FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

In the long run who won:

Ghandi in India [ ]

Mandela in South Africa [ ]

America in Vietnam [ ]

Russia in Afghanistan [ ]

Pick two.
And the approach being taken in Afghanistan now is completely different than the last two. So your comparison--strangely enough--fails.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
Seems exactly the same from whats happened so far.
Fuck Israel
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6973

Dilbert_X wrote:

In the long run who won:

Ghandi in India [ ]

Mandela in South Africa [ ]

America in Vietnam [ ]

Russia in Afghanistan [ ]

Pick two.
ehhhh completely different context.

Both were more about nationalism and anti-colonialism than peaceful shit. Mandela was in jail for being a terrorist ya know, shows prison does really work.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6480|Escea

Dilbert_X wrote:

Seems exactly the same from whats happened so far.
Except the casualty rate is nowhere near as large for the same amount of time, either for Vietnam or the Soviet Invasion.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6947|Tampa Bay Florida
I dont agree with dilbert x.  But I would like to know from you guys what you think the end game will look like.

Lets say in two years we've killed all the top al-qaeda.  We know they just get replaced.  Doesn't the organization fall apart after you take out the network itself (specific individuals that make up the core)?  Even though they keep the name for propaganda?

We are active in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan.  Are we going to keep terrorist hunters there indefinitely or what?  Because short of nuking all these places I fail to see how we can be everywhere at once killing anyone who wants to kill us.  20 or 30 years down the road their children are going to be even more pissed off then they are.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Spearhead wrote:

I dont agree with dilbert x.  But I would like to know from you guys what you think the end game will look like.

Lets say in two years we've killed all the top al-qaeda.  We know they just get replaced.  Doesn't the organization fall apart after you take out the network itself (specific individuals that make up the core)?  Even though they keep the name for propaganda?

We are active in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan.  Are we going to keep terrorist hunters there indefinitely or what?  Because short of nuking all these places I fail to see how we can be everywhere at once killing anyone who wants to kill us.  20 or 30 years down the road their children are going to be even more pissed off then they are.
The effort involves more than just killing the hard-liners. It also involves trying to address what the West perceives the root causes of incentive to jihadism to be: abject poverty, disenfranchisement, education, etc. Those are often referred to as "soft power" and take decades/generations to see results.

And sorry, Dilbert. Read a history book. The approaches taken in the conflicts then as compared to today are night and day different.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6972|US
Well, counter-terrorism generally goes either "let's send in the spec-ops to kill them" or "we'll get them via police methods."  Depending on the enemy and location, one will be the better choice. 

Counter-insurgency usually works best when you undercut the complaints of the insurgents and wage war on the ones who are left over.  Look at the British in Malaya. 

If you really want to get a comprehensive overview of counter-insurgency and some counter-terrorism, I highly recommend War in the Shadows by Robert Asprey

Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias by Shultz covers some of the more recent hotspots in an easier read.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Not all of the Taliban are open to negotiations...so how could we be negotiating with all of them?
Seems your people are meeting with the Haqqanis, I bet they're talking to everyone else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/world … twork.html
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Not all of the Taliban are open to negotiations...so how could we be negotiating with all of them?
Seems your people are meeting with the Haqqanis, I bet they're talking to everyone else.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/world … twork.html
Did you even read the article?

Apparently not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
Of course, whats your point?
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

WTF? Now the link is requiring a log in?

The article clearly stated the contact was tentative, based on the fact that the administration knows that simply killing all of them isn't the answer. But then it goes on to say they essentially weren't willing to negotiate.

So there's no negotiating going on. There was an attempt, which is right in line with COIN strategy. You made it look as if there were active negotiations ongoing. There aren't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
No it said "the discussions, which one official described as "very preliminary," yielded no results." which is very different from "weren't willing to negotiate".

Maybe this bit will help.

"One of the main leaders of the network, Sirajuddin Haqqani, told the BBC in an interview published on Monday that the Haqqanis "have been contacted and are being contacted by intelligence agencies of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries, including the U.S., asking us to leave the sacred jihad and take an important part in the current government."

According to a high-level Afghan security official who was briefed on the talks, the discussions about what, if any, role members of the Haqqani network might play in an Afghan government ended fruitlessly.

"They didn't agree on several things, so the meetings were without any outcome," the Afghan official said. "That's why we are seeing now all these reactions and attacks going on."

South Asia specialists pointed to the highly compartmental nature of the political reconciliation talks to explain the seeming contradiction of some American officials' engaging with groups like the Taliban and the Haqqanis while many others condemn the Haqqanis' violence.

"There's a very small group dealing with reconciliation, and they've been open-minded about who they talk to," said Daniel S. Markey, senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. "By doing so, they're in conflict with others in the U.S. government who say the Haqqani network is beyond the pale." "

Seems more that certain people on the US side want to paint the opposition as "unwilling to negotiate" for their own ends, exactly as they're doing with the Palestinians, did with the Iraqis, and so on.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-10-06 03:09:01)

Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

No it said "the discussions, which one official described as "very preliminary," yielded no results." which is very different from "weren't willing to negotiate".

Maybe this bit will help.

"One of the main leaders of the network, Sirajuddin Haqqani, told the BBC in an interview published on Monday that the Haqqanis
Yeah. That bit helped a lot.

Since I didn't have the text of the article in front of me, I was paraphrasing. Same thing, in the end. If you read a couple of different paragraphs, the take-away is that the Haqqanis weren't too interested in negotiating.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

the take-away is that the Haqqanis weren't too interested in negotiating
The article doesn't say that, it does state plainly that factions in the US don't want the Haqqani to be seen to be willing to negotiate.
As I said, history repeating itself.
Fuck Israel
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6256|...
No Dilbert, the article states that some people in the US government had different opinions on the Haqqani network than others in the government. In the end, negotiations were held with many different intelligence agencies and these were fruitless. That's what the article states.
inane little opines
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

negotiations were held with many different intelligence agencies and these were fruitless
I don't see that in the article either. It says there was one single meeting in fact.
No Dilbert, the article states that some people in the US government had different opinions on the Haqqani network than others in the government.
And those peoplerepresent themselves and others, and form factions, not sure how you conclude I'm wrong.
Fuck Israel
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6256|...

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

negotiations were held with many different intelligence agencies and these were fruitless
I don't see that in the article either. It says there was one single meeting in fact.
No Dilbert, the article states that some people in the US government had different opinions on the Haqqani network than others in the government.
And those peoplerepresent themselves and others, and form factions, not sure how you conclude I'm wrong.

article wrote:

Haqqanis "have been contacted and are being contacted by intelligence agencies of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries, including the U.S., asking us to leave the sacred jihad and take an important part in the current government."

According to a high-level Afghan security official who was briefed on the talks, the discussions about what, if any, role members of the Haqqani network might play in an Afghan government ended fruitlessly.

"They didn't agree on several things, so the meetings were without any outcome," the Afghan official said. "That's why we are seeing now all these reactions and attacks going on."
You concluded from the article that the people in the US who held different opinions on the Haqqanis wanted to make them look like they didn't want to negotiate. That last bit you are making up. The only thing the article clearly states is that within the US there were different opinions on how to deal with the Haqqanis, not how, what or why. What is evident is that talks were held which means that this was the preferred approach. If it wasn't, they wouldn't have negotiated with the Haqqanis.

That being the case I really don't see the issue in people within the US disagreeing with that method.
inane little opines
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
They have been contacted by =/= negotiations were held with.

"There's a very small group dealing with reconciliation, and they've been open-minded about who they talk to," said Daniel S. Markey, senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. "By doing so, they're in conflict with others in the U.S. government who say the Haqqani network is beyond the pale."
"A very small group dealing with reconciliation...in conflict with others in the US govt..." I conclude from this the number of people not interested in reconciliation at least equals those who are.

There'll be a good number of people who don't want the war to end, painting the other side as being unwilling to negotiate when in fact you're trying to maneuvre your own side into not negotiating is Diplomacy 101.
Just as the Israelis are doing now.
Fuck Israel
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

They have been contacted by =/= negotiations were held with.

"There's a very small group dealing with reconciliation, and they've been open-minded about who they talk to," said Daniel S. Markey, senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. "By doing so, they're in conflict with others in the U.S. government who say the Haqqani network is beyond the pale."
"A very small group dealing with reconciliation...in conflict with others in the US govt..." I conclude from this the number of people not interested in reconciliation at least equals those who are.
How would you conclude that? It in no way implies a numerical level for either party involved.

Dilbert_X wrote:

There'll be a good number of people who don't want the war to end, painting the other side as being unwilling to negotiate when in fact you're trying to maneuvre your own side into not negotiating is Diplomacy 101.
Just as the Israelis are doing now.
You really are a trip. "...a good number of people who don't want the war to end..." You seriously believe that...that's the saddest part of it all.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6256|...
Several meetings were held about their goals. Those are negotiations.

Now why is it a bad thing for some people to not be interested in negotiating with the Haqqanis? You're making conclusions based on the article that have nothing to do with the article.

FEOS wrote:

You really are a trip. "...a good number of people who don't want the war to end..." You seriously believe that...that's the saddest part of it all.
Even worse is that his statement reflects popular opinion in quite a number of countries.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-10-07 03:23:47)

inane little opines
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
I am right however. Thats the saddest part.

FEOS wrote:

How would you conclude that? It in no way implies a numerical level for either party involved.
"A very small group" I conclude that its smaller than the majority, and that if the majority were truly interested in reconciliation they would ensure the group tasked with trying to achieve it wasnt so small.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

Several meetings were held about their goals. Those are negotiations.
No, they're meetings about goals, not negotiations.
Fuck Israel
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6256|...
"have been contacted and are being contacted by intelligence agencies of many Islamic and non-Islamic countries, including the U.S., asking us to leave the sacred jihad and take an important part in the current government."
"They didn't agree on several things
Negotiations.
inane little opines
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6668|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

I am right however. Thats the saddest part.

FEOS wrote:

How would you conclude that? It in no way implies a numerical level for either party involved.
"A very small group" I conclude that its smaller than the majority, and that if the majority were truly interested in reconciliation they would ensure the group tasked with trying to achieve it wasnt so small.
A very small group are those actually doing the negotiating. You don't send in thousands to negotiate. You don't even send in hundreds.

Think more than a millimeter deep, ffs.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6363|eXtreme to the maX
The article said "dealing with reconciliation" not "actually conducting negotiations" - which would typically be a small group.
While the war fighting side has the whole Pentagon team to fall back on I'll bet the reconciliation side has barely a few room-fullls.
Fuck Israel

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard