| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Taleban fighters to be 'bought off' with $500m |
| 2010-01-28 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #15 There is a reason that the US Army never got rid of the Kit Carson Scouts after the end of the Indian Wars in the US, and this is it : institutional memory of how to organize and direct this form of counter-insurgency warfare. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-01-28 22:35 |
| #14 I bow to no one in my contempt for Obambi, but this actually the heart of counter-tribal/counter-insurgency warfare : split off those of the warring factions that are NOT ideologically pure and give them incentives to fight for you. It worked dozens of times in the US during the Indian Wars, in the US before there was a United States during the Colonial Period, in Malaysia during the Emergency, in Greece during the Communist-led civil war, and in other places worldwide including Iraq. It is a dangerous policy because there is always the danger that those coming over can turn on you, but it is a very successful approach if you are careful about screening who is brought in. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2010-01-28 22:33 |
| #13 Then you have WWI where the big cheeses would go back and forth between the Germans and UK requesting payment else they join the other side. Number of reasons, good wasteful or even backfire, for this money...but if we are going to be outta there in 2 years no matter what the situation, then why not just fort down, kill baddies when we can, and redirect that money into a new moon landing. So in that eerie silence after we leave, after the traditional slaughter the opposition and collaborators, if you listen close enough you can hear a veteran taliban soldier yell as he shakes his fist in the cold night air, "Yearrrgh! Get off my sacred moon object you devil Americans!" |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2010-01-28 22:30 |
| #12 Sadly true, Play4keeps. Likewise at the other end of the spectrum, there are those who refuse to see any fault in the current resident of the White House. And there are those who, in all innocence, forgot or never knew how we financed and supported the Sons of Iraq, who subsequently defenestrated Al Qaeda in Iraq and the remnent Baathists who worked with them. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2010-01-28 16:48 |
| #11 #8 Remember, the previous administration did the same thing in central Iraq. Guess what - it worked. They know that. But some people will say anything not to agree with this man. |
| Posted by: Play4Keeps 2010-01-28 16:06 |
| #10 And once the Taliban get $500 million, what is to stop them from starting up again and asking for another $500 million? The fact that they can ask for, and get, a billion. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2010-01-28 15:47 |
| #9 The remarkable thing is, we, the west, aren't paying this protection money because we're militarily weak. Neither are we doing it because we're cowards who balk at having our troops injured or killed. We cannot wage war on our enemies because somehow the political consensus has emerged that the worst outcome of any military operation is enemy casualties. We're shrugging off thousands massacred in the west, but recoil at the notion of strategic retaliation against those who are organizing attacks on us. "These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or Why should a rational but hostile actor in nuclear Iran fear the consequences of any act of war against the west after this travesty? |
| Posted by: Albert Ulomong4914 2010-01-28 14:57 |
| #8 Remember, the previous administration did the same thing in central Iraq. Guess what - it worked. |
| Posted by: Mizzou Mafia 2010-01-28 14:47 |
| #7 So basically they are saying that the Taliban are an extortion racket. And once the Taliban get $500 million, what is to stop them from starting up again and asking for another $500 million? |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2010-01-28 14:23 |
| #6 I don't know about this one. Other sources say that the "taliban" aren't monolithic. If this is aimed at splitting them it might be useful. It is a lot of money to stake on how well we know the personalities of Taliban leaders, though. |
| Posted by: James 2010-01-28 13:54 |
| #5 Lessee, what's the price of a black market Nuke? 100, million? (Or so) They can them buy five (or more) to use against US. By then O'moron will be out of office, so he doesn't give a shit. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2010-01-28 12:54 |
| #4 Don't worry. The money will all be stolen long before it ever reaches any talibunnies. |
| Posted by: ed 2010-01-28 07:05 |
| #3 The current administration clearly feels it can buy it's way out of anything, even war. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2010-01-28 06:46 |
| #2 500 mil will go a loong way to rearm and hire more foreign fighters. Brilliant. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2010-01-28 06:44 |
| #1 Danegeld, by Rudyard Kipling IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation, To call upon a neighbour and to say: "We invaded you last night - we are quite prepared to fight, Unless you pay us cash to go away." And that is called asking for Dane-geld, And the people who ask it explain That youÂ’ve only to pay Â’em the Dane-geld And then youÂ’ll get rid of the Dane! It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation, To puff and look important and to say: "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you. We will therefore pay you cash to go away." And that is called paying the Dane-geld; But weÂ’ve proved it again and again, That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld You never get rid of the Dane. It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation, For fear they should succumb and go astray, So when you are requested to pay up or be molested, You will find it better policy to say: "We never pay any one Dane-geld, No matter how trifling the cost, For the end of that game is oppression and shame, And the nation that plays it is lost!" |
| Posted by: tipper 2010-01-28 05:41 |