US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Infected Mushroom]

more people may join though... if you start paying out more ransoms every time they grab a US citizen.

we don't want to make terrorism more economically viable...

You seriously think their sitting on the worlds largest supply of opium thinking "how can we possibly finance our war?".

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

[Infected Mushroom]

Isn't it desirable for the Taliban to be taking prisoners rather than just killing them?

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

this person understands...

[The UK in Exile]

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

this person understands...

Its not a War of attrition.

You seriously think their sitting on the worlds largest supply of opium thinking "how can we possibly finance our war?".

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

They aren't financing the war through ransom though. so you're talking bollocks?

[Condunum]

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

this person understands...

No, he does not. Decades of policy like this have not turned up results.

[Ostroeuropa]

You seriously think their sitting on the worlds largest supply of opium thinking "how can we possibly finance our war?".

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

Exactly. The destruction of the Opium crop, while something of a blunder compared to buying it legitimately and using the market to destroy the talibans income, was the biggest hit against the Taliban.
They have been on the retreat since then, back to their areas of core support.

I want it to be known that if you join the Taliban there is no negotiation, there is only surrender. That's the message we should be sending.
That you will have to live your entire life on the run and you will either end up dead, jailed, or on trial and providing evidence against your peers as part of a bargain to save your ass.

No money can be gained from it.
No loved ones returned.
Nothing.

Only service to a warped ideology, and petty revenge. Precisely the sort of assholes who would be a danger to society anyway, and we'd have to be fighting on other terms otherwise.

[United States of Devonta]

Isn't it desirable for the Taliban to be taking prisoners rather than just killing them?

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

Yep, Killing more has proven to work? Or is it just a rally cry?

[Infected Mushroom]

this person understands...

Its not a War of attrition.

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

They aren't financing the war through ransom though. so you're talking bollocks?

they can't finance it that way because thus far we are pretty good (on the whole) with the No Negotiations thing... and that's why i like the policy.

and its basically a war of attrition. I don't think the war's going to end any time soon... the war on terror will go on for some time.

[The UK in Exile]

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

Exactly. The destruction of the Opium crop, while something of a blunder compared to buying it legitimately and using the market to destroy the talibans income, was the biggest hit against the Taliban.
They have been on the retreat since then, back to their areas of core support.

I want it to be known that if you join the Taliban there is no negotiation, there is only surrender. That's the message we should be sending.
That you will have to live your entire life on the run and you will either end up dead, jailed, or on trial and providing evidence against your peers as part of a bargain to save your ass.

No money can be gained from it.
No loved ones returned.
Nothing.

Only service to a warped ideology, and petty revenge. Precisely the sort of assholes who would be a danger to society anyway, and we'd have to be fighting on other terms otherwise.

As with all our victories, looks like someone forgot to tell the other side.

[Norstal]

Isn't it desirable for the Taliban to be taking prisoners rather than just killing them?

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

Corporal Chelsea Manning was able to access important security details that is considered a threat to the U.S to the point where the DoD had to put her in solitary confinement when she revealed the information to outside sources.

How in the holy motherfucking shit, is that not an important reason to capture common soldiers or recover them is beyond me.

Even in World War II the Allies considered German POW important in decoding the enigma code. I don't know what century you're on really.

[Silent Majority]

If we're going to fight the Taliban until they unconditionally surrender we'll be in Afghanistan for a 100 years.

[Ostroeuropa]

this person understands...

No, he does not. Decades of policy like this have not turned up results.

The Taliban has been collapsing like a wet flan.
What do you mean they havn't turned up results?
Their international influence is weakening week on week, month on month.
They have failed to launch any operations outside their major hubs of support for quite some time, and likely will not ever be able to again unless we let them recover.
They are poor and without resources. Only the ideological agreement of the local peasantry is allowing them to continue based on subsistence donations, and we're putting a stop to that too.
You're asking we stop suffocating them because they havn't died yet, despite the fact that it's a slow process.

[Imperializt Russia]

You seriously think their sitting on the worlds largest supply of opium thinking "how can we possibly finance our war?".

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

The heroin trade is doing that well enough.
Ransoms are pennies on top, aside from trading commanders.

[Infected Mushroom]

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

Yep, Killing more has proven to work? Or is it just a rally cry?

if you remove an operative of the Taliban, that operative may no longer carry out acts of terrorism.

Others may replace him but at least they are not joining the group in addition to the operative.

it makes good intuitive sense. plus there hasn't been another 9/11 so it looks like the US strategy on the whole is pretty good...

[The UK in Exile]

No, he does not. Decades of policy like this have not turned up results.

The Taliban has been collapsing like a wet flan.
What do you mean they havn't turned up results?
Their international influence is weakening week on week, month on month.
They have failed to launch any operations outside their major hubs of support for quite some time, and likely will not ever be able to again unless we let them recover.
They are poor and without resources. Only the ideological agreement of the local peasantry is allowing them to continue based on subsistence donations, and we're putting a stop to that too.
You're asking we stop suffocating them because they havn't died yet, despite the fact that it's a slow process.

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

[Ostroeuropa]

Not really.
If you kill a soldier, what do you have for your battle?
A couple dead soldiers and a couple dead taliban.

If you capture one and trade him, whadya got.
A PR victory, and you just re-recruited 5 dudes, lessening your losses for the battle.
And that's before you even get into kidnapping for money to buy equipment.

In a war of attrition, which is partially what this is, we should not be negotiating in this manner.
By forcing the Taliban into a position where they simply kill every soldier because they know it's utterly pointless to demand ransom, they'll end up killing at a way more disproportionate rate compared to us, who try to imprison. It makes them look bad.

Second, it incentivises people not just monetarily, but for other reasons.
Your son just got imprisoned by the US for being a taliban asshole. Whadya do about it?
Fucking join the Taliban, that's what. You just gotta kidnap a soldier and you'll get your son back.

We should never negotiate with terrorists unless it's part of a ruse to fuck them up and kill them/capture them. (Since this furthers the notion that negotiations are impossible in this war. There is only unconditional and total surrender.)
THEN, we can have negotiations as they stand trial for their crimes and plea bargain.

And make no mistake, that's the only way this war will end.

Corporal Chelsea Manning was able to access important security details that is considered a threat to the U.S to the point where the DoD had to put her in solitary confinement when she revealed the information to outside sources.

How in the holy motherfucking shit, is that not an important reason to capture common soldiers or recover them is beyond me.

Even in World War II the Allies considered German POW important in decoding the enigma code. I don't know what century you're on really.

Sure. And for us, that makes total sense as to why we want to capture Taliban operatives.
But why the fuck would they want to capture a soldier.
A mere soldier out on operations.

What the fuck do they know that is worth knowing from the Talibans perspective.
I'm not denigrating soldiers here. They aren't told important shit for precisely this reason.

[Infected Mushroom]

yeah but we don't want to give them more ways to finance their war. See if we start paying out ransoms that would not be cool...

The heroin trade is doing that well enough.
Ransoms are pennies on top, aside from trading commanders.

which is why the War on Drugs and the War on Terror should really be treated in some respects, as inter-related theaters of the same war...

[Maldovania]

Thanks Obama.

And in the 80s the USA gave them money and weapon to fight


but please let us ignore history

[Imperializt Russia]

The Taliban has been collapsing like a wet flan.
What do you mean they havn't turned up results?
Their international influence is weakening week on week, month on month.
They have failed to launch any operations outside their major hubs of support for quite some time, and likely will not ever be able to again unless we let them recover.
They are poor and without resources. Only the ideological agreement of the local peasantry is allowing them to continue based on subsistence donations, and we're putting a stop to that too.
You're asking we stop suffocating them because they havn't died yet, despite the fact that it's a slow process.

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

Not that kind of heroine.
But apparently, the Taliban and other groups have been cultivating heroines recently.

[The UK in Exile]

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

Not that kind of heroine.
But apparently, the Taliban and other groups have been cultivating heroines recently.

Oh yeah.

[Ostroeuropa]

The Taliban has been collapsing like a wet flan.
What do you mean they havn't turned up results?
Their international influence is weakening week on week, month on month.
They have failed to launch any operations outside their major hubs of support for quite some time, and likely will not ever be able to again unless we let them recover.
They are poor and without resources. Only the ideological agreement of the local peasantry is allowing them to continue based on subsistence donations, and we're putting a stop to that too.
You're asking we stop suffocating them because they havn't died yet, despite the fact that it's a slow process.

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

Because we're withdrawing, that's why. It's as ridiculous as noting that if the allies suddenly stopped pressing their gains in 1944 and withdrew home that it looks like the bombing campaigns have begun again, I guess that war shit wasn't working out. I'm absolutely baffled how you think the two are unrelated.
We're getting ready to pack up and leave, so we stopped destroying heroin crops, and OH FUCK THE HEROIN IS BACK, guess destroying the crops was a stupid idea.
And hey, look, as soon as the heroin comes back, the violence rises against our troops.
Almost like they.... have a source of money now somehow. Ugh, war is haaard.


In a couple of decades they'll be back to attack us again, and we'll have to go back to strangling them into a slow death while people parade around butthurt about the fact we're trying to defend ourselves from pscyhopaths, and start mewling about how we should give peace a chance.

[United States of Devonta]

Yep, Killing more has proven to work? Or is it just a rally cry?

if you remove an operative of the Taliban, that operative may no longer carry out acts of terrorism.

Others may replace him but at least they are not joining the group in addition to the operative.

it makes good intuitive sense. plus there hasn't been another 9/11 so it looks like the US strategy on the whole is pretty good...

How about this... We trade Taliban leaders for our POWs... By the time these leaders our back in action more then five operatives have been killed by a drone.

[Keyboard Warriors]

The Taliban has been collapsing like a wet flan.
What do you mean they havn't turned up results?
Their international influence is weakening week on week, month on month.
They have failed to launch any operations outside their major hubs of support for quite some time, and likely will not ever be able to again unless we let them recover.
They are poor and without resources. Only the ideological agreement of the local peasantry is allowing them to continue based on subsistence donations, and we're putting a stop to that too.
You're asking we stop suffocating them because they havn't died yet, despite the fact that it's a slow process.

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

That opium cultivation and violence are up from what they were previously doesn't say the Taliban aren't collapsing like a wet fan as Ostro stated. The Taliban are practically confined to the least inhabitable areas of the country, the economic growth means far less will join them as a way for food, shelter and money (which is where the vast majority of taliban recruits come from) and years of successive drone strikes have ruined what little means they have of communicating with each other.

They've literally got no hope of pulling off anything, hence why the US and others see fit to withdraw.

As much as it galls me to admit it, Ostro is right about this facet.

[Condunum]

Corporal Chelsea Manning was able to access important security details that is considered a threat to the U.S to the point where the DoD had to put her in solitary confinement when she revealed the information to outside sources.

How in the holy motherfucking shit, is that not an important reason to capture common soldiers or recover them is beyond me.

Even in World War II the Allies considered German POW important in decoding the enigma code. I don't know what century you're on really.

Sure. And for us, that makes total sense as to why we want to capture Taliban operatives.
But why the fuck would they want to capture a soldier.
A mere soldier out on operations.

What the fuck do they know that is worth knowing from the Talibans perspective.
I'm not denigrating soldiers here. They aren't told important shit for precisely this reason.

Nothing a solider knows isn't important to the enemy. Every piece of information is worth extracting, hence who they capture sold-Have you even thought about how you'd fight a war against a superior enemy?

[United States of Devonta]

Except violence http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 2934964350

And heroine cultivation http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/n ... poppies-un

are both on the rise.

Because we're withdrawing, that's why. It's as ridiculous as noting that if the allies suddenly stopped pressing their gains in 1944 and withdrew home that it looks like the bombing campaigns have begun again, I guess that war shit wasn't working out. I'm absolutely baffled how you think the two are unrelated.

In a couple of decades they'll be back to attack us again, and we'll have to go back to strangling them into a slow death while people parade around butthurt about the fact we're trying to defend ourselves from pscyhopaths, and start mewling about how we should give peace a chance.

But wait didn't we already topple the government and place a new one in its place 10 years ago? Your outdated strategy cost more lives, money, time, etc. Lets go back to the 100 years war people!

[Infected Mushroom]

if you remove an operative of the Taliban, that operative may no longer carry out acts of terrorism.

Others may replace him but at least they are not joining the group in addition to the operative.

it makes good intuitive sense. plus there hasn't been another 9/11 so it looks like the US strategy on the whole is pretty good...

How about this... We trade Taliban leaders for our POWs... By the time these leaders our back in action more then five operatives have been killed by a drone.

we are still taking out less terrorists than we could be.

See now you've got Numbers killed by Drones minus Leaders minus Units recruited by released Leaders.

If you didn't negotiate... you wouldn't have those subtractions. Your suggestion is not the best for taking out the terrorists...