Monday, November 2, 2009
Paying the Taliban: Good or Bad Idea?
The Defense Spending Bill that President Obama has signed has a section in it that will allow the U.S. military in Afghanistan to pay Taliban fighters to essentially quit or switch sides. These funds are in fact taxpayer dollars. This tactic was used in Iraq with the "Concerned Local Citizens" a.k.a the "Sons of Iraq" community group. This tactic, especially now is not sitting too well with American citizens. The thought of paying the people who are killing service men and women daily is hard to swallow. Some worry that they will "take the cash and keep on fighting." Others argue that it was this very program that enabled the "Troop Surge" in Iraq to be successful.
Pres. Obama in the video above states that he will do anything in his power to keep the American people safe. I don't have an issue with that, I have an issue with negotiating with terrorist. For as long as I have been in the military I have always been told that, "America does not negotiate with terrorist." What is even more intriguing to me is that not only are civilian contractors getting paid better than military personnel by our government but our enemies are as well. I feel as if this is another attempt to put a band aid on a arterial bleed. In addition, with the amount of opium-growing that is currently funding the Taliban I do not think they are hurting for money. The National Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University's article, "Taliban Drug Money Targeted by U.S. Military" reported that "the Taliban... are expected to strongly defend the opium crop that generates an estimated $300 million annually to pay for weapons, recruiting, and other needs." In addition, "The Taliban also generate income by collecting protection payments from opium farmers." So, how much more will we have to pay the Taliban for them to first consider the offer and then for how long will these payments be made? On the flip-side of this, the program was done in Iraq. Why didn't anyone find too much fault with it at that time? Is it because of how the media has or has not covered the first attempt at paying militant groups? Or did President Obama make a mistake by attaching the Hate Crimes bill to a Defense Spending bill which allowed for further scrutiny of the document.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure. I do think because of the current economic hardships that our country is facing, the news media will ensure it reports/monitors all government spending initiatives. So while Fmr. President Bush, Jr. was able to implement this same plan years prior without notice or conflict, Pres. Obama will be harshly scrutinized and picked apart by the media, political figures, late night hosts, and more importantly the American people for essentially trying to do the same thing.
Tell me what you think. Is the media blowing this entire thing out of proportion or do you think that it is a workable plan if implemented correctly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can someone define victory in either Iraq or Afghanistan? I think people should just focus on keeping the homeland safe and stop fighting wars that does not make the country any safer....America cannot change people's minds, most Americans that think America can do whatever around the world have not been out of America. 2 realities(1) America does not have the most influence around the world anymore, China does (2) America is not the land of the free like most people think...even in Africa, the government does not have so much intrusion into your life. Once you realize that America's image is sorta like Germany after Hitler, maybe folks will realize that Military strength does not get you respect afterall...you end up paying people off. Economic strength is more important, and China is seen as more economically stable than America. All America seem to have left this days is tough talk, but no one is scared...keep voting Republican, it's backfiring. That is my own personal opinion on America's current state, I only wish people will reduce their ego and elect thinking leaders, not the one that talks tough....if we had done that, we won't be in this current position and keep paying off potential enemies.
ReplyDelete"Why didn't anyone find too much fault with it at that time" If I recall correctly, the democrats criticized Bush for doing the same thing...it's just politics as usual. I think Obama should be smarter than paying people that "may" use the money to fight against American soldiers...I personally think we should bankrupt that organization rather than bankroll them,
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is different ways of handling this, however, I feel strongly that our issues at home should come first and then worry about how we negotiate with the Taliban.
ReplyDeleteIt is actually a sound plan, although it is counter-intuitive at first glance. Forming citizen community defense groups and infusing the local nation with cash and development is a basic tenet of counter-insurgency warfare. Petraeus achieved great results in Iraq with these techniques, and in the long run they allow the weight to shift away from American military arms. That is the whole idea here. To get us out in the next few years – responsibly.
ReplyDeleteI’m actually rather glad that military doctrines are designed through specific experience and critical knowledge, rather than through uninformed democratic vote.
I know that many have misgivings about the continued mission in Afghanistan. I don’t blame them. Sometimes wars are complicated, and have a very messy, albeit true, logic to them. This is not a situation that we can extricate ourselves from. Afghanistan was – and remains – the necessary front in fighting al-Qaida and its affiliates, which should have received our full and undivided attention in the first place.
Allowing the Taliban is recapture Afghanistan restores the very nest of vipers that we fought so hard to expel. Maintaining the sovereignty and institutional integrity of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are indispensable to American defensive interests. Pakistan is a fragile nuclear-armed state with a simmering low-grade civil war inexorably tied to Taliban and militant activity, and allowing Pakistan’s northern neighbor to fall to those groups inevitably aggravates the situation in Pakistan.
I respectfully disagree with the illusion that I see sometimes from others that we can fight the Taliban and al-Qaida from a distance. It was Rumsfeld’s erroneous doctrine of a light-footprint and limited commitment that allowed an insurgency to nearly sink Iraq, and allowed Afghanistan to slide into its current predicament. How some can believe that readopting that approach will work this time around, with the stakes even higher and with the situation getting worse, escapes me.
The approach taken thus far by the President has been pragmatic and sensible: we should not have an open-ended commitment; we need to get out in the next few years; we need to employ a genuine counter-insurgency campaign along the guidelines of McChrystal, we need to work to build up the Afghan forces rather than take over the war, etc.