"the counterinsurgency strategy has shown little success.... what has turned out to work well is an approach American officials have talked much less about: targeted killings"
All we are doing is KILLING PEOPLE and DESTROYING a lot of villages and farms, folks!!
"To fight insurgents, US turns to targeted killings; Shift could force Taliban leaders to negotiate" by Helene Cooper, New York Times | August 1, 2010
WASHINGTON — When President Obama announced his new war plan for Afghanistan last year, the centerpiece of the strategy — and a big part of the rationale for sending 30,000 additional troops — was to safeguard the Afghan people, provide them with a competent government, and win their allegiance.
Eight months later, that counterinsurgency strategy has shown little success, as demonstrated by the flagging military and civilian operations in Marjah and Kandahar and the spread of Taliban influence elsewhere.
Instead, what has turned out to work well is an approach American officials have talked much less about: counterterrorism, military-speak for the targeted killings of insurgents from Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Faced with that reality, the Obama administration is starting to count more heavily on the strategy of hunting down insurgents. The shift could change the nature of the war and hasten a political settlement with the Taliban.
Political settlement?
Who is talking political settlement?
Every time peace talk is raised U.S. says no and it goes away.
Oh, right, consider the source.
Based on the US military experience in Iraq as well as Afghanistan, it is not clear that killing enemy fighters is sufficient by itself to cripple an insurgency. Still....
American intelligence reporting has recently revealed growing examples of Taliban fighters who are fearful of moving into higher-level command positions because of these lethal operations, according to a senior American military officer who follows Afghanistan closely.
Translation: This is PURE PROPAGANDA brought to you by the NYT!
Who believes U.S. intelligence reports or the NYT anymore?
Judging that they have gained some leverage over the Taliban, US officials are now debating when to try to bring them to the negotiating table to end the fighting.
PFFFFT!!
If you are WINNING you do NOT NEGOTIATE!!!
Wake up, AmeriKa!!!
You are LOSING and your NEWSPAPER is LYING TO YOU -- AGAIN!!!
Rattling the Taliban, officials said, may open the door to reconciling with them more quickly, even if the officials caution that the outreach is still uncertain....
What a PILE of POOP PROPAGANDA!
In the latest insurgent attack, a suicide bombing in northern Afghanistan yesterday killed three people, including a former militia commander who supported the Afghan government. The bomb, which went off at a football game in Kunduz, injured 19 others.
US military officials and Afghan President Hamid Karzai have begun a robust discussion about to what degree the Taliban are brought into the political process, one military official said.
When I see it in the papers I'll start buying it.
Otherwise it is all BULLS***!
The evolving thinking in Washington comes at a time when the lack of apparent progress in the nearly nine-year war is making it harder for Obama to hold his own party together on the issue....
Pfft!
They always get their damn war money!
A senior White House official said the administration hoped that its targeted killings, along with contacts between Karzai and General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan’s army chief, would combine to pressure Taliban leaders to come to the negotiating table.
Why go through all that?!?!
Why not JUST MEET with 'EM!?
A long-awaited campaign to convert lower- and mid-level Taliban fighters has finally begun in earnest, with Karzai signing a decree authorizing the reintegration program. With $200 million from Japan and other allies, and $100 million in Pentagon money, US military officers will soon be handing out money to lure people away from the insurgency....
Yeah, GOOD THING YOU DIDN'T NEED that MONEY, Americans!
Related: U.S. Paying Taliban For Protection
And YOU ALREADY PAY TALIBAN, huh?
What a GREAT WAY to keep a WAR GOING, huh?
Despite deep American concerns about Pakistan’s trustworthiness as an ally, Pakistan has also emerged in recent months as a potential agent for reconciliation.
Also see: "TALIBAN TRAINED BY ISRAEL AND INDIA"
Why am I not surprised?
Karzai has held at least two meetings with Kayani. US officials believe their talks have not yet delved into the details of negotiations with insurgent leaders, but Pakistan is eager to play a role in talks with the Haqqani network, an insurgent group that has ties to its intelligence service.
And you know where that leads, readers:
"Haqqani.... credited with introducing suicide bombing to the region.... cultivated as a "unilateral" asset of the CIA and received tens of thousands of dollars in cash for his work.... He may have had a role in expediting the escape of Osama Bin Laden.... In July 2008, CIA officials confronted Pakistan officials with evidence of ties between Inter-Services Intelligence and Haqqani. Haqqani has been accused of involvement in the 2008 Indian embassy bombing in Kabul...."
--more--"
Also related:
"The U.S. government was well aware of the Taliban's reactionary program, yet it chose to back their rise to power in the mid-1990s. The creation of the Taliban was "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," according to Selig Harrison, an expert on U.S. relations with Asia. "The United States encouraged Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to support the Taliban, certainly right up to their advance on Kabul," adds respected journalist Ahmed Rashid. When the Taliban took power, State Department spokesperson Glyn Davies said that he saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's plans to impose strict Islamic law, and Senator Hank Brown, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Near East and South Asia, welcomed the new regime: "The good part of what has happened is that one of the factions at last seems capable of developing a new government in Afghanistan." "The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis. There will be Aramco [the consortium of oil companies that controlled Saudi oil], pipelines, an emir, no parliament and lots of Sharia law. We can live with that," said another U.S. diplomat in 1997."
Oh, that's a real kick to the lower groans, isn't it, ladies?
The TALIBAN was established under U.S. AUSPICES?
We can "LIVE WITH THAT?"
I guess that was then and this is now, huh?
