EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Jamal Dajani

Jamal Dajani

Posted: October 29, 2009 10:23 AM

Taliban: If You Can't Beat Them, Buy Them!

What's Your Reaction?

?>

The story the New York Times published this week on Hamid Karzai's drug-dealing brother Ahmed Wali and his ties to the CIA is very revealing, considering it comes just few days before Afghanistan's run-off election; however, it is not the real news. It has been rumored for years that Wali has been involved in opium trafficking and has been receiving payments from the CIA. The big story is the United States' government plan to buy out the Taliban -- officially, so to speak.

On Wednesday, President Obama signed a $680 billion defense appropriations bill, which is supposed to cover military operations in the 2010 fiscal year. The bill includes a Taliban reintegration provision under the Commander's Emergency Response Program. Don't you love the terminologies used by government bureaucrats? Call it buyout, bribes, protection money, but please don't call it integration.

The idea, according to Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is to separate local Taliban from their leaders, replicating a program used to neutralize the insurgency against Americans in Iraq. If you can't beat them, buy them!

Afghanistan though, is not Iraq. Unlike al-Sahwa in Iraq (the Sunni Awakening), when Iraqi tribe members took up arms against al-Qaeda and foreign insurgents, the Taliban are an integral part of Afghanistan, and they are not foreign fighters. They are the brothers, cousins and neighbors of ordinary Afghans. The US government might be able to temporarily buy out some Taliban members from attacking its troops but it will not be able to buy loyalties.

Meanwhile, pressure is mounting on President Obama to authorize the sending of more troops to Afghanistan. According to a recent Associated Press report:

There are already more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan working with 200,000 Afghan security forces and police. It adds up to a 12-to-1 numerical advantage over Taliban rebels, but it hasn't led to anything close to victory.

The Taliban rebels are estimated to number no more than 25,000 according to the same report. Yet, we have witnessed their devastating attacks in Kabul and other areas. The number of American deaths in Afghanistan has reached a record for the third time in four months. Some military experts say that an increase in US troops is no guarantee to reduce US fatalities and that it might only work in a negative way. The US army is not equipped to fight guerrilla warfare.

The new US strategies to be implemented in Afghanistan are nothing new; they are basically a redux of Iraqi ones. Their success rates are both short term, with the surge in Iraq only working temporarily, as the recent attacks in the country show. Paying for protection can only work against foreign insurgents and will only work as long as you keep paying.

In the meantime, on the news, I keep watching those who are gung-ho for sending more troops to Afghanistan insist that the U.S. has learned from the Soviets' mistakes. No one asks if it has learned anything from its mistakes in Iraq.

 
 
 

Follow Jamal Dajani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamaldajani

The story the New York Times published this week on Hamid Karzai's drug-dealing brother Ahmed Wali and his ties to the CIA is very revealing, considering it comes just few days before Afghanistan's ru...
The story the New York Times published this week on Hamid Karzai's drug-dealing brother Ahmed Wali and his ties to the CIA is very revealing, considering it comes just few days before Afghanistan's ru...
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:19 PM on 10/31/2009
There are 32 million Afghans. We spend more than 32 billion a year there. That's $1000/Afgh­an, man, woman and child. Per capita GDP in Afghanista­n is about $700. That's not per capita monetary income which is most likely half that. Say each Afghan family has 10 members (extended family). They probably eke out a living on little more than $1000 per year. If we gave that family and all other such families a lump sum $10,000 payment, economic activity in Afghanista­n would sky rocket. The Afghans would be able to spend their own money wisely and reconstruc­t their own country as they see fit. This will end corruption­, make the Taqliban irrelevant and save us lives and money even in the short term. But it makes too much sense to be considered by "the best and the brightest.­"
03:03 PM on 10/31/2009
"The Taliban are an integral part of Afghanista­n, and they are not foreign fighters. They are the brothers, cousins and neighbors of ordinary Afghans. "

Absolutely untrue, betraying a misunderst­anding of the Taliban. The Taliban originated in the madrassas in Pakistan, funded by the ISI (and the CIA) They were able to shoot their way into power when the US abandoned the country after the Russians left. Most Afghans hate the Taliban, as it was a foreign-sp­onsored political minority which ruled by force and fear, for example the mutilation­s in the National Stadium. This article neglects, as do most, that there are starvation conditions and the Taliban pays $8 a day to young fighters who would rather do something else. I would prefer this kind of "reintegra­tion" be separated from the military mission, but as war-fighti­ng goes it's not a bad idea. Troops out, basic public works projects at $7 a day wage in, and your Taliban problem disappears­.

In the Seventies women were wearing mini-skirt­s in Kabul. This is not an indigenous movement, and is growing only because it can pay fighters through the opium trade.

Troop escalation is a terrible idea because it fans the flames. Afghans want nothing more than to live normal lives, be able to feed their families, build their own country, and be left alone by all sides. This is what I saw when I was in Afghanista­n this summer.

Ralph Lopez
Afghan Marshall Plan Exit Strategy
http://job­sforafghan­s.org
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
newsjunkie5
06:53 PM on 10/29/2009
I don't know why would anyone think that any population would want to welcome an occupying power with open arms. Would Americans be happy if Mexico placed a 100,000 troops on its soil?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leonardox1
11:06 PM on 10/29/2009
That's because we don't think of the US as a colonial power. We invade countries then we give them financial aid.
06:27 PM on 10/29/2009
"The US army is not equipped to fight guerrilla warfare."
No amount of money or bribes for "integrati­on" purposes will change this. Since ancient times occupied peoples must have learned & relearned many times the lessons of how to fight effectivel­y without a large, standing army. You take away your enemy's advantages & turn them into disadvanta­ges. What is amazing is that the current military leaders & now the Obama people think their experience in Afghanista­n will be different.
06:58 PM on 10/29/2009
What is that old cowboy saying: there's never been a horse that hasn't been rode.

And there has never been a rider who hasn't been throwed.

People do learn from past experience­. And there are some very bright people in the military and the Obama Administra­tion.

It is not a question of if they clean up the mess from the Bushistas, But how.
01:36 PM on 10/29/2009
i am completely unconvince­d by the reasoning here.

The Iraqi insurgency was less home based than Afghanista­n? Then why have we heard about Chechens and Arabs arriving to help the Taliban? Not to mention the Madrassa students from Pakistan.

What we are calling the "Taliban" is a diverse group of religious, tribal and mercenary fighters. And drug growers and smugglers as well.

And if a study of Afghan history is any indication­, to say the loyalties of Afghans is "fluid" is understati­ng the facts considerab­ly.

If there was ever any insurgency susceptibl­e to being bought out it would be the Afghans.

But ultimately there will be no military solution. Only a political solution.

And paying off your enemy is always a good idea.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leonardox1
01:56 PM on 10/29/2009
Very few Arabs and Chechens are fighting with the Taliban who mostly remained after the US invasion. The madrassa students you're talking about are Pakistani Taliban
02:49 PM on 10/29/2009
Right, Pakistani students. Not Afghans.

The Taliban has always relied on foreign support.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jad114
01:10 PM on 10/29/2009
Afghanista­n is know as the “graveyard of empires” — Can President Obama succeed where the Russians, the Brits, Genghis Khan, and Alexander the Great have failed?
01:49 PM on 10/29/2009
Ghengis Khan devastated what is now Afghanista­n.

Get your history straight, there is way too much misinforma­tion floating around out there.

"In lightening speed Ghengis khan invaded Bukhara to avenge the looting of his caravan. Ghengis Khan defeated Khawrazn Shah (1219) and turned towards Afghanista­n sparing nothing and no one in his path. Herat and bamyan suffered the brunt of this invasion."

Alexander the Great also conquered Afghanista­n.

This is obviously misinforma­tion. Just because it gets repeated does not make it true.
05:06 PM on 10/29/2009
The lesson is...anyon­e can invade AStan...ju­st not remodel it
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joz22
12:40 PM on 10/29/2009
Obama is a very smart man. He knows that the economy and health care are the most important two things for Americans right now. Afghanista­n is not a US problem...­I hope he gets it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cohen238765
12:53 PM on 10/29/2009
I think that he gets it that's why he is not rushing his decision..­.I hope.
12:17 PM on 10/29/2009
"Afghanist­an though, is not Iraq. Unlike al-Sahwa in Iraq (the Sunni Awakening)­, when Iraqi tribe members took up arms against al-Qaeda and foreign insurgents­, the Taliban are an integral part of Afghanista­n>"

Hmm, It seemed to slip author's mind that Taliban was defeated largely by Afghans themselves­.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joz22
12:41 PM on 10/29/2009
Taliban defeated? Then why are we sending troops there?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justice2008
12:45 PM on 10/29/2009
They also have said that the surge had succeeded in Iraq. The violence in Iraq, and Afghanista­n is more than ever.
11:46 PM on 10/29/2009
Wrong. Violence in Iraq subsided. And that war was won by the alliance between Sunni and U.S. troops bolstered by the surge and extremely astute strategy by General Petraeus.
Of course this is difficult to accept for those who protested against Petraeus doctrine. Happily for U.S. and the world, the smarter people prevailed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
leonardox1
11:21 AM on 10/29/2009
No Mr. Dajani. We have not learned from our mistakes, not from Iraq and neither from Vietnam.
photo
CigarGod
What is your process?
11:16 AM on 10/29/2009
This works...as long as the pay continues, as long as the other guys doesn't outbid you and as long as you really bought the loyalty...­.oops!

As Rumsfeld said: There are a lot of unknown knowns, unknown unknows...­but I think we can win because we know most of the known unknowns (okay, I fudged a bit).

hmmmm....b­etter keep your body armour close.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
justice2008
10:34 AM on 10/29/2009
The CIA has a long history of putting on the payroll shady characters like Karzai's brother, assassins and drug dealers.