Amnesty Deal Lures Only 3 Percent Of Taliban In One Year

Wired:

The White House says the best chance to end the Afghanistan war is to compel low-ranking insurgents to lay down their guns, one at a time. But at the rate this so-called "reintegration" project is going, it could take as long as a decade to bring the fighters in from the cold.

Fewer than 800 insurgents have signed up in the year since Afghan president Hamid Karzai announced the plan. That's less than three percent of an estimated 30,000-or-so militants. And most of those fighters come from the calmer parts of the country, says British Maj. Gen. Phil Jones, the NATO official in charge of enticing low-ranking insurgents not to fight. Very few of them have actually finished a 90-day "demobilization" process -- after which the hard work at keeping them out of the war begins.

Read the whole story: Wired

Comments

[ewldest]

12:35 PM on 01/04/2011

"The White House says the best chance to end the Afghanistan war is to compel low-ranking insurgents to lay down their guns, one at a time. "
That's a joke, right? But everything said by the WhiteHouse, the Pentagon, the other MIC collaboraters in Washington amounts to one sick joke after another, treating Americans like passengers on a ship of fools - possibly the Titanic.
At any rate, if this is the 'best chance' to end the war, then obviously there is no chance at all. But then of course the White House, the MIC have no intenton of ending the war, hence the brutal irony informing this joke.
But the war will end - eventually, the US, like any other colonizer, will simply grow exhausted from its efforts and drag its sorry butt home. What a waste of time, money, and human life just to wait for that inevitable to happen.

[MikeDu]

12:32 PM on 01/04/2011

Contrast this to that entire police garrison who changed sides and burned down their own compound before walking off with their weapons. The Afghanis are pragmatists - they'll go over to whichever side is winning - and they're not going over to our side.

[gwinegarden]

11:34 AM on 01/04/2011

Trying to get"out" of the Taliban is, probably, more dangerous than staying in.

[SiberianRat]

10:29 AM on 01/04/2011

American Military Policy: All Brawn, No Brains.

It's been that way for decades and it needs to stop. We're not smart enough to be as imperialistic as we are.

[Soma99]

10:35 AM on 01/04/2011

Once empire's military adventures ROI goes negative, it's game over. It's called catabolic collapse.

[bluntobject]

02:42 AM on 01/04/2011

And when they collected their "thanks for coming gifts",(money), they turned around and went back to the fight.
 
 

[terry63]

01:54 AM on 01/04/2011

The Taliban are fighting a Religious and Ideological war, To them its a fight for a way of life. Granted its a violent , barbaric, backassward way of life that helps no one. But to them its a way of life that they beleive in. To assume that they would walk in and turn in their weapons is a fools delusion, Oh sure you get a few here and there that will walk in take what youve got to offer and walk away probably right back to their rifles.( recon)
We on the other hand have forgotten what war is, we havnt seen one since ww2 and we think that proping up a corrupt Government and pumping dollars into it will defeat a hardened enemy. There are people walking around Iraq and Afghanistan with suit cases filled with dollars, Their only allowed one suit case when traveling abroad. We call it a war and we fight it like a police action, Afraid that we will offend someone. Patton fought wars,Westmorlan fought conflicts.Patton in the end was victorious thanks largley to Montgomery. Westmoreland was not.Both had many civilian casualties the civilian casualties stopped when Patton destroyed his enemy, Westmorlan only increased those casualties, to include years after he was gone from that area. Although I must say our troops are so far advanced from the enemy that the Taliban have become just a thorn in the side and not a direct threat.

[jo smith456]

07:52 PM on 01/03/2011

By arrogantly and insultingly assuming that the Talibans can be lured to surrendering themselves and their weapons, US and its allies are making big mistake. Talibans are NOT that stupid; the western occupiers have killed a lot of their (Talibans') fathers, mothers, daughters, sons. THEY'LL REMEMBER.

[Edward Standley]

03:15 PM on 01/03/2011

The Taliban know what Karzai is and why foreign troops are there. That is why they won't be throwing their rifles down the well anytime soon.

[Left on Red]

05:02 PM on 01/03/2011

Are you implying that the Taliban is reserving their second amendment rights?

[Edward Standley]

11:16 AM on 01/04/2011

I'm implying that the Taliban have no use for Karzai or anyone else who would turn Afghanistan into a narco state that's for sale to the highest bidder. The Taliban, like Karzai, have some decisions to make. Afghanistan has a real trove of natural resources and those resources will either bring the country into the 21st century (even the 20th would do), or they'll simply enrich a corrupt government that continues to turn a blind eye to the Afghan people.

[GandenT]

02:09 PM on 01/03/2011

Better than zero percent of course so good for the program; but at the end of the day why on earth would anyone trust us our any of our lawless "contractors"?

[MMRDO]

10:55 PM on 01/03/2011

Trust? The law of Afghanistan is money, do not trust any of these tribal types.

[Denni]

12:43 PM on 01/03/2011

Only? That's three percent (800) fewer people willing to needlessly die or willing to kill innocent people. That three percent might be key in helping reach another 3 - 5 percent, etc.

[KIVPossum]

12:38 PM on 01/03/2011

These people believe they are fighting for their homeland, their way of life. Asking them to stop and walk away is not going to work.

[Hirnlego]

12:33 PM on 01/03/2011

How do t.errorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that t.errorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a countert.errorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on t.errorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

Infographic:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/images/figure1.gif
How 268 T.errorist Groups Worldwide Ended, 1968–2006

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

01:56 PM on 01/03/2011

You're mixing and matching Al-Q and the Taliban.

The Taliban is not a terrorist group.

The best description of the Taliban might be "various tribes and peoples fighting to rid their homeland of a foreign invader"

They will "end" when the US withdraws from Afghanistan.

[Hirnlego]

02:01 PM on 01/03/2011

Well, maybe, but it seems to me that the taliban do not target merely military targets but also the population if they are not on the "correct" side.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/10/2010-06-10_taliban_hang_7yearold_boy_accused_of_being_a_spy_suicide_bomber_kills_40_at_afgh.html

[MMRDO]

10:56 PM on 01/03/2011

Various? You mean single. Pashtuns, who want to be back in a positon to kill Tajiks, Hazara's, Uzbeks, and any other group that gets in their way with impunity so that they can maintain their hard line theocracy.

[Hirnlego]

12:31 PM on 01/03/2011

Just 35 pct. of Americans support continuing Afghan occupation, poll finds

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/opposition-afghanistan-war-record-high-poll/

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

12:02 PM on 01/03/2011

>The White House says the best chance to end the Afghanistan war is to compel low-ranking insurgents to lay down their guns, one at a time.

Excuse my French, but that is bull_hit stupidity of the first degree. I guess no one in the WH is old enough to remember our "Chieu Hoi" or "paid vacation" program for Viet Cong.