Go to the RAWA site for a refresher.

would that be the same rawa that was against our invasion?

the reason it’s a bad idea to demonize another group of people is not because we think they’re not acting like demons. the reason is that it interfers with our ability to make rational decisions…. and to see that our actions have to potential to make things even worse.

one can despise everything the taliban stands for and still think that 1) peace talks might be a good idea and 2) it should be up to the afghanis to decide, not us.

peas!

President Hamid Karzai’s office said Sunday that there is “serious debate” among some Taliban fighters about laying down arms, while a spokesman for the militants said they will “never” negotiate with Afghan authorities until foreign troops leave.

As for this:

sona says:
September 30th, 2007 at 11:26 am

Re CHS @ 60

I agree with selise. We must stop demonising our perceived enemies

Demonizing our enemies is like making Iraqiis the enemy, as has been done. It’s where we twist and make an entire people what they are not. Now it’s the Iranians based on the idiot who’s their president.

Sorry – this is NOT the case with the Taliban – they are demons. They need no demonization. What they’ve done to women and girls alone gives them nothing in the way of mercy in MY book – EVER. Perhaps you’ve forgotten or perhaps you never knew. Go to the RAWA site for a refresher.

I agree with selise. We must stop demonising our perceived enemies. This does not mean Omar or Dostum or any of the other warlords are likeable characters. You do not have to like your enemy(ies) but to fight a destructive war which cannot be ‘won’ is not constructive either. That battle is now going to be a long one. The Muslim world feels victimised and many in that world take it as an attack on Islam. If we do not talk to them about the forces that shape this world view, how are we ever going to address the issues that need to be addressed?

Neither Gandhi nor MLK nor Mandela ever demonised their opponents nor bore any rancour towards them – an essential principle of ahimsa – no vengeful retribution.

am i the only one who thinks karzi might be right to have peace talks with omar?

No, you are not the only one.

The reality is Afghans resent the continued occupation as the NATO presence is viewed given that there has been so little ‘development’ in any sphere that matters and scores of people are getting killed. Ther Taliban has morphed almost into a nationalist movement of resistance against foreign occupation, particularly among the Pashtuns, the biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan.

Karzai and Masharraf both know that they have to reach a deal with the ‘insurgents’ just the Brits had to negotiate with the IRA in Northern Ireland. You cannot usher in peaceful times through military means in asymmetric war situations as Vietnam demonstrated very effectively. Sy Hersh pointed this out in the interview featured in Der Spiegel (linked in an earlier post by Wordsmith), that lesson was not learned. The Brits realised that in India as did the Aafrikaners in South Africa when they released Mandela and negotiated with the ANC to end apartheid.

Bush-Cheney administration does not not only give a rat’s ass (Sy Hersh’s words) about long term national or party specific strategic interests, it is too atavistic in its reactive responses to be creative.

Having peace talks with Omar is akin to us promoting Dostum as an agent of peace.

completely disagree with this statement. talking with enemies is not the same thing as promoting them or anyone else as an agent of peace. it is only what it is… talking.

we, rightly i think, comdemn bush when he is unwilling to to negotiate with enemies like north korea or iran. how is this different? omar is karzi’s enemy. is it wrong to talk? and even more, do we have the right to tell karzi what to do? isn’t he in a better position to judge what actions might be helpful for his country? or did we install him to be our puppet?

and christy, as much as it pains me to write it, omar already has some legitimacy, it’s not something we can really “give” (especially with our history there)… it comes from the people or not at all.

karzi having peace talks with omar is nothing like us installing dostum with invasion and bombs. the two (military violence and peace talks) are just in no way the same thing.

in any event, i’m not saying that we ought to be installing omar. that’s not for us to do. or even that karzi ought to be holding peace talks with omar. i am saying that karzi might be doing the right thing to hold peace talks.

i guess we do disagree.

Bush is probably of at least average intelligence.

That could be argued until the cockroaches become extinct.

He could have a 60 IQ or less, he could be a narcissistic sociopath, he could be a religious fanatic where God/the screaming voice in his head told him to start Armageddon, he could be a misanthrope, a nihilist, in love with perpetual war — or any combination of the above or more.

We’ll never really know.

Bush is probably of at least average intelligence. He’s no dumber than- say- Gerald Ford..THAT’S not his problem..his problem is that he has NONE of the equipment that’s required to be an executive. He hates analytical thought- he can’t deal with disagreements among experts- he detests ambiguity- he has a bias for pet solutions- he has no patience- he can’t lead a discussion- etc. He further has poor judgement and an inability to express himself regarding complex issues. He’s a fuckin mess- and he’s fucked up everything he touches- but to say “He’s stupid” is to way oversimplify the situation. I disagree with the average inteligence part but stupid is a lot shorter to write. But I like your detailed analysis of his stupidity its very through .