McCain says the Taliban shouldn't be separated out from the U.S. grudge match against al-Qaeda

[bigtree]

(AP) WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain says Obama administration policy decisions in Afghanistan shouldn’t be based on viewing the insurgent Taliban and the al-Qaida terrorist network as separate and distinct issues.

Interviewed Tuesday morning on NBC’s "Today" program, the Arizona Republican said, "You can’t separate the two. ... If the Taliban returns, they will work with al-Qaida. It’s just a historical fact."

McCain is among a host of key congressional leaders slated to meet later Tuesday at the White House with President Barack Obama. The administration is debating what changes may be necessary in Afghan war-fighting policy amid increasing violence and a call by the U.S. commanding general for thousands of additional fighting forces.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S1177065.shtml?cat=10056


I think it's folly for the U.S. to automatically assume Taliban leaders and followers are associated with al-Qaeda. This is a recipe for an eternally broader conflict. The administration should be looking to narrow their targets down to those who they believe are directly responsible for the 9-11 attacks and those who have supported them in the past and present.

Targeting the 'Taliban' and everyone who follows them in that region as an automatic enemy of the U.S. is a ludicrous proposition. There is wide agreement that it would be more realistic and favorable to work to separate the violent, resistant elements from ones who are relatively passive and independent from any affiliation with al-Qaeda. Binding them all together as the 'enemy' is the primary mistake our invading forces made in Iraq, solidifying previously disparate groups together in resistance to our carpet-bombing advance.

We need, now more than ever, to be more discriminating in the use of our deployed forces inside of these occupied nations, not less, as McCain suggests.

[polly7]

1. Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb .... anyone he chooses. McCain

makes my head hurt with his warmongering dreams.

[bigtree]

2. he never ceases to remind me

. . . to give thanks again for the election of President Obama.

[bigtree]

3. .

[TheKentuckian]

4. I wonder if after eight years of screwing the pooch over there if it hasn't become true

It wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Taliban and Al Queda have pretty much morphed into the same thing at least from our perspective and that is why I don't see a real way forward to being able to have a counter-insurgence strategy there. This is more pronounced by the fact that the central government is corrupt, ineffectual, and full of fail on about every level.

This is also why I think McCrystal is smoking crack because that crazy bastard thinks we can raise up a dependable standing army of a quarter million over there and has ZERO contingency if that doesn't happen as he dreams.

[bigtree]

6. it's been the policy

. . . to label any and all resistance to the NATO military advance as 'militants' or 'enemy', and al-Qaeda is used as a convenient point of blame for the resistant violence. There is certainly going to be an understandable aversion among Taliban-governed Afghans to aligning with the foreign invaders (as there is the inevitable bonding of disparate groups in Afghanistan in resistance). That doesn't mean, however, that these provincial leaders are wedded to every plank or agenda of some fugitive al-Qaeda. It's certainly in Afghanistan's long-term interest to pull these provinces into support of their central authority in Kabul. In that effort, it would be wise not to assume there is anything more adverse or sinister among these provincial leaders than the natural, reflexive desire to band together in resistance to the foreign invasion forces (albeit, they will sometimes act in the same interest as al-Qaeda in seeking to repel the foreign occupiers).

[yellowcanine]

5. If G.W. Bush hadn't been so trigger happy it is possible the Taliban would have given up Osama in

2001. He basically didn't even try. Now it may be that the Taliban would still have needed to be forced out. But we could possibly have avoided extensive involvement in Afghanistan.

[bigtree]

7. right

It makes no sense to lump these loosely organized provincial leaders into the 'enemy' basket on just their identification as 'Taliban' alone. We need to encourage (through our diplomacy) their split with any adverse outside influence. I don't see the point in automatically isolating them from making decisions like the initial one you cite.