EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
McChrystal Hopes for Taliban Deal
An increase in the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan could lead to a negotiated peace with the Taliban, the commander of Nato forces in the country has said.
File photo of Commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) US General Stanley McChrystal (R) in Afghanistan. McChrystal said his troop surge could lead to a negotiated peace with the Taliban, in an interview published Monday ahead of a major conference this week on the war. (AFP/File/Manan Vatsyayana) Stanley McChrystal, in an interview to the London Financial Times,
said he hoped increased troop levels would weaken the Taliban enough
for them to accept a peace deal and bring an end to the war.
"As a soldier, my personal feeling is that there's been enough fighting," McChrystal said in the article published on Monday.
"I believe that a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome. And it's the right outcome."
His comments come amid preparations for a major conference in London - involving more than 60 countries - on the conflict in Afghanistan.
'Way forward'
McChrystal said the arrival of an extra 30,000 US troops this year should deliver "very demonstrably positive" progress.
"It's not my job to extend olive branches, but it is my job to help set conditions where people in the right positions can have options on the way forward," he said.
The additional troops, announced by Barack Obama, the US president, in December, will add to the 70,000 US troops already there.
More than 113,000 international soldiers are fighting the Taliban under US and Nato command in a conflict which started with the US-led invasion of 2001.
Thursday's conference in London is expected to conclude that international forces will face up to five more years battling the Taliban, according to a communique obtained by a British newspaper.
'Physical security'
The Times reported that Afghan forces will take the lead in "the majority of operations in the insecure areas of Afghanistan within three years".
It said the forces will be given up to half a decade for "physical security".
The British defence ministry, which has the second biggest contingent of troops in Afghanistan after the US, said it did not comment on leaked documents.
But it said a decision on pulling out troops would be based on "conditions, not arbitrary timelines".
Source: Agencies- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
47 Comments so far
Show AllTranslation of the professional assassins propaganda:
We hope to crush the Pastuns into an unconditional surrender within the decade so it will be less costly to maintain the TAPI pipeline.
Karzai and the Taliban have frequently asked the USA and Obomber for a Peace Conference.
The USA wants to impose its will on Afghanistan and will not stop slaughtering resistance warriors until they believe they can obtain the USA's imperialistic goals.
The opinion of anyone who refers to Barak Obama as "Obomber" can be neither valued nor trusted.
The opinion of one who fastens upon a term of insult rather than the facts that make that insult valid can be neither valued or trusted.
Sarcasm has its place....
If you or your loved ones were a victim of Obombers criminal drones ( war crime,as defined by Geneva Conventions, because they consistently have an 80% civilian kill rate)
You would not be defending a fascist imperial war criminal.
Citizens like you who accept the murder of millions of people in the last fifty years are co-conspirators in the infamy of the cruelist empire of the recent past.
Until citizens like you wake up and comprehend a semblance of reality the USA will feel free to continue its murderous scrouge across the earth.
Read Hedges article on CD today to see where you live.
how about neo-tom, as a fitting reference to the president? he carries water for the generals and wall streeters without much complaint, and he seems unable to stand up to cheney, hamid karzai, or any other devious entity intent on making trouble for him. instead, he embraces their wishes. hell, he even brought the idiot pastor in on inauguration day. he rewards his detractors and lessens his allies. i understand theat when a black president gets adamant about anyhting, his approval numbers drop like lead. and let's face it, if obama had a strident mesaage or unambiguous racial features, he would never have been elected. his uncle tom manner gave racist whites an excuse to say they're no racist. "see", they say, "if i were a real racist, i'd never have voted for that obama".
Obomber is a rude way to refer to our president. How about something more accurate, like: Odious Corporate Lawnjockey.
should we "value" or 'trust" apologists for war, death, misery, violence, greed and empirialism?
NO!
Yesterday's New York Times indicated just the opposite with its headline reading that "The Taliban Doesn't Seem Ready To Talk." One of the reasons that it gave was because King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had a letter delivered in the summer of 2008 to the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar asking him to sever ties with Al Qaeda, which the Taliban ignored. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took this as as a sign that the Taliban had no intention of acting in good faith. Gates also stated in the article that the Taliban "are not going to win."
What The N.Y. Times's article neglected to mention is that perhaps the reason why the Taliban has little reason to trust the United States is because of the demands that former president George W. Bush had made shortly after 9/11/01. Bush had told the Taliban that they must hand over bin Laden to the U.S. immediately. The Taliban replied that they would do so just as soon as the U.S. had provided proof of bin Laden's involvement in the attacks of 9/11/01. To this day, neither Bush nor Cheney nor Barack Obama have ever shown to the Taliban nor the American people or the rest of the world the evidence that links bin Laden to those attacks. All this demonstrates why organizations like the Taliban [as well as countries around the world] consider the United States to be a less than an honest broker and why the U.S. is more than willing to say and do anything [such as making bin Laden a scapegoat]in order to achieve their nefarious ends [as evidenced by the statement in the PNAC document for the neoconservatives' desire to have a "catastrophic" event happen such as a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to implement their Middle East agenda].
CD has fairly recent articles stating that prior to the surge, the Taliban requested a Peace Conference. Also Karzai in defiance of his USA handlers and dispite his father being assassinated by the Taliban, has frequently suggested to the uSA a Peace Conference.
And keep in mind the USA is fighting the Pastun national resistance not just the subgroup of Taliban.
Wait, you mean just because the U.S. government broke 324 out of 324 treaties it signed with various native tribes here, and engineered the overthrow of so many democratically-elected governments around the globe (Iran, Guatemala, etc.), that it can't be trusted?
How unpatriotic of you! Don't you know the U.S. is the "city on the hill" and the greatest force for morality and goodness and democracy and freedom in the whole world?
Why do you hate America?
"An increase in the number of foreign troops in Afghanistan could lead to a negotiated peace with the Taliban."
"Peace"? I don't think that is peace. McChrystal is really saying "If we have more force against them, the Taliban will be willing to negotiate a surrender."
I can't understand how increasing an invasion force by about forty percent will bring peace. At best it might bring some law and order.
The whole war is a fraud. McChrystal talks of "progress". Progress towards what? Training the Afghans, right. Et cetera, the same stuff we were lied to already for years.
What McChrystal doesn't seem to understand- and he is far from being the only one- is that no matter what we do in Afghanistan, the "war" can never be made right. It had a faulty first premise. It was wrong from day one and always will be wrong no matter how many soldiers go there.
We have no business being at war with the Taliban. The U.S. MADE them into an enemy. They did not attack the U.S.; the U.S. invaded their country and attacked them, and now the U.S. - through McChrystal, in this case- says that if only we have nearly half again as many invading soldiers, we will end up with a "negotiated peace."
A very important, even primary, reason we are not leaving Afghanistan, and not leaving Iraq anytime soon (despite rumors to the contrary) can be stated in one word: face.
To leave either country would be an implicit admission that the wars were unwinnable, or even wrong in the first place. Many American citizens are willing to admit, even insist, that the wars are just plain wrong and always were wrong. But our leaders and our military cannot bear to lose face by admitting the invasions were mistakes.
1. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked the United States.
2. The United States, however, attacked, invaded, and occupied both countries.
3. Certainly there is a strong argument to be made that these invasions are wars of aggression.*
However, we live in a world of might makes right, and the U.S. government apparently does not feel bound by international laws of war. Until there is a nation, or group of nations, which can challenge this, the U.S. might "makes right"- even if it is wrong.
*The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg had this to say about aggressive war:
"...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
(Broomhall, Bruce. International justice and the International Criminal Court; Oxford University Press. pp. 46.
Face is part of it.
Mainly it is the openly announced USA policy of "Full Spectrum Dominance", basically controlling the oil and gas resources of the world ( in an, already failed, attempt to control the Chinese through force).
It is the TAPI pipeline,the contract of which the Taliban gave to Argentina rather than the USA's UnoCal (whose construction is beginning now)that has the USA occupying Aghanistan
seen this?
www.digitaljournal.com/article/284717 -> Spoils of War - China in Afghanistan
So many people mention TAPI. It's more likely (IMHO) that IPI will happen.
futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2009/11/tapi-no-thanks-i-just-had-lunch.html
(good maps)
The US is doing the dirty work in Afghanistan and the benefits will go to the countries who aren't at war with future terrorists.
It's DAFT, I tell you.
Frodnonag: "I can't understand how increasing an invasion force by about forty percent will bring peace." Well, dear heart, I understand your problem, but it will all be made "crystal" clear when the General's boss, the Nobel Prize winner, makes his State of the Union address. He'll lay it out in axiomatic terms that even a Very Retarded Child (aka Congress) could understand. (standing ovation!)
Leave it.
McChrystal's a genius. He deserves to win this year's "General Westmoreland Trophy" for military excellence. He knows that if you just keep fighting long enough, the Afghans will give up and roll over. You see, the Afghans don't have any stomach for fighting for years for their country. After all, they're not as patriotic as us and they've never done it before.
oh yea another idiot saying war = peace.....
these poeple are insane sociopaths plain and clear.......
Greg Mortensen has shown the way to build a decentralized democratic society by building schools, educating and empowering women....
all in a country where the average wage is 500 per year and we spend around 1 million per soldier per year.... over 20,000 per man woman and child in afgnistan
why not just simply pay the afganis to build roads, bridges, schools, medical clinics etc
and put a big "brought to you by the USA" on every building....
THAT would be a beter strategy - but wouldn't enrich the vampires......or allow the drones to kill with impunity ....
it might actually end the war- CAN'T HAVE THAT!
Clearly, Stanley McCrystal has shit for brains.
Perhaps, but he, like Petraeus, most likely also has his sights set on a future in GOP politics as a "war hero" who can "lead our country" during this time of "terrorism and economic uncertainty."
In a nation of sheeple brainwashed to equate military uniforms with true patriotism (which in the U.S. should only mean restoration and preservation of a constitutional democracy), Petraeus and McChrystal have bright futures as shining, decorated, uniformed figureheads of the corporatist-militarist ruling class.
Sad, but true.
McChrystal and his friends have failed to consider a key thought: if Afghanistan had invaded the United States on similar pretexts, with similar power, and made similar pronouncements over the years, do the American military really believe that Americans, for all their empty-headedness and shallowness, would ever stop fighting the invaders?
McC and friends would shout, "No! Never!"
So what makes them think the Afghans will ever stop fighting the armies that invaded their country? They never have, and they have a lot more practice than the American fools have ever had. McChrystal and the American military are simply full of shit.
I should add that the American politicians responsible for continuing this nonsense are equally full of shit, if not more so.
Some of the remarks you make certainly have merit. It is just regrettable that you have to use "shit" so often to make your point. You're starting to remind me of my ol' buddy JCrumb who I haven't seen hide nor hair of since I returned about a month ago.
Some of the remarks you make certainly have merit. It is just regrettable that you have to use "shit" so often to make your point. You're starting to remind me of my ol' buddy JCrumb who I haven't seen hide nor hair of since I returned about a month ago.
ricg
Bravo! What you have stated is an obvious truth that needs to be repeated many times. But for so many Americans, whenever they see American forces being sent to fight overseas, their brains begin to shut down while their chests swell with patriotic pride as U.S. soldiers and mercenaries slaughter innocent children and grandmothers in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. I have seen it happen in Vietnam and am now seeing it happen once again in the 21st century as American militarism once again rears its ugly head. The freedom fighters in those countries will never rest until the United States is finally driven form their homelands.
ricg
"do the American military really believe that Americans, for all their empty-headedness and shallowness, would ever stop fighting the invaders?"
An excellent point. We'd quit about the time every American was dead. If I or any one else here were an Afghan or Iraqi we would be doing exactly what they are doing. Why our politicians can't figure this out boggles the mind. There is no upside here.
"McChrystal and the American military are simply full of shit."
Not really. They are simply doing the job they were assigned by Cheney/Bush and now Obama. Thats their job. Its not their fault that fools are in charge of them, then and now. Remember the military along with the American people were against these attacks and were saying don't do it at the time.
Of course they're doing their job, but McC and the other brass go beyond their job and into justifying the politics when they make dumbass political pronouncements about the situation. When they do that, they infuse the military with shit and drag the country deeper. And don't forget that these guys look at all the blood and slaughter as career building opportunities, which simply increases and intensifies the shit quotient. If they really disagreed and actually thought they were doing harm to this country, they would quit. No quit, full of shit. Sorry, but the military doesn't get a pass here.
rcig
"If they really disagreed and actually thought they were doing harm to this country, they would quit." Exactly. The true heroes in this country are not those who blindly obey the orders they are given. On the contrary, they are people like former Green Beret Master Sergeant Donald Duncan who spoke out out against the Vietnam War and who resigned in protest against that idiotic war. As Duncan rightly observed during the 1960s:
"I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."
The sadness and the tragedy is that there are so very few in the military today who have the intelligence and integrity and ethics of a Donald Duncan.
One is morally obliged to insult (with compassion) war criminals.
I know it is contradictory, but to be a citizen in such an odious nation is very trying.
I get so frustrated when intelligent, goodhearted people are uninformed and guillible enough to have faith in this despicable system of fascism and empire.
I don't think you can make deals with religious fundamentalists like the Taliban. You either bow to their beliefs or forget it. For example try to compromise on abortion or gay rights with a christian fundamentalist and see how far that gets you. It'll be the same way with the Taliban, IMHO.
The CIA has been attempting to make deals with the Taliban since before the invasion.
The CIA would ask the ISI to put them in contact with moderate Taliban and then the ISI would tell the extremists which moderates were in contact with the CIA thus having them assassinated.
A perception of non-negociability with the Taliban is fostered by USA propaganda of their being irrational.
Omar has stated many times leave Afghanistan and we will not retaliate for the harm you have done us.
Even now some Taliban controlled areas allow female education.
The Taliban are not monolithic and are subject to social evolution.
Just allow the Afghans to solve their own problems and stop imposing USA imperial agendas.
And do not forget the USA is at war with the Pastun nation not only the subgroup Taliban.
I have read that the Taliban have waged several times for peace, their only demand to be left alone to run their country their way. In just the past few weeks that have suggested using Imran Khan as a mediator.
"I have read that the Taliban have waged several times for peace, their only demand to be left alone to run their country their way."
Well we all know that is never going to happen, so we will fight on until we go broke.
A great book relating a Doctors Without Borders ( MSF) foray into Soviet occupied Afghanistan.
Is "The Photographer" ( copywrite 2009)a large format photo and illustrated narrative, that brings home the goodness and courage and warts of the Afghan people.
'McChrystal and his friends have failed to consider...'
The US military was given its mission by the DAFT law* that Congress passed when it surrendered to Bush and Cheney.
The military mission is 'preventing future terrorism' by America's enemies.
It's right there in print if you care to read the law that is destroying the Republic for which I stand - don't go to too much trouble, though. After all, this is America, the land where they review football plays but not declarations of war.
The US military is attempting to complete the mission it was given.
The mission is insane and DAFT, but that's not the military's fault.
That would be the fault of Congress, most of whom are still in office, 8 years later.
And that's the fault of the American citizen.
* DAFT, Defense against Future Terrorism
started by Public Law 107-40 (which President O. mentioned on 12/1/09).
The law that is ignored by Muggles in the hope that its evil won't be noticed.
locust
Excellent reasoning. And we will see what we can do in November of this year to cut that number of incumbents down for you.
Putting the responsibility where it really lies is the first step to truth and not platitudes or ideological drivel.
McCrystal: " There's been enough fighting ". What that tells me is the Taliban are growing in strength and he fears a loss like in Viet Nam. Generals like McCrystal talk peace only when it is expedient because they love war!
Yes, make a 'deal' with them. Surrender and GO HOME!
30,000 more troops simply means more targets. Thats what it really means.
I see no reason to continue Cheney's mistakes. Make a deal with the Taliban if we can and withdraw. Simple as that. We are accomplishing nothing there. We cannot help the Afghan people in any way.
I heard that the Taliban brought down one of our cowardly drones.? Russki payback is coming to Waziristan?
The "negotiated deal" comes 9 years too late. The US could have negotiated a deal in 2001 when The Taliban offered up Osama Bin Laden being sent to a third party country if the US gave proof of his involvement in 9/11.
So why did the US invade in the first place again?
Resources, hence, profit.
With the money and resources spent on our military endeavors and interference in foreign governments internal affairs, our government could subsidized costs for goods such as oil and other imports from countries that view us with animosity, and still be billions of dollars ahead, and no loss of life and limb. Fighting and killing for things is a bad idea that has been around too long. We are officially taught differently as early as kindergarten and pre-school. There is no substitute for negotiations and bargaining where both parties walk away with the feeling that they got a good deal.
Senator Hillary Clinton wrote an article for the Dec. 2008 Foreign Affairs wherein she proposed that we offer the impoverished Afghans training and resources to end their poverty. That idea was not brought out in the Campaign most likely because it would mean that the War Machine Corps. would lose money.
I think this article's purpose is so we can say we are good guys for offering a "PEACE".
But, this peace is on OUR terms!
Didn't work for the Solviets, and they weren't torturing the locals.
I am really surprised at McChrystle being so bold as to make some of the remarks that he has, suggesting a possible negotiated settlement with the Taliban.
I've really got to wonder if he got clearance from Hillary first.