[Closed] How much is that Taliban in the window?

I'm a moderate Taliban, and so is my wife?

Ironically, this is how the British managed to keep control of a large part of that region in the 19th and early 20th centuries - they bribed the warlords/local leaders to keep the peace and keep 'insurgents' out.

There was a very good piece on the world service about it a while back. The implication was that if the west had done that a lot earlier then the Taliban would have been thrown out by the Afghans a long time before we sent troops in.

seems to make some sort of sense to me; the taliban are able to offer paid employment.

it's probably cheaper to employ those men ourselves, than to pay for all the hassle of trying to fight them...

[i]The centrepiece of his plan revolves around tempting militant foot soldiers to switch sides by offering them land, money, jobs and opportunities as an alternative to war.[/i]

That might be how Sky news sees it but the reality is its slightly more complext than that 😉

[url= http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/GordonBrownAndPresidentKarzaiSpeakAboutAimsForAfghanistanConference.htm ]MoD report[/url]

[i]it's probably cheaper to employ those men ourselves, than to pay for all the hassle of trying to fight them...[/i]

Exactly right, at the moment were putting too much money into the kinetic effect (bombs and bullets) and not enough into winning hearts and minds.

Talking to a Major who's just returned last week, he was able to call in air support to drop a Hellfire (missile) costing $000s on a couple of Taleban but would much rather have spent that money sorting out the local water supply, re-building the local school, police station, medical facilites etc. Don't suppose the arms manufacturers would see it that way though..

The ANA are paid a pittance, most of them can't read and will swop sides readily, some join up just to get hold of the M16 and then disappear only to re-appear on the other side!

I'm Sparticus!

When you're paying the enemy to not fight you, isn't that called defeat?

Revives the memory of an embarassing period in English history - Danegeld.

On the face of it, it doesn't appear to be a good plan. However, in the Vietnam war, if the USA had spent the amount of money they spent on the war, on buying the people, they would have probably won. It's generally accepted that they could have given each vietnamese man, woman and child the highest standard of living in the world, just by redistributing their budget for that war.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't have been popular in the US for obvious reasons, and won't be in this case, so probably won't be done effectively.

Thread title made me PMSL 😆

Anyway...

Give them money, land and opportunities? Hmmmm... Since when has that managed to change a fundamentalists ideals in the past?

Now call me a cynic, but haven't we essentially done this in the past by bunging money at the likes of Saddam Hussain, in order to buy their favour temporarily... What happens when the money, land and opportunities run out? Short answer is they go back to being fundamentalists... Only now they're fundamentalists with money, land, guns and power!

Giving the Taliban money to shut them up, is in my opinion, the single worst thing that Afghanistan can do for the long term well being of the country. It will provide a short term ease of course. But paying them money is essentially turning them into a Mafia... And what happens when Mafia men don't get their protection money? They get heavy, and somebody pays in another way! And the money WILL RUN OUT, and sooner rather than later...

Seems to me the worlds governments are all too good at focussing on short term fixes for long term problems these days... I mean look where that's got us recently. Global financial meltdown, banks going to the wall ten to the dozen, wars left right and centre mostly funded by money from developed countries (by which I mean primarily the UK and US)... I could go on!

Seems to me they all need to take a lesson from the great Toyoda San himself... Principle Number 1 (and it's number one for a reason!) of the Toyota Way...

Base your management decisions on a long-term philosophy, even at the expense of short-term financial goals.

Yup, govt's of the world could definitely learn a thing or two... Selling off the UK's Gold at rock bottom prices eh Gordon! That was ****ing clever wasn't it in the long run... 😉

the peace dividend works in NI

Barbara Walters, of Television's 20/20, did a story on gender roles in Kabul , Afghanistan
several years before the Afghan conflict.

She noted that women customarily walked five paces behind their husbands.

She recently returned to Kabul and observed that women still walk behind their husbands.

From Ms. Walters' vantage point, despite the overthrow of the oppressive Taliban regime,
the women walk even further back behind their husbands, and seem appear happy to maintain the old custom.

Ms . Walters approached one of the Afghani women and asked,
'Why do you continue with an old custom that you once tried so desperately to change?'

The woman looked Ms. Walters straight in the eyes, and without hesitation said, 'Land Mines.'

When you're paying the enemy to not fight you, isn't that called defeat?

So? If it saves lives and makes people happier, then it looks like a winner to me.

Give them money, land and opportunities? Hmmmm... Since when has that managed to change a fundamentalists ideals in the past?

Well from what people are saying who've actually been there and worked on the problems, most of the Taliban fighters are not actually fundamentalists, they are just regular people taking a job to feed their families. Hence the policy.

Costs $1000000 to keep each US troop out there per year
Costs $5000 to pay each Taleban fighter per year

Double their pay and it still only costs you 1% of the cost of fighting them!

'His not in the Taliban, his a very naughty boy'

Not that I've been there or necessarily know much about this but the 'Taliban' are not a homogeneous Dr Evil type organisation with matching henchmen outfits. There will be the associated foreign fighters, local fundamentalists, tribal groups associated loosely with the Taliban, locals who are paid by the Taliban, others working with them out of fear.

Some we'll have to fight and others may not take much persuading. I doubt Afghans are much different to us in that the majority just want a peaceful life with economic prosperity, security and a degree of self-determination.

I don't think there is a purely military solution so talking to parts of the Taliban, paying others off, and fighting where required will be needed if we're going to get out of there. I doubt we'll be happy with what we leave behind though as I don't think it'll be a pretty parlimentry democracy! I suspect a large number currently under the Taliban umbrella now will end up in the government system there.

As for those that think that talking and economic schemes should not be considered I think bigrich's comparison with NI hits the nail on the head. If we couldn't win outright on our own doorstep with then why would we even consider it possible somewhere like Afghanistan?

Midge, you are barking up the wrong tree. You are looking at facts and thinking things through, that is absolutley ludicrous in this situation. The only honest decent common-sense everyman thing to do is spout off randomly with quarter-baked ideas and a complete lack of information other than what was splashed across the newspaper headlines this morning.

Come on mate you are letting the side down.

Sorry, pre-coffee post!

... I say we round em up, put em in a field and cluster-bomb the b@rstewards. Anyone who disagrees we put in the field next door 🙂

p.s. Is Gordon [s]alive[/s] mad? We should put him in the third field and run him over with a tank. Spending our money and stuff. Who does he think he is!

Yes. They are all the same these bloody terrorists.

LOL@midge 🙂

[i]As for those that think that talking and economic schemes should not be considered I think bigrich's comparison with NI hits the nail on the head. If we couldn't win outright on our own doorstep with then why would we even consider it possible somewhere like Afghanistan? [/i]

/slaps head.

Christ! It's just made sense. The basic premise of this thread is that we should pump money into Afghanistan to resolve the conflict and that's exactly what happened in NI. The troubles in NI didn't finish because of Mo or Tony or that bearded murderer. [url= http://www.chainreactioncycles.co.uk ]It's because of a financial injection into the country by the British public[/url]

Did you really read the rest of post samuri?

No. Did you really click my link?

Are the Taliban going to shop at CRC?

If you keep fighting and you have nothing to lose but your house, car, two holidays a year and plasma screen. is it really worth it?

it works.

What tyres for the Hindu Kush?

Probably stick with kevlar or solid tyres.

I still don't understand samuri's link as I doubt CRC deliver to conflict regions!

Not that I've been there or necessarily know much about this but the 'Taliban' are not a homogeneous Dr Evil type organisation with matching henchmen outfits. There will be the associated foreign fighters, local fundamentalists, tribal groups associated loosely with the Taliban, locals who are paid by the Taliban, others working with them out of fear.

Some we'll have to fight and others may not take much persuading. I doubt Afghans are much different to us in that the majority just want a peaceful life with economic prosperity, security and a degree of self-determination.

+1

If a lot of the Taliban are only involved as it's the best option at the time, give them other options. That's not to say there aren't any die hard fundies around but they need the support of the locals, which is often (apparently) based on pragmatism rather than idealism.

It would be cheaper to legalise hard drugs. This would remove the Taliban's source of income.

Very difficult to fight a war with no money.

[i]I still don't understand samuri's link as I doubt CRC deliver to conflict regions! [/i]

Well you seemed to have a sense of humour higher up the page, has it fallen out? Admittedly it's not a brilliant joke but I was suggesting that it was the cycling communitity of Britain with their buying power that restored peace to NI.

Of course I don't have a sense of humour!

If that's the impression that you've got from my previous posts then I've not written them very well. I was using NI as an example of where there was no purely military solution and to get the relative peace we've got now required security measures, improving the economy and speaking to people that we really would prefer not to. I wasn't suggesting that we bought off the good people of NI.