From http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/11/whispers-of-surrender-in-afgha/
"It comes to our attention that the MEMRI Blog highlights an article from the Saudi _al-Watan_ in Arabic that - according to an Afghan source - the United States is talking to the Taliban seeking to trade control of 5 provinces in exchange for the cessation of attacks on US bases. MEMRI summarizes:
An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement's foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks onU.S. bases.
Kunar province borders the Khyber Pass region where the majority of US and NATO supplies pass enroute from Pakistan. And the4 remaining four provinces constitute fully the southern 25% of Afghanistan's territory.
This, if true, is a disturbing development...
I have tried to come up with scenarios of why someone would lie about it in a leak. What would be to gain? Who would gain, and what would they gain? Without sleeping on it, the options for such appear narrow at best.
What does seem logical is that an Afghan privy to the negotiations could have become (rightly) spooked that they might just pull it off, and leaked word in hopes that it might so anger American public opinion that the entire endeavor might be scrapped. That's the most logical explanation for motivation I see at the moment.
It would also fit in consistently with Ambassador Eikenberry's leaked cables recently railing against a 'surge' in forces in Afghanistan. He wouldn't voice such without thinking he has his hands on something else. Could this be it? The surrender of 25% of Afghan territory in exchange for some form of ceasefire?"
If this is true, it puts the lie to President Obama's assertion during his campaign that the Iraq War was a strategic mistake, and that Afghanistan must be the top priority in the U.S. military campaign against Al Qaeda and the terrorists. If Obama abandons Afghanistan, it sends a huge global signal about appeasement of terrorists and defeatism as the top foreign policy priority of this Administration.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Jay Golub , November 24, 2009
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0...ws/latest+(FOXNews.com+-+Latest+Headlines)
Fielding a question on whether he feared an attack from Israel or the U.S., Ahmadinejad said a military strike was no longer a possibility.
That's clear "even for mentally challenged people," he said with a smile, AFP reported.
Besides, he added, "those you mention [Israel and the U.S.] don't have the courage to attack Iran. They're not even thinking about it."
...now that is a dangerous thing for the leader of Iran to believe. If he thinks we will not attack, then what will be holding him back from trying to build WMD's, send arms to Israel's enemies and help support terrorism around the globe?
Nothing.
Are we all sick of "change we can believe in" yet?
written by GOPNYC , November 24, 2009
I realize that President Obama prefers to disengage from the world and relinquish American leadership.
But do we at Urban Elephants simply concede that?
There are tens of thousands of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, how come we're showing Brits in the photo for this piece???
(I mean, god bless 'em; they're allies...but there's probably an "Urban Tories" somewhere with a ".uk" web address that is a better location for this photo.)
written by Jay Golub , November 25, 2009
lol, GOPNYC....I'll change the picture.
written by Raquel Okyay , November 28, 2009
Imagine that America was in talks with Hitler to give him some parts of Poland and Germany?
I wouldn't be surprised if this story is true. Obama fails miserably as an American President, maybe he wants to run the UN at a later date.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
