General Stanley McChrystal: we must give the Taleban jobs

[bemildred]

Source: Times Online (UK)

The US commander in Afghanistan today gave his full backing to attempts to reintegrate Taleban members into the rest of the population.

General Stanley McChrystal said that 50 to 80 per cent of the Taleban would probably stop fighting if they were given jobs and called for “patience, resolve and time”.

The general is known to have asked for up to 40,000 more troops as part of his recent strategic assessment of the mission.

He said the campaign had been under-resourced in the past to meet the objectives set by the international community.

Read more: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6857069.ece

[trotsky]

1. We can give them all TV shows like our crazy fundies have.

[Brickbat]

2. Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to get a little pissed off about this kind of talk. I was

thinking about it when I heard about the aid package for Pakistan for schools, training and other programs. And I know it's possible to care about more than one set of people at a time, and I understand that development and opportunities are good for everybody.

But...we could really use that kind of thinking and aid here at home.

[robinlynne]

19. yep. And didn't we give them jobs way back when to fight the Russians?

That will really help... they're already US funded from the billions sent to Pakistan. enough!

[Barack_America]

3. Wait, so unemployment leads to political instability?

Wow! What an earth-shattering new theory!

Maybe next week he'll come to the conclusion that people get angry when you bomb their houses and kill their families!

[FiveGoodMen]

17. If it does, maybe we should be worried about unemployment here

...which a jobless 'recovery' won't solve.

[derby378]

4. I know! Let's put them in charge of primary schools for girls

On second thought, let's drive these misogynist freaks into the hills where they belong.

Afghanistan's daughters deserve a brighter future than the one they currently have.

[Mixopterus]

23. They have been that way for hundreds of years

And they will be that way after we are forced to leave, "gracefully" or otherwise.

We had our chance to change their culture after the (actually legal) invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union by not funding the religious fundamentalists who were working counter to some actually quite progressive forces in Afghanistan. The fundamentalists won, and are now entrenched. It's over, and now they are going to stay for generations.

[derby378]

24. Nothing is over until the Afghanis themselves decide it's over

Lest we forget, however, that just over the border, Pakistan has nukes. The last thing we can afford is for the Taliban to get strong enough where they seize nukes and start hitting Kashmir, Israel, or us.

It ain't over.

[Mixopterus]

25. Perhaps

But you forget that we are working against some ancient cultural forces, with most of the Afghanis who -wanted- progress in Afghanistan having been killed or fled during the war between the Soviet Union and the Muslim fundamentalists. For all intents and purposes the progressive movement in Afghanistan is dead and gone, with Muslim fundamentalism as the new ruler and a scared/apathetic population to back it up, which is all it needs.

The opportunity to modernize Afghanistan has come and gone, strangled to death by the United States to "get back" at the Soviet Union. We are responsible for their plight, with the great irony being that there is absolutely nothing we can now do to fix it. Maybe in a couple hundred years things will be different, but right now the forces of fundamentalism rule Afghanistan, not us.

[Mari333]

5. lets GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE

and let them run their own country.

[Cant trust em]

22. That didn't work out so well in 2001. nt

[Mari333]

26. explain yourself. nt

[Cant trust em]

28. I dunno. I'm just kinda firing shit off right now.

I'm at work and busy.

Forget I posted anything.

[tridim]

6. Let's train them for tech support and outsource more IT jobs!

:eyes:

[Overseas]

7. If we leave Afghanistan, they will get jobs too.

We could make a lot more progress there if we took our troops out and instead funded networks of schools, especially for women.

[postulater]

8. How about we give ourselves jobs first?

Oh, wait. We already did. It's called the army. 40,000 more jobs.

[shotten99]

9. We don't need socialists in charge of the military!!!

[bemildred]

10. LOL. That's sort of what I was thinking.

"So, General, what do we need all these soldiers for? Shouldn't we ship them some CEOs who would create jobs for them like they do for us here?"

:sarcasm:

[Algorem]

11. Send them a few pallet-fuls of $100's,stat.

But keep an eye on them,those things are slippery.

[Cant trust em]

12. Economic development should probably be part of our nation building strategy. nt

[robinlynne]

20. but it isn't.

[butterfly77]

13. I always notice that ..

when it comes to Americans getting jobs,healthcare,housing,food etc..the Republicons find every reason in the world not to give us our own money but, they think they can just take it and give it to insurance companies,corporations,banks then its fine.

Now,they on wallstreet and the other big money players were really trying to blackmail the government with their ponzi schemes. That is why I need to ask again why do Republicons and bluedog Dems hate Americans? Its time for Harry Reid to go!

Why can't they see what is going on in this country we have tent cities all over this country and republicons continue to lie about how great and wonderful America is. I say GREAT for who?

[Brother Buzz]

14. Well, General McChrystal, instead of 40,000 troops, how about 40,000....

teachers, engineers, and agricultural specialists? Just an idea. :shrug:

[No Elephants]

15. General McCover Up needs to sit down and shut up.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/new_afghanistan_commander_had_role_in_tillman_frie.php

If someone suggested this 8 years ago, I may have at least considered it. If it weren't the Taleban, I might at least have considered it. If it weren't McCoverup, I might at least have considered it.

As it is, no, thanks.

Besides, McChrystal seems to be trying to buy the Taleban the same way we bought the Iraqi neighborhood chiefs. I don't think what worked in Iraq (if indeed it did work) will necessarily work with the Taleban in Afghanistan.

All of which begs the question: With all the generals in the military who have integrity, some of whom are even Democrats, why did Obama choose to put in charge the man who jumped into the Tilllman cover up in order to help Bush get re-elected?

(Is that why this thread is getting disrecommended?)

[Thothmes]

31. President Obama may have thought that he was the best

man for the job. His decision, his consequences.

[Vidar]

16. We can's supply jobs to our own country, but we can do it in Afghanistan?

[HamdenRice]

18. Cheaper -- give them wives. But it's a woman hating culture.

The reason I mention this is that one of the most interesting "demobilization" articles I ever read was about the PLO.

Demobilization is what you do with soldiers after a war. Sounds like a no-brainer, but it's a 20th century invention. The reason we had a "wild, wild west" was partly because we did not have an orderly demobilization of the Confederate Army, and several of them became the most famous "outlaws" of the wild west period.

The most orderly was after WWII -- the GI bills and baby boom.

I was often in southern Africa as the wars in Mozambique and Angola wound down, and most soldiers just deserted and sold their AK-47s for $5, which flooded into South Africa, causing the crime wave.

Anyway, one of the interesting things the PLO did after Oslo was create a match-making service. They felt that the young fighters who had been in Lebanon and other places would be more peaceful if they had not just jobs but families. Apparently it was quite successful.

But Palestinians are among the most modern of Arab cultures in the middle east. Many of the top leadership of the PLO are women.

The Taliban are an all-male culture that hates women. Unless you can get these people to settle down into families, even jobs may not help.

[Poll_Blind]

21. "Taliban tech support. I can help you resolve your issue. Especially if your issue is a Humvee."

See, 10 years ago the joke was "Taliban tech support. I can help you resolve your issue. Especially if your issue is a Mi-24 Hind."

And that's why the world is so completely fucked up, kids.

PB

[Mari333]

27. McChrystal is a lying POS warmongering MFer

http://www.atlargely.com/atlargely/2009/10/the-mcchrystal-problem.html#more

[MisterP]

32. yeah, I smell an excuse to stay another 30 years with the Taliban New Deal

one non-US possibility for Afghanistan is a split among mullahs between hardline Taliban and more Iran-style ones; that might bring in Iranian involvement (if they want to and have the money and feel safe enough)

[Zorra]

29. Am I having a flashback, or do I hear the theme to the "Twilight Zone" with lyrics? "And it's 1,2,

3, what are we fightin' for, don't ask me I don't give a damn, next stop's Afghanistan..." Wow, It's Like, Deja Vu all over again...that phrase - "objectives of the international community"...I remember now, it means "financial and strategic needs of the transnational corporate community" - Northrup-Grumman, Humana, Exxon, Shell, HSBC, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc...Oh, no! Is that Nixon? Henry Kissinger? Robert McNamara? Ahhhhh! Please, noooooooo!
:wow:

[Octafish]

30. Yeah! And while you're at it, we can use some jobs in Detroit.

Whatever happened to the New Deal for the 21st Century?

Was that just an unrealistic impression I got from skimming over the details?