Taliban behead 23 Pak soldiers, peace talks with government collapse
Source: Indian Express
Pakistani negotiators on Monday cancelled a scheduled meeting with the Taliban after the insurgents claimed they had killed 23 soldiers kidnapped by them in 2010, dealing a severe blow to the fledgling peace process.
State negotiators withdrew itself from the meeting that was supposed to be held on Monday 17th February, saying circumstances relating to negotiations with the Pakistani Taliban were not heading in the right direction. Irfan Siddiqui, coordinator of the government committee formed to hold peace talks with negotiators representing the outlawed Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), said after the killing of 23 Frontier Corps (FC) soldiers, holding talks with the group was a futile enterprise.
Read more: http://indianexpress.com/article/world/asia/taliban-behead-23-pak-soldiers-peace-talks-with-govt-collapse/?SocialMedia
It looks like the drone war against the TTP, which President Obama essentially stopped at Pakistan's request while talks were ongoing, is almost certainly going to be spinning up again.
It will almost certainly have the full (if quietly tacit) support of the Pakistani military - for obvious reasons. Please remember this when these attacks actually start happening.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Everyone realizes it except some people on DU.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Us leaving the country would be a good start. And a good follow-up action would be to embargo the fuck out of Afghanistan. Yes, I'm aware that the borders are rugged and porous and that they'd continue to eek out a meager existence like they always have. But they'd be contained, and we wouldn't be there anymore, and we wouldn't have to keep coming up with creative excuses for being in a war that serves no purpose.
rtracey
(2,062 posts)Your embargo solution is a no-starter to the least. For an embargo to work on a situation as Afghanistan, you would need the cooperation from all surrounding countries in the middle east, and you will never get that, especially when the Taliban is involved. I agree with your first solution, leave, let Pakistan handle their own situation, telling Karzi where to stick his military agreement is another thing we should do.... no protection, no troops....period, and 3rd, the Lindsay Graham and John McCain to shut their mouths about constant War Mongering....
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)This was the Pakistani Taliban beheading Pakistani soldiers. So the US leaving anywhere isn't going to solve that. Us helping out Pakistan with some pinpoint high value strikes might though.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)The Taliban retakes Afghanistan, and then begins to wither away at Pakistan. The Taliban eventually takes over Pakistan, gets control of the nukes, and then launches them at the world's major cities to fulfill their psychotic religious dogma.
The Taliban is dangerous because A - They're fundamentalists, B - They have a real chance at power in Pakistan, a nuclear power, and C - They're sworn to fighting a holy war against the rest of the world. They would cause a nuclear winter if it meant destroying the West.
The Taliban is a cancer on the civilized world. Everything they wrap their tentacles around gets corrupted, and they won't be happy until everybody believes like they do, even if they have to kill everybody who won't. Every time they grow in power, it's a disaster.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They sound good in practice but they're bullshit.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Yeah, who cares how many innocent people the flying death robots kill, right?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...he said absolutely nothing about killing innocent people with drones.
And for your information, drones have one of the lowest civilian casualty ratios of all means of war. Don't believe me? How about listening to what Pakistan has to say? (New York Times)
In a surprise move, Pakistan’s government on Wednesday sharply revised downward its official estimate of civilian casualties caused by American drone strikes in the tribal belt, highlighting again the contentious nature of statistics about the covert C.I.A. campaign.
The Ministry of Defense released figures to lawmakers saying that 67 civilians were among 2,227 people killed in 317 drone strikes since 2008. The remainder of those killed were Islamist militants, the ministry said.
The figures represented a civilian casualty rate of about 3 percent, falling far below earlier estimates from independent groups — and other government departments — that reported a rate of 6 percent and higher over the same period.
This is the problem with reflexive hatred of America, Sootaloo. Facts are stubborn things; they rarely fit any extremist's agenda.
Pakistan is in the midst of an undeclared civil war between Islamic moderates and Islamic extremists. Pakistan is also a nation armed with nuclear weapons. The U.S. is not just protecting itself, but protecting the world, in helping the sane-side of that conflict absolutely crush the religious fanatics in that civil war. And your continuing cheer-leading for those radical misogynists is, frankly, sickening.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
freshwest
(53,661 posts)You make sense here with that argument. They are so extreme in their hatred for so many things.
Instead of 23 soldiers, it could have been 23 cities. Or they could threaten everyone to get their way. No way they should win this and get their hands on a nuke.
No way.
Now we know why Obama's hair is turning white. The things he knows that we never have to know is a mind boggling task.
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)The Taliban's member base consists of people from a small agrarian ethnic group on the geographical and geopolitical fringes of the country. They stand no chance of defeating or co-opting the urban majority of central Pakistan who speak a different language, live a different lifestyle and have a different culture.
If we want stability in Pakistan, then we should address the vast socioeconomic imbalance between the cities and rural areas, and between the powerful Punjabi people and smaller ethnic groups. Without it, the Taliban have no support.
In fact, that is what these peace talks were supposed to address. It is a shame that extremism and violence have once again undermined them. I don't think killing a bunch of farmers and their families with drone bombs helps either.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)or something.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)
Kind of like saying Pakistini opinion doesn't matter, isn't it? http://rt.com/op-edge/us-drone-pakistan-terrorism-439/cosmicone
(11,014 posts)If you know what politics is like in third world countries, one can actually "rent" protesters by the day and they are bused in to a major square, given the protest paraphernalia, taught a couple of slogans and voila!
Leaders also bring these rent-a-body audience members when they want to have major rallies with 100K or 200K people.
Very few people in the third world actually care enough about such things unless incited by leaders who incite them as it suits them.
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)One of those "protesters for rent" was a journalist and retired Pakistani Air Force Officer. He made reasonable and serious arguments as to how the drone attacks were making the terrorism situation worse. You are free to disagree with his analysis but the condescension suggests a dismissive attitude toward "those people who can't possibly think for themselves" and an unwillingness to thoughtfully address the possibility that U.S. policy might be misguided and counter productive.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and absolute truth hurts absolutely.
I have seen people bused and trucked in for two meals and a little baksheesh. In an otherwise fucked up economy politics can put food on the table.
lark
(23,105 posts)Obviously someone in the Taliban REALLY wanted the talks to fail.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)I know it's "off topic", but it does apply to negotiating "with crazy". It's fruitless and a waste of time.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)stop an indigenous people from beheading more of their foes and disturbing their way of life?
Pakistan military isn't sunshine and roses as many have led to believe and often they use nefarious militants to do their dirty work against India. So why should I have sympathy for them when their own dog that they supposedly had on a leash bites back after being treated so poorly?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)Long story: keeping them on the run and hiding and taking out the brains makes for less successful terrorists actions against the Pakistani people.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)uses the brains of the Pakistani Taliban to commit acts of terror inside of India. We should not be extending an olive branch so quickly with Pakistan.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)
MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)Been there far too long.
Beacool
(30,249 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Doubt they have allegiance to either country, so it's all the same to them. They are in both coutntries, just run back and forth. But CD makes a good point, our being in Afghanistan is probably much more about Pakistan.
The Taliban with their hands on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is as bad as having an RWNJ in the USA. Some of them are fanatical enough to try to bring the Second Coming by 'nuking the enemies of Israel.' No kidding.
We can't allow that, and the moderate Muslims in Pakistan can't allow the Taliban to take over the country. What a mess.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Do you think droning these guys - and its no guarantee we're getting the "bad guys" as we hit a lot of innocent casualties trying to get the one baddie - is really "helping"? Or is it simply ramping up the fury in the region and driving more people into the Taliban?
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)I'll see if I can dig up the link for you, but there was an absolutely fascinating article written from the perspective of one of the natives of Waziristan. To summarize, the average civilian from that region hates (in order): #1 the Taliban, for both engaging in a campaign of utter terror akin to the Khmer Rouge and also bringing war to the region, #2 the Pakistani military for engaging in very off-target shelling whenever they get attacked, killing perhaps 1 Taliban for every 10 civilians they kill. Only in a distant third, is the U.S. drone campaign mentioned. But even then, the drone campaign seems to be opposed largely by the civilian supporters of the Taliban, and not, by any means, everyone in the region. Voicing support for drones is only done in utter secret, as it is a good way to get yourself murdered by the Taliban.
Dislike of U.S. drones goes up as you go further south, in other words, as the threat of terror attacks from the TPP goes down. By the time you get into Islamabad, it's nearly universal. (Although Dawn has repeatedly broken the story that many U.S. drones take off from Pakistani military bases, which kind of makes their scolding us seem a trifle disingenuous.... but that's politics.)
-C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)...the funny thing is, it proves my point. First, in their biased counting scheme, the writers of this website count, for instance, "5-8 killed, possibly 2 civilians" as two "proven" civilian casualties. You find out in the details though, that this was a drone strike on a private meeting in a Taliban vehicle with several known combatants, which basically proves the opposite. Real innocents aren't going to be sitting in a car with a bunch of murderous thugs.
But even under this biased counting scheme, the civilian casualty rate is unbelievably low by historical standards. 20% ! At worst!
For comparison, the WW2 Civilian Casualty ratio was 150% to 200%. That is a 10 fold improvement.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)were combatants or part of the count for civilians. That is why the site uses the word alleged.
As for your claim that 20% is low for civilian casualty rates, I disagree given the technology we have.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Hell, even when Clinton ordered the airstrikes that stopped the "Ethnic Cleansing" campaign in Kosovo, the Civ. Casualty rate was 1 for 1, meaning 100%.
Mind you, I'll allow that things can always be improved. However, even then, you're talking about people who have no compunctions against murdering other Muslims to impose their absurdly backward and misogynistic interpretations of the Qur'an on others. I'm well aware that a peaceful solution would be preferable, but it is also obviously true with this latest act that they're really not interested in peace.
This really does remind me a lot of our own civil war, the states determined to destroy the U.S. because of their love of slavery. There is a quote from that era that seems most applicable:
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."
William Tecumseh Sherman
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)from full scale wars...to drone strikes. I argue these rates are too high given we are not engaged in a full scale war currently.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Some people reflexively believe all the propaganda coming out of Pakistan which is only intended for domestic consumption to make average Pakistanis think that their government is outraged. They don't see the winking and nodding by Pakistani powers to the US because we remove a hard to deal problem for them.
Unfortunately, some in the DU crowd believe all that stuff.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)or something.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)If you take the entire population of the US and how many actually died on 9-11.
That doesn't mean the visceral reaction to those actions doesn't spark a national outrage. Its a fact that the drone attacks are being amplified by the Pakistanis and the Afghans as national outrages against their people. Its not helping us "help" them at all.
In fact, I'd say it only makes more enemies and emboldens those elements of the Pakistani ISI who help and arm the Taliban.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)Furthermore, these "Civilians" are all in the direct vicinity of TPP Combatants. Which is akin to claiming that a security contractor who got killed in a meeting when the Pentagon was attacked is the same as some innocent who was killed in the World Trade Center (a purely civilian target).
Again, it's clear that you prefer your narrative to reality. But let me remind you again of the reality. The Taliban just beheaded 23 Pakistani soldiers as a way to end peace talks. This idea of yours, that people in Pakistan are going to be incredibly outraged at the U.S. for attacking the TPP, and join the group who just murdered their own military in such a barbaric way, is frankly absurd.
Sometimes it really isn't all America's fault. Just a thought.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Its not as though they are part of a military brigade. They hide in civilian areas purposefully in order to try to shield themselves from droning - or conversely, if we DO decide to fuck it and just drone that house innocents be damned it doesn't appear that the AQ types care. But the civilian population cares.
I'm not making up my own narrative. It appears there are facts that support this interpretation.
FWIW, I don't think the Taliban were ever interested in peace talks. Why should they? They want Pakistan's nukes. They want Kashmir. They want to stop the encroachment of "western" values and culture etc etc.
Honestly, the region is fucked up. But the US droning that region isn't helping us. Its only making more enemies imo.
ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)
Elders from the Shinwari tribe, which represents about 400,000 people in eastern Afghanistan, also pledged to send at least one military-age male in each family to the Afghan Army or the police in the event of a Taliban attack.
In exchange for their support, American commanders agreed to channel $1 million in development projects directly to the tribal leaders and bypass the local Afghan government, which is widely seen as corrupt.
“The Taliban have been trying to destroy our tribe, and they are taking money from us, and they are taking our sons to fight,” said Malik Niaz, a Shinwari elder. “If they defy us now, we will defeat them.”
There are, however, civilian supporters of the Taliban, and it is very likely that most of the people who are being killed by drones are those supporters. So you're not really causing people to join who weren't inclined to anyway.
Again, the classic narrative that the Taliban are all just innocent peaceful villagers who would all live in peace and harmony if it weren't for the evil USA coming in to bomb them, doesn't have any basis of reality. In fact, it's usually the opposite. Many of these people make the U.S. tea party look like radical hippies, and they will keep attacking until they see a consequence to their actions. Drones are that consequence.
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)And makes more enemies than friends in the region.
The Taliban are NOT going to just fade away and be peaceful farmers. We both know that. But droning them never gets us anywhere except killing innumerable #2 and #3 AQ leaders over and over with a lot of collateral damage.
Isolate the region. Cut it off if we can persuade Pakistani ISI to help. Wasting even a single extra dollar trying to change that dynamic is futile imho. I say we withdraw and monitor. We clearly have the technical ability to keep an eye on things there. After 10+ years there I'd be shocked if we don't have humint as well on the ground. Use these people more effectively than as mere hunting dogs pointing bombs at houses containing wedding parties.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Drone warfare and indiscriminate killing are likely to make things worse.
rug
(82,333 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Either that, or just acknowledge that Waziristan is really not part of Pakistan and not governable, and just let them secede.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Taliban is not a creation of the ISI to control Afghanistan and brutalize it.
