Taliban not the enemy after all – Obama willing to deal

Shall we take a stroll back in time – not too far mind you – and look at who the Taliban are, what they do, and how they supported and encouraged al-Qaida terrorists in the past? No. President Obama is now giving up on those who harbor and support terrorists. To win it turns out, is probably not possible.

From the AP over at Yahoo! News.

President Barack Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday. …

Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government — something it is now far from being capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said. …

Bowing to the reality that the Taliban is too ingrained in Afghanistan’s culture to be entirely defeated, the administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taliban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said. That could mean paving the way for Taliban members willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government — though there has been little receptiveness to this among the Taliban. It might even mean ceding some regions of the country to the Taliban.

So let’s say the United States gives, oh, maybe 15 percent of Afghanistan to the Taliban to do with what they please. Are we thinking there will be some sort of Afghan migration into those areas or will the Afghan people be brutally oppressed by the Taliban as they are in areas they now control.

Are we thinking the Taliban will sign some sort of treaty to stay put and not support the training of future terrorists? Maybe the Taliban will break all ties with and condemn al-Qaida?

Dream on.

By the way, is Code Pink now to the right of the Obama administration when it comes to Afghanistan?

There is no clear strategy in Afghanistan. With the Bush administration there was a strategy – defeat the terrorists and bring stability to the region. That is the difference, and that is why some conservatives are suggesting we just get out of Afghanistan. There is no double standard since the situations and leadership do not compare.

How are we doing on troop morale? This should help.

Allah at Hot Air notes

If the people we’ve been fighting for eight years aren’t the enemy, then the country no longer needs to be secured from them, does it?

Jim Geraghty at the Campaign Spot writes … (I’m posting his full comment so please click on this link to visit his site.) The ultimate expiration date

Then-candidate Barack Obama, July 15, 2008: “Our troops and our NATO allies are performing heroically in Afghanistan, but I have argued for years that we lack the resources to finish the job because of our commitment to Iraq. That’s what the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said earlier this month. And that’s why, as President, I will make the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.”

And then in August, before the VFW: “This is the central front in the war on terrorism. This is where the Taliban is gaining strength and launching new attacks, including one that just took the life of ten French soldiers. This is where Osama bin Laden and the same terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on our own soil are hiding and plotting seven years after 9/11. This is a war that we have to win.”

And then in his convention address: “I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.”

And then in October 22: “Abroad, we need a new direction that ends the war in Iraq, focuses on the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, and restores strong alliances and tough American diplomacy.”

The New York Times, today: “President Obama’s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.”

Hoft over at Gateway Pundit has some video reminders of Obama statements and how the Taliban operate.

Posted in

Steve McGough

Steve's a part-time conservative blogger. Steve grew up in Connecticut and has lived in Washington, D.C. and the Bahamas. He resides in Connecticut, where he’s comfortable six months of the year.


  1. donh on October 8, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    So that guy with the patch over his eye, Mullah Mohammed Omar,  he is 100% Taliban , 0% Al Quaeda, and our new BFFL? We are going to separate  the good terrorists from the bad terrorists? The only differance between a radical beheadder and a moderate beheadder is that the moderate has  bury his victim. The radical puts your head on a pole in the public square. This new "strategy" is a euphamism for surrender. We are surrendering the entire countryside to the terrorists while out troops bunker down in the capital. The enemy will trench the land they have now gained in victory, stockpile and slowly mass towards Kabul for a final seige on the calpital. Our troops will grow steadily  surrounded,  neglected  resources, and attacked at a time of our enemy's choosing.  This is pure FAILURE! President Obama is proving to be Surrender in Chief.

  2. Dimsdale on October 9, 2009 at 5:03 pm

    I don't recall the Balkanization of, well, the Balkans, turning out that well.  What makes Obambi think he can make it work in Afghanistan?


    They called Bush stubborn because when he committed to a strategy, he stuck with it.  Obama is just the opposite: he is as feckless as a babe in the woods.  He just doesn't have a clue, and the people that he should be consulting (General McChrystal) is ignored, while he confabs with other politicians on what to do (the "what" obviously being the most politically expedient course of action).

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.