News & Analysis
US, Losing the War, Seeks Further Talks With Taliban?
U.S. speeds up direct talks with Taliban ... The administration has accelerated direct talks with the Taliban, initiated several months ago, that U.S. officials say they hope will enable President Obama to report progress toward a settlement of the Afghanistan war when he announces troop withdrawals in July. – Washington Post
Dominant Social Theme: The US has opened talks with the Taliban because those who populate the Pentagon truly believe that great, sad land has been tortured enough. US policy is all about bringing peace and prosperity to riven lands and Afghanistan deserves the same chance as Vietnam.
Free-Market Analysis: In fact, armies that are winning wars don't negotiate, do they? This fact alone must put a different face on American claims that the Taliban is being defeated in the field by the American and NATO "surge" of forces in various Afghan military hotspots. No, it does seem the US and NATO are losing, and the situation is actually unraveling fairly quickly from what we can tell with the Taliban attacking in force – 400 hundred at a time – in various contested parts of Afghanistan.
This level of aggression alone probably makes it necessary for NATO and the US to pick up the pace of negotiations. According to the Washington Post (see article excerpt above), the pace has increased considerably even in the past few weeks with a US representative attending at least three meetings in Qatar and Germany – one as recent as "eight or nine days ago." The Taliban official attending the meeting is supposedly close to Taliban leader Mohammad Omar, which would be an improvement over the British and NATO record in such talks – as negotiations went on for months a while back with an individual who proved to be an imposter.
The US, perhaps because of such incidents, is playing the current talks close to the proverbial vest. According to the Post, State Department spokesman Michael A. Hammer on Monday declined to comment on any meetings the US may be engaged in with the Taliban, stating only that the US had a "broad range of contacts across Afghanistan and the region, at many levels. ... We're not going to get into the details of those contacts."
Nonetheless, according to the Post, talks have involved Arab and European governments as well as the US. As we have previously reported, the Taliban is considering opening up a formal office in Qatar. And meanwhile the Obama administration is "getting more sure" that this time the Taliban contact is actually legitimate, someone who has contacts with Omar and Quetta Shura, or the ruling council.
US Administration officials have characterized the contacts as "exploratory," we are informed. They were first reported back in February by the New Yorker magazine and are said to have "advanced" since then. That they may be genuine is indicated by the criticism they've been attracting in Afghanistan itself. Opponents of Afghan president Hamid Karzai are said to be worried that such negotiations may undermine the beginnings of Afghan democracy.
But this doesn't seem to be slowing the mad rush to keep the talks moving forward – to a point where the Taliban can begin to gain an acceptable share of recognized political power in Afghanistan. While the Post article states that such a stance is yet years away, we wonder if it may not come much sooner. From our point of view the US (and NATO's) position is increasingly untenable and this will offer undeniable urgency to these talks.
We've pointed this out in the past. The strategic elements of the war continue to turn against the West. Pakistan itself continues to be a key player in America's hoped for victory in Afghanistan, but even after a decade of fighting Pakistan's leaders will not aggressively attack the Taliban that seeks refuge in its so-called tribal areas. The ability of the Taliban to rest and recruit in Pakistan has turned from an irritant into THE significant factor on which the war turns.
Increasingly, we are beginning to believe that there were two main reasons for the US military industrial complex to create the fiction of bin Laden's apparently phony death (given that he probably died a decade ago of Marfan's syndrome). The first reason was that it gives the US a much-needed victory that allows disengagement from Afghanistan on relatively "honorable" terms. The US can declare a victory and go home.
The second reason is to make a final, last-gasp effort to pressure Pakistan – as brutally as possible – to attack the Taliban. It's probably not going to work, but to watch events unfold is to wonder if there are not plans to either destabilize Pakistan or attack the country directly (perhaps with the connivance of the Pakistan intel organization, the ISI). Either approach would probably prove disastrous for the "coalition of the willing" but then again nothing else has worked especially well either.
Pakistan is apparently led by 25 or so wealthy Punjabi families (perhaps five are the most powerful) and this leadership is fairly long-lived. The Punjabis have occupied their land for several thousand years, just as the Pashtuns have occupied their regions for an equivalent amount of time. The chances of the Punjabis attacking the Pashtuns in force are probably nil.
For one thing, the Pashtuns fight generationally, so if you are a wealthy Punjabi and you authorize an attack on the Pashtun community you are essentially dooming your great grandchildren to a life of intermittent war. This makes everyone in the region most cautious about engaging each other. The Americans apparently have no such compunctions; but, on the other hand, the Americans can go home.
The other reason for not attacking the Pashtuns has to do with their strategic importance to Pakistan. Single-handedly, the Pashtun-Taliban have peeled away the hopes of NATO and the Anglo-American elite for domination in a region where control has been denied them for the past century. The Taliban have therefore given some five Punjabi families enormous leverage with India, the US and NATO.
By fielding what is emerging as a victorious army, Pakistan's great and ancient families have seemingly faced down the world's sole superpower and their old nemesis (India) as well. It's not being reported this way of course. The Western maintream media tends to focus on the unwillingness of Pakistan's leadership to attack the savage Taliban and to portray this reluctance as cowardice born of corruption. In reality, the Punjabis have absolutely no reason to attack their proxies.
The secret conversation of globalist "strategery" may be coming to a close in Afghanistan. The Anglo-American power elites once again seem to have bet that they would be able to pacify and control a region of the world where they have never been especially successful. The City of London and its bankers tried to tried to gain control of Afghanistan 100 years ago and failed. They may have done no better today using American muscle and a NATO coalition of the willing.
The stakes could not have been any higher. Afghanistan, even more than Pakistan, is the lynchpin of global domination. Without the ability to control Afghanistan, elite plans for world control begin to crumble. The concept of unstoppable Anglosphere reach is apparently not to be realized. This has enormous consequences for the ability of the Anglosphere's intergenerational banking families to fully enforce their tax policies, central banking economic system and the imposition of freedom-strangling regulatory democracy.
It is impossible to impose a globalist system when one does not control up to ten percent of the social surface of the planet or more. Additionally, having failed to take control of Afghanistan, the elites are faced with yet another dilemma in that the failure will breed further resistance, and this in turn will further destabilize their internationalist plans. It is ironic that two of the world's oldest tribes, the Punjabis and the Pashtuns – traditional rivals – have apparently faced down the depredations of an equally merciless tribal community with equally ancient roots based in the City of London.
Conclusion: Like Titans of ancient days, these ancient tribal elements have hurled thunderbolts at each other from half a world away with the planet itself as the prize. Even more astonishingly, this analysis continues to be ignored by the mainstream press, and even the alternative 'Net media. The most significant war of our time – and perhaps any time – may pass into the realm of history without a historical narrative appropriate to its importance. Is it ever thus?
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by deanbo on 05/21/11 01:52 AM
US losing Taliban, seeking further war?
 |
Posted by Wayne on 05/20/11 01:04 AM
Talking about another scheme that went wrong!
"Viet Minh were the nationalist soldiers who fought against the Japanese during WW-2 with assistance from the OSS (the forerunner of the CIA) who armed and trained them from May 1944. The Viet Minh were headed by Ho Chi Minh and the former school teacher, General Giap.
Ho Chi Minh declared independence on the steps of the Governor's Residence in Hanoi on September 2nd 1945 with members of the OSS on the steps with him and a fly-by of US aircraft took place. Ho Chi Minh wrote to President Truman, with strong recommendations of the OSS, for recognition ogf their independence (as President Roosevelt had promised to pursue), but Truman was a colonialist and supported the French reoccupation of Indochina.
The Viet Minh were also the force that fought against France for their independence between 1947 and 1954 when the French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu."
CIA does it again!
How does this bunch of clowns (including G.W. Bush senior) manage to keep their power?
|
Posted by WorkingClass on 05/20/11 12:03 AM
Gee. It looks like the neo-cons will not conquer and rule the world by force of arms. Where do guys like Rumsfeld, who couldn't fight his way out of beauty school, get such stupid ideas? They are cowards who would never resist a superior force or risk personal harm so they assume all men will bow before their superior fire power. Never mind Ho Chi Minh. GAH!
|
Posted by Wayne on 05/19/11 11:33 PM
Well, just some more wannabes want to play King of the Mountain in the most dangerous regions in the world.
Click to view link
Stupid is forever!
|
Posted by speedygonzales on 05/19/11 03:45 PM
Thanx for supportin' my view.
"Oil, pipelines, gold, cold, copper zine, rare earth metals - these are the stuff of justifications trotted out to justify wars of power and conquest." It was Taliban, not Alkajda who controled country. And they have diferent view on how Afghanistan goes. C Libya: Islamic bankin',oil, water, and refusing trade oil for weapons and in Euro. The same was Saddam. My point of view is based on archetypes of global axis. The scenario is always the same. Boox like The Blood Bankers and Confesion of an Economic Hitman, I call em Old and New Testament, explaining archetypes on which R actions of global axis based. Lec talk about Manuel Noriega. There is evidence, that he was horse of global axis from School for Americas. He was drug trader to support contras in Nicaragua. As soon as he wantend take control over Panama Canal he became terrorist. There aint no permanent friends, aint no permanent friends. Permanent interests only! Enemy of my enemy is my friend. While freedom fighters wared against Soviets they were friends. As soon as they refused to cooperate by way of global axis they became enemies. Those freedomfigters still fighting for freedom in Libya, for example.
Do Y'LL remember as Rumsfie said: "There aint no efficient targets in Afghanistan. Lec bomb Irak." So we have joke: One was lookin' 4 keys on walkway. His friend asked him: And where did Y lost keys? I lost em somwhere in forest, but lookin em on walkway is easier.
""And Iraq? And Pakistan? And Iran? A ten year war?"
And how Y wanna feed military industrial complex? Lec talk about false flag operations. We can start with William The Orange and Bank of England, French revolutions, World Wars, Bolshevik revolution, color revolutions, arab spring. The key is they R loosin'. It was article on Click to view link that Iraq was planned for 4 months, take control over oil, and broke OPEC by dump oil prices. Irak supposed to be split between 4 horsemen, as call em Dean Henderson, and they supposed 2 pay for invasion of Iraq.
Apropo, Taliban was offering US extradition of OBL.
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
"And Iraq? And Pakistan? And Iran? A ten year war?"
Zbiggy Brzezinski gives answer as he explaining secrets of chess in his book:The Grand Chessboard.
"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)
"It is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.' (p. xiv)
"How America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)
'Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)
'The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)
"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)
Book is here Click to view link
|
Posted by RR on 05/19/11 04:26 AM
Seems like parts of Britain don't show up in the same distribution group on the map, I did'nt notice that earlier.
|
Posted by RR on 05/19/11 03:22 AM
Skip the preface.
|
Posted by RR on 05/19/11 03:14 AM
Click to view link
Not the Anglos, but yes most of European tribes as I mentioned in my post.
Read the first page of Albert Pikes book.
Click to view link
|
Posted by RR on 05/19/11 12:08 AM
The Pashtuns, Punjabis, Kashmiris, Germans, Gauls, Franks, Latins, Saxons, Kelts, Sclaves, are the same original tribe, "The Haplogroup R1a". Albert Pike's book "Indo-Aryan Deities and Worship as Contained in the Rig-Veda" 1872 opening paragraph page one is food for thought, does not mention the city of london but does make you think.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The Pashtuns are from the same tribe as the Anglos?? Hm-mm, you have a link?
|
Posted by tjrouill on 05/18/11 10:25 PM
Thank you for your insights. A few comments.
"Afghanistan, even more than Pakistan, is the lynchpin of global domination." -DB
I understand the somewhat strategic importance of the area, but I'm not sure I follow how it is the lynchpin of global domination.
If the US does leave Afghanistan in the near future, I would be surprised. There is hardly any political pressure to do so. Many people are, as you regularly say, waking up with the help of the Internet, but this doesn't equate to political pressure. Simply voting out one group and voting in another doesn't seem to work. National elections, in general, don't accomplish much in my humble opinion.
So if it isn't political pressure causing sense to set in, perhaps it is economic pressure? The US still has a long way to fall before the government can no longer pass off its funny money as something of value. Furthermore, the State is always good at keeping just enough of a market alive so as to still collect taxes. Perhaps a fiscally conservative mandate is coming, simply in order to revive tax receipts.
We all know that without some form of quasi-private, wealth producing sector the State will shrivel and die.
Reply from The Daily Bell
The British are leaving. The Germans are almost gone. Soon the US will stand virtually alone there. It is also a question of money. And the war does not cease. Increasingly, American soldiers will suffer unless they can invade parts of Pakistan. The Afghan population itself is getting angrier. We do not consider it an untenable situation but a difficult one. The US is not winning. A logical response would be to withdraw. Time will tell.
|
Posted by Wayne on 05/18/11 05:28 PM
"Exactly the problem in Afghanistan. And exactly why there is no one to negotiate with. There cannot be, because the locals want it that way."
Yep!
No Binder, no one Bound!
That is the simple secret to all this.
Never give anyone power to speak for you, and you keep your power!
|
Posted by Wayne on 05/18/11 04:58 PM
You are exactly right!
They have a Pol Pot waiting in the wings.
|
Posted by speedygonzales on 05/18/11 11:36 AM
Not Al Qaida was main target on war on terror. It was Taliban. Talx in Texas 1998 between taliban and Cheney ended unsuccesfull. Cheney wanted transport oil thru Afghanistan but did not wanted pay. Nothing unusual.
And there was another lobby: Dope,Inc which were hurt by Taliban, because Taliban declared production of drugs as unislamic.
Click to view link
And here is great news from 1997
Click to view link
A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.
A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas.
Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.
Click to view link~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
Click to view link
And more about $1 trilion industry. With this money Dope,Inc can create countless OBL,Al Kajda, or freedom fighters world wide anytime.
Click to view link
For this drug related stuff I do support Taliban. We, as taxpayers, R spending trilions of $$$ to fight drugs. And when there is someone who is on our side they transfer 'em on enemy side.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Not Al Qaida was main target on war on terror. It was Taliban. Talx in Texas 1998 between taliban and Cheney ended unsuccesfull. Cheney wanted transport oil thru Afghanistan but did not wanted pay. Nothing unusual.
And Iraq? And Pakistan? And Iran? A ten year war? All because Cheney decided he didn't want to pay oil transport charges?
Obviously we disagree and we have said so. How do you explain the convenient discovery of trillion dollars of raw materials in Afghanistan last year when the Pentagon began to get seriously worried the war was ending.
Oil, pipelines, gold, cold, copper zine, rare earth metals - these are the stuff of justifications trotted out to justify wars of power and conquest.
We must agree to disagree on this issue ...
 |
Posted by Capn_Mike on 05/18/11 10:58 AM
hmmm...
Continuing the Afghan/Vietnam analogy: Pakistan = Cambodia??
Isn't THAT a lovely thought.
|
Posted by John Danforth on 05/18/11 09:20 AM
War only works for the victor when the adversaries are willing to kill the civilian population, lay waste to their physical assets or steal them, and take the young women as prizes. A country that won't attack civilians is not at war and is easily neutralized by having fighters melt into the civilian population whenever the occupiers are in evidence. Occupation of a territory by a belligerent aggressor can only succeed if the native population happily cooperates or if the natives are effectively wiped out. Otherwise the occupying force are nothing but sniper and booby-trap targets.
Any military strategist knows this. Therefore the mission is not to 'win' this non-war. We have nothing to gain from them, and we will never win a war on terror by killing peoples' mothers and sisters anonymously from above, in fact what we accomplish is a new generation of people with an implacable hatred of the U.S., its citizens, its culture, and any principles it pretends to espouse. The mission is to rule US, not them.
|
Posted by piolenc on 05/18/11 08:26 AM
Actually, the evidence is that this is a perfect parallel to Vietnam. US forces are winning in the field, but have been given an arbitrary deadline by the White House to declare a victory and go home. Of course the enemy is not deceived about the situation, so any hope of negotiation in good faith is misplaced. The "talks" will, as in Vietnam, be a fig-leaf for abandonment and the US will pull out on schedule regardless of the situation on the ground.
|
Posted by bionic mosquito on 05/18/11 08:19 AM
John, thank you for the nice comment.
"Most likely, when the Taliban Talks are announced, the Taliban Talker will be a straw man farce, manufactured for the purpose."
One of the benefits of not having a centralized state, is that you don't have a centralized state. In the 17th and 18th century, Britain was often frustrated in these regions of southeast and central Asia because it was never clear with whom they should "negotiate." Who had authority to bind the people? As no one had this authority, the people were never "bound."
It is very likely that the "talker" sent on behalf of the Taliban will be a fake, a farce. It is absolutely certain that the "talker" does not speak for all of the people nominally named "Taliban" or Pashtun, or whatever.
There is not a common speaker because there cannot be one. THIS is one of the things the elite want changed.
Imagine the US if it was so decentralized, with no central control mechanisms. For people who worry so much about how defense would be provided in a land without a strong central state, imagine the problems facing the would-be conqueror.
What exactly would he have to "conquer"? 100 million households, one at a time?
Exactly the problem in Afghanistan. And exactly why there is no one to negotiate with. There cannot be, because the locals want it that way.
|
Posted by John Danforth on 05/18/11 08:02 AM
Insightful commentary, Bionic.
|
Posted by John Danforth on 05/18/11 08:01 AM
Symbolism and appearance are everything to this crowd.
The bare fact is that whether or not Osama was shot in cold blood, the action by the U.S. was an act of war against Pakistan, whose leaders must now stand up to the U.S. or their own careers are over with.
Pakistani leaders probably can't risk nuclear attack against the U.S., so what then? They just won't 'talk', or cooperate.
The blowback from this PR stunt will be that the U.S. loses any kind of pretended moral legitimacy it might have thought it enjoyed. It has become the surly bully, stealing kids' lunch money on the way to school and then beating them up anyway.
The U.S. has to 'talk', to the Taliban, because nobody else will talk to them. In fact, the Taliban has no reason to 'talk' to them, either. Most likely, when the Taliban Talks are announced, the Taliban Talker will be a straw man farce, manufactured for the purpose.
It will be interesting to see what happens after the bully declares victory and goes home. After all, as Bionic says in his commentary, it's all about control. Certainly lack of control over a region that has no wealth to be extracted would be of little value except for bragging rights and as an excuse to tighten the vise on people back home, which has begun to grow stale. Perhaps part of the blowback from this exercise will be the institution of free banks in the region, pointedly thumbing their noses at the IRS. At any rate, I wouldn't want to be in Iran when the troops start leaving Afghanistan.
 |
Posted by SSMcDonald on 05/18/11 06:36 AM
Why are US soldiers still in Afghanistan? The objective has been realized; now just claim victory and send ALL the military home....Unless of course, there is some other unannounced sinister objective with leaving them in harm's way.
|
|
