Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Afghanistan. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 7, 2013

Taliban ... "let's TALK!" ??

SO....we were in negotiations 2 months ago with the Taliban?  And their leader blames us for just about every single thing he can and he won't sign a bilateral peace agreement.  But, he's "willing to start peace negotiations"...what do you think that PEACE would look like on his terms?   On ours?
Got any thoughts?: (Please read mine at the end of this)

Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The Taliban's reclusive leader said Tuesday that his group was willing to start peace negotiations, even as he urged more attacks — including insider shootings by government security forces — on foreign troops.
In a wide-ranging emailed message, Mullah Mohammad Omar blamed America and the Afghan government for the derailment of talks two months ago.
He also called Afghans to boycott next year's presidential elections, describing them as being manipulated by the United States.
In a message issued ahead of the Eid al-Fitr holiday marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, the one-eyed chief of the Afghan insurgency urged the army and police turn their guns on foreign forces, government officials and the Afghan troops who are cooperating with the U.S.-led coalition forces.
The Taliban's longstanding policy is to continue attacks even as it pursues negotiations.
The five-page message was emailed to news organizations. Mullah Omar regularly issues such messages for the two yearly Eid holy days.
Striking a conciliatory tone elsewhere in the message, he denied that the insurgents were seeking to monopolize power in Afghanistan and said that his group favored what he described as an "Afghan-inclusive government based on Islamic principles."
He called on Afghans, however, to stay away from the April 5 elections for a new president and councils that will run Afghanistan's 34 provinces, saying the polls were "a waste of time."
The reclusive leader has not been seen he reportedly fled a village in southern Afghanistan on motorcycle three months after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. There are no known audio recordings of his voice since early 2002 or any pictures of Mullah Omar. He mainly communicates in messages relayed by his spokesmen.
In the message, Mullah Omar did repeat a key U.S. demand opening the way for peace talks by pledging not to use Afghanistan as a base to threaten other countries, although he again did not openly denounce al-Qaida — one of the original conditions set by the United States that was temporarily dropped to get talks going.
"Our fundamental principle according to our unchanging policy is that we do not intend to harm anyone, nor we allow anyone to harm others from our soil," the message said, echoing the original language used by the Taliban on June 18 when they announced the opening of a political office in the Gulf state of Qatar. Some elements of the Taliban, including the Pakistan-based Haqqani network, are believed to still have ties with al-Qaida.
Those talks foundered before they even began when the Taliban marked the opening with the flag, anthem and symbols of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan — the group's name when they ruled the country. President Hamid Karzai immediately pulled the plug on talks saying the office had all the trappings of an embassy of a government in exile.
"The aim of our contacts and talks with the invaders which are conducted through the Political Office is to put an end to occupation of Afghanistan. No one should perceive that the Mujahedeen will relinquish of their lofty religious principles and national interests. I assure you that I will not reach any illegitimate compromise or unlawful deal," said the message, which was also written in English.
He complained the talks faltered because "the invaders and their allies are creating obstacles in the way of resolving problems by making various pretexts."
The Taliban have already held secret talks with Karzai's representatives to try to jumpstart a peace process, Afghan officials and a senior Taliban representative recently told The Associated Press.
The discussions with members of the Afghan High Peace Council, appointed by Karzai three years ago to conduct talks with the Taliban, have so far been unofficial and preliminary. They are seen as an attempt to agree on conditions for formal talks.
But Mullah Omar warned that whatever the result of peace talks, the Taliban would not accept the signing of a bilateral security agreement between Afghanistan and the United States that would allow the presence of foreign troops beyond the end of 2014, when all international combat forces are to leave the country. When signed, such an agreement would allow a small force of trainers and possibly counterterrorism troops to remain. Although no numbers have been announced yet, it is believed they would be about 9,000 from the U.S. and 6,000 from its allies.
"The Afghans consider the presence of a small number of invading troops as an encroachment against their independence as they are not willing to accept presence of thousands of foreign troops," the message said.
The Taliban have intensified their campaign against Afghan and foreign forces in recent months, especially after the coalition handed over responsibility for security to the army and police forces they have been training in recent years. They have especially targeted areas in their traditional homelands in southern and eastern Afghanistan in an effort to take advantage of the withdrawal of foreign troops.
As a result casualties among both Afghan forces and civilians have increased dramatically.
Mullah Omar denied responsibility for increased civilian casualties, despite a recent U.S. report that blamed insurgents for more than three-quarters of them.
But he said his fighters would not stop fighting, despite conciliatory hints about political inclusiveness and his belief that Afghan youth should have a "modern education."
"I urge all Afghans who perform duties in the ranks of the enemy to turn barrels of their guns against the infidel invaders and their allies instead of martyring their Muslim Afghans," the message said. "The Islamic Emirate considers it its religious and national obligation to liberate the country from the occupation. When the occupation ends, reaching an understanding with the Afghans will not be a hard task because, by adhering to and having common principles and culture, the Afghans understand each other better."
___
Z: My thoughts?   Let HIM take over tomorrow.  Will this mean our amputees and otherwise injured  soldiers and our families of the dead will feel this is all for nothing? I have rarely heard a vet say we did do good over there.  Tell me what you think it would look like if we left tomorrow in, say, a year.
Associated Press Writer Kathy Gannon contributed from Islamabad, Pakistan. 

Z

Thursday, June 23, 2011

afghanistan..........what do you think?

So, you heard by now that Obama's taking 33,000 troops out of Afghanistan next September..............what do you think?
I'd guess maybe it'll calm down over there now; after all, who tells an enemy when you're withdrawing before you withdraw?  Won't the Taliban just bide their time now?   Obama's people admitted to preliminary talks with the Taliban;  Will we be giving them money to back down?  Some think talking with the Taliban is our best best, some have doubts...what about you?

What do you think of this withdrawal and why mention it so early?  Why NOW?
z

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Save Democrat support, risk our troops?

Remember that Bob Woodward has written a book about Obama and war and he talked about how Obama said he's making decisions about the war based on his political party and how he "can't lose the whole Democratic Party?"  What ever happened with that story?   Do you see how the media shut it down by not playing it for more than the probably five minutes FOX spent on it?  Maybe some TalkRadio told the truth, too, but I didn't hear it on any radio I listen to.  Here's part of THIS STORY from US News and World Report:

 BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
President Obama wanted out of Afghanistan last year.
And although the president agreed to triple troop levels in the embattled country, some in Obama's national security team doubt that his strategy in Afghanistan will even be successful, according to a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.
Click here to find out more!
The book, Obama's Wars, details how the Obama Administration was -- and is -- extremely divided over strategy in Afghanistan. According to the book, the president said "I have two years with the public on this" and asked his advisers how to avoid a big escalation in the nine-year, U.S.-led Afghanistan war, The Associated Press reported.
Obama also told advisers "I want an exit strategy" and privately told Vice President Joe Biden to push his plan against the sending of additional troops.
While the president ultimately rejected that plan and decided to send in an additional 30,000 troops (the military wanted 40,000) the book says Obama was at odds several aides and set a withdrawal timeframe because "I can't lose the whole Democratic Party."

I would have thought  Americans would be up at arms at a president making decisions involving the lives of our troops based on HIS PARTY and HIS CAREER............yet, who ever discussed this, who ever brought this into the mainstream media?

Nobody, that's who.  Do you think it should have been?
For the record, I just heard Chris Wallace cover this on FOX...darn.  I got there FIRST :-)  I didn't see its earlier broadcast, I'm listening to it in the other room now on rerun! 


z

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Doctors in Afghanistan murderered.......

What a TERRIBLE STORY of Americans, Germans and Afghans killed after having treated Afghans in a very very remote village, a particularly difficult trek..... Quotes from the linked article are italicized:

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid told The Associated Press that they killed the foreigners because they were "spying for the Americans" and "preaching Christianity."

Frans said the International Assistance Mission, the longest serving nongovernmental organization operating in Afghanistan, is registered as a nonprofit Christian organization but does

Z: As most of us who help Christian groups know, most Christian medical groups do not proselytize..... especially in areas such as Afghanistan, their workers are even not predominantly
Christians, they're, courageous, selfless, good doctors, etc....they're just under the caring auspices of the Christian-supported groups.


The third Afghan who survived "told me he was shouting and reciting the holy Quran and saying 'I am Muslim. Don't kill me,'" Kemtuz said.

"The trek will not be easy; it will take three weeks and be done on foot and with packhorses — no vehicles can access the mountainous terrain,"
(Dr Karen Woo) wrote. "The expedition will require a lot of physical and mental resolve and will not be without risk but ultimately, I believe that the provision of medical treatment is of fundamental importance and that the effort is worth it in order to assist those that need it most." The young and beautiful Dr. Woo was murdered in cold blood. (see image)

I hope that the village people in Afghanistan get this news. They must know who's standing between them and a brighter, healthier future for Afghanistan.
Please pray for the selfless medical people who lost their lives. And pray for Afghanistan.
z

Friday, June 25, 2010

Obama commands "no discord"?

I'm wondering if it's wise to have a General like Petraeus around and have the President say (from THIS article):

"I am going to be insisting on a unity of purpose on the part of all branches of the U.S. government," the president said. "Our team is going to be moving forward in synch."

Obama said he does not anticipate further firings beyond Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top war commander hired a year ago to turn around a war then sliding into quagmire. He was fired Wednesday for sniping at civilian war bosses in a magazine article. (Z: 'civilian war bosses'?)

"I'm paying very close attention," Obama said of his war council. "And I will be insisting on extraordinary performance moving forward." (Z: WHAT?)

That struck me as odd........Shouldn't Petraeus be suggesting things which might not be in Obama's expertise? Maybe being on the ground gives a clearer view than from the Ivory Tower? It gets scarier:

"When he gets on the ground, he will assess the situation for himself, and at some point he will make recommendations to the president," Defense Sec Robert Gates said. "At the end of the day, the president will decide whether changes are to be made in the strategy."

I hope that that UNITY doesn't mean OBAMA'S WAY OR THE HIGHWAY (like it does when he's displaying his understanding of what 'bipartisanship' means)...because I'm thinking that as little as I trust Sec Gates (less and less every day), I do trust Petraeus to carefully observe conditions on the ground, to know what's best, and make recommendations that might differ from how Obama feels......that might not be UNITY but it sounds like wisdom to me. We have a president who never served, never ran a company, and thinks wars can be won when you tell your enemy when you're giving up!

God Bless America and our soldiers............PLEASE. By the way, did anybody see Brent Bozell on TV Thursday evening showing video after video of leftist media types like Blitzer and Gregory, etc., call Obama's moves re McChrystal and Petraeus "Brilliant"? The next day, they were saying "He couldn't have done anything else...he really had no choice." Extremely brilliant.

Thanks to Brooke for the cartoon at the top........(if you can't read it, click on it to enlarge!)

z

Monday, June 21, 2010

Obama v Petreus....who do you feel more comfortable with?

White House: July 2011 Afghan withdrawal 'firm'

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is reaffirming its pledge to begin pulling U.S. Toops out of Afghanistan next summer.

But the Pentagon and the White House are still saying different things about how many troops will leave — and when.

President Barack Obama's Chief of Staff tells ABC's "This Week" that the July 2011 date to begin withdrawal is firm. Emanuel isn't disputing quoted remarks from Vice President Joe Biden that "a whole lot" of troops would leave.*

Gen. David Petreus who oversees the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, told Congress last week that he'd recommend putting off the withdrawal if need be. He said security conditions and the Afghan government have to be ready to handle a U.S. drawdown.

Z: Imagine if any country in the history of the world had told its enemy when it was leaving? The experts on the ground believe this isn't a good idea, of course. But, apparently, our White House Commander in Chief knows better.

Do you think we should tell the people of Afghanistan "a whole lot" of troops will be leaving (I wonder if Biden could have picked different words than that?) Is it a good idea to tell our enemies ANYTHING about our tactics, as if we're giving tips to our enemy? We can't be there forever, God forbid, nobody wants that, but it's seems so counter intuitive to tell enemy factions our exit plan, dates, numbers (if "whole lot" means anything to anybody), it sends such a message to Afghanistan that America doesn't trust the input of our military commanders, doesn't it? But, OBAMA KNOWS better. REALLY? How?

What do you think? Is this for Obama's political situation at home....playing to the very far left, the "war is never the answer... he TOLD us we'd be leaving Afghanistan!" gang? Because, of course, nobody ever tells an enemy when he's leaving. A fifth grader knows what happens then.

* Robert Gates is getting me more and more nervous. He said this morning that he didn't think Biden had said this...that it was only printed somewhere but HE hadn't heard him and he couldn't imagine he had. Robert Gates has become a HACK. Just what we need in a Secretary of Defense.

z

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Afghans are running for their Bibles now?

MK, our friend and excellent blogger from Australia, has THIS to say about American rifles and Bible scripture on them.
My question about this situation is this..........Which of America's muslim enemies will ever SEE the rifle sights in order to be offended by them?...AND, if they do somehow see one, do Afghan Muslims figure out the code and then run to their Christian Bibles to see what that particular scripture says and then get offended by it? But, we're taking OFF the codes JUST IN CASE??
Are we NUTS? Now, I'm not arguing here whether a Biblical code SHOULD be on rifle sights but the fact that our military thinks that my above-mentioned scenario could happen scares me....does it YOU? geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ!!
Beamish adds this excellent comment on HIS blog piece about this situation : We're emboldening an enemy to... get shot by "Jesus rifles" instead of say, blowing themselves up in a crowd of schoolchildren for Allah?
z

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

The SURGE........but, not so fast

SURGE: (from the Random House Dictionary)
Any sudden, powerful increase..to rise suddenly or strongly.
But, our Afghanistan 'surge' won't be complete (if all goes well) now until AUGUST. Did you hear that? Here's the information. WHAT? Did they review details before they made the decision to call this a surge and to promise immediate action? Another "Oops...we should have looked into this" moment?
The soldier in the picture is the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Admiral Mike Mullens......Well, I guess the enemy knows when we're coming, how we're coming, and when we're leaving........it can't be too big a surprise to THEM to find we won't be there quite as fast as planned.
z