Taliban is not the US's enemy: Biden

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jihadin**

WASHINGTON: The United States has said that Taliban is not an enemy of America, a move seen as the latest effort of the Obama administration to send an olive branch to the terrorist outfit that ruled Afghanistan before 9/11.

"Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That's critical," US Vice-President Joe Biden said in an interview to the Newsweek magazine.

"There is not a single statement that the (US) President has ever made in any of our policy assertions that the Taliban is our enemy because it threatens US interests," he said.

If, in fact, the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us. So there's a dual track here, Biden added.

"One, continue to keep the pressure on al-Qaida and continue to diminish them. Two, put the government in a position where they can be strong enough that they can negotiate with and not be overthrown by the Taliban," he said.

"And at the same time try to get the Taliban to move in the direction to see to it that they, through reconciliation, commit not to be engaged with al-Qaida or any other organization that they would harbor to do damage to us and our allies," Biden said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney, supporting Biden's statement, said the Vice-President does not regret having said this.

"We didn't invade Afghanistan. We did not send US military personnel into Afghanistan because the Taliban were in power. They had been in power. We went into Afghanistan because al-Qaida had launched an attack against the US from Afghanistan," he said.

So um....nevermind.

**Rented Tritium**

Oh uncle Joe, did you get out, uhh, come back over here, we have some hot chocolate for you. We told you never to go out without us at night, uncle Joe. Don't talk to that nice lady, uncle Joe, she doesn't want to hear your stories.

**Ahtman**

[citation needed]

**dogma**

To some extent he's correct, we didn't invade Afghanistan because the Taliban was in power. We invaded Afghanistan because we were responding to 9/11, which was perpetrated by Al-Qaeda. The Taliban expressed sympathy for Al-Qaeda in refusing to give them up to the US (though its questionable whether or not they had the ability to do so), and so became incidental targets as a result of our military action.

However, at this point, its fairly clear that the Taliban is hostile to US interests in Afghanistan as expressed by both Administrations, though this may simply be an attempt to express a different set of interests.

**Easy E**

Yeah, this sounds like it is trying to set up for a political resolution at the bargaining table where the Taliban can be part of the government.

Like Dogam, said; technically our enemy was Al-Qaeda.

**Rented Tritium**

No, that's historical revisionism, Dogma and Easy E, removing the Taliban was absolutely part of the mission when we invaded.

They weren't "incidental targets" at all.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I may be wrong, I usually am, but I read somewhere that there was no evidence linking Bin-Laden to 9/11. I know he claimed responsibility, and was obviously overjoyed when it happened. But actual physical evidence.

Back OT I think it's the only sensible decision if you want peace in Afghanistan.

**mattyrm**

Here is how you win a modern war.

Ask the enemy to come to the table, get told to feth off, smash them for a long time, get them to come back to the table, make some concessions, win.

It was hard to swallow for me after we wound up letting a gang of murdering IRA mother fethers out. One of them hosed an RAF soldier down while he was holding his daughter, they both died, and I bumped into the sneering fether when I was over in South Armagh.

Such is life.

It's genocide or the negotiating table this day and age, there is no other option if you ever want to draw a line under a conflict of this nature. Be it the IRA, ETA, or the Taliban.

I don't know how some of you lads think the war in Ganners is going to end, but that's the way of it. Rather than bother worrying about analysing Biden's statement, I'm sure he knows what he is doing because he is on a pay scale far above mine, and this is a way of basically of him not entirely ruling out what will have to happen if we want the fighting to stop.

Its hard to swallow for the grunts, but a best case scenario is simply this. The Taliban will realise its a stalemate and then no doubt wind up in some sort of peace process ala the Good Friday agreement, and as much as we don't like it, they will have some say in how Ganners gets ran.

Its either that, or the stubborn bastards carry on as they have been, and we have another 25 years of death in the Gan. No doubt most of it against the ANP and the ANA as the allies feth off home, but still, its hardly a win then is it?

**dogma**

Rented Tritium wrote:No, that's historical revisionism, Dogma and Easy E, removing the Taliban was absolutely part of the mission when we invaded.

They weren't "incidental targets" at all.

You're missing the point. The Taliban had been in power for quite some time, and we had never taken explicit issue with this fact. That is, until we were attacked by Al-Qaeda, and subsequently traced the center of their operation to Afghanistan. We then demanded that the Taliban effectively give up Al-Qaeda to the United States. They refused, though not unequivocally (basically, they wanted to negotiate the US demands). We, along with a coalition of forces, invaded Afghanistan in order to effectively extract the conditions of our initial set of demands by force of arms. In this process the Taliban was removed from power, though only because of their position regarding the Al-Qaeda issue.

They were not the explicit cause of the invasion, they were secondary to the initial mission of responding to the 9/11 attack. This isn't revisionist history, its explicitly what happened.

**sarpedons-right-hand**

Wow....

Maybe Mister Biden has found a time machine? After all, it wasn't that long ago that the American Govt was arming and training some of the Mujahadin Fighters who eventually became members of Al Qaeda.....

**Kilkrazy**

Rented Tritium wrote:No, that's historical revisionism, Dogma and Easy E, removing the Taliban was absolutely part of the mission when we invaded.

They weren't "incidental targets" at all.

The problem is that the mission has clearly failed and we now need to come to some kind of accommodation with the Taliban.

**Jihadin**

The problem is that the mission has clearly failed and we now need to come to some kind of accommodation with the Taliban

What mission failure? military or US gov't mission?

**Sgt_Scruffy**

What Jihadin said. Enlighten us with your "mission failure" statement since it's news to me.

**Samus_aran115**

Jihadin wrote:
The problem is that the mission has clearly failed and we now need to come to some kind of accommodation with the Taliban

What mission failure? military or US gov't mission?

Good point.

Joe, Joe, Joe. I think you might have said something a little too drastic for the american public to digest.

**Melissia**

The "Taliban" is a misnomer anyway... by now it's basically spilntered into a few dozen groups at least.

**sebster**

Rented Tritium wrote:No, that's historical revisionism, Dogma and Easy E, removing the Taliban was absolutely part of the mission when we invaded.

They weren't "incidental targets" at all.

Yeah, for sure. When we went in there was a lot of rhetoric about how awful the Taliban were and how it'd be great to liberate Afghanistan from them. And it would have been great if we'd actually managed to do it. But we didn't.

Now we're like 'feth it, have your stupid country, just don't start harbouring terrorists again or we'll feth your gak up'. Which is a shame, especially for the people of Afghanistan, but you know, I'm not over there getting shot at, nor is anyone I know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:What mission failure? military or US gov't mission?

They're the same thing.

**Sgt_Scruffy**

sebster wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:No, that's historical revisionism, Dogma and Easy E, removing the Taliban was absolutely part of the mission when we invaded.

They weren't "incidental targets" at all.

Yeah, for sure. When we went in there was a lot of rhetoric about how awful the Taliban were and how it'd be great to liberate Afghanistan from them. And it would have been great if we'd actually managed to do it. But we didn't.

Now we're like 'feth it, have your stupid country, just don't start harbouring terrorists again or we'll feth your gak up'. Which is a shame, especially for the people of Afghanistan, but you know, I'm not over there getting shot at, nor is anyone I know.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:What mission failure? military or US gov't mission?

They're the same thing.

I would argue that the military has accomplished what the government has allowed it to do. It becomes a question of "is the government allowing the military to accomplish the mission?"

**sebster**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I would argue that the military has accomplished what the government has allowed it to do. It becomes a question of "is the government allowing the military to accomplish the mission?"

Every military mission ever has operated within certain boundaries. If the military can't achieve the given mission within the given boundaries, well then both government and the military have failed in their respective endeavours.

Not that the boundaries of operations in Afghanistan are that restrictive anyway. The issue has always been getting the people to thrown their lot behind the civilian government, not because there's an inherent loyalty, or even fear of, the Taliban, but because the Karzai government seems to almost set itself to be as obnoxious as possible in all it's dealings.

**Ouze**

Here is a citation for the story, and here is the White House doubling down on those comments.

So far as the meat of what he said, I'm not sure that what he is getting at - that we need to, at some point, come to terms with the Taliban - is unreasonable. I supported the war to get Bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda in the country. That's mostly done. Our choices are to make peace with the Taliban (as we did with Italy, Germany, and Japan).... or to attempt to utterly annihilate them. I don't think there is a third way (is there?), and the latter option is a little unworkable.

**Kilkrazy**

Jihadin wrote:
The problem is that the mission has clearly failed and we now need to come to some kind of accommodation with the Taliban

What mission failure? military or US gov't mission?

The Coalition Of The Willing's mission to convert Afghanistan into a stable democratic state.

**sebster**

Ouze wrote:Here is a citation for the story, and here is the White House doubling down on those comments.

So far as the meat of what he said, I'm not sure that what he is getting at - that we need to, at some point, come to terms with the Taliban - is unreasonable. I supported the war to get Bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda in the country. That's mostly done. Our choices are to make peace with the Taliban (as we did with Italy, Germany, and Japan).... or to attempt to utterly annihilate them. I don't think there is a third way (is there?), and the latter option is a little unworkable.

Sorry, did you mean reasonable? From the following sentence it seems like you meant reasonable.

The other issue is that getting the Taliban to buy into government lessens the chance of them starting up a civil war once the US leaves.

**Hordini**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
The problem is that the mission has clearly failed and we now need to come to some kind of accommodation with the Taliban

What mission failure? military or US gov't mission?

The Coalition Of The Willing's mission to convert Afghanistan into a stable democratic state.

To be fair, that was only one aspect of the mission, not the basis for the whole mission. I would argue that the primary part of the mission was to disrupt al-Qaeda and their ability to operate out of and train in Afghanistan. That's the reason we invaded, anyway. I would argue that the part of the mission of converting Afghanistan into a stable democratic state only developed because a stable and democratic Afghanistan could better keep al-Qaeda at bay on their own. It's possible for a mission to have multiple goals, and just because they don't all come to perfect fruition doesn't mean that the mission as a whole was a complete failure.

**Kilkrazy**

There has been mission creep.

The original objective of kicking out Al Qaeda was accomplished quite quickly.

The goal of stabilising Afghanistan got tacked on because it was obvious that without it the Taliban would probably get back in power nearly as quickly as they had been booted out.

The point is we are still there now.

Karzai has turned out to be not much better than any other dodgy 3rd world dictator, e.g Mugabe.

We are going to have to talk to the Taliban unless we want to garrison the country for the indefinite future. Which certainly wasn't any part of the mission objectives.

**Easy E**

Sgt_Scruffy wrote: I would argue that the military has accomplished what the government has allowed it to do. It becomes a question of "is the government allowing the military to accomplish the mission?"

The old "Stabbed in the Back" meme again.

The Taliban are only our enemy ONLY as long as they are allied with Al-Qeuda. If they renounce these links and are willing to play ball in the "normal" politics of Afghanistan, there is no reason for us to keep fighting them.

**Polonius**

Just because Biden looks stupid, doesn't mean he is. International relations are complicated, and involve making deals with people you hate. The taliban might be bad people, they might have fought against our forces in Afghanistan, and they might not be who we'd like to be in charge... but they're a powerful force in Afghanistan. Before the mission, during, and after we leave.

So we can either try to piss everybody off more, or we can start trying to make deals.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
Ouze wrote:Here is a citation for the story, and here is the White House doubling down on those comments.

So far as the meat of what he said, I'm not sure that what he is getting at - that we need to, at some point, come to terms with the Taliban - is unreasonable. I supported the war to get Bin Laden and destroy Al-Qaeda in the country. That's mostly done. Our choices are to make peace with the Taliban (as we did with Italy, Germany, and Japan).... or to attempt to utterly annihilate them. I don't think there is a third way (is there?), and the latter option is a little unworkable.

Sorry, did you mean reasonable? From the following sentence it seems like you meant reasonable.

The other issue is that getting the Taliban to buy into government lessens the chance of them starting up a civil war once the US leaves.

Yeah, I just framed it poorly with a double negative. To clarify, I think the idea we need to make peace with the Taliban is reasonable. While it's offensive on it's face since we're freshly into hostilities with them, I don't think it's any different then our ending hostilities with other factions that we've not annihilated. At the end of the day, how do wars end? I guess it's a philosophical question.

**sebster**

Polonius wrote:Just because Biden looks stupid, doesn't mean he is. International relations are complicated, and involve making deals with people you hate. The taliban might be bad people, they might have fought against our forces in Afghanistan, and they might not be who we'd like to be in charge... but they're a powerful force in Afghanistan. Before the mission, during, and after we leave.

So we can either try to piss everybody off more, or we can start trying to make deals.

Yeah, the Taliban are bad, but there's plenty in the region that are just as bad that we don't just tolerate, we actually embrace. I mean, have you seen the government of Uzbekistan?

I guess, though, the issue is one of stability, and how much you can rely on someone to keep up their end of the bargain. Pakistan is a classic example of an alliance that isn't working, just because there local politics makes it impossible to tow the US line on foreign policy (unlike Uzbekistan who are happy to take US money and keep fething over their own population).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:Yeah, I just framed it poorly with a double negative. To clarify, I think the idea we need to make peace with the Taliban is reasonable. While it's offensive on it's face since we're freshly into hostilities with them, I don't think it's any different then our ending hostilities with other factions that we've not annihilated. At the end of the day, how do wars end? I guess it's a philosophical question.

Fair enough. Now that you pointed out

I agree with your summary, as well. It's a good question on when wars end, and it's a pretty good question on exactly how you beat the Taliban. I mean, even if the Taliban were defeated utterly, and stop operating in any kind of way, the beliefsets they hold would still be there, and would come up in some kind of democratic government anyway.

**Kilkrazy**

The great problem with helping to establish a democracy is when the people go and vote for the wrong things.

That is why the west has often supported completely undemocratic governments who were on our side.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:I mean, have you seen the government of Uzbekistan?

Keeping it in nation, the Northern Alliance.

sebster wrote:
...(unlike Uzbekistan who are happy to take US money and keep fething over their own population).

Borat?

But seriously, its a back-and-forth. The government is hostile to the clans, and the clans are hostile to the government.

**mattyrm**

Borat was from Kazakhstan wasnt he?

In Kazakhstan my sister Is best prostitute!