US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Alien Space Bats]

Regarding point #6, I think generally the American public has the opinion that the Taliban ought to be exterminated (as an organization, if not the human beings that comprise it), so things like "talking" and ending the war through a peace treaty seem like signs of weakness, especially when the Taliban are consistently labeled "terrorists", when their atrocities are consistently reported, and when they're basically constantly equated with the men who destroyed the World Trade Center. This is just my general impression of things. I agree that a peace treaty and the politicization of the Taliban is probably the best and only likely method (aren't ex-Taliban members in the current Afghan government already anyway?), but that's not how the war has been sold. Unlike with Vietnam, the idea of a concluding peace agreement hasn't really been made prominent.

Except we're clearly not willing to put forward the effort that it would take to actually exterminate the Taliban, so just leaving the war unresolved doesn't serve the interests of the American people; indeed, all it does is pave the way for a possible eventual return to power by the Taliban.

After all, there IS the parallel with Vietnam (which YOU have raised here, BTW): We DIDN'T resolve the conflict there in a way that would preclude further fighting by slipstreaming the Viet Cong into civil society within the RVN, allowing them to compete for power through the ordinary political process. As such, we left the door open to a resumption of hostilities, and two years later — when the NVA resumed combat operations against the ARVN, the US was forced to choose between reentering the conflict or letting the RVN fall.

The result was the Fall of Saigon.

There are plenty of examples of civil wars in which a peace treaty HAS locked in the status quo and kept the victory won on the field of battle from being reversed in the years that followed. It would be in the best interests of the US and its allies for a similar approach to be embraced here.

Sometimes leaders have to rise above the feelings of the people they represent to act in their best interests. The American People might want to see the Taliban eradicated while being unwilling to do what it would take to actually eradicate them; their leaders have to be smarter than that.

[The Batorys]

Regarding point #6, I think generally the American public has the opinion that the Taliban ought to be exterminated (as an organization, if not the human beings that comprise it), so things like "talking" and ending the war through a peace treaty seem like signs of weakness, especially when the Taliban are consistently labeled "terrorists", when their atrocities are consistently reported, and when they're basically constantly equated with the men who destroyed the World Trade Center. This is just my general impression of things. I agree that a peace treaty and the politicization of the Taliban is probably the best and only likely method (aren't ex-Taliban members in the current Afghan government already anyway?), but that's not how the war has been sold. Unlike with Vietnam, the idea of a concluding peace agreement hasn't really been made prominent.

Except we're clearly not willing to put forward the effort that it would take to actually exterminate the Taliban, so just leaving the war unresolved doesn't serve the interests of the American people; indeed, all it does is pave the way for a possible eventual return to power by the Taliban.

After all, there IS the parallel with Vietnam (which YOU have raised here, BTW): We DIDN'T resolve the conflict there in a way that would preclude further fighting by slipstreaming the Viet Cong into civil society within the RVN, allowing them to compete for power through the ordinary political process. As such, we left the door open to a resumption of hostilities, and two years later — when the NVA resumed combat operations against the ARVN, the US was forced to choose between reentering the conflict or letting the RVN fall.

The result was the Fall of Saigon.

There are plenty of examples of civil wars in which a peace treaty HAS locked in the status quo and kept the victory won on the field of battle from being reversed in the years that followed. It would be in the best interests of the US and its allies for a similar approach to be embraced here.

Sometimes leaders have to rise above the feelings of the people they represent to act in their best interests. The American People might want to see the Taliban eradicated while being unwilling to do what it would take to actually eradicate them; their leaders have to be smarter than that.

I'm not sure we could eradicate the Taliban. Not now, anyway. And likely not without compromising what we hold to be our values.

I mean, hell, the Soviets couldn't do it, and they were willing to be a lot more brutal than we are, IIRC.

[Alien Space Bats]

I mean, hell, the Soviets couldn't do it, and they were willing to be a lot more brutal than we are, IIRC.

Eradicating a guerilla movement is seldom so much a matter of brutality than the nuanced application of both military might and political action: Even as you work to erode your enemy's military strength, you undermine their political support while building support for your own political allies. Sadly, the Soviets (like so many other authoritarian regimes in the same position) relied too much on force and terror — and too little on plain old-fashioned politics.

[The Batorys]

I mean, hell, the Soviets couldn't do it, and they were willing to be a lot more brutal than we are, IIRC.

Eradicating a guerilla movement is seldom so much a matter of brutality than the nuanced application of both military might and political action: Even as you work to erode your enemy's military strength, you undermine their political support while building support for your own political allies. Sadly, the Soviets (like so many other authoritarian regimes in the same position) relied too much on force and terror — and too little on plain old-fashioned politics.

True.

We're better at that than the Soviets in some ways, but still not good enough.

[The Floating Island of the Sleeping God]

And now Bergdahl's welcome home party has been cancelled for fear of violence from the people who sent his parents hate mail. Are you happy now? The people who share your position just ruined a fucking party. They took something happy and politicized it so much that they became literal party poopers. This is ridiculous.

[Huda]

Screw US. I'll just have some popcorn and watch US go down.

[Ashmoria]

Screw US. I'll just have some popcorn and watch US go down.

go down where and how?

[Viritica]

Question: what reason has Obama provided for not giving the 30 days notice to congress?

Its a silly rule and he said so at the time.

I think he dressed it up in more legal language than that. But thats what it pretty much boils down to.

Yes, because the president cooperating with Congress is so silly...

[Viritica]

That's a terrible argument.

And it's still better than the one you were making. Fancy that.

No, it isn't.

[Viritica]

They are not less dangerous.

And how is it wrong? They died to capture these terrorists. Keeping them locked up is the best thing to do.

Yes, they are less dangerous.

They have been sitting in cells in Guantanamo Bay for the last decade. They have been out of communication with everyone who's still in the fight. They are unaware of most recent developments, most likely. They have likely been replaced in their positions of power by those who did not get captured, in the same way that if you go to jail, your employer won't just hold your job for you. They will have to make their way up the pecking order again. If we'd lost five top officers, we'd replace them, and if those five came back, they wouldn't just be given their old jobs back, they'd likely be below the authority of their successors.

And they're still senior Taliban commanders. They're still the people who the Taliban specifically asked for. They're still the people who will almost certainly return to terrorist activity.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

Its a silly rule and he said so at the time.

I think he dressed it up in more legal language than that. But thats what it pretty much boils down to.

Yes, because the president cooperating with Congress is so silly...

You know who'd agree with that?

Congress.

[Viritica]

1. So I'll just assume it doesn't exist.
3. Source.

I feel like a broken record.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/ ... AD20140603

Yay. So they can move freely in Qatar and will soon be allowed to return to Afghanistan. Wonderful.

[Distruzio]

His words hardly needed twisting. "Fair fight" and war don't go together anymore. The Taliban uses tried and true tactics of warfare every nation state engages in. Moreover, he (and you, by extension), in pronouncing the Taliban a stateless organization forgets that the Taliban was in charge of Afghanistan for quite a while. They are, in effect, a government in exile that wages war in the way they can.

You and I seldom agree on things, but here my thoughts are exactly the same.

I find the Taliban abhorrent... but they are not a terrorist organization. They were the government of Afghanistan (or at least the southern and central portion) for several years. They are fighting largely to reclaim that position.

The US, through Qatar, did not negotiate with terrorists. The US negotiated with a deposed government.

Indeed. And while the negotiation was for the release of a man accused (although not yet proven) of being unsavory for some reason or another, the man released is American and, therefore, merits American justice. Abandoning him to a prison run by an enemy of the United States government is rather abhorrent.

[The Tiger Kingdom]

You and I seldom agree on things, but here my thoughts are exactly the same.

I find the Taliban abhorrent... but they are not a terrorist organization. They were the government of Afghanistan (or at least the southern and central portion) for several years. They are fighting largely to reclaim that position.

The US, through Qatar, did not negotiate with terrorists. The US negotiated with a deposed government.

Indeed. And while the negotiation was for the release of a man accused (although not yet proven) of being unsavory for some reason or another, the man released in American and, therefore, merits American justice. Abandoning him to a prison run by an enemy of the United States government is rather abhorrent.

You could almost say it's cruel and unusual.

[Alien Space Bats]

And they're still senior Taliban commanders. They're still the people who the Taliban specifically asked for. They're still the people who will almost certainly return to terrorist activity.

Here's a question for you: Are (or rather, WERE) we actually holding any OTHER Taliban members prisoner, or are these five the only ones we still have (or rather, HAD) left?

I think you'll find the latter to be true: It was these five or nobody, because they were the only Taliban we still had in captivity (i.e., whom we hadn't either released or turned over to the Afghans for custody).

But I'm open to any evidence to the contrary: Find me someone else we could have dealt for Bergdahl, and I'll take your complaint seriously.

[Viritica]

And they're still senior Taliban commanders. They're still the people who the Taliban specifically asked for. They're still the people who will almost certainly return to terrorist activity.

Here's a question for you: Are (or rather, WERE) we actually holding any OTHER Taliban members prisoner, or are these five the only ones we still have (or rather, HAD) left?

I think you'll find the latter to be true: It was these five or nobody, because they were the only Taliban we still had in captivity (i.e., whom we hadn't either released or turned over to the Afghans for custody).

But I'm open to any evidence to the contrary: Find me someone else we could have dealt for Bergdahl, and I'll take your complaint seriously.

I have no idea about what the specifics are of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. How is it relevant?

But source that they're the only Taliban prisoners left in Gitmo?

[Alien Space Bats]

I have no idea about what the specifics are of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. How is it relevant?

But source that they're the only Taliban prisoners left in Gitmo?

It's relevant because you can only conduct a prisoner exchange with prisoners you actually HAVE.

As for my assessment that these five were the only Afghan Taliban we still had at Guantanamo, that's a surmise, based on the number of Guantanamo refugees still remaining in captivity (155), less the number of those detainees who have been approved for transfer back home or to third countries willing to take them (76), less the number who currently await trial on charges (6), combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees were always from just two countries: Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Following the math described above (all provided numbers come from Human Rights Watch), we are really only looking at a total of 73 detainees who COULD potentially be Afghan insurgents (or members of the former Taliban government) still in captivity and not facing charges before Federal or US Military courts (and would therefore never be subject to a proper prisoner exchange, since persons charged with crimes don't need to be repatriated as prisoners upon the end of a conflict under international law). For 5 of those remaining 73 persons to be Afghan Taliban insurgents is consistent with the national makeup of the detainee population.

So I'll throw the ball back into your court: You suggest that we should have returned someone other than these five. Who do you think we should have returned?

---

ADDENDUM: You say these five will almost certainly return to terrorist activity. Given that the five were:

• The former Afghan Interior Minister
  
  
• The former Afghan Deputy Chief of Intelligence
  
  
• The former Afghan Chief of Communications
  
  
• The former Afghan Army Chief of Staff
  
  
• The former Governor of Afghanistan's Balkh Province

... What terrorist acts did they commit, to which they might return?

[Norstal]

I have no idea about what the specifics are of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. How is it relevant?

But source that they're the only Taliban prisoners left in Gitmo?

It's a surmise, based on the number of Guantanamo refugees still remaining in captivity (155), less the number of those detainees who have been approved for transfer back home or to third countries willing to take them (76), less the number who currently await trial on charges (6), combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees were always from just two countries: Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Following the math described above (all provided numbers come from Human Rights Watch), we are really only looking at a total of 73 detainees who COULD potentially be Afghan insurgents (or members of the former Taliban government) still in captivity and not facing charges before Federal or US Military courts (and would therefore never be subject to a proper prisoner exchange, since persons charged with crimes don't need to be repatriated as prisoners upon the end of a conflict under international law). For 5 of those remaining 73 persons to be Afghan Taliban insurgents is consistent with the national makeup of the detainee population.

So I'll throw the ball back into your court: You suggest that we should have returned someone other than these five. Who do you think we should have returned?

inb4 no negotiating with terrorists. Despite the Taliban not being terrorists.

[Viritica]

I have no idea about what the specifics are of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. How is it relevant?

But source that they're the only Taliban prisoners left in Gitmo?

It's relevant because you can only conduct a prisoner exchange with prisoners you actually HAVE.

As for my assessment that these five were the only Afghan Taliban we still had at Guantanamo, that's a surmise, based on the number of Guantanamo refugees still remaining in captivity (155), less the number of those detainees who have been approved for transfer back home or to third countries willing to take them (76), less the number who currently await trial on charges (6), combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees were always from just two countries: Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Following the math described above (all provided numbers come from Human Rights Watch), we are really only looking at a total of 73 detainees who COULD potentially be Afghan insurgents (or members of the former Taliban government) still in captivity and not facing charges before Federal or US Military courts (and would therefore never be subject to a proper prisoner exchange, since persons charged with crimes don't need to be repatriated as prisoners upon the end of a conflict under international law). For 5 of those remaining 73 persons to be Afghan Taliban insurgents is consistent with the national makeup of the detainee population.

So I'll throw the ball back into your court: You suggest that we should have returned someone other than these five. Who do you think we should have returned?

No one.

[Getrektistan]

It's relevant because you can only conduct a prisoner exchange with prisoners you actually HAVE.

As for my assessment that these five were the only Afghan Taliban we still had at Guantanamo, that's a surmise, based on the number of Guantanamo refugees still remaining in captivity (155), less the number of those detainees who have been approved for transfer back home or to third countries willing to take them (76), less the number who currently await trial on charges (6), combined with the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees were always from just two countries: Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Following the math described above (all provided numbers come from Human Rights Watch), we are really only looking at a total of 73 detainees who COULD potentially be Afghan insurgents (or members of the former Taliban government) still in captivity and not facing charges before Federal or US Military courts (and would therefore never be subject to a proper prisoner exchange, since persons charged with crimes don't need to be repatriated as prisoners upon the end of a conflict under international law). For 5 of those remaining 73 persons to be Afghan Taliban insurgents is consistent with the national makeup of the detainee population.

So I'll throw the ball back into your court: You suggest that we should have returned someone other than these five. Who do you think we should have returned?

No one.

So you would rather abandon an American and piss off the Taliban even more?

[Occupied Deutschland]

...Who do you think we should have returned?

...Uh...
...Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

[Norstal]

...Who do you think we should have returned?

...Uh...
...Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

No, you fool, he's African not Middle Eastern. We need him to trade for those Kenyan schoolgirls. Or was it Nigerian. Could be Bostwanian? I don't even know anymore.

[United States of Devonta]

...Who do you think we should have returned?

...Uh...
...Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

Whats you fetish with his middle name?

[Death Metal]

Eradicating a guerilla movement is seldom so much a matter of brutality than the nuanced application of both military might and political action: Even as you work to erode your enemy's military strength, you undermine their political support while building support for your own political allies. Sadly, the Soviets (like so many other authoritarian regimes in the same position) relied too much on force and terror — and too little on plain old-fashioned politics.

True.

We're better at that than the Soviets in some ways, but still not good enough.

We have to remember, though, the other side can use politics too.

[Norstal]

No one.

So you would rather abandon an American and piss off the Taliban even more?

He's just playing the "I hate Obama no matter what" game. If Obama doesn't end the war peacefully, he'll complain. If Obama tries to end it peacefully, he'll complain like right now.