Taliban Reject "Deal" With West

**Merlin** · 05 Feb 10,, 13:02

Is this just wishful thinking asking the Taliban fighters to lay down their arms in exchange for cash?

" ...at a time when fighters are tightening their hold over much of the country and inflicting record losses on foreign troops, analysts doubt guerrillas would agree to lay down their arms. .."

Taliban Reject "Deal" With West

5 Feb KABUL (Reuters) - The Taliban have said they will not enter into any "deal" with the Afghan government or the West to bring peace to Afghanistan, and their fighters will continue to die to achieve a victory they say is around the corner.

At a conference in London last month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai invited the Taliban to a peace council and set out plans to lure fighters down from the hills in return for cash and jobs.

But in a statement posted on the Islamists' website (alemarah.info/english) on Thursday, the Taliban vowed to "collude" with no one.

The statement made no specific reference to Karzai's proposed talks. The Taliban had initially told Reuters they would decide "soon" on whether to take part in talks.

The Islamists have repeatedly rejected previous offers of talks before all foreign troops are withdrawn. ....
The luring away of militant foot-soldiers is referred to by the West as reintegration while efforts to make peace with Taliban leaders is being called reconciliation.

Afghanistan's allies are backing the efforts to start talks with the Taliban and donors have promised hundreds of millions of dollars for a fund to pay fighters to come in from the cold.

Western countries, eying an exit from an eight-year-old war they no longer believe has a purely military solution, are more amenable than ever to a role for rehabilitated Taliban. ....

But at a time when fighters are tightening their hold over much of the country and inflicting record losses on foreign troops, analysts doubt guerrillas would agree to lay down their arms. Similar past programmes have lured away only a trickle of fighters. ....

S2 · 05 Feb 10,, 13:35

" ...at a time when fighters are tightening their hold over much of the country and inflicting record losses on foreign troops, analysts doubt guerrillas would agree to lay down their arms. .."

Merlin, do you subscribe to the above? Two thoughts to mitigate-

1.) Where are they tightening their hold? Can you isolate this for me? Let me show you some common data used to fuel the anti-war scrill-

ICOS Map Of Afghan Conflict

The map indicates at first glance the inexorible march of the taliban. 80% screams at our senses. Ah...but in the legend the truth unfolds for those willing to seriously look. Will you? What does the legend say?

Let me help- 80% of Afghanistan has a "heavy taliban presence". Frightening, no? Read on to determine what constitutes a "heavy taliban presence" and we see that it's anywhere a lethal or NON-LETHAL attack occurs once (or more) per week.

That means I could march to an area, attack something, retreat and return a week later to do the same and I'd have established a "heavy presence". Disingenuous, no?

Further, applying that same stricture, I might reasonably assume that Pakistan is at risk of imminent fall, would I not? Pakistan across the country faces bombings, threatening leaflets (non-lethal) and more from the Punjab to Sindh to Balochistan north to FATA. Many areas, like Peshawar or Quetta, once a week or more. Clearly, these areas are troubled but is anybody today worried about the TTP tightening their grip on Pakistan? Certainly not the reporter nor the editor.

2.) Have these "record losses" exceeded the sum total of one brigade of troops yet? One reinforced battalion? Over eight years? If the original record was infintismally low, would any increase constitute a new "record"?

I sense hysteria in the claims made by the Reuters editor. How about you?

On to the crux of the story onced stripped of its pathetic veneer. It is the intent of the U.S. government to encourage combatants, not ideologues/leadership of the taliban to abandon their fight. The leadership, naturally, is committed to making war and have no interest in participatory politics save, perhaps, Hekmatyar and his Hezb-i-Islami party of which some political elements already sit in the Karzai cabinet.

The American government makes distinction between reconciliation and reintegration. Semantically-driven I know but there is a key component to the difference. Re-integration of fighters doesn't require any political accomodation on the part of the Afghan government. Reconciliation would.

There's value, as there has always been, to enticing elements fighting against the GoA to disarm and swear allegiance to the Afghan constitution in return for them not becoming the fodder of their taliban/A.Q. manipulators.

Hope this has helped clarify a poorly-generated piece of pseudo analytic journalism meant for digestion by a gullible public.

**Prof** · 05 Feb 10,, 16:46

Originally Posted by S-2

" ...at a time when fighters are tightening their hold over much of the country and inflicting record losses on foreign troops, analysts doubt guerrillas would agree to lay down their arms. .."

Merlin, do you subscribe to the above? Two thoughts to mitigate-

1.) Where are they tightening their hold? Can you isolate this for me? Let me show you some common data used to fuel the anti-war scrill-

ICOS Map Of Afghan Conflict

The map indicates at first glance the inexorible march of the taliban. 80% screams at our senses. Ah...but in the legend the truth unfolds for those willing to seriously look. Will you? What does the legend say?

Let me help- 80% of Afghanistan has a "heavy taliban presence". Frightening, no? Read on to determine what constitutes a "heavy taliban presence" and we see that it's anywhere a lethal or NON-LETHAL attack occurs once (or more) per week.

That means I could march to an area, attack something, retreat and return a week later to do the same and I'd have established a "heavy presence". Disingenuous, no?

Further, applying that same stricture, I might reasonably assume that Pakistan is at risk of imminent fall, would I not? Pakistan across the country faces bombings, threatening leaflets (non-lethal) and more from the Punjab to Sindh to Balochistan north to FATA. Many areas, like Peshawar or Quetta, once a week or more. Clearly, these areas are troubled but is anybody today worried about the TTP tightening their grip on Pakistan? Certainly not the reporter nor the editor.

2.) Have these "record losses" exceeded the sum total of one brigade of troops yet? One reinforced battalion? Over eight years? If the original record was infintismally low, would any increase constitute a new "record"?

I sense hysteria in the claims made by the Reuters editor. How about you?

On to the crux of the story onced stripped of its pathetic veneer. It is the intent of the U.S. government to encourage combatants, not ideologues/leadership of the taliban to abandon their fight. The leadership, naturally, is committed to making war and have no interest in participatory politics save, perhaps, Hekmatyar and his Hezb-i-Islami party of which some political elements already sit in the Karzai cabinet.

The American government makes distinction between reconciliation and reintegration. Semantically-driven I know but there is a key component to the difference. Re-integration of fighters doesn't require any political accomodation on the part of the Afghan government. Reconciliation would.

There's value, as there has always been, to enticing elements fighting against the GoA to disarm and swear allegiance to the Afghan constitution in return for them not becoming the fodder of their taliban/A.Q. manipulators.

Hope this has helped clarify a poorly-generated piece of pseudo analytic journalism meant for digestion by a gullible public.

S-2:

Off-topic. Hah! You gave me my chance. See? "Impressive." Didn't have to wait long, either, did I?

Prof