Posted on 11/29/2006 6:50:58 AM PST by indcons
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN — Senior Pakistani officials are urging NATO countries to accept the Taliban and work toward a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude President Karzai of Afghanistan.
Pakistan's foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, has said in private briefings to foreign ministers of some NATO member states that the Taliban are winning the war in Afghanistan and that NATO is bound to fail. He has advised against sending more troops.
Western ministers have been stunned. " Kasuri is basically asking NATO to surrender and to negotiate with the Taliban," one Western official who met the minister recently said.
The remarks were made on the eve of NATO's critical summit in Latvia. The British general and NATO's force commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General David Richards, and its chief diplomat there, the Dutch ambassador Daan Everts, have spent five days in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, urging the Pakistani military to do more to reign in the Taliban. But they have received mixed messages.
Mr. Karzai has long insisted that the Taliban sanctuaries and logistics bases are in Pakistan while the Supreme Commander of NATO, General James Jones, told the U.S. Congress in September that the Taliban leadership is headquartered in the Pakistani city of Quetta.
The governor of the volatile Northwest Frontier Province, Lieutenant General Ali Mohammed Jan Orakzai, has stated publicly that America, Britain, and NATO have already failed in Afghanistan.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Ping
Well, I guess there was no point in going there after all. I guess we are just supposed to cut and run from there too. Must be the result of the 2006 elections. We just cannot win there either. If we wanted to, we could really prove we can win. That is, if we wanted to.
And remember, Afghanistan is the one the democrats say we did the RIGHT way, with a multi-national force and with the support of the world and our allies.
The UN sucks....and that includes the "conditional" surrender of Saddam.
The Dems haven't said we've done anything right. They claim that we didn't put ENOUGH troops into Afghanistan.
Though, I agree, the US already has, what, 350 dead vs. maybe 100 combined from other countries there.
The drug trade is 'blossoming' in Afgh, fueling the rebels. What could more troops have done. Nothing better, I suspect.
Follow the money.
You can't run a terror campaign, insurgency, or government in exile without it.
Musharraf is playing both ends against the middle, and the US is one end, guess who sits on the far end of the pipeline, feeding wealth on global scales into this campaign against us?
Ten points and a donut for anyone who said "Saudi Arabia".
Invade there, and you will kill the earth's oil driven economy in one swift stroke. Besides, it isn't all of Saudi Arabia funding this, only half of it.
The fulcrum of the lever is Iran. When Iran falls, the extremists beegin the long slide to eventual defeat. In Syria, Pakistan, even Saudi Arabia. Little connection between factions in Saudi Arabia funding jihad against the west, other than extremist Islam.
Big connection between a war going badly, and allowing the enemy an entire country to regroup, multiply, and project force. When Iran comes off the board, the full weight of US diplomacy, investigation, military pressure, and covert activity falls on the remaining pockets of resistance, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Pakistan.
Then we will see proper results.
Not until.
These guys must have direct access to the DNC and all the socialist dimocrats are advising them.
"Talaban rule" would be a crime against humanity. But we're told the real crimes involve froot loops and chicken with orange sauce in the Caribbean.
In Iraq (and Lebanon) the problem is Iran. In Afghanistan the problem is Pakistan. We should turn Israel loose on Iran and help them anyway we can and should turn India loose on Pakistan.
Unreal...
Easiest thing to do is one night bring in the Stealths and just flat out destroy Quretta and don't stop until there is nothing left.
The next day say "oops" and offer to pay for the rebuilding and compensate the families.
In the long run that will be cheaper then the alternative.
"Though, I agree, the US already has, what, 350 dead vs. maybe 100 combined from other countries there."
The drug trade is 'blossoming' in Afgh, fueling the rebels. What could more troops have done. Nothing better, I suspect.
The one thing we did do is free Iraq of the dictator. But am not sure if that really brought more stability to the region. Colin Powell must be shaking his head right about now. Due to that blunder we may be forced to have liberals running the nation for the next 6 years.
Easiest thing to do is one night bring in the Stealths and just flat out destroy Quretta and don't stop until there is nothing left.
The next day say "oops" and offer to pay for the rebuilding and compensate the families.
In the long run that will be cheaper then the alternative. Otherwise how do you really win a war on terror.
My sentiments exactly.
No argument here.
Bush has supported Machiavellian 'benevolent dictators' like Musharraf when he has had no other option.
But Bush also truly believed in the words of Jefferson that all men are created equal, etc.
So he seemed to think at the time, that the people of Iraq would blossom in time into a free people if given a chance.
People can bitch and moan about how it was done, but I think bringing Baker etal back in underscores the view, expressed often on FR, that SOME people are NOT equal, and that some of the dirty little bastards NEED a dictator to keep the peace.
This may turn out to be true. If the Declaration of Independence is NOT true, and Bush was wrong to "give freedom and liberty a chance," then by proving it wrong once and for all, humanity has some sh!tty days ahead.
"People can bitch and moan about how it was done, but I think bringing Baker etal back in underscores the view, expressed often on FR, that SOME people are NOT equal, and that some of the dirty little bastards NEED a dictator to keep the peace".
"This may turn out to be true. If the Declaration of Independence is NOT true, and Bush was wrong to "give freedom and liberty a chance," then by proving it wrong once and for all, humanity has some sh!tty days ahead."
The Declaration of Independence can only really be applied to this country. I am very happy that I was born an American and I love my country and the belief system it was built upon. But a lot of other countries still have Cast Systems in place and those countries or people have lived a certain way for hundreds of years. No matter how much we believe we have a better way of doing things they may not see it the same way. I see this as a no win situation and you are right that humanity may have a lot of those S****T days ahead of us but we have had them in the past. The Crusades, Slavery, Holocaust etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.