with some significant political say in Afghanistan when it is the position of the US government that the Taliban is a terrorist organization that has to be wiped out? And, why would the Taliban believe the US government when it says that it is prepared to allow the Taliban to have some significant political say in Afghanistan after the US government invaded Afghanistan in order to ensure that the Taliban had no significant political say in Afghanistan?
​

 

[apdst]

We should suspend any and all negotiations and carpet bomb Taliban strong holds.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We should suspend any and all negotiations and carpet bomb Taliban strong holds.

That is NOT the official position of Mr. Trump's administration.

The official position is that the Taliban is a legitimate political force which is using unacceptable methods of rising to power. Once the Taliban ceases using those unacceptable methods, then the Taliban is fully entitled to govern Afghanistan if they can secure the support of the Afghan people.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

We should suspend any and all negotiations and carpet bomb Taliban strong holds.

We did that for 17 years, we wasted a lot of money and American lives and got nothing for it. Simple people with overly simple solutions.

 

[apdst]

That is NOT the official position of Mr. Trump's administration.

The official position is that the Taliban is a legitimate political force which is using unacceptable methods of rising to power. Once the Taliban ceases using those unacceptable methods, then the Taliban is fully entitled to govern Afghanistan if they can secure the support of the Afghan people.

That's unfortunate.

 

[apdst]

We did that for 17 years, we wasted a lot of money and American lives and got nothing for it. Simple people with overly simple solutions.

No we haven't. The war in Afghanistan has been executed in a half assed fashion since day 1.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

No we haven't. The war in Afghanistan has been executed in a half assed fashion since day 1.

Kid, if you really think it's our lack of bomb dropping that's why we're losing you fundamentally don't understand the situation or anything that you're talking about.

Guerilla wars are not won with "carpet bombs". You're probably someone who thinks Vietnam was a great American victory. Like I said, you're a simplistic person with hilariously over simplistic solutions.

 

[apdst]

Kid, if you really think it's our lack of bomb dropping that's why we're losing you fundamentally don't understand the situation or anything that you're talking about.

Guerilla wars are not won with "carpet bombs". You're probably someone who thinks Vietnam was a great American victory. Like I said, you're a simplistic person with hilariously over simplistic solutions.

It's a lack of bomb dropping, bullet shooting and missile launching.

It worked in Vietnam.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It's a lack of bomb dropping, bullet shooting and missile launching.

It worked in Vietnam.

LOL, I was right. You look at Vietnam as a US win and want us to return to that failure and make the same dumbass mistakes.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's a lack of bomb dropping, bullet shooting and missile launching.

It worked in Vietnam.

Indeed it did.

That's why Vietnam is not a "Communist" country today.

 

[apdst]

Indeed it did.

That's why Vietnam is not a "Communist" country today.

It isn't because The United States was defeated on the battlefield.

 

[apdst]

LOL, I was right. You look at Vietnam as a US win and want us to return to that failure and make the same dumbass mistakes.

When did US forces surrender?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

When did US forces surrender?

When we turned tail and pulled out of Vietnam altogether and let the communist north have full control of the country. Let me guess, you're really a communist and vietcong sympathizer so that's why you're super happy with the outcome?

 

[Mr Person]

"Unacceptable"?

:lamo




Russia couldn't tame that country with well over a million troops. We couldn't with a whole lot less. Why the **** would they negotiate? They are perfectly well aware that it would take a tremendous effort to actually subdue that large country of ruinous terrain, root everyone out, etc. They aren't a standing army. We do not have the means to do what we would need to do were our threats to mean anything.

Unacceptable. HAH!

 

[HERA the Stars]

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells

You don't say no to this lady ^^^
She asks you out on a date you damn well show up :lol:

US Asks Pakistan to Facilitate Afghan-Taliban Peace Talks

8th of June

a week later lol

PAKISTAN TALIBAN LEADER KILLED IN U.S. DRONE STRIKE, OFFICIAL SAYS

 

[Grand Mal]

It isn't because The United States was defeated on the battlefield.

The purpose of war isn't to kill your enemy. It's to make him stop fighting.

 

[Grand Mal]

"Unacceptable"?

:lamo




Russia couldn't tame that country with well over a million troops. We couldn't with a whole lot less. Why the **** would they negotiate? They are perfectly well aware that it would take a tremendous effort to actually subdue that large country of ruinous terrain, root everyone out, etc. They aren't a standing army. We do not have the means to do what we would need to do were our threats to mean anything.

Unacceptable. HAH!

There's no winning in Afghanistan, not for foreigners. Those people have been hiding beside a road waiting for their enemy to come for umpteen generations.
This is what a Brit wrote about the first Anglo-Afghan War in 1843...

"...a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, was acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated”.

 

[fishnthec]

It would be like trying to negotiate with roaches!

The Taliban do not negotiate. They are waiting us out! If and when we leave, they will come out of their roach nests and reek havoc again!

I think we are stuck there.

 

[ElChupacabra]

It would be like trying to negotiate with roaches!

The Taliban do not negotiate. They are waiting us out! If and when we leave, they will come out of their roach nests and reek havoc again!

I think we are stuck there.

The important factor here is not having the need to negotiate. While one can argue they are not winning the conflict in traditional terms, they are in the sense they cannot be contained either in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Their goal is very different than the US, and they can continue waging a guerrilla war for a long time. This is a war of attrition, and logistics favor the Taliban far more than they do the US. Many of the fighters are supported by people in rural areas that are hard to access, and they don't require a massive infrastructure to support. Meanwhile the US has to spend a massive amount of financial and human resources to be there as a counterbalance.

 

[apdst]

The purpose of war isn't to kill your enemy. It's to make him stop fighting.

The best way to make him stop fighting is to inflict massive casualties that he can't sustain.

 

[apdst]

When we turned tail and pulled out of Vietnam altogether and let the communist north have full control of the country. Let me guess, you're really a communist and vietcong sympathizer so that's why you're super happy with the outcome?

Your ignorance astounds us all.

 

[Pedestrian]

That is NOT the official position of Mr. Trump's administration.

The official position is that the Taliban is a legitimate political force which is using unacceptable methods of rising to power. Once the Taliban ceases using those unacceptable methods, then the Taliban is fully entitled to govern Afghanistan if they can secure the support of the Afghan people.

Good post and comment. However, if the Taliban ever took national power, they will...never give it up. That could lead to abuses.

The only sliver of confidence I might have, is that when the Taliban was hiding, protecting and negotiating with Osama Bi Laden
refused to follow him and attack the US.

The Taliban if anything, wanted to change Arab govts. not attack the US who they felt correctly, would respond in force.

The Taliban only wanted OBL for his money, allowed him to recruit who he wanted and only got 2 men to join him.

The Taliban I feel though, can't be trusted not to continue to take power by force.

 

[Grand Mal]

The best way to make him stop fighting is to inflict massive casualties that he can't sustain.

Can't or won't. Whatever takes away the will to fight.
That's how it was in Vietnam.

 

[apdst]

Can't or won't. Whatever takes away the will to fight.
That's how it was in Vietnam.

U.S. forces destroyed the enemy's ability to wage war against U.S. forces. That's an historical fact.

 

[fishnthec]

The important factor here is not having the need to negotiate. While one can argue they are not winning the conflict in traditional terms, they are in the sense they cannot be contained either in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Their goal is very different than the US, and they can continue waging a guerrilla war for a long time. This is a war of attrition, and logistics favor the Taliban far more than they do the US. Many of the fighters are supported by people in rural areas that are hard to access, and they don't require a massive infrastructure to support. Meanwhile the US has to spend a massive amount of financial and human resources to be there as a counterbalance.

Well, its not just the expense of American dollars, it's also an expense measured in American Blood!

But, as you already know, part of our commitment to fight terrorism on foreign soil- before it comes to America again in the form of a 9/11 attack, we do make such sacrifices of Blood and Money! Never Again! Right?