Peace talks inspire more terrorist groups

| July 7, 2012

Remember how the war against terrorists was supposed to be making more terrorists according to the incessant bleating from the folks who couldn’t stand to see a Republican fight a successful war? Well, according to the U.S. Institute of Peace, as reported by the Associated Press, now peace talks with the Taliban is creating more terrorist splinter groups.

These splinter groups have demonstrated their strength recently, with two brazen shootings – one of a high-ranking Taliban leader and the other of a senior member of the Afghan government’s High Peace Council.

That new violence has added to the difficulty of striking a deal with the Taliban as the clock continues to wind down with only 2 1/2 years to go before the planned withdrawal. Failure to figure out all these new players in Afghanistan’s varied ethnic and political groups threatens to plunge the country into more civil strife.

Yeah, well, here’s the thing; these goat roping 6th century savages are going to attack us no matter what we do – remember the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the attacks on our African embassies, the attack on the USS Cole, the attacks on 9/11? We didn’t do anything to provoke any of those attacks in a rational world. Negotiating for peace only makes them think that they’ve won, because we appear weak, in their eyes, and peace talks only encourage them to attack to try to take the reigns of power from the Karzai government, while we’re launching doves and waving colorful bunting.

There was the time that Nixon agreed to halt bombing along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and North Vietnam to show the North Vietnamese we were serious about peace talks. They used the halt to their advantage to equip and resupply their forces for their assault on the South.

Category: Terror War

Comments (6)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. CI says:

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, despite desires to have it represent partisan political aims.

    If someone is concerned about holding back a Taliban resurgence against Kabul after we redeploy, then depriving them of unity of effort and command is not a net negative by any stretch.

    Part of the article not quoted above:

    “In the last six months, the Taliban has had increasingly violent clashes with a militant Islamist group called Hezb-e-Islami, led by warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. That fighting escalated to all-out war in some parts of Afghanistan.

    Hekmatyar is a former American ally who is now on Washington’s wanted list. The Taliban worry that Hekmatyar’s group, which is close to the government of President Hamid Karzai and has held parallel talks with the Americans, will make its own peace deal.

    The fissures in the Taliban movement have been further widened by the emergence of the splinter groups opposed to the peace talks.”

  2. Green Thumb says:

    A draft, although I am on the fence, would send a message that we will hanging around until we complete the Objective.

    How much are you willing to lose before you quit?

  3. Jonn you could have stopped with: these goat roping 6th century savages are going to attack us no matter what we do

    Unless, and/or we acknowledge that simple fact we are doomed.

  4. UpNorth says:

    Zero, you beat me to it. My thoughts, also.