Obama, who has put the draw-down of combat troops at the heart of his foreign policy, declared that "the world is behind the strategy" of giving Afghans control over their own security, but stressed that "now it's our task to implement if effectively."
THESE GUYS MUST BOTH BE STONED OUT OF THEIR GOURDS IF THEY THINK THEY'RE EMBARKING ON A STRATEGY FOR SUCCESS!
THERE CAN BE NO PEACE IN AFGHANISTAN UNTIL WARLORDISM AND ISLAMISM ARE ERASED FROM WITHIN ITS BORDERS.
AND - AS FAR AS AFGHANISTAN IS CONCERNED - THAT MEANS DEFEATING ISLAMISM IN PAKISTAN.
IF WE ARE NOT WILLING TO USE UNLIMITED KINETIC FORCE TO DO THAT, THEN WE SHOULD USE SUFFICIENT DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC FORCE:
COMPLETELY SHUN PAKISTAN - AND AFGHANISTAN AND ALL OTHER ISLAMIST NATIONS - BAN THEM FRO THE UN, FROM THE WORLD BANK, FROM THE IMF, FROM THE IAEA, FROM THE WTO AND SLAP HUGE TARIFFS ON EVERYTHING THEY EXPORT.
IF THEY DON'T WANT TO BECOME A PART OF THE FREE WORLD, AND IF THEY CONTINUE TO BE HOSTILE TO US, THEN WE SHOULDN'T LET THEM BENEFIT FROM OUR VALUES AND EFFORTS ONE BIT.
14 comments:
James Baker initiated the policy of negotiating peace with the Taliban. He was appointed by George Bush.
Barack Obama has followed through on, and expanded that policy.
WHAT?!?!?!?
JAMES BAKER WORKED FOR GHWBUSH NOT DUBYA.
U R SO WRONG ITZ SILLY:
BAKER WAS AN EARLY OPPONENT OF THE ISI - WHO CREATED THE TALIBAN:
ISI’s backing of Pakistan-based terrorist groups active in India in the early 1990s led then-Secretary of State James Baker to write a letter to Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on January 9, 1993. That letter delivered a warning from the George H.W. Bush administration to Pakistan that it could be named a state sponsor of terrorism.
http://sadf.eu/home/2012/05/pakistan-with-friends-like-these/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/the_us_refuses_to_negotiate_with_the_taliban
CNN - October 28, 2008
In Washington, Perino said Tuesday that the United States "realize(s) that we have to reach out on some level" to the militants, and the Bush administration is considering talks with the Taliban as part of its ongoing strategic review of Afghanistan.
"Whether or not some elements of the Taliban would renounce violence and extremism and work for the greater good of Afghanistan remains to be seen," she said.
IT NEVER WENT FAR...
LOOK AT THE DATE:
October 28, 2008
OBAMA WOULD BE POTUS ELECT IN A FEW WEEKS...
You're right. My memory failed me. James Baker worked on the Iraq Study Group under GWB.
The issue I recall being unhappy with had to do with negotiations with Iran on how to handle Iraq. There were also issue with Moqtada al-Sadr.
But since I was so off on my initial point, I will study this before I make another point.
The reason I connected the two was that, as I recall, James Baker, and his people, suggested negotiations with our enemies as being part of the process of an eventual drawdown of troops in Iraq. And, as I recall, he was putting a date of 2008 on it.
And, you're right that the idea of negotiating with the Taliban came up late in the GWB Presidency. I conflated the Baker ISG ideas with the later ideas on Afghanistan. Sorry.
Still, to my mind, all such ideas are wrong. And, I think our results show that that is correct.
The net effect of the War on Terror, imo, is we have handed Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya over to Islamist governments. We have not had a single win.
That is because we don't ban Sharia. Instead, we allow their local populations to install Sharia and elect Islamist parties to their Parliaments.
IMO, the Parliamentary system is wrong for their part of the world, and it is a flawed system altogether.
Parliaments encourage victim politics and "Prebenalism" which is a real concern in primitive Tribalistic societies like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Here you go. From Wiki (Iraq Study Group)
According to a report in late November, the Iraq Study Group had "strongly urged" a large pull back of American troops in Iraq. The final report released on December 6, 2006 included 79 recommendations and was 160 pages in length.
Some (of many) results include: assessing stability as 'elusive' and the situation as "deteriorating", that all of Iraq's neighbors (including Iran and Syria) must be included in an external diplomatic effort to stabilize Iraq, that worldwide commitments limit the U.S. from greatly increasing troop strength in Iraq,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraq_study_group_wants_diplomacy_with_iran_and_syria_/
The Iraq Study Group, headed by James Baker, will recommend overtures to Iran and Syria in an effort to solve the crisis.
A draft report on strategies for Iraq, which will be debated here by a bipartisan commission beginning Monday, urges an aggressive regional diplomatic initiative that includes direct talks with Iran and Syria but sets no timetables for a military withdrawal, according to officials who have seen all or parts of the document.
While the diplomatic strategy appears likely to be accepted, with some amendments, by the 10-member Iraq Study Group, members of the commission and outsiders involved in its work said they expected a potentially divisive debate about timetables for beginning an American withdrawal.
In interviews, several officials said announcing a major withdrawal was the only way to persuade the government of Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to focus on creating an effective Iraqi military force. Several commission members, including some Democrats, are discussing proposals that call for a declaration that within a specified period of time, perhaps as short as a year, a significant number of American troops should be withdrawn, regardless of whether the Iraqi government’s forces are declared ready to defend the country.
Among the ideas are embedding far more American training teams into Iraqi military units in a last-ditch improvement effort. While numbers are still approximate, phased withdrawal of combat troops over the next year would leave 70,000 to 80,000 American troops in the country, compared with about 150,000 now.
Considering that these are the same two countries that are backing Hezbollah and that Iran, especially, has to like the way things are headed in Iraq, it is far from clear why they would be interested in helping the U.S. salvage its policy.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2006/12/lileks-nails-it-what-if-we-treated.html
WHEN YOU WROTE THIS, YOU WERE 10000000% CORRECT:
The net effect of the War on Terror, imo, is we have handed Iraq, Afghanistan, Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya over to Islamist governments. We have not had a single win.
That is because we don't ban Sharia. Instead, we allow their local populations to install Sharia and elect Islamist parties to their Parliaments.
IMO, the Parliamentary system is wrong for their part of the world, and it is a flawed system altogether.
Parliaments encourage victim politics and "Prebenalism" which is a real concern in primitive Tribalistic societies like Iraq and Afghanistan.
THE ISG WAS CHICKENSHIT VOMIT.
Yeah, my first comment on this thread was pretty stupid. This is what my brain does. It categorizes memories of general ideas and events. My brain does not recall specifics very well.
And then when I try to recall specifics, my brain throws up, Baker wanted to negotiate with our enemies, our enemy is the Taliban, therefore, Baker said to negotiate with the Taliban.
It is only true in the most extreme generality.
Baker did want to negotiate with Iran.
Check this out from NPR, where Baker says Iran has "influence with Hamas" therefore, that's one reason why we need to negotiate with Iran:
Talks with Syria and Iran: The study group is expected to approach the Iraq problem through a regional framework. One expected recommendation will be for a regional conference of all Iraq's neighbors who have a vested interest in making sure the violence doesn't spill over their borders. Already, Saudi Arabia is planning to build a 500-mile wall between it and Iraq.
Perhaps the most controversial recommendation, signaling the broadest policy shift, will be a call for talks between the United States and Iran and Syria. The White House accuses those two nations of helping fuel instability in neighboring Iraq, and supporting terrorism, and has consistently rejected the idea of direct talks with them. Many members of the Iraq group are considered pragmatists with a multilateralist worldview, who believe that dialogue is often the best route to conflict resolution. This week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair — whose country has sent more troops to Iraq than any other except the United States — endorsed the idea of engaging Syria and Iran.
Baker has said that enlisting the help of Syria and Iran could also pay dividends in the broader Middle East peace talks, because both groups have influence with the Islamist groups Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6480589
Post a Comment