The Taliban collection (2006 onwards)

[davidbfpo]

Bob Jones just posted in part:

There is no graceful way to walk away from that. Now we worry more about our grace, and our honor. This is one where need to just swallow our pride and walk away. The reasons we use to justify why we must stay were never accurate, so there is no reason we should allow them to hold us there any longer.

How to extricate ourselves is clearly on the political agenda and Bob is right that creating a message to explain this is causing agony in the "corridors of power". After over a decade of "the mission is to confront AQ and ensure Afghanistan is not used as a base to launch attacks from", how do our politicians explain to the domestic electorate, those who gave support (including the nations who have left ISAF already) and those who have watched without commitment?

Just to remind readers "the mission" explained remains the same, here is the UK Defence Secretary a few days ago:

The ultimate measure of success must be the extent to which we can leave Afghanistan in a state that will continue to deny its territory to international terrorists.....Even if we had achieved nothing lasting, every year that goes by keeping the bombers at bay, keeping them off our streets, is a significant achievement in itself. But we have clearly built the basics of a future that will deny the space of Afghanistan to those who would seek to harm us.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...fore-2014.html

First step I would argue is being truthful to oneself. Time to ditch "the mission is".

There is no popular support now for "staying the course" and so supporting the Karzai / Kabul regime. Boredom, expense, deaths and injuries all have a part at home.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Bob's World

Dayuhan, on this I agree on all but one point: Why do you include the Taliban on your target list?

Ditto

We have made this all about us as we choose to understand and define the problems on our terms. But of course, as you well realize, it isn't about us at all. Nor is it about Islam. We brought this to the people of Afghanistan and dragged them into our world. Now they are making us deal with theirs.

Well said, we created a false narrative that made the Taliban the center of our effort in Afghanistan, and in the meantime took our eye off the bubble (AQ) for several years. We conflated to different issues, and in so doing created several additional challenges that frankly made us look foolish to much of the world.

A lot of bad understanding and bad decisions have been compiling for over a decade now. There is no graceful way to walk away from that. Now we worry more about our grace, and our honor. This is one where need to just swallow our pride and walk away. The reasons we use to justify why we must stay were never accurate, so there is no reason we should allow them to hold us there any longer. That is one comment that Clint Eastwood probably got about right in his conversation with a chair the other day.

Honor does and should matter. Honor can't be measured and assessed, but it is a factor that influences decisions people make on all sides of this conflict that has much more influence than economic factors (nation building). In our case it partly defines who we as a nation because it constrains our behavior. Excluding AQ, it seems all players involved are trapped by their honor on an intractable course that has no meaningful end. Hindsight is always 20/20, but ideally we wouldn't commit to courses of action that put our honor at risk. We should have never tied our honor to armed nation building.

As you implied, it is somewhat difficult for any politician at this point to say oops we got this one wrong. It would go entirely against the narrative we created. I suspect the only hope for disengagement from nation building to diplomatic engagement and assistance is to gradually change the narrative over time, which it appears we're doing.

[carl]

I was reading some of the articles in this thread and figure we actually have a lot to work with on the negotiation front.

First, it appears that some of the high ups in Taliban & Co realize they can't take over the country even when we bug out.

Second, they don't like AQ and wish they would go away.

Third, one thing Taliban & Co and the Afghans have in common is they both hate the Pakistanis.

Fourth, some of the higher ups in Taliban & Co are talking up the possibility of negotiations. It doesn't matter much if they will turn out to be really serious about it or if it just a ploy, it is something that can be exploited.

In the RUSI article, the id's of the people interviewed can be easily accerned (sic) but those guys are still alive. So maybe there is some genuine support for negotiations of some kind. Even at MO's level, maybe.

Sixth, though the Haqqanis profess fealty to MO, there seems to be some uncertainty if that will be the case in actuality.

Seventh, MO is a critical person.

So it seems there are a lot of potential avenues to pursue to cause dissension in the ranks over there. I don't know exactly how to do it but these guys don't seem all that certain and united.

The most critical thing would be to somehow, someway (and I don't know how) to get them physically away from the Pak Army/ISI. But maybe that wouldn't work because MO is too deep in the ISI pocket to ever come out.

So that leads to bumping off MO. Can he be replaced or is his personage so important that if he were killed, the Taliban & Co and Pak Army/ISI nexus would unravel and the thing would turn into a confused mess?

There are things that can be exploited. The bigger question is can we, the US led by our betters inside the beltway, exploit these things. I am not hopeful, recalling how we were had by a shopkeeper from Quetta and continue to be had by the sahibs in 'Pindi.

[Fuchs]

Third, one thing Taliban & Co and the Afghans have in common is they both hate the Pakistanis.
(...)
Seventh, MO is a critical person.

Questions;
Whom do you mean with "Pakistanis"? The government of Pakistan? ISI? Army? People? Pakistani Taliban?

Whom do you mean with Taliban & Co.? Afghan Taliban? Pakistani Taliban? All Taliban? Leaders, zealots, supporters, mercs?

MO = Mullah Omar? What do you mean with "critical"? If he's hiding as UBL did, doesn't that mean he's cut off from comm? How is a central figure "critical" if the Taliban are scattered over two countries, often in segments at mere platoon strength with a charismatic local leader (AFAIK)?

[carl]

Questions;
Whom do you mean with "Pakistanis"? The government of Pakistan? ISI? Army? People? Pakistani Taliban?

Whom do you mean with Taliban & Co.? Afghan Taliban? Pakistani Taliban? All Taliban? Leaders, zealots, supporters, mercs?

MO = Mullah Omar? What do you mean with "critical"? If he's hiding as UBL did, doesn't that mean he's cut off from comm? How is a central figure "critical" if the Taliban are scattered over two countries, often in segments at mere platoon strength with a charismatic local leader (AFAIK)?

By Pakistanis I mainly mean the Pak Army/ISI. I wonder though if when the Afghans/Taliban think of what is done to them, they make the distinction. They are pretty smart though so I suspect they might.

I use Taliban & Co because I mean all of the above.

The sense I got from the articles I read is that Taliban & Co all at least profess fealty to Mullah Omar (MO). That was especially apparent in the RUSI article. Also he is the acknowledged head of the Quetta Shura and the various policies that are promulgated by them I believe get some of whatever influence they have because they have his imprimatur. And Taliban & Co, or at least large parts of it, are a hierarchical organization. They could not have remained intact for as long as they have under the pressures they have been subject to unless that hierarchy were strong. As far as I know, none of the local organizations say they are fighting on their own. They all say at least, they owe fealty to Taliban and to MO. What they say is important. So MO is critical.

If he were hiding like UBL was, he wouldn't be important. But is he hiding like UBL was? UBL was being kept on ice by the ISI and had no importance. They gave him up when it was convenient.

I don't think MO is on ice. He is too important to the Pak Army/ISI. They use him and need him, and he them. Whether Taliban & Co is spread over two countries is neither here nor there. People communicate.