What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

[AFG21]

I think that all Afghans are against this acupation, they only difrence is that some want a difrent resistantce than the taliban, we have to look at our history and see, when the russian where in Afghanistan peopel didn't care who the person against the russian were, if they were against them they were given money and weapons, but most peopel didn't realise that those peopel the so called "mujhahidin" wanted only power and money, becuase the same "mujhahidin" who were against the Kafir USSR are now sitting and letting 100 difrent Kafir nation in to Afghanistan. And now you peopel say it doesn't matter what the taliban are doing or what they have done in the past, they are against the accupiers so they are good. But if the Americans leave and the Taliban take power a lot of peopel are afraid that they would bring the same rule like they once did in the 90's. And some say the rural peopel are in favor, afcours they are in favor of taliban they don't know any better, they have the same mentality, like women is not allowed to go to work or to school. We peopel who have traveld to the WEst and have seen the world must realise that Taliban is not the solution. I am only pro taliban if they respect human rights and not do the same mistakes like in the past. But there is no gaurantee that they wouldn't do it.

So if some Afghans don't like taliban that doesn't mean that they love Americans and NATO, it is just the way taliban is fighting and what they did in the past. Because of that peopel have suspicion.

[AFG21]

@Khushal

If someone killed a lots of peopel for there nation we must not take that as an example. That doesn't make it right what they have done. And if you are thinking like that then you can also say that the communist in Afghanistan where also good. They also killed a lots of peopel in Afghanistan but they wanted stability and progress for our nation so it doesn't matter :S. Is that then right. I dont think so.

[unknownprince]

I think that all Afghans are against this acupation, they only difrence is that some want a difrent resistantce than the taliban, we have to look at our history and see, when the russian where in Afghanistan peopel didn't care who the person against the russian were, if they were against them they were given money and weapons, but most peopel didn't realise that those peopel the so called "mujhahidin" wanted only power and money, becuase the same "mujhahidin" who were against the Kafir USSR are now sitting and letting 100 difrent Kafir nation in to Afghanistan. And now you peopel say it doesn't matter what the taliban are doing or what they have done in the past, they are against the accupiers so they are good. But if the Americans leave and the Taliban take power a lot of peopel are afraid that they would bring the same rule like they once did in the 90's. And some say the rural peopel are in favor, afcours they are in favor of taliban they don't know any better, they have the same mentality, like women is not allowed to go to work or to school. We peopel who have traveld to the WEst and have seen the world must realise that Taliban is not the solution. I am only pro taliban if they respect human rights and not do the same mistakes like in the past. But there is no gaurantee that they wouldn't do it.

So if some Afghans don't like taliban that doesn't mean that they love Americans and NATO, it is just the way taliban is fighting and what they did in the past. Because of that peopel have suspicion.

A balanced and well-thought analysis. I think the Taliban will bring a state which will operate like a Sunni version of Iran with Sharia law.

Women/girls will be allowed to go to school as there are several examples where the Taliban permitted it, provided there were no men around.

Again, the reason they initially banned most women/girls from school was simply due to the disorder and chaos in several areas. There was an ABC or BBC interview about this where this is made very clear.

I can see a Sharia state with development in all sectors including defense (especially air defense), education, and the economy.

Let me reemphasize that the foreigners there are criminals. Their occupation is unacceptable and will not be tolerated, and also those who assist and support their occupation via propaganda "reconstruction" are just as guilty, and hence, are criminals too.

The foreigners have used Afghanistan do embezzle and siphon money- this as well as the murders of Afghan people via night raids and airstrikes, is the basis for them being criminals.

[khushal]

@Khushal

If someone killed a lots of peopel for there nation we must not take that as an example. That doesn't make it right what they have done. And if you are thinking like that then you can also say that the communist in Afghanistan where also good. They also killed a lots of peopel in Afghanistan but they wanted stability and progress for our nation so it doesn't matter :S. Is that then right. I dont think so.

You are confused individual who has no idea of what people in Afghanistan are going through, and your missing the point.
I'm only speculating and explaining what the average afghan on the ground thinks. No one cares what you or I or Obama thinks. What is happening in Afghanistan is not really affecting you or I. Who's opinion matters are the ones who's lives are being affected.
You and I are living in the West comfortably, no bombs are falling on us, no fear of night raid on our houses at any minute, no worry about our next meal. Our biggest worry is are we going to pass our exams. Life and death are never on our minds.

Communism was enforced by foreign troops, not by Afghans. You see the trick to Afghanistan is if you want something done, any system to be in place, whether its communism, democracy, capitalism, or Islam, you have to do it yourself, you can not have foreign troops do it for you. If you cant do it yourself, than it is wise for you to leave it alone because it can not be done with foreign forces.

[unknownprince]

You are confused individual who has no idea of what people in Afghanistan are going through, and your missing the point.
I'm only speculating and explaining what the average afghan on the ground thinks. No one cares what you or I or Obama thinks. What is happening in Afghanistan is not really affecting you or I. Who's opinion matters are the ones who's lives are being affected.
You and I are living in the West comfortably, no bombs are falling on us, no fear of night raid on our houses at any minute, no worry about our next meal. Our biggest worry is are we going to pass our exams. Life and death are never on our minds.

Communism was enforced by foreign troops, not by Afghans. You see the trick to Afghanistan is if you want something done, any system to be in place, whether its communism, democracy, capitalism, or Islam, you have to do it yourself, you can not have foreign troops do it for you. If you cant do it yourself, than it is wise for you to leave it alone because it can not be done with foreign forces.

this is effectively what I am saying, and also polls show that Afghans are opposed to the US. So not only should the Afghans resistance to foreign occupation be an indicator of their resentment.

Just thought I would add that.

[unknownprince]

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar

What annoyed Obama about Mullah Omar - Indian Punchline


By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011




What really prompted US president Barack Obama to change his mind and to allow himself at the last minute to be persuaded by his military commanders to opt for the ’surge’ in Afghanistan in end-2009 is crucial to understanding the current status of the war and its likely future trajectory. Among Obama’s inner circle, Vice-president Joe Biden was reportedly pitching against the ’surge’ at that time. The former Afghan PM Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai has now revealed what prompted the US ’surge’. ASA is a credible source, having been close to Burhanuddin Rabbani, Rasul Sayyaf in the Mujahideen government (where he served as PM along with Ahmed Shah Massoud as Defence Minister before fleeing for Turkey where he lived in exile during the Taliban regime.)
That ASA was the intermediary between the Americans and the Taliban in 2009 shows the wheels-within-wheels, as it were. (ASA did his graduate studies in the US; he lived in exile in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.) According to ASA, the main sticking point between the US and Taliban in the 2009 talks was that Mullah Omar was stubbornly opposed to the US request to allow permanent military bases in Afghanistan in a post-settlement era. Taliban was willing to compromise on other issues but when it came to the US bases, Omar was tough as nail. He apparently took the stance that “not one metre” of Afghan soil could come under foreign occupation. Interestingly, Omar was willing to negotiate the date of US withdrawal from Afghanistan and was prepared to be flexible on the actual date of withdrawal, but the US troops simply had to vacate at some point.
What emerges is that the Pentagon top brass decided to bleed the Taliban for its ‘obduracy’ apropos the US military bases, based on a strategy to weaken them and somehow compel them to compromise on the question of the permanent US military bases. Thus was born the ’surge’ strategy — make one big push to degrade the Taliban militarily before negotiating. So, looking back, when the Anglo-American thesis of the ‘good Taliban-bad-Taliban’ was shoved down the throat of countries like India at the the London conference in January 2010, Richard Holbrooke and Hillary Clinton indeed had a wholesome game plan. Alas, Indian diplomacy has been naive and continued to be enthusiastic about the ’surge’.
It stands to reason that there was some major intelligence failure and Delhi had no clue to what was really going on. Maybe it isn’t late even today for someone to talk with interlocutors like ASA and try to piece it all together. Unless we know reliably well what transpired between the US and the Taliban, how would we comprehend what is going to unfold in the coming period? Unsurprisingly, the US continues to keep us ‘briefed’ selectively on a need-to-know basis. Special Representative Marc Grossman visited Delhi just once. He is setting out again on a regional tour that will take him to Pakistan and the Central Asian region (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan). India remains a bystander. All this happened primarily because our diplomats chose to work as the ‘B Team’ of the American embassy in Kabul through the past decade since the ouster of the Taliban regime in 2001 and we didn’t diversify our contacts with the Afghan political elites and other regional powers.


Posted in Military, Politics.
Tagged with Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, Marc Grossman, Richard Holbrooke, Taliban, US 'surge' in Afghanistan.
By M K Bhadrakumar – July 31, 2011

Please read