Thread: No surrender to the Taliban. Afpak strategy for victory.

Peter Dow's "no" to Taliban's surrender terms. Afpak strategy for victory in war on terror. (YouTube)

Originally Posted by CBS News

CBS News: Divisions within Taliban make peace elusive

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made news Wednesday when he said the combat role for U.S. troops in Afghanistan could end next year instead of 2014. On Thursday, he took a step back -- insisting U.S. forces will remain combat ready -- even as they transition into their new role of training Afghan troops.

Another part of the U.S. strategy involves getting the Taliban to hold peace talks with the Afghan government. CBS News correspondent Clarissa Ward spoke with some top Taliban representatives where they live in Pakistan.

They call Sami ul Haq the "Father of the Taliban," one of Pakistan's most well-known and hard-line Islamists.

Ward visited ul Haq at his religious school near the Afghan border. Many Afghan Taliban leaders and fighters studied there, earning it the nickname the "University of Jihad."

Ul Haq said that top Taliban figures are receptive to the idea of peace talks, but that three key conditions must be met first: The Americans must leave Afghanistan, he told Ward. Secondly, Taliban leaders should be released from Guantonamo. The third demand is there should be no outside interference in Afghanistan.

It's unlikely that American negotiators will accept these terms, though a release of some prisoners from Guantanamo Bay has been discussed.

While some elements of the Taliban's leadership may be supportive of peace talks, there are clear signs that divisions exist within the group. Many of the younger, more militant foot soldiers insisting that they are not ready to stop fighting.

At a small guesthouse on the outskirts of Islamabad, CBS News had the rare chance to sit down with a young Taliban commander from Helmand province. For security reasons, he asked that his face be not shown.

"If these talks in Doha are successful and Taliban leaders tell you and your fighters to put down your arms, will you do it?" asked Ward.

"No, it will not happen," he said. "And those who are talking to the political wing of the Taliban should understand that real peace is only possible by talking to the ground fighters."

"So the bottom line is you're not willing to compromise, you're not willing to collaborate? Is there any chance of peace?"

"If the Afghan government announced tomorrow that strict Islamic law would be reinstated, we would accept that," he said, "but those in power now will never go along with that."

For the moment, there is a huge gulf between what the Taliban and their backers want and what America would be willing to accept.

So the Deans of Jihad have dictated terms to the West, the terms they propose of the West's surrender to the Jihadis in the war on terror.

So what should the response of the West be? Should we surrender to the Jihadis, or should we fight to win?

This guy Sami ul Haq should be a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp along with his University of Jihad colleagues, his controllers from the Pakistani ISI and his financial backers from Saudi Arabia.

The US and Western allies ought to name Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as "state sponsors of terrorism".

There ought to be drone strikes on the University of Jihad. (Darul Uloom Haqqania, Akora Khattak, Pakistan)

We ought to seize control of Pakistani and Saudi TV satellites and use them to broadcast propaganda calling for the arrest of all involved in waging terrorist war against the West.

It just seems very poor tactics for our military to be risking life and limb in the minefields of Afghanistan yet at the strategic level our governments and businesses are still "trading with the enemy".

As the Star Trek character Commander Scott might have said -

"It's war, Captain but not as we know it."

Well we've now been fighting for 10 years and have made no progress what so ever.

So it's probably time we quit.

Plainly we have lost this war.

It's time to face it. It has been time to face it for at least 6 years.

Tim I am not sure why we went there, it certainly was not about fighting terrorism to say we 'lost' in the traditional sense might not be correct. Perhaps the target has changed maybe it's Syria and Iran now we have Libyan oil. Iran does not sell it's oil in US$.

Or maybe the cost is hitting home.
Or perhaps they now have an established booming heroine business - mission accomplished.
Or perhaps they have exhausted the English speaking nation's fighting forces bring in soviet style thought control intwined with Corporate fascism in the nations with no-one capable of defending them.....UK no aircraft carrier, no harriers.

I still can't believe the Chinese were mining in Afghanistan, so perhaps there was some deal to get out to save the Chinese dumping US treasury bonds.

We know initially it could have been to get Caspian fossil fuels through to Pakistan and India At the same time they dealt with Saddam who was pricing his oil in Euros. Saddam has gone and Iraq is weak. So now they have been squeezing Iran with Sanctions.
If it is about control of how fossil fuels are sold then Iran would be the next target interestingly they are the largest supplier to China.

Having acquired Libya with it's oil resources this could be a possibility. Obviously I hope not because it could be the excuse for WWIII.

This link I found interesting.....especially the interview about the 4 minute mark:

This is what we are dealing with, these people will never be stopped.

Originally Posted by Peter Dow

No surrender to the Taliban. Afpak strategy for victory.

Ha, ha. The naivety of it all. You do realise that when Scotland becomes independent, it will be targetted by Muslims?

Currently as it is part of the UK, Muslims target England as it is the largest country (how did the rugby today go by the way?) and where the seat of power is (Westminster). However, once Scotland is a separate country, it will need to be conquered separately and will see an influx of Muslims to achieve this.

The whole of Scotland will become like Pollokshields. Enjoy.

Originally Posted by Luigi

It's a stalemate, it hasn't been won or lost.

Other than killing Bin Laden that we could have done a long time ago or done with very little war in the middle east we have achieved nothing. Not only have we achieved nothing we've destroyed are own free way of life, our own culture, our own moral values, our own economies. To add to this the middle east is now totally unstable, Israel is in more danger than it has ever been and the religious tolerance that was available has all but disappeared and most of the middle east will fall to the very hard line Islamofascist we went there to defeat.

That is not a stalemate that is a total loss. Ten years of war for exactly nothing.